invasive species policy – Page 7 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Tree Planting – Warning from New Zealand

*Pinus radiata* plantation in New Zealand; photo by Jon Sullivan

As countries and conservation organizations ramp up tree planting as one solution to climate change, I worry that many of the plantings will use species not native to the region – with the risk of promoting more bioinvasions. My second fear is that inadequate attention will be paid to ensuring that the propagules thrive.

Warning from New Zealand

New Zealand has adopted a major afforestation initiative (“One Billion Trees”). This program is ostensibly governed by a policy of “right tree, right place, right purpose”. However, Bellingham et al. (2022) [full citation at end of blog] say the program will probably increase the already extensive area of radiata pine plantations and thus the likelihood of exacerbated invasion. They say the species’ potential invasiveness and its effects in natural ecosystems have not been considered.

Bellingham et al. set out to raise the alarm by evaluating the current status of radiata, or Monterrey, pine (Pinus radiata) in the country. They note that the species already occupies ~1.6 M ha; the species makes up 90% of the country’s planted forests. Despite the species having been detected as spreading outside plantations in 1904, it is generally thought not to have invaded widely.

The authors contend that, to the contrary, radiata pine has already invaded several grasslands and shrublands, including three classes of ecosystems that are naturally uncommon. These are geothermal ecosystems, gumlands (infertile soils that formerly supported forests dominated by the endemic and threatened kauri tree Agathis australis), and inland cliffs. Invasions by pines – including radiata pine – are also affecting primary succession on volcanic substrates, landslides on New Zealand’s steep, erosion-prone terrain, and coastal sand dunes. Finally, pine invasions are overtopping native Myrtaceae shrubs during secondary succession. Bellingham et al. describe the situation as a pervasive and ongoing invasion resulting primarily from spread from plantations to relatively nearby areas.

kauri; photo by Natalia Volna, iTravelNZ

The New Zealanders cite data from South America and South Africa on the damaging effects of invasions by various pine species, especially with respect to fire regimes.

Furthermore, their modelling indicates that up to 76% of New Zealand’s land area is climatically capable of supporting radiata pine — most of the country except areas above 1000 m in elevation or receiving more than 2000 mm of rainfall per year. That is, all but the center and west of the South Island. This model is based on current climate; a warmer/drier climate would probably increase the area suitable to radiata pine.

These invasions by radiata pine have probably been overlooked because the focus has been on montane grasslands (which are invaded by other species of North American conifers). [See below — surveys of knowledge of invasive plants’ impacts.]

Bellingham et al. recognize the economic importance of radiata pine. They believe that early detection of spread from plantations and rapid deployment of containment programs would be the most effective management strategy. They therefore recommend

1) taxing new plantations of non-indigenous conifers to offset the costs of managing invasions, and

2) regulating these plantations more strictly to protect vulnerable ecosystems.

They also note several areas where additional research on the species’ invasiveness, dispersal, and impacts is needed.

Survey of Awareness of Invasive Plants

A few months later a separate group of New Zealand scientists published a study examining tourists’ understanding of invasive plant impacts and willingness to support eradication programs (Lovelock et al.; full citation at end of the blog). One of the invasive plant groups included in the study are conifers introduced from North America and Europe. These conifers are invading montane grasslands, so they are not the specific topic of the earlier article. The other is a beautiful flowering plant, Russell lupine. These authors say that both plant groups have profound ecological, economic, and environmental impacts. However, the conifers and lupines are also highly visible at places valued by tourists. Lovelock et al. explored whether the plants’ familiarity – and beauty – might affect how people reacted to descriptions of their ecosystem impacts.

Visitors from elsewhere in New Zealand were more aware of invasive plants’ impacts and more willing to support eradication programs for these species specifically. Asian visitors had lower awareness and willingness to support eradication of the invasives than tourists from the United Kingdom, Europe, or North America. This pattern remained after the tourists were informed about the plants’ ecological impacts. All groups were less willing to support eradication of the attractive Russell lupine than the conifers.

Conifers invading montane grasslands are perhaps the most publicized invasive plants in New Zealand [as noted above]. Lovelock et al. report that New Zealand authorities have spent an estimated $NZ166 million to eradicate non-native conifers over large tracts of land on the South Island. Still, only about half the New Zealand visitors surveyed were aware of the ecological problems caused by wild conifers.

Russell lupine (Lupinus × russellii) is invading braided river systems, modifying river flows, reducing nesting site availability for several endangered birds, and provides cover for invasive predators. While initially planted in gardens, the lupines were soon being deliberately spread along the roads to ‘beautify’ the landscape. Foreign tourists often specifically seek river valley invaded by the lupine because pictures of the floral display appear in both official tourism promotional material & tourist-related social media. It is not surprising, then, that even among New Zealanders, only a third were aware of the lupines’ environmental impacts.

The oldest participants (those over 60) had the lowest acceptance of wild conifers. Participants 50–59 years old were most aware of ecological problems caused by wild conifers. Participants 30–39 years old showed the highest acceptance of wild conifers and lowest awareness of ecological issues.

Female participants showed a higher preference for the landscape with wild conifers (45.90%) than males (36.89%). Female participants were also half as aware of ecological problems (25.62% v. 46.12% among male participants).

Nearly all survey participants (96.1%) preferred the landscape with flowering lupine; only 19.4% were aware of associated ecological problems. New Zealand domestic visitors were more aware. After the impacts of lupines were explained, half decided to support eradication. However, the same proportion of all survey participants (42.5%) still wanted to see lupines in the landscape.

Once again, participants older than 50 were more aware of ecological problems arising from lupine invasions. Both men and women greatly preferred the landscape with Russell lupins.

While the authors do not explore the ramifications of the finding that younger people are less aware of invasive species impacts, I think they bode ill for future protection of the country’s unique flora and fauna. They did note that respondents had a high level of acceptance overall for these species on the New Zealand landscapes.

While the study supported use of simple environmental messaging to influence attitudes about invasive species, also showed that need to consider such social attributes as nationality and ethnicity. So Lovelock et al. call for investigation of how and why place of origin and ethnicity are important in shaping attitudes towards invasives. Conveying conservation messages will be more difficult because tourist materials often contain photographs of the lupines. Much of this information comes from informal media such as social media, which are beyond the control of invasive species managers.

SOURCES

Bellingham, P.J., E.A. Arnst, B.D. Clarkson, T.R. Etherington, L.J. Forester, W.B. Shaw, R. Sprague, S.K. Wiser, and D.A. Peltzer. 2022. The right tree in the right place? A major economic tree species poses major ecological threats. Biol Invasions Vol.: (0123456789) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02892-6

Lovelock B., Y. Ji, A. Carr, and C-J. Blye. 2022. Should tourists care more about invasive species? International and domestic visitors’ perceptions of invasive plants and their control in New Zealand. Biological Invasions (2022) 24:3905–3918 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02890-8

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

www.fadingforests.org

Invasive Species Costs Point to Inadequate Effort – especially Prevention

EAB-killed ash tree falls before it can be taken down; photo courtesy of former Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje

Concerned by growing impacts of bioinvasion and inadequate responses by national governments worldwide and by international bodies, a group of experts have attempted to determine how much invasive species are costing. They’ve built the global database – InvaCost. See Daigne et al. 2020 here.

