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
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
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;
(c) inoculation infrastructure;
(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; 1st Edition. Elsevier
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
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
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
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!
photo by Daveylin via Flickr
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.
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
spruce budworm; photo by Jerry E. Dewey, USFS; via Bugwood
The 64th 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 Martelet 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
APHIS is seeking stakeholder input to its new strategic plan to guide the agency’s work over the next 5 years.
The strategic plan framework is a summary of the draft plan; it provides highlights including the mission and vision statements, core values, strategic goals and objectives, and trends or signals of change we expect to influence the agency’s work in the future. APHIS is seeking input on the following questions:
Are your interests represented in the plan?
Are there opportunities for APHIS to partner with others to achieve the goals and objectives?
Are there other trends for which the agency should be preparing?
Are there additional items APHIS should consider for the plan?
range of American beech – should APHIS be doing more to protect it from 3 non-native pests?
Comments must be received by July 1, 2022, 11:59pm (EST).
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
This blog asks YOU!!! to support funding for key USDA programs. Each is essential for protecting the resilience of the Nation’s forests in the face of invasive pests. Please help by contacting your members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. I provide a list of members – by state – at the end of this blog.
While the two key federal programs overlap, they are separately managed: USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and USDA’s Forest Service (USFS). These two agencies are funded by different subcommittees of the House and Senate’s Appropriations committees. APHIS is funded by the Subcommittees on Agriculture and Related Agencies. USFS is funded by the Subcommittees on Interior.
Your letter or email need be no more than a couple paragraphs. To make the case for greater funding, feel free to pick-and-choose from the information that follows. Your greatest impact comes from speaking specifically about what you know and where you live.
These are the specific dollar things we’d like you to ask for. The rationale for each is below.
Appropriations for APHIS programs (in $millions)
Program
FY 2021
FY 2022 CR
FY 2023 Pres’ request
Please ask
Tree & Wood Pest
$60.456
$61.217
$63
$70
Specialty Crops
$196.553
$209.553
$219
$219
Pest Detection
$27.733
$28.218
$29
$30
Methods Development
$20.844
$21.217
$22
$23
Appropriations for USFS programs (in $millions)
Program
FY 2021
FY 2022 CR
FY 2023 Pres’ request
Please ask
Forest Health Protection Coop Lands
$30.747
$30.747
$36,747
$51
FHP Federal Lands
$15.485
$15.485
$22.485
$32
Research & Development
$258.760
$258.760
$317.773
$317.733
% for forest invaders
~1%?
?
0
$16 M
Background on the Threat
I’m sure you are familiar with the many ecosystem services provided by America’s forests and woodlands – wildland, rural, and urban. (Besides – maybe you just love trees!) I assume you also know that these forests are under threat from a growing number of non-native insects and pathogens.
For a quick review, see earlier blogs re: 1) an estimate that 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states is at risk to mortality caused by the most damaging 15 species; black ash swamps of the upper Midwest; unique forest ecosystems of Hawai`i; riparian forests in the far West; stream canyons of the Appalachian range and; high-elevation forests of the West; and unique forests of Southwest Oregon. Also, see the thorough discussion of these pests’ impacts in Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector – blog; link available here]
Meanwhile, newly-discovered pests continue to appear and require research and management. The most troubling current example is beech leaf disease. It’s killing beech trees from Ohio to Maine and south to Virginia.
These introduced pests usually first appear in cities or suburbs because they arrive on imported goods shipped to population centers. The immediate result is enormous damage to urban forests. A recently published article (“Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050”), projects that, by 2050, 1.4 million street trees in urban areas and communities will be killed by introduced insect pests. Removing and replacing these trees is projected to cost cities $30 million per year. Additional urban trees – in parks, other plantings, on homeowners’ properties, and in urban woodlands – are also expected to die.
As we know, newly-arrived pests don’t stay in those cities. Some spread on their own. Others are carried far and wide on firewood, plants, patio furniture, even storage pods. And so they proliferate in rural and wildland forests, including US National Forests.
As we know too well, many pests—especially the highly damaging wood-borers—arrive in inadequately treated crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made of wood. Other pests—e.g., spotted lanternfly —take shelter, or lay their eggs, in or on virtually any exposed hard surface, such as steel or decorative stone.
