In 2017 I blogged about a study by Hanno Seebens and 44 coauthors that showed that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and showed no sign of slowing down (a reference to the full article is at the end of this blog). Here’s a brief recap, followed by a 2020 update by Seebens and colleagues.
In 2017, Seebens et al. analyzed a database covering 45,813 first records of 16,926 alien species established in 282 distinct geographic regions. The year with the highest number of reported new detections was 1996 – 585, or an average of more than 1.5 sightings per day.
The authors found that the adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th Century had slowed introductions – but not sufficiently. Numbers of reported new introductions of fish and mammals had decreased since the early 1950s. However, first recorded introductions of vascular plant species remained high, and introductions of birds and reptiles also continued to rise, largely as pets in countries with strengthening economies.
For taxa introduced primarily accidentally on transport vectors or as contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates), they found a strong correlation between their spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest – existing biosecurity regimes had not slowed down the accumulation of these alien taxa.
As a consequence, the authors expected that the numbers of new alien species would continue to increase.
As you are aware, since 2015 I have posted 15 blogs about the continued detections of tree pests in wood packaging, which remains one of the major pathways despite the international regulation ISPM#15. I have found it harder to track insect and pathogen introductions on imported plants, but it surely continues apace.
2020 Study Projects Continuing Rise in Introductions, Especially Arthropods
Hanno Seebens and a smaller set of coauthors (see full reference at the end of this blog) have now produced an estimate of probable introduction rates in the future. They looked at taxon–continent combinations for seven major taxonomic groups and eight continents (excluding Antarctica).
They found an overall increase in established alien species between 2005 and 2050 of 36%.
The study predicted that by the mid-21st Century, there will be distinct increases in alien species numbers, particularly for Europe, but also for Temperate Asia and North America, and for invertebrates in all regions. Europe ranked highest in absolute numbers of new alien species (~2,543; a 64% increase). Temperate Asia was projected to receive about 1,597 species (a 50% increase); North America about 1,484 (a 23% increase); South America about 1,391 (a 49% increase); and the Pacific Islands about 132. Only Australasia could expect a slower rise in introductions. The predicted trajectories of alien species numbers were surprisingly similar for mainland and island regions across taxonomic groups.
Invertebrates showed the highest relative increases. Rates of new detections of alien species were projected to accelerate for arthropods other than crustaceans worldwide, especially for North America (!). The study also projected higher relative increases for aquatic vascular plants and terrestrial insects
All drivers of introduction and invasion are predicted to intensify in the future. This is despite adoption of increasing numbers of countermeasures in recent decades. Most countries’ capacity to proactively counter the rising tide of invasive species is still poor. Furthermore, the principal drivers – intensification of trade and transport, land-use change, and access to new source pools – is expected to continue operating as now – “business as usual”.
spotted lanternfly Holly Ragusa, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Current Status of “New” Detections
Seebens et al. (2020) relied on the Alien Species First Records Database for first detection records up to 2005. More than half (54%) of the first-detection records in the database are vascular plants. Arthropods other than crustaceans made up 28% of the total, birds 6%, fishes 4%, mammals 3%, molluscs 2%, and crustaceans 2%. The 2020 study confirmed the earlier finding that the observed first-record rates of mammals changed at around 1950 from an increasing to a decreasing trend. Finally, the total numbers of non-native species in the Database is much lower in aquatic habitats. (The authors do not discuss whether this reflects actual introductions or gaps in reporting.)
In the database, Europe recorded 38% of all first records, North America 16%, Australasia 15%, South America 9%, Temperate Asia 9%, Africa 6%, Pacific Islands 5% and Tropical Asia 2%.
A comparison to the immediate past (1960-2005) showed that the rates of emerging non-native species were projected to accelerate during 2005-2050, especially for arthropods. As I noted above, North America is predicted to have high increases in absolute numbers. Increases are also predicted for birds. Declines are predicted for mammals and fishes.
Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology
Projected increases for Australasia were consistently lower than in the past.
Caveats:
1) The authors assumed that past patterns of alien species accumulation will continue in the future. They did not attempt to predict efforts to strengthen biosecurity regulations and mitigation strategies.
2) Projections were calculated in the absence of data on many underlying drivers for the historic periods and some taxonomic groups. However, observed trends of newly-detected alien species numbers during the 20th century were surprisingly stable despite distinct political and socio-economic changes.
Seebens and colleagues conclude that implementation of targeted biosecurity efforts can reduce the numbers of new alien species becoming established. However, a significant decrease in rates of alien species numbers on a large scale can only be achieved by a coordinated effort that crosses political borders.
Seebens, H., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, C. Capinha, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, M. van Kleunen, I. Kühn, J.M. Jeschke, B. Lenzner, A.M. Liebhold, Z. Pattison, J. Perg, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, F. Essl. 2020. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology. 2020;00:1 -13 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15333
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
Willow forest in the Tijuana River Valley killed by Kuroshio shot hole borer the “boom” part of the cycle photo by John Boland
I have blogged earlier about the damage caused by the Kuroshio shot hole borer (KSHB, Euwallacea kuroshio), which is one of two invasive shot hole borers established in southern California. The beetle and its symbiotic fungi had caused amazing levels of damage in the Tijuana River Valley in San Diego County, California. The wood borer is described here and here.
Most of the earlier blogs focused on the absence of a response by California’s phytosanitary agency and here – until John Kabashima created sufficient political demand for a response.