Several studies have been based on these data. In two earlier blogs, I summarized two of these articles, e.g., Cuthbert et al. on bioinvasion costs, generally, and Moodley et al. on invasive species costs in protected areas, specifically. Here, I look at two additional studies. Ahmed et al. focusses on the “worst” 100 invasives affecting conservation — as determined by the International Union of Conservation and Nature (IUCN). The second, by Turbelin et al., examines pathways of introduction. Full citations of all sources appear at the end of this blog.

It is clear from all of these papers that the authors (and I!) are frustrated by the laxity with which virtually all governments respond to bioinvasions. Thus more robust actions are needed. The authors and I also agree that data on economic costs influence political decision-makers more than ecological concerns. However, InvaCost – while the best source in existence — is not yet comprehensive enough to generate the thoroughly-documented economic data about specific aspects of bioinvasion that would be most useful in supporting proposed strategies.

Scientists working with InvaCost recognize that the data are patchy. At the top level, these data demonstrate high losses and management costs imposed by bioinvasion. The global total – including both realized damage and management costs – is estimated at about $1.5 trillion since 1960. In fact, these overall costs are probably substantially underestimates (Cathbert et al.). [For a summary of data gaps, go to the end of the blog.] Furthermore, they recognize that species imposing the highest economic costs might not cause the greatest ecological harm (Moodley et al).

citrus longhorned beetle exit hole in bonsai tree; USDA APHIS photo

Comparing estimated management costs to estimated damage, the authors conclude that countries invest too little in bioinvasion management efforts and — furthermore — that expenditures are squandered on the wrong “end” of bioinvasion – after introduction and even establishment, rather than in preventive efforts or rapid response upon initial detection of an invader. While I think this is true, these findings might be skewed by the fact that fewer than a third of countries reporting invasive species costs included data on specifically preventive actions. Cuthbert et al. notes that failing to try to prevent introductions imposes an avoidable burden on resource management agencies. Ahmed et al. developed a model they hope will overcome the perverse incentives that lead decision-makers to either do nothing or delay.

Why Decision-Makers Delay

Citing the InvaCost data, the participating experts reiterate the long-standing call for prioritizing investments at the earliest possible invasion stage. Ahmed et al. found that this was the most effective practice even when costs accrue slowly. They ask, then, why decision-makers often delay initiating management. I welcome this attention because we need to find ways to rectify this situation.

They conclude, first, that invasive species threats compete for resources with other threats to agriculture and natural systems. Second, Cuthbert et al. and Ahmed et al. both note that decision-makers find it difficult to justify expenditures before impacts are obvious and/or stakeholders demand action. By that time, of course, management of invasions are extremely difficult and expensive – if possible at all. I appreciate the wording in Ahmed et al.: bioinvasion costs can be deceitfully slow to accrue, so policy makers don’t appreciate the urgency of taking action.

Cuthbert et al. also note that impacts are often imposed on other sectors, or in different regions, than those focused on by the decision-makers. Stakeholders’ perceptions of whether an introduced species is causing a “detrimental” impact also vary. Finally, when efficient proactive management succeeds – prevents any impact – it paradoxically undermines evidence of the value of this action!

Ahmed et al. point out that in many cases, biosecurity measures and other proactive approaches are even more cost effective when several species are managed simultaneously. They cite as examples airport quarantine and interception programs; Check Clean Dry campaigns encouraging boaters to avoid moving mussels and weeds; ballast water treatment systems; and transport legislation e.g., the international standard for wood packaging (ISPM#15) [I have often discussed the weaknesses in ISPM#15 implementation; go to “wood packaging” under “Categories” (below the archive list)].

pallet “graveyard”; photo by Anand Prasad

Pathways of Species’ Introduction

Tuberlin et al. focus on pathways of introduction, which they say influence the numbers of invaders, the frequency of their arrival, and the geography of their eventual distribution. This study found sufficient data to analyze arrival pathways of 478 species – just 0.03% of the ~14,000 species in the full database. They found that intentional pathways – especially what they categorized as “Escape” – were responsible for the largest number of invasive species (>40% of total). On the other hand, the two unintentional pathways called “Stowaway” and “Contaminant” introduced the species causing the highest economic costs.

Tuberlin et al. therefore emphasize the importance of managing these unintentional pathways. Also, climate change and emerging shipping technologies will increase potential invaders’ survivability during transit. Management strategies thus must be adapted to countering these additive trends. They suggest specifically:

eDNA detection techniques;
Stricter enforcement of ISPM#15 and exploring use of recyclable plastic pallets (e.g., IKEA’s OptiLedge); [see my blog re: plastic pallets, here]
Application of fouling-resistant paints to ship hulls;
Prompt adoption of international agreements addressing pathways (they cite the Ballast Water Management Treaty as entered into force only in 2017 — 13 years after adoption);
Ensuring ‘pest free status’ (per ISPM#10) before allowing export of goods—especially goods in the “Agriculture”, “Horticulture”, and “Ornamental” trades; and
Increasing training of interception staff at ports.

What InvaCost Data say re: Taxa of greatest concern to me

Two-thirds of reported expenditures are spent on terrestrial species (Cuthbert et al.). Insects as a Class constitute the highest number of species introduced as ‘Contaminants’ (n = 74) and ‘Stowaways’ (n = 43). They also impose the highest costs among species using these pathways. Forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database, but constitute 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al., in prep.). Indeed, one of 10 species for which reported spending on post-invasion management is highest is the infamous Asian longhorned beetle (Tuberlin et al.)

ALB pupa in wood packaging; Pennsylvania Dept. of Natural Resources via Bugwood

Mammals and plants are often introduced deliberately – either as intentional releases or as escapes. Plant invasions are reported as numerous but impose lower costs.

Tuberlin et al. state that intentional releases and escapes should in theory be more straightforward to monitor and control, so less costly. They propose two theories: 1) Eradication campaigns are more likely to succeed for plants introduced for cultivation and subsequently escaped, than for plants introduced through unintentional pathways in semi-natural environments. 2) Species introduced unintentionally may be able to spread undetected for longer; they expect that better measures already exist to control invasions by deliberate introductions. I question both. Their theories ignore that constituencies probably like the introduced plants … and the near absence of attention to the possible need to control their spread. This is odd because elsewhere they recognize conflicts over whether to control or eradicate “charismatic” species.

Geographies of greatest concern to me

North America reported spending 54% of the total expenditure in InvaCost. Oceania spent 30%. The remaining regions each spent less than $5 billion. (Cuthbert et al.)
North America funded preventative actions most generously than other regions. Cuthbert suggests this was because David Pimentel published an early estimate of invasive species costs. I doubt it. The Lacey Act was adopted in 1905. USDA APHIS was formed in 1972 – based on predecessor agencies — because officials recognized the damage by non-native pests to agriculture. APHIS began addressing natural area pests with discovery of the Asian longhorned beetle in 1996. Of course, most of APHIS’ budget is still allocated to agricultural pests. I conclude that North America’s lead in this area has not resulted in adequate prevention programs.

Oregon ash swamp before attack by EAB (photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Dept. of Forestry)

Equity Issues

Tuberlin et al and Moodley et al. address equity issues of who causes introductions vs. who is impacted. This is long overdue.