Imports from Asia have historically transported the most damaging pests. Unfortunately, imports from Asia have reached unprecedented volume – currently they’re running at a rate of 20 million shipping containers per year. Research findings lead to an estimate that at least 7,500 of these containers are carrying a tree-killing pest. The “Hotspots” authors found that if a new woodborer that attacks maples or oaks is introduced, it could kill 6.1 million trees and cost American cities $4.9 billion over 30 years. The risk would be highest if this pest were introduced to the South – and southern ports are receiving more direct shipments from Asia!
Some types of pests—especially plant diseases and sap sucking insects —come on imported plants. A principle example is sudden oak death (SOD; and which attacks more than 100 species of trees and shrubs). Other examples are the rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogen that threatens Hawai`i’s most widespread tree, ʻōhiʻa lehua; and beech leaf disease, a newly discovered threat that is killing beech trees in a band stretching from Ohio to Maine.
Background on Specific USDA Funding Requests
APHIS
To reduce the risk of new pest introductions and strengthen response to many important pests, please ask your member of Congress and Senators to support appropriations that support key APHIS programs in the table above. (I assume you know that APHIS is responsible for preventing introduction and spread of invasive pests. While most port inspections are carried out by the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, APHIS sets the policy guidance. APHIS also inspects imports of living plants.)
Thank your member for the incremental increases in funding for these programs in FY22 but suggest that a more substantial investment is warranted.
The Tree and Wood Pests account supports eradication and control efforts targeting principally the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) and spongy (formerly gypsy) moth. Eradicating the ALB normally receives about two-thirds of the funds. The programs in Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina must continue until eradication succeeds.
The Tree and Wood Pests account formerly also funded APHIS’ emerald ash borer (EAB) regulatory program. APHIS terminated this program in January 2021. The probable result is that EAB will spread more rapidly to the mountain and Pacific Coast states. Indeed, the “Hotspots” article identified Seattle and Takoma as likely to lose thousands of ash trees in coming decades. This result shows what happens when APHIS programs are inadequately funded.
Re: the plant diseases and sap sucking insects that enter the country on imported plants, APHIS’ management is through its Specialty Crops program. Repeatedly, SOD-infected plantsand have been shipped from nurseries in the Pacific Coast states to vulnerable states across the East and South. Clearly this program needs re-assessment and – perhaps – additional funding.
The Specialty Crops program also is home to APHIS’ efforts to counter the spotted lanternfly, which has spread from Pennsylvania to Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, even Indiana. This pest threatens both native trees and agricultural crops – including hops, grapes, apples, and more. California has adopted a state quarantine in hopes of preventing its introduction to that state. Still, APHIS has not established a quarantine.
Please ask the Congress to support the Administration’s request for $219 million for the Specialty Crops program. However, urge them to adopt report language to ensure that APHIS allots adequate funding under this budget line to management of both sudden oak death and spotted lanternfly.
Two additional APHIS programs are the foundation for effective pest prevention. First, the Pest Detection program is key to the prompt detection of newly introduced pests that is critical to successful pest eradication or containment. Please ask the Congress to fund Pest Detection at $30 million. Second, the “Methods Development” program enables APHIS to improve development of essential detection and eradication tools. Please ask the Congress to fund Methods Development at $23 million.
Please ask your member of Congress to support the Administration’s request for a $50.794 million fund for management of emergencies threatening America’s agricultural and natural resources. This program includes a $6 million increase for work with the Climate Conservation Corps specifically targetting invasive species. Although the details are not yet clear, the program’s focus will be to improve surveillance and mitigation methods.
US Forest Service
The USFS has two programs critical to managing non-native tree-killing pests – Forest Health Management (or Protection; FHP) and Research and Development (R&D). FHP provides technical and financial assistance to USFS units (e.g., National forests and regions), other federal agencies, states, municipalities, and other partners to detect and manage introduced pests – including several that APHIS regulates and dozens that it does not. R&D funds efforts to understand non-native insects, diseases, and plants – which are usually scientific mysteries when they first are detected. Of course, this knowledge is crucial to effective programs to prevent, suppress, and eradicate the bioinvader. See the table at the beginning of the blog for specific funding requests for each program.