A scientist who has devoted considerable effort to understanding the KSHB is John Boland of Boland Ecological Services. He has posted annual reports analyzing five years of the outbreak in the Tijuana River Valley (see full citations at the end of the blog). His principal findings (Boland and Uyeda 2020): the invasion went through a boom and bust cycle, with willows in the wettest parts of the estuary having largely recovered. So far, Kuroshio shot hole borers have not re-infested the growing trees, despite the presence of all conditions seeming to favor invasion. His principal worry is enhanced invasion by the non-native grass or reed Arundo donax.
The study site is a coastal floodplain crossed by an intermittent stream. The Tijuana River valley provides several ecosystem services, including filtering pollutants before the water reaches the ocean, open space, and important wildlife habitat, including Critical Habitat for the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).
There is a mosaic of forests of different ages and at different distances from the current flows. They range from wet forests growing in the current river beds; dry forests growing in older river beds that get some current flows; and scrub forests growing far from current river flows. All these forests are dominated by two willows: the black willow (Salix gooddingii) and the arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). Both are preferred hosts of KSHB; both are pioneer species that establish in disturbed wet areas; both resprout vigorously. The riparian scrub woodlands surrounding the forests are dominated by the perennial shrub, mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), with scattered willows of both species (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
The river carries high levels of raw sewage and industrial waste from Tijuana, Mexico. Raw sewage contains important plant nutrients – nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The willows in or near the nutrient-enriched channel water were growing quickly and vigorously, and had wood characteristics that differed significantly from those of trees in the dry or scrub forests. Dr. Boland notes that these trees’ phloem sap is loaded with sugars from the fast-growing leaves, and xylem sap is loaded with nutrients from the enriched soil. His Enriched Tree Hypothesis (discussed further below) suggests that these nutrients promote fast growth of the symbiotic fungi and ideal conditions for KSHB (Boland and Woodward 2019).
Boland and his colleagues have carried out detailed annual field surveys of the infestation since 2015. Using the same study plots in each year, they analyzed infestation and mortality rates, canopy damage, and survivorship of tagged willows.
Funding originally came from the U.S. Navy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – agencies probably worried about the potential destruction of the vireos’ habitat. As of 2019 KSHB had infested 91% of all the willows in the valley – estimated to be more than 350,000 willows. KSHB had killed 30% of the trees, or nearly 123,000 (Boland 2019). Dr. Boland considers this estimate to be an underestimate because he could not accurately carry out surveys of individual trees in the extensively-damaged Wet Forest units in 2018. There was considerable variation in pest impacts depending on host trees’ proximity to the intermittent river. Of all of the willow deaths in the valley, 93.8% occurred in the Wet Forests, 6.1% in the Dry Forests and 0.1% in the Scrub Forests. This variation occurred even though the sites contain the same willow species (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
Infestation rates over the four-year period averaged 99% of willows in the Wet Forest units, 82% in the Dry Forests and 3% in the Scrub Woodlands. Considering 2019 alone, the overall infestation rate was only 9%. Looking at differences among forest types, 1% of the willows in Wet Forests were infested (down from 95% in 2015), 29% of the willows in dry forests (down from 73% in 2016), and 0% of the willows in the scrub forests (down from 2% in 2018). (2019 infestation rates from Boland and Uyeda 2020; earlier years from Boland 2019.)
Infestation rates had to be very high before trees died, but then mortality was very high. Only after sites reached infestation rates of more than 95% did sites have significant mortality rates – and then, very high — up to 97%. In agreement with other findings, most of the high-mortality sites were in Wet Forest units. These had a mean maximum mortality rate of 49%. The mean maximum mortality rate was only 9% in Dry Forest and 2% in Scrub Forest units (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
The size of the tree is also important. In the Wet Forests, in 2019, infestation rates were 0% for seedlings and young trees; 3% for the relatively undamaged trees that are more than 5 years old; and 1% of the resprouting adult trees that had been broken during the first wave of invasion. KSHB prefers young trees with a trunk dbh of at least 4.5 cm. Smaller trees were generally avoided. Trees with very large dbh (> 30 cm) appear to be able to survive a KSHB attack (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
At the end of the five year period, Dr. Boland had documented interesting/puzzling findings.
Recovery of the willow forest in Tijuana River Valley – 2019 photo by John Boland
Wet Forests
KSHB in the valley went through a rapid boom-and-bust cycle. In the Wet Forests, KSHB infestation progressed over the course of a few months from barely noticeable to heavy infestation and dramatic canopy collapse. Infestation rates of 80 – 95% in the West Forests in 2015 and 2016 led to virtual elimination of the canopy between 2016 and 2017 as tunnel-ridden trees were broken by wind storms. These severe damage levels occurred over 94 acres (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
After apparently depleting their preferred hosts in the wettest parts of the forest, beetle numbers fell and host trees began a rapid recovery. Mean canopy cover rose from 5% in 2017 to 56% in 2019. This recovery has taken three forms: survival of a few, scattered mature infested trees (‘Big Trees’) which grew new wood over KSHB galleries (Boland 2019); resprouting of mature KSHB-damaged trees (‘resprouts’); and seeding of new trees (‘seedlings’). Some of the forests have recovered so much in just 4 years that they are now similar to their pre-KSHB stature (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
Dr. Boland suggests that KSHB is promoted by high nutrient (pollution) levels in the water, which result in rapid growth by trees near the most steady of the intermittent streams. He has developed an Enriched Tree Hypothesis (explained briefly below; for a full discussion, see Boland and Woodland 2019).