More than 80% of bioinvasion management costs in protected areas fell on governmental services and/or official organizations (e.g. conservation agencies, forest services, or associations). With the partial exception of the agricultural sector, the economic sectors that contribute the most to movement of invasive species are spared from carrying the resulting costs (Moodley et al.)
A lack of willingness to invest might represent a moral problem when the invader’s impacts are incurred by regions, sectors, or generations other than those that on whom management action falls (Ahmed et al.)
People are perhaps more inclined to spend money to mitigate impacts that cause economic losses than those that damage ecosystems (Tuberlin et al.)

Data deficiencies

Only 41% of countries (83 out of 204) reported management costs; of those, only 24 reported costs specifically associated with pre-invasion (prevention) efforts (Cuthbert et al.).
Reliable economic cost estimates were available for only 60% of the “worst” invasive species (Cuthbert et al.)
Only 55 out of 266,561 protected areas reported losses or management costs (Moodley et al.).
Information on pathways of introduction was available for only three species out of 10,000 (Turbelin et al).
Taxonomic and geographic biases in reporting skew examples and possibly conclusions (Cuthbert et al.).

SOURCES

Ahmed, D.A., E.J. Hudgins, R.N. Cuthbert, .M. Kourantidou, C. Diagne, P.J. Haubrock, B. Leung, C. Liu, B. Leroy, S. Petrovskii, A. Beidas, F. Courchamp. 2022. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:1927–1946 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0

Cuthbert, R.N., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P. J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May 2022, 153404

Moodley, D., E. Angulo, R.N. Cuthbert, B. Leung, A. Turbelin, A. Novoa, M. Kourantidou, G. Heringer, P.J. Haubrock, D. Renault, M. Robuchon, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, F. Courchamp, C. Diagne. 2022. Surprisingly high economic costs of bioinvasions in protected areas. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7

Turbelin, A.J., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, D. Moodley, M. Kourantidou, A. Novoa, P.J. Haubrock, C. Bernery, R.E. Gozlan, R.A. Francis, F. Courchamp. 2022. Introduction pathways of economically costly invasive alien species. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:2061–2079 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02796-5

Williams, G.M., M.D. Ginzel, Z. Ma, D.C. Adams, F.T. Campbell, G.M. Lovett, M. Belén Pildain, K.F. Raffa, K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Santini, R.A. Sniezko, M.J. Wingfield, and P. Bonello 2022. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. Submitted

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Funding APHIS & USFS in FY23 – Senate Recommendations

The Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted its recommendations for funding APHIS and the US Forest Service in Fiscal Year 2023, which begins on October 1. The full Senate has not yet acted; most people expect that it will not act before October, so the agencies will have to operate under a “continuing resolution” for at least the first several months. Under a “CR”, funding is maintained at the current level.

SOD-infected rhododendron plants detected by state officials in Indiana in 2019

Funding for APHIS in FY23

The Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report [available here] that recognizes APHIS’ objective of protecting the animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives are carried out through, inter alia, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response and Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.

The Committee recommends the following funding for specific APHIS programs (in $millions)

PROGRAM	FY22 FUNDING	FY23 ADMIN REQ	HOUSE $	SENATE COMM RECOMM	CISP ASK
Border inspections (AQI appropriated)	33.849	36.725		36.650	X
Pest Detection	28.218	29.137	29.825	29.075	30
Methods Development	21.217	21.854	31.807	23.557	23
Specialty Crops	209.533	219.533	219.698	222.072	219
Tree & Wood pests	61.217	62.854	62.562	62.719	70
Subtotal, Plant health	379.144	385.560		397.603	X
Emerg. Prepare & Response	42.021	44.242		44.317	X

Specific programs mentioned:

Northern (~~Asian)~~ giant hornet eradication: $1.75 million to continue cooperation with Washington State to eradicate this pest; also to improve monitoring methods and lures, and build a rapid response platforms
sudden oak death (SOD): recognize that the EU1 and NA1 strains of this pathogen threaten Douglas-fir / tanoak forests and lead foreign governments to impose quarantines on U.S. timber exports. So APHIS should spend no less that FY22 funding to better understand threat and treatment methods in wildlands. This earmark disappoints because it focuses on APHIS’ role as certifying timber exports as pest-free rather than the spread of the pathogen within the U.S. via the nursery trade. The same language appears in the report’s discussion of the Agriculture Research Service (see below).

Pertinent action re: Agriculture Research Service

The Senate Committee report sets several priorities, including the following:

Invasive Pests: The Committee is concerned about the threats invasive pests pose to agriculture, the economy, environment, human health, and national security of the Pacific region. The Committee directs ARS to continue working with stakeholders in the region to assess options for combatting invasive species, including biocontrol research facilities, containment facilities, additional laboratory space.
Sudden oak death: the same language as for APHIS. Again, I wish the language referred to the pathogen’s spread via the nursery trade.

These numbers are disappointing; the increase for “specialty crops” demonstrates the lobbying clout of the nursery and berry industries! I appreciate the attention to sudden oak death – with the caveat I mentioned.

SOD-infected tanoaks in southern Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forstry

Forest Service

The Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report [available here] . The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends the following funding levels for USFS programs that address non-native forest pests and other invasive species (in $millions):

PROGRAM	FY22 FUNDING	FY ADMIN REQUEST	HOUSE $	S COMM RECOMM	CISP ASK
Research	296.616	317.733	$360.4	$302.773	317.733
State & Private Forest Health Protection TOTAL	48	59.232	$52.232	50	83
S&P FHP Federal lands	16,000	22,485	?	17,000	51
S&P FHP non-federal lands	32,000	36,747	?	33,000	32

R&D

The Senate wants to retain the current structure of five regional stations, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and Forest Products Laboratory.

The Senate listed several research priorities. Two pertain to forest health: 1) needle pathogens, and 2) Northeastern States Research Cooperative working to sustain the health of northern forest ecosystems and biological diversity management. I am disappointed that no mention is made of the need to respond to 400 introduced tree-killing insects and pathogens.

planting to test ash trees’ resistance to emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS

S&P

The Senate Committee recommends a significant increase in S&P overall ($8 million above FY22 level), but not for Forest Health Management. This is disappointing.

The Committee is concerned about high tree mortality on National Forests due to bark beetle infestations and instructs USFS to work with states and tribes to prioritize insect prevention, suppression & mitigation projects.

The Committee expects the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to continue efforts to treat sudden oak death in California and Oregon. It provides $3 million for this purpose, including for partnerships with private landowners.

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Breeding Tree Resistance: New Science and Call to Action on New Legislation

grafted beech at Holden Arboretum – for resistance breeding tests

Two USFS experts have published a chapter describing the components needed to succeessfully breed trees resistant to threatening pests. [See full citation at end of blog.]

As Sniezko and Nelson note, the threat from non-native pests and pathogens to forest health and associated economic and ecological benefits is widespread and increasing. Further, once such a pest becomes well-established – as some 400 pest species now are — few strategies to save affected species exist except a program to enhance the species’ pest resistance.

From a technical point of view, Sneizko and Nelson find reason for hope. Most tree species have some genetic variation on which scientists can build. It is likely that a well-designed and well-focused breeding program can identify parent trees with some pest resistance; select the most promising; and breed progeny from those parents with sufficient resistance to restore a species.