The Forest Health Management Program (FHP) has two funding streams: Federal Lands and Cooperative Lands (all forests under non-federal management, e.g., state and private forests, urban forests). Both subprograms must be funded in order to ensure continuity of protection efforts – which is the only way they can be effective. Some members of Congress prefer to focus federal funding on National forests. However, allowing pests to proliferate until they reach a federal forest border will only expose those forests to exacerbated threats. Examples of tree-killing pests that have spread from urban areas to National forests include the hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, sudden oak death, and laurel wilt disease. [All profiled here]
Adequate funding for FHP is vital to realizing the Administration’s goals of ensuring healthy forests and functional landscapes; supporting rural economies and underserved communities; enhancing climate change adaptation and resilience; and protecting biological diversity.
Please ask your Member of Congress and Senators to provide $51 million for work on non-federal cooperative lands. This level would partially restore capacity lost over the last decade. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, spending to combat 11 specified non-native insects and pathogens fell by about 50%. Meanwhile, the pests have spread. Also, please ask your Member and Senators to support a $32 million appropriation for the Federal Lands subprogram for FY23 which is allocated to pests threatening our National forests directly.
A vital component of the FHP program is its leadership on breeding pest-resistant trees to restore forests decimated by pests. FHP’s Dorena Genetic Resource Center, in Oregon, has developed Port-Orford cedar seedlings resistant to the fatal root-rot disease. and blog. These seedlings are now being planted by National forests, the Bureau of Land Management, and others. In addition, pines with some resistance to white pine blister rust are also under development. The Dorena Center offers expert advice to various partners engaged in resistance-breeding for Oregon’s ash trees and two tree species in Hawai`i, koa and ʻōhiʻa. and blog.
The USFS research program is well funded at $317 million. Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of this research budget has been allocated to improving managers’ understanding of specific invasive species and, more generally, of the factors contributing to bioinvasions. Funding for research conducted by USFS Research stations on ten non-native pests decreased from $10 million in Fiscal Year 2010 to just $2.5 million in Fiscal Year 2020 – less than 1% of the total research budget. This cut of more than 70% has crippled the USFS’ ability to develop effective tools to manage the growing number of pests.
To ensure the future health of America’s forests, please ask your Member of Congress and Senators to request the Subcommittee to include in its report instructions that USFS increase the funding for this vital research area to 5% of the total research budget. The $16 million would fund research necessary to improving managers’ understanding of invasive forest insects’ and pathogens’ invasion pathways and impacts, as well as to developing effective management strategies. Addressing these threats is vital to supporting the Administration’s priorities of increasing adaptation and resilience to climate change and implementing nature-based solutions.
The USFS Research and Development program should expand its contribution to efforts to breed trees resistant to non-native pests; programs deserving additional funding include hemlocks resistant to hemlock woolly adelgid; ashes resistant to emerald ash borer; beech resistant to both beech bark disease and beech leaf disease; link to DMF and elms resistant to Dutch elm disease. The Research program also continues studies to understand the epidemiology of laurel wilt disease, which has spread to sassafras trees in Kentucky and Virginia.
Members of House Appropriations Committee
STATE
MEMBER
APHIS APPROP
USFS APPROP
AL
Robert Aderholt
X
Calif
Barbara Lee David Valadao Josh Harder
X X
X
FL
Debbie Wasserman Scultz
X
GA
Sanford Bishop
X
ID
Mike Simpson
X
IL
Lauren Underwood
X
MD
Andy Harris
X
ME
Chellie Pingree
X
X
MI
John Moolenaar
X
MN
Betty McCollum
X
X
NV
Susie Lee Mark Amodei
X X
NY
Grace Meng
X
OH
Marcy Kaptur David Joyce
X X
PA
Matt Cartwright
X
TX
Henry Cuellar
X
UT
Chris Stewart
X
WA
Dan Newhouse Derek Kilmer
X
X
WI
Mark Pocan
X
Members of Senate Appropriations Committee
STATE
MEMBER
APHIS APPROP
USFS APPROP
AK
Lisa Murkowski
X
Calif
Diane Feinstein
X
X
FL
Marco Rubio
X
HI
Brian Schatz
X
IN
Mike Braun
X
KS
Jerry Moran
X
KY
Mitch McConnell
X
X
MD
Chris Van Hollen
X
ME
Susan Collins
X
MS
Cindy Hyde-Smith
X
X
MO
Roy Blunt
X
X
MT
Jon Tester
X
X
ND
John Hoeven
X
NM
Martin Heinrich
X
X
OR
Jeff Merkley
X
X
RI
Jack Reed
X
TN
Bill Hagerty
X
VT
Patrick Leahy
X
X
WV
Shelly Moore Capito
X
WI
Tammy Baldwin
X
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