As of autumn 2019, beetles have not attacked the recovering hosts – despite apparently favorable conditions and the absence of management interventions. 2019 infestation rates were 3% of the remaining Big Trees, 2% of the resprouting trees, 1% of the young trees, and 0% of the seedlings. Dr. Boland suggests three possible reasons (Boland and Uyeda 2020), which I will discuss below.
The resprouting trees are now old & vigorous enough to flower
It is likely that these recovering willow forests will provide good breeding habitat for least Bell’s vireo (all Boland publications).
Dry Forests
Infestation in the Dry Forests spread more slowly – infestation rates averaged 82% in the Dry Forests over four years. The infestation progressed more slowly and the canopy remained mostly intact. But in 2019 the infestation rate in the Dry Forest was substantially higher than in the Wet Forest — 29% versus 1% (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
Still, only 16% of more than 200 willows tagged in February 2016 had been killed by KSHB by autumn 2019. Among the living trees were three quarters of trees already infested in 2016, and half of trees that became infested after 2016 (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
Lack of Reinfestation (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
The absence of reinfestation is surprising, especially because the conditions thought favorable to KSHB are all present:
1. The regenerating trees belong to host species known to be preferred – black and arroyo willows.
2. The regenerating trees have reached the preferred size with trunk dbh exceeding 4.5 cm. In fall 2019 the trees in the recovering Wet Forests included many resprouting trees with mean diameters of 6.5 cm, and many new seedlings with mean diameters of 11.7 cm.
3. Recovering forests are located in the preferred nutrient-rich sites. Sewage levels remain high.
4. The trees in the recovering forests are in the condition preferred by KSHB, i.e., the trees are fast-growing and vigorous.
5. The KSHB is present – in low numbers in the Wet Forests, more numerous in Dry Forests which are < 1 km away.
It is not known whether KSHB will eventually re-infest.
The KSHB infestation reversed the presence of large trees. Originally 53% of the large trees were in the Wet Forests, 38% in the Dry Forests. The KSHB invasion damaged so many of the trees in the Wet Forests that now they represent only 24% of all the ‘Big Trees’ in the Valley; 58% of the ‘Big Trees’ are now in the Dry Forests. In many Dry Forests the remaining tall trees form a continuous canopy layer, whereas in the polluted Wet Forests they are usually only single ‘Big Trees’ (Boland and Uyeda 2020).
Other plant species
Dr. Boland expresses great concern about the spread of the invasive plant, Arundo donax, in response to canopy openings caused by the initial invasion and canopy collapse (willow trees are Arundo’s only competitors in the valley).
Surveys during fall 2019 found that most plant species growing in the Tijuana River Valley are native, dominated by the willows (mean cover of 60%). The most abundant non-native species is castor bean (10% cover). Arundo had a mean cover of only 6% in the belt transects, but it was more abundant outside the transects. Arundo is spreading as rhizomes cut loose by bulldozing, disking, and mowing on property managed by International Boundary and Water Commission (Boland and Uyeda 2020). Both willows and Arundo had increased their percent cover between 2018 and 2019 (Boland 2019).
Dr. Boland’s Recommendations (Boland and Uyeda 2020)
1) The different invasion trajectories in the three habitat types contradict some researchers’ expectation that all trajectories are similar from regardless of site characteristics or that a light infestation must be recent while a heavy infestation must be old.
2) Unique characteristics of the Tijuana River valley – especially the high sewage levels – mean that the severe infestation and damage seen there should not be expected to occur at other natural, unpolluted riparian sites.
3) Dr. Boland disputes recommendations that “heavily infested” trees be removed because they are doomed and support beetle reproduction. Although Dr. Boland studied primarily willows, he did evaluate 24 California sycamores (Platanus spp.) that had been planted in various parts of the valley.
He found that none had died and only two (8%) were infested. The two infested trees were lightly infested and growing near the sewage-enriched stream. Dr. Boland concluded that sycamores were also unlikely to be heavily infested and killed in habitats less favorable to shot hole borers (Boland 2019).
4) The ease with which native willows became densely established in wet forest sites after the first infestation wave leads Dr. Boland to advocate reliance on natural restoration projects … as long as Arundo invasion can be controlled.
5) Avoid over-fertilization or over-watering of trees in planted landscapes.
6) Focus detection searches for KSHB in nutrient-enriched areas. … e.g., near storm drain outfalls.
Research recommendations:
A) Determine why KSHB has not substantially reinvaded the recovering willow forests despite the presence of preferred species in “correct” condition and size. Dr. Boland suggests testing of three hypotheses:
Induced response of hosts. Have the infested willows changed their chemistry as a result of the borer attack, thus increasing their resistance ….
Overall forest structure. Have the less dense and more mixed forest stands reduced attractiveness to the beetle?
A disease or predator. Has a biocontrol agent been introduced accidentally? None has yet been identified …
B) Understand the possible mechanisms for the high initial infestations rates in the Wet Forests.
To evaluate the Enriched Tree Hypothesis measure the sugars and nutrients (both concentrations and loading rates) in trees subject to differing amounts of sewage or fertilizers. Then conduct controlled trials in the lab on the growth response of ISHB’s fungal symbionts to various sugar and nutrient concentrations and loading rates.
Evaluate whether willows growing in the nutrient-enriched sites produced fewer tannins that might inhibit beetle and fungal growth.
C) Can ISHB disperse by wind? Dr. Boland recommends searching for ISHB in the air high above infested trees; this could involve the use of nets or traps attached to aircraft, hot-air balloons, helium balloons or drones.
D) Determine whether surviving mature trees have superior characteristics re: morphology, vigor, and pest or disease resistance that make them less vulnerable to KSHB attack.