Furthermore, they say, progress can be made fairly quickly. Scientists can focus on developing genetically resistant populations while postponing studies aimed at understanding details of the mechanisms and inheritance of the obtained resistance.

Fifty years of breeding have revealed the techniques and strategies that work best. As a result, application of classical tree improvement procedures can lead to development of pest-resistant populations within a decade or so in some cases, several decades in others. The time needed depends on the specifics of the pest-host relationship, level of resistance required – and resources available.

In addition, advances in biotechnology can accelerate development of resistance. Tools include improved clonal propagation, marker-assisted selection, and genetic engineering to add resistance gene(s) not present in the tree species.

Port-Orford cedars in controlled breeding stage at Dorena; photo by Richard Sniezko, USFS

Sniezko and Nelson identify basic facilities needed to support successful breeding programs:

(a) growing space (e.g., greenhouses);

(b) seed handling and cold storage capacity;

(d) field sites for testing;

(e) database capability for collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data;

(f) areas for seed orchard development;

(g) skilled personnel (tree breeders, data managers, technicians, administrative support personnel, and access to expertise in pathology and entomology).

Absolutely essential is continuity of higher-ups’ and public’s support.

Sniezko and Nelson note that a resistance breeding program differs from other research projects in its objectives, magnitude and focus. It is an action-oriented effort that is solution-minded—countering the impact of a major disturbance caused by a pest (in our case, a non-native pest).

See the article for more detailed descriptions of each step in the process.

There are two basic stages:

Phase 1:exploration to assess whether sufficient genetic variation in resistance exists in the species. This involves locating candidate resistant trees, preferably across the affected geographic range impacted by the pest; developing and applying short-term assay(s) to screen hundreds or thousands of candidate trees; and determine the levels of resistance present. In addition to those objectives Phase 1 also begins to evaluate the durability and stability of resistance. It is vital to inform stakeholders of progress and engage them in deciding whether and how to proceed.

Phase 2: develop resistant planting stock for use in restoration. This stage relies on tree improvement practices developed over a century, and applies the knowledge gained in Phase 1. Steps include scaling up the screening protocol; selecting the resistant candidates or progeny to be used; establishing seed orchards or other methods to deliver large numbers of resistant stock for planting; and additional field trials to further validate and delineate resistance.

The authors argue that, at present U.S. forestry programs lack a coordinated, focused resistance breeding program based on the components described above. The Dorena Genetic Resource Center (DGRC) – established in 1966 in Oregon and supported primarily by the USDA Forest Service’s regional State and Private Forestry program and National Forest System — fits the bill. The DGRC has sufficient facilities and resources to screen simultaneously tens of thousands of seedlings from thousands of parent trees belonging to several species. Its staff have built up invaluable experience.

However, the Center is regional in scope and focus. (Staff are pleased to offer advice to colleagues working in other parts of the country.) Who will ensure that we make progress on restoring the dozens of tree species in the East under threat from invasive pests? The ashes, hemlocks, elms, beeches, oaks, Fraser fir, dogwoods, redbay and swamp bays, sassafras all need help (Profiles of these trees’ pest challenges can be found at here. [Chestnut and possibly the chinkapins have the benefit of a well-established charity …]

ash killed by EAB; photo by Nate Siegert, USFS

Three case studies illustrate how the process has worked for three groups of species: 1) five-needle pines (subgenus Strobus); 2) Port-Orford cedar (Chamecyparis lawsonii); 3) resistance to fusiform rust (Cronartium quercuum f. sp. fusiforme – a native pathogen) in southern pines.

New Possibilities

Resistance breeding programs are simplest to undertake when tree improvement facilities and experienced staff are already in place. It is most unfortunate that their number has declined significantly. However, a Congressional mandate to pursue resistance breeding as a strategy can partially retrieve and add needed resources.

Some members of Congress have taken steps to partially restore resistance breeding programs. H.R. 1389, cosponsored by Reps. Welch (D-VT), Kuster and Pappas (both D-NH), Stefanik (R-NY), Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Thompson, (D-CA), Ross (D-NC) Pingree (D-ME). Then-Rep. Antonio Delgado also co-sponsored, before resigning to become Lieutenant Governor of New York.

The bill would establish separate grant programs to fund work under the two phases outlined by Sniezko and Nelson. It relies on grants rather than setting up Dorena-like facilities in other parts of the country. Scientists are already setting up consortia to provide the needed facilities and long-term stability e.g., Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative. Will that be enough?

The most likely way to create a national tree resistance program is to incorporate these ideas into the next Farm Bill – due to be adopted next year (2023).

You can help by contacting members of the House and Senate Agriculture committees and urging them to include in the bill either H.R. 1389 or a more comprehensive program that does establish centers analogous to Dorena.

Also convey your support to USDA leadership – especially the Forest Service and Agriculture Research Service. (APHIS should be part of the team, but its focus is on strategies with more immediate effect.)

As Sniezko and Nelson state, a key component for success is a core group of stakeholders who

realize the problem (threat to a tree species’ role in the environment);
acknowledge that resistance breeding offers the best avenue for maintaining the species of concern; and
express a willingness to invest in a solution that could take one or more decades.

Will YOU be part of this team?

I note that Bonello et al., 2020 (citation below) suggested a new structure to provide the needed focus and coordination. Adoption of H.R. 1389 would partially realize this. The bill calls for a study to examine the benefits of establishing a more secure foundation within USDA for addressing tree-killing pests.

Scott Schlarbaum made similar points in Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III, published in 2014. See links below.

SOURCES

Bonello, P., F.T. Campbell, D. Cipollini, A.O. Conrad, C. Farinas, K.J.K. Gandhi, F.P. Hain, D. Parry, D.N. Showalter, C. Villari, K.F. Wallin. 2020. Invasive tree Pests Devastate Ecosystems – A Proposed New Response Framework. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. January 2020. Volume 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00002/full

Sniezko, R.A. and C.D. Nelson. 2022. Chapter 10, Resistance breeding against tree pathogens. In Asiegbu and Kovalchuk, editors. Forest Microbiology Volume 2: Forest Tree Health; 1^st Edition. Elsevier

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Urgent Update on Beech Leaf Disease

banding symptoms of beech leaf disease; photo by Dr. Chagas de Freitas, Ohio State

Experts on beech leaf disease (BLD) hold conference calls every two months. I reported on the May meeting earlier in July. The July conference call of the experts emphasized not only the alarming spread of the disease but also the dilemmas frustrating efforts to slow its spread and protect beech.

Jerry Carlson, chief of forest health protection for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation called beech leaf disease “the next chestnut blight”.

Yet forestry, plant health, and conservation entities have been slow to support research needed to develop protective measures.

As was noted by participants, 10 years after scientists from Lake MetroParks (in Cleveland) first detected disease symptoms, scientists still are unsure about all aspects of BLD and how it spreads. Experts agree that the nematode (Litylenchus crenatae ssp mccannii) must be present to initiate the disease. Other possible factors, especially fungi in the genus Colletotrichum, appear to play important roles in causing the symptoms.