E) Incorporate site and ecology data and varying levels of host vulnerability into models predicting KSHB impacts. Include the ecological costs of removing the trees.
My questions
Are other scientists applying these findings in their research on KSHB or polyphagous shot hole borer outbreaks in other parts of California? I am particularly interested in the issues of possible resistance in some willows – innate or induced; and the potential role of excess nutrients in promoting fungal and beetle growth. Are they finding the ecological components of the Enriched Tree Hypothesis to be helpful in defining the impact of PSHB outbreaks in other parts of the state, and of older ages?
SOURCES
Boland, J.M. 2109. The Ecology and Management of the Kuroshio Shot Hole Borer in the Tijuana River Valley. Final Report for Naval Base Coronado under Cooperative Agreement N62473-18-2-0008
Boland, J.M. and D.L. Woodward. 2019. Impacts of the invasive shot hole borer (Euwallacea kuroshio) are linked to sewage pollution in southern Calif: the Enriched Tree Hypothesis. PeerJ 7:6812
Boland, J.M. and K.A Uyeda. 2020. The Ecology and Management of the Kuroshio Shot Hole Borer in the Tijuana River Valley 2019-20 (Year 5) Final Report. For Naval Base Coronado, Department of Navy and Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association. Under Cooperative Agreement N62473-18-2-0008
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
The National Park Service has a legal mandate to manage lands and waters under its jurisdiction so as to “preserve unimpaired” their natural and cultural resources (NPS Organic Act 54 U.S.C. § 100101, et seq.) Invasive species undermine efforts to achieve that mission. In 2000, the NPS adopted a program to coordinate management of invasive plants. It’s not as effective as needed – see the strategic plan.
However, only recently has NPS begun trying to prioritize and coordinate programs targetting the many animals and animal diseases which threaten Park resources. These organisms range from emerald ash borer and quagga mussels; to pythons, goats, and pigs; to diseases such as white nose syndrome of bats and avian malaria in Hawai`i.
In 2017, NPS released an internal study of the pervasive threat to Park resources posed by invasive animals and discussed steps to overcome barriers to more effective responses (Redford et al., 2017; full citation at end of this blog). The Chief of the Biological Resources Division initiated this report by asking a Science Panel to evaluate the extent of the invasive animal problem, assess management needs, review best practices, and assess potential models that could serve as a service-wide organizational framework. The report was to pay particular attention to innovative and creative approaches including, but not limited to, new genomic tools. I summarized the Panel’s findings and conclusions in a blog when its report appeared in 2017.
Significantly, the
Panel’s final report states that “a general record of failure to control
invasive species across the system” was caused principally by a lack of support
for invasive species programs from NPS leadership.
This
report has now appeared in the form of a peer-reviewed article in the journal Biological Invasions by Dayer et al. 2019 (full citation at end of
this blog). Although nine of the ten authors are the same on both reports there
are substantive differences in content. For example, the journal article
reiterates the principal findings and conclusions of the Panel’s final report,
but in less blunt language.
What’s Been Watered
Down
The
toning down is seen clearly in the statements some of the panel’s six key
findings.
Finding
#1
The panel’s report says: invasive animals pose a significant threat to
the cultural and natural values and the infrastructure of U.S. national parks.
To date, the NPS has not effectively addressed the threat they pose.
Dayer et al. says: the ubiquitous presence of invasive animals in parks
undermines the NPS mission.
Finding
#2
The panel’s report says: managing
invasive animals will require action starting at the highest levels, engaging
all levels of NPS management, and will require changes in NPS culture and
capacity.
Dayer et al. says: coordinated action is required to meet the challenge.
Finding
#4
The panel’s report states: effective
management of invasive animals will require stakeholder engagement, education,
and behavior change.
Dayer et al. says: public engagement, cooperation and support is [sic]
critical.
Wording
of the other three “key findings” was also changed, but these changes are less
substantive.
Drayer
et al. also avoid the word “failure”
in describing the current status of NPS” efforts to manage invasive animal
species. Instead, these authors conclude that the invasive species threat “is
of sufficient magnitude and urgency that it would be appropriate for the NPS to
formally declare invasive animals as a service-wide priority.”
Where the
Documents Agree – Sort of
Both
the Panel’s report and Dayer et al.
state that invasive animal threats are under-prioritized and under-funded. They
say that addressing this challenge must begin at the highest levels within the
NPS, engage all levels of management, and will require investments from the NPS
leadership. Even within individual parks,
they acknowledge that staffs struggle to communicate the importance of invasive
animal control efforts to their park leadership, especially given competition with
other concerns that appear to be more urgent. And they admit that parks also
lack staff capacity in both numbers and expertise.
Also,
both the Panel’s report and Dayer et al.
urge the NPS to acknowledge formally that invasive animals represent a crisis
on par with each of the three major crises that drove Service-wide change in
the past: over-abundance of ungulates due to predator control; Yellowstone fire
crisis (which led to new wildfire awareness in the country); and recognition of
the importance of climate change.
The
Panel suggested ways to update NPS’ culture and capacity: providing incentives
for staff to (1) address long-term threats (not just “urgent” ones) and (2) put
time and effort into coordinating with potential partners, including other park
units, agencies at all levels of government, non-governmental organizations,
private landowners, and economic entities. Dayer et al. mention these barriers but does not directly mention
changing incentives as one way to overcome them.
Both
the Panel’s report and Dayer et al.
suggest integrating invasive animal threats and management into long-range
planning goals for natural and cultural landscapes and day-to-day operations of
parks and relevant technical programs (e.g., Biological Resources Division,
Water Resources Division, and Inventory and Monitoring Division).
What is Missing
from the Journal Publication
The
Panel’s final report noted the need for increased funding. It said that such
funding would need to be both consistent and sufficiently flexible to allow
parks to respond to time-sensitive management issues. It proposes several
approaches. These include incorporating some invasive species control programs
(e.g., for weeds and wood borers)
into infrastructure maintenance budgets; adopting invasive species as
fundraising challenges for non-governmental partners (e.g., “Friends of Park” and the National Park Foundation); and
adopting invasive species as a priority threat. Dayer et al. do not discuss funding issues.
The final internal report envisioned the
NPS becoming a leader on the invasive species issue by 1) testing emerging best
management practices, and 2) educating visitors on the serious threat that
invasive species pose to parks’ biodiversity. As part of this process, the
authors suggest that the NPS also take the lead in countering invasive species
denialism. Dayer et al. do not mention the issue of invasive species deniers.
Common Ground:
Status of Invasive Animals in the Parks
The
Panel’s report and Dayer et al. describe
the current situation similarly:
More than half of the National parks that responded to the internal survey (245 of the 326 parks) reported problems associated with one or more invasive animal species.
The total number of species recorded was 331. This is considered to be an underestimate since staffs often lack the ability to thoroughly survey their parks – especially for invertebrates.
Invasive species threats to Parks’ resources have been recognized for nearly 100 years. The original report notes that 155 parks reported the presence of one or more exotic vertebrate species in 1977. At that time, exotic animals were the fourth most commonly reported source of threats. In 1991, parks identified 200 unfunded projects to address exotic species, costing almost $30 million.
Only a small percentage of non-native animal invasions are under active management. Dayer et al. stated that 23% have management plans at the park unit level, and only 11% are reported as being ‘‘under control”.
Individual parks have effective programs targetting specific bioinvaders (examples are described in Redford et al; a brief summary of these efforts is provided in my previous blog.
Common Ground on
Some Solutions
The
report and Dayer et al. promote the
same steps to improve invasive animal management across the Service. Both note
that the NPS is adopting formal decision support tactics to update and
strengthen natural resource management across the board. More specific steps include
establishing
a coordination mechanism that enables ongoing and timely information sharing.
mainstreaming
invasive species issue across the NPS branches or creating a cross-cutting IAS
initiative among the Biological Resources Division, Water Resources Division,
Inventory and Monitoring Division, Climate Change Response Program, and the
regional offices.
While
both documents call on the NPS to develop and test emerging technologies, the
Panel’s final report is more detailed,
providing, in Table 5, a list of several areas of special interest, including
remotely triggered traps, species-specific toxicants, toxicant delivery
systems, drones, environmental DNA, and sterile-male releases. Dayer et al. mention eDNA and metabarcoding
for ED/RR, biocontrol, and gene drives to control invasive pathogens. (Neither
document discusses possible concerns regarding use of CRISPR and other
gene-altering technologies, other than to say there would be public concerns that
would need to be addressed.)
Both
documents note the necessity of working with resource managers beyond park
boundaries to detect and manage species before they arrive in parks. They note
that developing and operationalizing such partnerships requires time and
resources. Furthermore, invasive species prevention, eradication, and
containment programs can be effective only with public support. They suggest
strengthening NPS’ highly regarded public outreach and interpretation program
to build such support, including through the use of citizen scientists.
The
Panel’s final report said that the NPS should recognize that the condition of
the ecosystem is the objective of efforts.
Its authors recognized that achieving this goal might require
reconsidering how ecosystem management is organized within NPS so interacting
stressors (e.g., fire) and management
levers (e.g., pest eradication/suppression, prescribed fire) would be addressed.
For this, the NPS would need to create a focused capacity to address the
pressing issue of invasive animals in such a way that fosters integrated
resource management within parks, focusing on fundamental values of ecosystem
states, and not eradication targets. Dayer et
al. called for the same changes without specifically labelling “condition
of the ecosystem” as the goal.
Publication of
Dayer et al. prompted me to find out
what progress the NPS has made in responding to the “key findings” in the
Panel’s final report (neither publication calls them “recommendations”).
The
National Park Service has acted on the recommendation to appoint an “invasive
animal coordinator” within the Biological Resources Division. That person is Jennifer Sieracki. However, I wonder whether a person located in BRD is of sufficient stature to
influence agency policy across all divisions. It is not clear whether there is active
coordination with the national-level invasive plant coordinator.
Dr.
Sieriaki responded to my query by noting the following new efforts 1) to
improve outreach to partners and
the public, and 2) to expand formal and informal partnerships with local,
state, federal and tribal entities and local communities near parks.
NPS should soon finalize
two formal partnerships with other agencies and organizations for outreach and
management of invasive animal species.
NPS is working with
researchers at the US Geological Survey to expand an existing modeling tool for
identifying potential suitable habitat for invasive plant species to include
invasive insects. This will help staff focus on the most likely locations for
introductions and thus assist with early detection and control.
NPS has created a
Community of Practice so NPS employees can seek each other’s advice on addressing
invasive animal issues. A workshop of regional invasive species coordinators is
planned for the coming months to guide direction of the service-wide program
and identify other top priorities. (Seriacki pers. comm.)
I also wonder whether the NPS can achieve the top-level coordination and outreach to the public called for by both reports while complying with the terms of Public Law 116-9 – the John N. Dingle Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, which was enacted a year ago. Title VII, Section 10(i) of this law limits spending to carry out invasive species program management and oversight to 10% of appropriated funds. Less than 15% may be spent on investigations (research), development activities, and outreach and public awareness efforts (Section 10(h)). The law does allow spending for investigations regarding methods for early detection and rapid response, prevention, control, or management; as well as inspections and interception or confiscation of invasive species to prevent in-park introductions.