The lack of clarity about the causal agent means that USDA APHIS has not recognized the disease as a priority species for tracking. APHIS has provided some funds. However, scientists seeking to obtain funding through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program [laid out in the Plant Protection Act’s Section 7721] can’t get traction. Other funding sources also don’t quite fit. For example, the National Science Foundation funds basic, hypothesis-driven, research – not the more applied science needed to address BLD. Some participants wondered whether funding might be sought from wildlife-oriented sources, since beech are so important in providing hard mast, den and nest sites, etc., for a variety of wildlife.

Participants discussed ways to raise awareness – and alarm – in order to build a broader coalition. This effort should include Europe. Although the disease has not yet been detected in Europe, the native beech is vulnerable.

European beech in Rhode Island infected by BLD; photo by Dr. Nathaniel A. Mitkowski, University of Rhode Island

Data indicate that the disease is now significantly more widespread than was known last year. That is, BLD is more widespread from New York to Maine, with New Hampshire reporting its first detection. To the west, BLD has been detected in Michigan and in a forest fragment in western Ohio (near Toledo). Disease severity has also intensified. Of course, the disease is present at least a year before it is detected because leaf symptoms appear in the spring following infection. Therefore its presence is probably wider.

map of BLD presence as of early July 2022 (some states have not yet reported); note the many counties in fuschia – 2022 detections

While mortality of mature beech is still rarely documented, this might be related to difficulties determining the cause of mortality during standard forest health surveys. Participants discussed how to rectify this situation.

Meanwhile, concern is rising – as reflected in Dr. Carlson’s statement.

You can help by asking your state and national officials and conservation organizations to support applied research aimed at clarifying how the disease spreads, what ecological conditions are conducive to disease, improved detection and prediction tools, and possible containment strategies. Let’s overcome the roadblocks impeding protection of this magnificent and ecologically vital tree species.

Is this not worth protecting?

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

More & bigger ships, deeper ports = more pests?

Port of Houston – Bayport Container Terminal; photo by Ray Luck via Flickr

The U.S. continued to import large amounts of goods from Asia in the first three months of 2022. During this period, total volume imported from Asia increased to 1.62 million TEU — 31.1% higher than in the same period in pre-pandemic 2019 (Mogelluzzo, B. April 22, 2022).

Due to congestion in West Coast ports, the proportion of Asian goods entering the country through East Coast and Gulf Coast ports also rose in the first quarter of 2022 compared to the same period in 2021: by about 33% along the Atlantic and 6% along the Gulf (Mogelluzzo, B. April 22, 2022). Increases were particularly steep in the south: 9.2% at Savannah; 12.5% at Norfolk; 26% at Charleston; and an astonishing 52.1% through Houston.

Due to Covid-19-related port and factory shutdowns in China, a rising share of imports to the U.S. in 2022 came from other countries in Asia. Imports grew especially from Vietnam but also Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Korea (Wallis, K. May 11, 2022).

Port of Long Beach Pier G – ITS – MOL vessel; photo by port authority

Starting in May 2022, West Coast ports began to recover their dominant role – probably because East Coast and Gulf Coast ports were now suffering their own congestion-related delays. Virtually all the restored traffic entered through the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex; these ports imported a monthly record of 851,956 TEU from Asia in May. Imports through Seattle and Tacoma actually declined from the previous month, while Oakland’s imports from Asia remained steady (Mongelluzzo, June 15, 2022).

Thus, the “baseline” for US imports from Asia each month is now 20 to 30% higher than it was before COVID-19 disrupted supply chains (Mongelluzzo, June 15, 2022).

East Coast Ports Deepening and Expanding to Accept Larger Ships

Meanwhile, East Coast ports continue efforts to deepen their channels and expand their infrastructure so that they can service the larger container ships.

In late June 2022 the US Army Corps of Engineers approved the plan by the Port of New York-New Jersey (PANYNJ) to dredge channels to accommodate more post-Panamax ships. The largest ship that has called at NY-NJ was 16,000 TEU; port officials hope to accommodate ships up to 21,000 TEU, apparently using current capacity (Angell, June 23, 2022; Angell, May 27, 2022). PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney says the port expects to see annual volumes rise to 17 million TEU by 2050, almost double its throughput in 2021 (Angell, May 27, 2022).

The Corps found the PANYNJ plan to be both environmentally and economically sound. The Corps will now seek Congressional funding for the project in the 2024 Water Resources Development Act; the Port Authority will also contribute to the project (Angell, June 23, 2022). We need to be more active in commenting on these port expansion environmental assessments!

The Port of NY-NJ is also seeking to expand storage facilities for incoming shipping containers. Several sites are at various stages of consideration and development; one – part of the “Port Ivory” site on Staten Island – includes a tidal wetland. A November 2021 application by PANYNJ a change-in-use permit is under review by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (Angell, May 27, 2022). Can those interested in environmental protection express their opposition?

The Port of Charleston is expected to finish dredging its inner harbor and channel this year. Last year, the Port of Virginia has received initial funding for a dredging project that should be completed by 2024 (Angell, May 27, 2022).

As we know, numerous tree-killing insects have been introduced from Asia to the ecologically similar forests of eastern North America – often in wood packaging. ALB in Charleston These include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle, phytophagous and Kuroshia shot hole borers (for profiles of each visit here). Indeed, 15 of 16 non-native bark beetles in the Xyleborini (a tribe of ambrosia beetles) detected in the United States since 2000 are from Asia (Bob Rabaglia, USFS Forest Health Protection, presentation at IUFRO meeting in Prague, September 2021).

Growing numbers of containers entering Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports raises the risk of additional introductions. Insects associated with imports from semi-tropical ports in Vietnam entering the U.S. through Gulf or southern Atlantic ports might well find these regions hospitable. I worry, for example, about the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers – surely the Gulf Coast provides a more suitable environment for insects from Vietnam and Taiwan than does southern California? And known hosts are present – box elder, willows, sweetgum, mimosa, tree of heaven …

Of course, containers are then sent on from the ports to distribution centers – presenting opportunities for pest introductions in inland areas. New or expanded distribution centers include Atlanta and Appalachian Regional Port and Statesboro Airport in Georgia, Rocky Mount, North Carolina; Huntsville, Alabama; Portsmouth and Front Royal, Virginia (Ashe and Angell July 5, 2022). Front Royal is at the northern end of Shenandoah National Park!

European Trade

Meanwhile, U.S. imports from Europe continued at high levels – although they were not breaking records. In the first half of 2022, the U.S. imported just under 1.77 million TEU from Europe. The largest category of commodity from Northern Europe was foodstuffs — 410,930 TEU. Machinery and mechanical products imports – the type of good often associated with infested wood packaging – numbered 228,521 TEU. Vehicles, aircraft, and vessels imports were 107,526 TEU. “Miscellaneous manufactured articles” that include furniture, bedding, mattresses, and light fittings were 132,979 TEU. I expect – although the source does not so state – that this last category includes decorative stone and tile – again, a category often associated with infested wood packaging.

While fewer damaging pests have been introduced from Europe in recent decades, the risk remains.

Updated Haack Analysis

As has been documented repeatedly (e.g., my blogs, including 248), the current approach to curtailing pest introductions associated with wood packaging is not sufficiently effective. Customs officials continue to detect live quarantine pests in wood packaging as it enters the country. However, the exact level of this threat is unclear since the only assessment was based on data from 2009 (Haack et al., 2014). I eagerly await the results of Bob Haack’s updated analysis, which I hope will be published soon.

SOURCES

Angell, M. NY-NJ port lays groundwork for larger ships ahead of dredging. May 27, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-new-york-and-new-jersey/ny-nj-port-lays-groundwork-larger-ships-ahead-dredging_20220527.html

Angell, M. NY-NJ deepening study gets US Army Corps blessing. June 23, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-new-york-and-new-jersey/ny-nj-deepening-study-gets-us-army-corps-blessing_20220623.html?utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Ports%206%2F29%2F22%20%20%20REDO_PC00000_e-production_E-140850_SA_0629_0900&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Ashe, A. and Angell, M. Rising volumes slowing port flow on East, Gulf coasts. July 5, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/rising-volumes-slowing-port-flow-east-gulf-coasts_20220705.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%207%2F6%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-141183_KB_0706_0617

Knowler, G. Rising US imports keep pressure on trans-Atlantic. July 18, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/international-ports/rising-us-imports-keep-pressure-trans-atlantic_20220718.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%207%2F19%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-141796_KB_0719_0617

Mongelluzzo, B. Q1 US imports from Asia show no slowing in consumer demand. Apr 22, 2022. https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/q1-us-imports-asia-show-no-slowing-consumer-demand_20220422.html

Mongelluzzo, B. U.S. imports from Asia surge to unexpected record in May. June 15, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/us-imports-asia-surge-unexpected-record-may_20220615.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%206%2F16%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-140076_KB_0616_0617

Wallis, K. Asia shippers plug trans-Pacific export gap from China COVID-19 disruption. May 11, 2022.

https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/trade-lanes/asia-shippers-plug-trans-pacific-export-gap-china-covid-19-disruption_20220511.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%205%2F12%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-137446_KB_0512_0617

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Canada’s 64th Forest Pest Management Forum — in Short

spruce budworm; photo by Jerry E. Dewey, USFS; via Bugwood

The 64^th Forest Pest Management Forum was held in December 2021. This is the largest and most significant gathering of forest pest management experts, managers, and practitioners in Canada. The proceedngs are available here. I summarize the contents. (This is my third review of recent reports on invasive species by Canadians. See also here and here. I appeciate the opportunity to learn about forest pest issues across such a large proportion of North America!

As usual, much of the attention was given to native pests, e.g.,

mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in Yukon, Alberta [declining numbers and areas affected]; Saskatchewan [none found in boreal forest]
Jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) – Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario. [damage to jack pine in the Northwest Territories is caused by an unknown agent]
spruce pests, including spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) across the country: from Yukon and Northwest Territories to New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; Newfoundland and Labrador
aspen defoliators – British Columbia; Northwest Territories; Alberta; Saskatchewan;
Swiss Needle Cast – British Columbia
Septoria leaf and stem blight in hybrid poplars (Populus genus) spreading in British Columbia; fears it could threaten black cottonwood, a keystone species in riparian ecosystems

hemlock mortality caused by HWA in Nova Scotia; photo by Celia Boone, NSDLF

The meeting also reported the following on non-native forest pests:

Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) — Canada has been declared free of ALB; national grid-based detection surveys continue – visual surveys at 10 sites; none found
emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) — trapping focused on high-risk locations and urban centers outside established regulated areas with no new detections in 2021. Saskatchewan continues to regulate EAB as a quarantine pest – after its detection in Winnipeg in November 2017. In New Brunswick, EAB has spread throughout the region where it was originally discovered in early 2021. In Nova Scotia, EAB remains undetected outside of the regulated area of Halifax
spongy moth (Lymantria dispar dispar) – trapping continues across Canada; detections in all provinces except Newfoundland – Labrador. Officials think they have eradicated an incipient population in Manitoba. Outbreaks are intensifying in Ontario and Québec (spongy moth is also expanding in northern US)
brown spruce longhorned beetle (Tetropium fuscum) – widespread trapping in Nova Scotia detected no new finds.
hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) is a priority species. Hemlock is a major component of the forested regions in the eastern provinces and HWA threatens to cause potentially irreparable damage to hemlock-dominated areas. Visual detection surveys were conducted at more than 180 high risk locations in eastern Canada. HWA has been confirmed in 7 counties of Nova Scotia – 2 of them new; plus a new infestation in Ontario.
beech leaf-mining weevil (Orchestes fagi) — continues to spread, with 22,129 ha of damage and mortality in areas near Halifax, Nova Scotia. The report makes no mention of beech leaf disease and here.
Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi & O.novo-ulmi) – spreading rapidly in parts of Saskatchewan; major control effort in Manitoba, where 38 communities are participating in a provincial program and Winnipeg has its own program.
elm zig zag sawfly (Aproceros leucopoda) – Canadian authorities are apparently considering what their response should be [see also Martel et al. 2022. (open access!)

elm zigzag sawfly; photo by Gyorgy Csoka Hungarian Forest Research Organization; via Bugwood

Canadian authorities have active surveillance programs targetting three species established in the U.S. which they worry will enter Canada:

spotted lanternfly eggs; New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation photo

oak wilt (Ceratocystis fagacearum) – visual surveys at more than 60 sites in Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; so far, no detections.
spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) authorities noted the many possible pathways of introduction
brown-tail moth (Euproctis chrysorrhoea) – rising population in Maine; several additional public reports of sightings in New Brunswick.

Policy

Canada has a National Forest Pest Strategy adopted by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) in 2007. The CCFM Forest Pest Working Group (FPWG) plays a major role in advancing this Strategy. It also provides a national forum for generating ideas and exchanging information about forest pest management among federal, provincial, and territorial government agencies.

According to officials of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the government has initiated limited pathway-based surveys to detect introduced pests associated with wood packaging material (crates, pallets, etc.). [See additional blogs posted here under “wood packaging” category. E.g., this one. The agency is also developing an efficient, safe and feasible management program for handling shipborne dunnage. CFIA expected to publish a revised directive in spring 2022, then fully implement it by fall 2022.

Presentations on Individual Pests

The Proceedings include abstracts of presentations on individual species. The abstracts rarely provide the final findings.

Emma J. Hudgins, of Carleton University, reported on ways to optimize control of EAB in the U.S. She found that the best management strategy combined site-focused activities – such as biocontrol — and spread-focused (quarantine) management measures. This combined strategy vastly outperformed efforts based on limiting propagule pressure or managing single sites. In other words, quarantines should be refined rather than abandoned – as the US has done.

Oregon ash forest on the Willamette River, Oregon; photo by W. Williams, Oregon Dept. of Forestry

Chris MacQuarrie of the Canadian Forest Service reviewed use of biocontrol agents targetting EAB. Canada has approved release of three agents also approved in the United States: Tetrastichus planipennisi in 2013; Oobius agrili in 2015; Spathius galinae in 2017. Canada began trying to evaluate their impacts in 2018 – but the results are not included in the abstract.

Lucas Roscoe, also of the Canadian Forest Service, reviewed biocontrol efforts targetting hemlock woolly adelgid. The abstract doesn’t provide conclusions.