For more information, see my previous criticism of NPS failure to address invasive species issues here.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
See also my earlier discussion of the new legislation here.
SOURCES
Dayer,
A.A., K.H. Redford, K.J. Campbell, C.R. Dickman, R.S. Epanchin-Niell, E.D.
Grosholz, D.E. Hallac, E.F. Leslie, L.A. Richardson, M.W. Schwartz. 2019. The
unaddressed threat of invasive animals in U.S. National Parks. Biol Invasions
Redford,
K.H., K. Campbell, A. Dayer, C. Dickman, R. Epanchin-Niell, T. Grosholz, D.
Hallac, L. Richardson, M. Schwartz. 2017. Invasive animals in U. S. National Parks:
By a science panel. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/BRD/NRR—2017/1564. NPS,
Fort Collins, Colorado. Commissioned by the NPS Chief of Biological Resources
Division. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/594922
Jennifer Sieracki, Invasive Animal Coordinator,
Biological Resources Division, National Park Service
APHIS has published a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as one of the final steps in modifying its regulations governing conditions for issuing permits for importation, interstate movement, and intrastate movement of plant pests – including biocontrol agents. Access it here.
The original proposal to modify the regulatory system was published in March 2017.
I find the
rationale for modifying the regulations to be compelling: the current
regulations:
date
from 2001;
do
not adequately reflect changes in APHIS’ mandate enacted by the Plant
Protection Act; and
do
not focus agency efforts on the permit applications that pose the highest risk.
The FEIS presents
two alteratives: the “preferred alternative” and the “comprehensive risk
mitigation program.” APHIS settles for the less protective actions that expose
natural resources, especially, to risk from non-indigenous species
1)
The FEIS reiterates — without discussion or rationale — APHIS’ acceptance of
the vague word “acceptable” to describe the level of protection the agency
strives to achieve (see pp. 2, 22, 45, 106 of the FEIS). The FEIS does not attempt to quantify the
differences in the levels of protection provided by the two alternatives.
2) APHIS advocates a policy alternative that does not require post-release monitoring of biocontrol agents. The FEIS justifies adoption of this alternative despite putting a welcome emphasis on the importance of just such efforts to determine the actual impacts of biocontrol organisms on both target and non-target species (p. 67). On page 70, the FEIS notes that the paucity of documented examples of adverse effects on non-target species “may be the result of insufficient monitoring after release …” It goes on to note that “very few introductions included a careful evaluation of nontarget impacts …” The FEIS notes the paucity of funding for this research and – sometimes – the lack of authority to require such monitoring.
In
the case of APHIS, I see no legal impediment to the agency requiring biocontrol
permit applicants to carry out post-release monitoring.
Indeed,
if APHIS chose the “comprehensive risk mitigation program”, the agency would require
enhanced post-release monitoring. The goal would be to document “the extent of
establishment, spread, and limit to expected hosts” of the introduced
biocontrol organism (p. 43). Nevertheless, the FEIS accepts the “preferred
alternative”, which does not require such monitoring. The reason given for this
choice is that the comprehensive program would require too many resources. I note
below that we can overcome this barrier by lobbying for increased
appropriations and higher staffing levels.
3) APHIS dismisses risks associated with high levels of uncertainty. In justifying the less rigorous “preferred alternative”, the FEIS refers 20 times to the persistence of uncertainties in analyses of the potential impact of importation, interstate transport, or release of non-indigenous organisms. FEIS also says that given these inevitable uncertainties, APHIS should regulate most organisms “conservatively” – defined in the FEIS as “based on what is known” ( p. 74). Of course, APHIS long ago rejected the precautionary approach – which is a truly conservative approach.
4) The FEIS accepts
APHIS’ current practice of evaluating risks only in the geographic area of
approved introduction – despite conceding repeatedly that introduced organisms
often spread beyond the original introduction site. It is true that the
geographic area evaluated includes all continental states (whether Alaska is
included is unclear). However, there is no discussion of the likelihood that
organisms introduced to the continental states will be transported to U.S.
islands in the Caribbean or Pacific – through either authorized or unauthorized
mechanisms.
The FEIS Asserts
Principles that APHIS Sometimes Fails to Live Up To
As
I note above, the FEIS makes numerous references to the reality that an
organism released into the environment might establish and spread to its
maximum geographic range based upon host distribution, climate and other
range-limiting factors. According to the FEIS, APHIS’ decisions about issuing a
permit allowing release of non-native organisms must reflect that likelihood.
For example:
“In principle, therefore, release
of the biological control organism, at even one site, should be considered
equivalent to release over the entire area in which potential hosts occur, and
in which the climate is suitable for reproduction and survival.” (P. 67)
However, APHIS’ recent decision to allow introduction of a thrips (Pseudophilothrips ichini) in Florida to control Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) does not reflect this principle.
The environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed this proposed release reported that the thrips would both encounter a suitable climate in Hawai`i (pp. 11 and 19) and feed on two native Hawaiian species – Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa. The EA described the feeding damage on these non-target species as negligible and noted that P. ichini sustained only one generation on these non-target species (p. 27). Furthermore, the EA noted (p. 29) that the action being reviewed did not include release of P. ichini in Hawai`i. However, the EA did not discuss the frequency with which insects established on the Continent are transported – without authorization – to the Islands. In my view, if introduced to Hawai`i – by authorized or non-authorized transport – the thrips is likely to thrive because several good hosts are widespread. By feeding on these good hosts, the thrips could enjoy a “food subsidy” that would allow it to put constant pressure on the vulnerable Hawaiian species. [You can obtain a copy of my comments on the draft EA by contacting me via the “contact us” button, or by visiting the Federal Register site at the link given above.]
Rhus sandwichensis; photo by Forest & Kim Starr
The FEIS fails to
address an important risk
Amynthes agrestis one of the invasive earthworms established in the U.S. photo by National Park Service
The FEIS doesn’t recognize – or even mention – the impact of non-native earthworms on native ecosystems and native plants! The only discussion of risks associated with earthworms is on p. 26, where the sole concern is the risk that soil-dwelling worms could vector crop and livestock diseases present in the soil in the country of origin.
Yet the FEIS notes that APHIS’ mandate – and the purpose of the permit system – is to protect not only American agriculture but also our natural resources. I have blogged about the severe impact earthworms have on native flora here. Why did the authors of the EIS ignore the large and growing scientific literature on this issue?
Good Points in
the FEIS
1) The FEIS notes the concern that biocontrol agents will attack non-target species, with results that “may not be easily reversed.” (pp. 66, 74) The FEIS cites several examples, including Cactoblastis cactorum on North American prickly pear (Opuntia) cacti – see my blogs here and the potential impact of Rhinocyllus conicus on native thistles. The FEIS notes that these particular biocontrol agents would not be approved for release under current policies. However, the FEIS also reports that a biocontrol agent released on thistles in Virginia in 1997 – that is, under criteria currently in use – had spread across the continent to California and Nevada within two years! While the FEIS reports the spread as by natural means, I wonder if some enterprising farmers might have taken infected plants/inoculum without authority.
2)
The FEIS notes several indirect concerns arising from the environmental release
of biocontrol organisms, including contamination, adaptation, interference,
competition, and hybridization. When biocontrol organisms establish but don’t
reduce populations of the target weed, they can provide a “food subsidy” to
some organisms, thus disrupting the ecological balance. The example given is
two gall flies (Urophora affinis and U. quadrifasciata), which failed to
control knapweed and led to population explosions of deer mice – with
repercussions for competition among small mammals, possibly reduced recruitment
of native plant populations, and increased incidence of a serious disease of
humans, Sin Nombre hantavirus. (Recall
my similar concern re: a thrips if it reaches Hawai`i, above.)
3)
The FEIS cites scientific publications demonstrating the low rate of success of
biological control in controlling invasive plants or arthropods. One such discussion – on p. 53 – notes that
an estimated 65% of introduced arthropods successfully establish for the
purposes of weed control, 25 – 34% of those introduced to control arthropods. These
figures are repeated on p. 59. However, on pp. 67-68, even lower success rates
are presented, based on worldwide estimates. This is not a good record, given
the risks involved. Furthermore, given my focus on non-native insects, I am
concerned by the statement in the FEIS that the scientific study of potential
risks of biocontrol targetting arthropods control is not thorough. (pp. 68-69)
The
Center for Invasive Species Prevention hopes that other stakeholders will work
with us to persuade APHIS to work toward adoption of the more protective
approach described in the “comprehensive
risk mitigation program”. A key factor will be lobbying the
Administration and Congress to increase appropriations and personnel ceilings
so that APHIS has the resources necessary to carry out the more protective
program.
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.
frogs in California killed by chytrid fungus photo by Rick Kyper, US Fish and Wildlife Service
I expect you have heard about the report issued on May 6 by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The executive summary is available here
Based on thousands of scientific
studies, the report concludes that the biosphere, upon which humanity as a whole
depends, is being altered to an unparalleled degree across all spatial scales. The
trends of decline are accelerating. As many as 1 million species (75% of which are
insects) are threatened with extinction, many within decades.
Humans dominate Earth: natural
ecosystems have declined by 47% on average. Especially hard-hit are inland
waters and freshwater ecosystems: only 13% of the wetland present in 1700
remained by 2000. Losses have continued rapidly since then.
The report lists the most important
direct drivers of biodiversity decline – in descending order – as habitat loss
due to changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate
change; pollution; and invasive species. The relative importance of each driver
varies across regions.
If you have been paying attention, these
conclusions are not “news”.
However, the report serves two valuable
purposes. First, it provides a global overview, a compilation of all the data
and trends. Second, the report ties the direct drivers to underlying causes
which are in turn underpinned by societal values and behaviors. Specifically
mentioned are production and consumption patterns, human population dynamics
and trends, trade, technological innovations, and governance (decision making
at all levels, from local to global).
The report goes to great lengths to
demonstrate that biological diversity and associated ecosystem services are
vital for human existence and good quality of life – especially for supporting
humanity’s ability to choose alternative approaches in the face of an uncertain
future. The report concludes that while more food, energy and materials than
ever before are now being supplied to people, future supplies are undermined by
the impact of this production and consumption on Nature’s ability to provide.
The report also emphasizes that both the
benefits and burdens associated with the use of biodiversity and ecosystem
services are distributed and experienced inequitably among social groups,
countries and regions. Furthermore, benefits provided to some people often come
at the expense of other people, particularly the most vulnerable. However, there are also synergies – e.g., sustainable agricultural practices
enhance soil quality, thereby improving productivity and other ecosystem
functions and services such as carbon sequestration and water quality
regulation.