Kevin Porter and James Brandt assessed the risk of the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) outbreaks in Eastern Canada’s Forests. The insect is the most widely distributed and destructive pest of spruce-fir forests in Canada; it is native to much of boreal and hemiboreal North America. Outbreaks occur periodically. Cumulative tree defoliation and mortality can result in significant losses of important timber and non-timber resources, affecting the forest industry and forest-dependent communities.

Stefan Zeglen and Nicolas Feau reported on the importance of environmental conditions in causing one disease. Swiss Needle Cast (caused by the usually innocuous endophyte Nothophaeocryptopus gaeumannii) has become pathogenic on Douglas-fir, causing up to 60% growth loss. This results from changing climate – and is expected to worsen with rising temperatures and humidity.

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Search for Asian giant hornet

Asian giant hornet (*Vespa mandarinia*); photo by University of Florida Dept. of Entomology

Washington State’s “Giant Hornet – Hornet Herald” for June asks people to help with detecting this pest by monitoring paper wasp nests (hornets attack them). Hornet visits last 5 – 10 minutes while the hornet removes paper wasp larvae. How to help:

Locate paper wasp nests that you have access to and can monitor through October. Then log the nest locations using the form here

Visit the nests each week, observe them, and then log your nest activity on a different form – here. Please monitor the nests for at least 5 minutes during the day once per week, but you can check the nests for as long and as often as you would like.

If you would like guidance on how to become a citizen-science monitor or trapper of Asian giant hornets – or presumably other bioinvaders – go here

Meanwhile, Washington State Department of Agriculture entomologists are in South Korea testing several hornet attractants and studying hornet foraging behavior. The goal is to improve Washington’s trapping and tracking techniques.

Of course, 2022 is only half over, but so far neither Washington nor British Columbia has confirmed any detections.

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Boxwood Blight – Another Failure of the Global Phytosanitary System

boxwood garden at Gunston Hall – home of founding father George Mason; Virginia; photo by Roger 4336 *via* Wikimedia

Boxwood blight is a disease caused by a group of fungal pathogens. While boxwoods are horticultural plants in the U.S. – important ones! – they are keystone forest species in several regions of the tropics and subtropics.

The situation with boxwood blight is yet another example of a too-frequent pattern for plant pathogens. This pattern applies even to plant taxa that are important to the ornamental horticulture industry – not only plants that are important in natural ecosystems. [See other blogs posted here under the category “plants as pest vectors”, e.g., here. The boxwood blight pathogens:

are of unknown origin;
have a wide range of known hosts; additional hosts probable;
have been introduced to many new sites over about 30 years;
have caused considerable economic, aesthetic, and ecological harm;
are a threat to centers of endemism;
have no known methods to treat plants in forests;
are spread by international plant trade;
complicate detection by having hosts that sometimes are asymptomatic; or symptoms can be suppressed by fungicides;
apparently few efforts to apply phytosanitary measures to prevent further spread.

Also typical: concerned scientists are trying to promote adoption of phytosanitary measures. This takes the form of a study by Barke, Coop and Hong (full citation at the end of the blog; unless otherwise stated, information in this blog is from this source). They use several models based largely on climatic factors to predict additional geographic areas where else boxwood blight might establish.

I think it is most unfortunate that the U.S. horticultural industry prefers to avoid federal regulation despite the significant costs to its members. Instead, it has advocated for a primarily voluntary response (see below). This undermines efforts to restructure regulatory programs to improve phytosanitary agencies’ management of pathogens. Since the U.S. is such a powerful player on this issue, reducing pressure on APHIS to find more effective measures has global implications. I recognize that preventing transmission of unknown and cryptic pathogens is an intrinsically difficult task. However, tackling this problem should be a top priority for people concerned about retaining healthy floral communities.

Specifics About Boxwood Blight

Boxwood blight is caused by two ascomycete fungi, Calonectria pseudonaviculata [synonym Cylindrocladium buxicola] and Calonectria henricotiae. Both can infect and blight boxwood foliage, resulting in rapid plant death. C. henricotiae is known from only five countries in Europe; C. pseudonaviculata is currently established in 24 countries in three geographic areas: Europe and western Asia; New Zealand; and North America (30 US states and British Columbia). The disease caused by C. pseudonaviculata could spread well beyond its currently invaded range in these regions.

range of *Buxus sempervirens*; via Wikimedia

Native plants in the family Buxaceae grow in tropical or subtropical areas around the world. Plants in the genera Buxus, Didymeles, Haptanthus, Pachysandra, Sarcococca, and Styloceras are found in some areas of western and southern Europe; Turkey and the Caucuses into Iran; several countries in southeast and east Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia); coastal Australia; high elevation areas of Africa, including Madagascar; parts of South America (southern Brazil, Uruguay, northern Argentina, and southern Chile, and foothills of the Andes); parts of Central America and the Caribbean. Asia is home to about 40 species of Buxus, four species of Pachysandra, and 11 species of Sarcococca. In the Andes region, all five species of Styloceras are endemic. Central America and the Caribbean are home to about 50 species of Buxus; there are 37 species endemic to Cuba! Madagascar has nine endemic Buxus species.

Many Buxus species occur in small and isolated distributions resulting from both natural causes (e.g., island endemism) and anthropogenic disturbances (including deforestation and invasions of by other non-native pests, such as the box tree moth Cydalima perspectalis in Europe and western Asia).

In native stands of Buxus sempervirens in Georgia and northern Iran, where C. pseudonaviculata was detected in 2010, the disease has caused rapid and intensive defoliation of boxwood plants of different ages. [See also Lehtijarvi, Dogmus-Lehtijarvi and Oskay. Boxwood Blight in Turkey: Impact on Natural Boxwood Populations and Management Challenges. Baltic Forestry 2017, vol. 23(1)] Infected plants are also vulnerable to attacks by secondary opportunistic pathogens that can lead to eventual death. Damage to these forests could lead to reductions in soil stability and subsequent declines in water quality and flood protection, changes in forest structure and composition, and declines in Buxus-associated biodiversity (at least 63 species of lichens, fungi, chromista and invertebrates might be obligate).

Barke, Coop and Hong expect excessive heat and seasonal dryness at one extreme and excessive cold at the other to limit areas in North America and Europe/central Asia where the disease can establish. Areas with oceanic rather than continental climates are probably more vulnerable. However, heat and aridity barriers could be overcome by artificial irrigation of horticultural plantings.

Indeed, the conditions favoring C. pseudonaviculata establishment – warm temperatures and high humidity or water on the leaves – are commonly found in production nurseries. Overhead irrigation exacerbates the risk. Production nurseries also have large numbers of host plants in close proximity – so it is easy for disease to spread (Douglas).

I am reminded that the causal agent of sudden oak death, Phytophthora ramorum, has been spread from production nurseries located in hot, dry areas that were considered unsuitable to the pathogen – because conditions inside the nursery were suitable.

wild *Buxus* on island of Corsica; photo by Sten Porse *via* Wikimedia

As I noted, the origin of C. pseudonaviculata is unknown. Barke, Coop and Hong think it is most likely in eastern Asia, which is thought to be the likely native region of box tree moth. However, they cannot rule out some other center of diversity for Buxaceae species e.g., the Caribbean or Madagascar.

Barke, Coop and Hong call for additional studies to

Explore potential effects of climate change on establishment risk, especially higher latitude areas expected to see increasing humidity, precipitation, and rising temperatures.
Determine ability of C. pseudonaviculata microsclerotia to survive higher temperatures, e.g. in parts of the U.S. Deep South that may have ideal growing conditions during cool seasons.
Modify the CLIMEX model developed for this study to predict the potential distribution of C. henricotiae, a closely related but genetically distinct species with greater tolerance of higher temperatures.

They call for a strict phytosanitary protocol for risk mitigation of accidental intro, with effective surveillance for early detection, and development of a recovery plan.

Regulatory (non) Response

Boxwood blight was first detected in the United Kingdom in mid-1990s; then in New Zealand in 2002. Only then was the causal agent determined. It was first detected in the U.S. in October 2011 (in Connecticut). It was quickly determined to be established in the mid-Atlantic region. Apparently the British, other European countries, and APHIS all decided the pathogen was too widespread to regulate (Douglas).

The U.S. is relying on a voluntary program. The nursery industry, through its Horticultural Research Institute (HRI), and the National Plant Board developed guidance for best management practices – updated as recently as 2020.

boxwood blight symptoms; Oregon State University; *via* Flickr

In contrast, APHIS has acted to regulate the boxwood tree moth, Cydalima perspectalis. The moth was first detected in North America near Toronto in 2018. U.S. nurseries in six states received infected plants in spring 2021. On May 26, 2021, APHIS prohibited importation of host plants from Canada, including boxwood (Buxus spp), Euonymus (Euonymus spp), and holly (Ilex spp).

In July 2021, the moth was detected in Niagara County, New York. It was thought that the moths had flown or been blown into the area from Canada. New York adopted an intrastate quarantine of three counties (Erie, Niagara, and Orleans) in December 10, 2021. APHIS followed with an interstate quarantine on March 23, 2022.

SOURCES

Barke, B.S., L. Coop and C. Hong. 2022. Potential Distribution of Invasive Boxwood Blight Pathogen (Calonectria pseudonaviculata) as Predicted by Process-Based and Correlative Models. Biology 2022, 11, 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11060849 www.mdpi.com/journal/biology

Douglas, S.M. Fact sheet; Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CAES/DOCUMENTS/Publications/Fact_Sheets/Plant_Pathology_and_Ecology/2020/Boxwood-Blight-(1).pdf?la=en&hash=A4C6AF39765F27FDDEB5B4DC3FD3B6F3

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Invasions cost protected areas more than $22 billion in 35 years

Burmese python in Everglades National Park; photo by Bob Reed, US FWS

Scientists continue to apply data collected in an international database (InvaCost; see “methods” section of Cuthbert et al.; full citation at end of this blog) to estimate the economic costs associated with invasive alien species (IAS). These sources reported $22.24 billion in economic costs of bioinvasion in protected areas over the 35-year period 1975 – 2020. Because the data has significant gaps, no doubt invasions really cost much more.

Moodley et al. 2022 (full citation at end of this blog) attempt to apply these data to analyze economic costs in protected areas. As they note, protected areas are a pillar of global biodiversity conservation. So it is important to understand the extent to which bioinvasion threatens this purpose.

Unfortunately, the data are still too scant to support any conclusions. Such distortions are acknowledged by Moodley et al. I will discuss the data gaps below a summary of the study’s findings.

The Details

Of the estimated $22.24 billion, only 4% were observed costs; 96% were “potential” costs (= extrapolated or predicted based on models). Both had generally increased in more recent years, especially “potential” costs after 1995. As is true in other analyses of InvaCost data, the great majority (73%) of observed costs covered management efforts rather than losses due to impacts. The 24% of total costs ascribed to losses, or damage, exceeded the authors’ expectation. They had thought that the minimal presence of human infrastructure inside protected areas would result in low records of “economic” damages.

The great majority (83%) of reported management costs were reactive, that is, undertaken after the invasion had occurred. In terrestrial environments, there were significantly higher bioinvasion costs inside protected areas than outside (although this varied by continent). However, when considering predicted or modelled costs, the importance was reversed: expected management costs represented only 5% while these “potential” damages were 94%.

Higher expenditures were reported in more developed countries – which have more resources to allocate and are better able to carry out research documenting both damage and effort.

More than 80% of management costs were shouldered by governmental services and/or official organizations (e.g. conservation agencies, forest services, or associations). The “agriculture” and “public and social welfare” sectors sustained 60% of observed “damage” and 89% of “mixed damage and management” costs respectively. The “environmental” and “public and social welfare” sectors together accounted for 94% of all the “potential” costs (predicted based on models) generated by invasive species in protected areas; 99% of damage costs. With the partial exception of the agricultural sector, the economic sectors that contribute the most to movement to invasive species are spared from carrying the resulting costs.

Lord Howe Island, Australia; threatened by myrtle rust; photo by Robert Whyte, *via* Flickr

Invasive plants dominated by numbers of published reports – 64% of reports of observed costs, 79% of reports of “potential”. However, both actual and “potential” costs allotted to plant invasions were much lower than for vertebrates and invertebrates. Mammals and insects dominated observed animal costs.

It is often asserted that protected areas are less vulnerable to bioinvasion because of the relative absence of human activity. Moodley et al. suggest the contrary: that protected areas might be more vulnerable to bioinvasion because they often host a larger proportion of native, endemic and threatened species less adapted to anthropogenic disturbances. Of course, no place on Earth is free of anthropogenic influences; this was true even before climate change became an overriding threat. Plenty of U.S. National parks and wilderness areas have suffered invasion by species that are causing significant change (see, for example, here, here, and here).

Despite Best Efforts, Data are Scant and Skewed

Economic data on invasive species in protected areas were available for only a tiny proportion of these sites — 55 out of 266,561 protected areas.

As Moodley et al. state, their study was hampered by several data gaps:

Taxonomic bias – plants are both more frequently studied and managed in protected areas, but their reported observed costs are substantially lower than those of either mammals or insects.
The data relate to economic rather than ecological effects. The costliest species economically might not cause the greatest ecological harm.
Geographical bias – studies are more plentiful in the Americas and Pacific Islands. However, studies from Europe, Africa and South America more often report observed costs. The South African attention to invasive species (see blogs here, here, and here), and economic importance of tourism to the Galápagos Islands exacerbate these data biases.
Methodological bias – although reporting bioinvasion costs has steadily increased, it is still erratic and dominated by “potential” costs = predictions, models or simulations.

I note that, in addition, individual examples of high-cost invasive species are not representative. The highest costs reported pertained to one agricultural pest (mango beetle) and one human health threat (mosquitoes).

Great Smokey Mountains National Park; threatened by mammals (pigs), forest pests, worms, invasive plants … Photo by Domenico Convertini *via* Flickr

As these weaknesses demonstrate, a significant need remains for increased attention to the economic aspects of bioinvasion – especially since political leaders pay so much greater attention to economics than to other metrics. However, the reported costs – $22.24 billion over 35 years, and growing! – are sufficient in the view of Moodley et al. to support advocating investment of more resources in invasive species management in protected areas, including – or especially – it is not quite clear — preventative measures.

SOURCES

Cuthbert, R.N., C Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P.J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion cost reveals insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May, 2022, 153404

Posted by Faith Campbell

or www.fadingforests.org