The report contains vast amounts of data
on the recent explosion of human numbers and – especially – consumption – of
agricultural production, fish harvests, forest products, bioenergy production …
and on the associated declines in “regulating” and “non-material contributions”
ecosystem services. In consequence, the report concludes, these recent gains in
material contributions are often not sustainable.
While invasive species rank fifth as a
causal agent of biodiversity decline globally, alien species have increased by
40% since 1980, associated with increased trade and human population dynamics
and trends. The authors report that nearly 20% of Earth’s surface is at risk of
bioinvasion. The rate of invasive species introduction seems higher than ever
and shows no signs of slowing.
The report notes that the extinction
threat is especially severe in areas of high endemism. Invasive species play a
more important role as an extinction agent in many such areas, especially
islands. However, some bioinvaders also have devastating effects on mainlands;
the report cites the threat of the pathogen Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis to nearly 400 amphibian species worldwide.
The report also mentions that the combination
of species extinctions and transport of species to new ecosystems is resulting
in biological communities – both managed and unmanaged — becoming more similar
to each other — biotic homogenization.
The report notes that human-induced
changes are creating conditions for fast biological evolution of species in all
taxonomic groups. The authors recommend adopting conservation strategies
designed to influence evolutionary trajectories so as to protect vulnerable species
and reduce the impact of unwanted species (e.g.,
weeds, pests or pathogens).
The report says conservation efforts
have yielded positive outcomes – but they have not been sufficient to stem the
direct and indirect drivers of environmental deterioration. Since 1970, nations
have adopted six treaties aimed at protection of nature and the environmental,
but few of the strategic objectives and goals adopted by the treaties’ parties
are being realized. One objective that is on track to partial achievement is
the Aichi Biological Diversity Target that calls for identification and
prioritization of invasive species.
That might well be true – but I would not consider global efforts to manage invasive species to be a success story in any way. I have blogged often about studies showing that introductions continue unabated … and management of established bioinvaders only rarely results in measurable improvements. [For example, see here and here.]
The report gives considerable attention
to problems caused by some people’s simultaneous lack of access to material
goods and bearing heavier burden from pollution and other negative results of
biodiversity collapse. Extraction of living biomass (e.g. crops, fisheries) to meet the global demand is highest in
developing countries whereas material consumption per capita is highest in developed countries. The report says that
conservation of biodiversity must be closely linked to sustainable approaches
to more equal economic development. The authors say both conservation and economic
goals can be achieved – but this will require transformative changes across
economic, social, political and technological factors.
One key transformation is changing
people’s conception of a good life to downplay consumption and waste. Other
attitudinal changes include emphasizing social norms promoting sustainability
and personal responsibility for the environmental impacts of one’s consumption.
Economic measures and goals need to address inequalities and integrate impacts
currently considered to be “economic externalities”. The report also calls for inclusive
forms of decision-making and promoting education about the importance of
biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Economic instruments that promote
damaging, unsustainable exploitation of biological resources (or their damage
by pollution) include subsidies, financial transfers, subsidized credit, tax
abatements, and commodity and industrial goods prices that hide environmental
and social costs. These need to be changed.
Finally, limiting global warming to well
below 2oC would have multiple co-benefits for protecting
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Care must be exercised to ensure that large-scale
land-based climate mitigation measures, e.g.,
allocating conservation lands to bioenergy crops, planting of monocultures,
hydroelectric dams) do not themselves cause serious damage to biodiversity or
other ecosystem services.
The threats to biodiversity and
ecosystem services are most urgent in South America, Africa and parts of Asia. North
America and Europe are expected to have low conversion to crops and continued
reforestation.
Table SPM.1 lays out a long set of approaches
to achieve sustainability and possible actions and pathways for achieving them.
The list is not exhaustive, but rather illustrative, using examples from the
report.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We
welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new
approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree
with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
Missouri Makes Progress in Eradicating Feral Hogs – Despite Sabotage
Feral hogs have expanded their range in the U.S. from 17 to 38 states over the past 30 years. Their populations grow rapidly because feral hogs can breed any time of the year and produce two litters of one to seven piglets every 12 to 15 months. [See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019]
hog “sounder” in a trap in Missouri Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri’s program is increasingly successful: the numbers of hogs removed has risen from 5,358 in 2016, to 6,561 in 2017, to 9.365 in 2018.[See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019] I have previously praised Missouri’s scientifically-based program to eradicate feral hogs – here and here (Missouri has extensive material on feral hogs posted here)
According to the Missouri Department
of Conservation’s feral hog elimination team leader, Mark McLain, said “This
strategic approach is important because if we leave even a few feral hogs
behind in an area, they can reproduce quickly and put us back where we
started.”
According to McLain, hunting is not
an effective method for eliminating feral hog populations. “For over 20 years,
unregulated hunting of feral hogs was allowed in Missouri, during which time
our feral hog population expanded from a few counties to over 30 counties,” he
said.
In 2017, MDC, the Corps of
Engineers, and the LAD Foundation established regulations against feral hog
hunting on lands owned and managed by these three organizations. Other agencies
have passed regulations similar to MDC’s to eliminate hog hunting on land they
own.
However, illegal releases of feral hogs continue. The February 2019 press release (referenced below) describes several examples of the problems such releases cause. McLain said that those who release feral hogs face hefty fines. Hunting, especially with dogs, pushes the hogs onto neighboring property, which causes problems for neighbors. The hogs travel back and forth between the properties, escaping and causing more damage. Trapping with no hunting interference is the best method to eliminate them.
MDC advises landowners to seek help
from the Department and USDA APHIS. These agencies providetechnical advice and
training; conduct on-site visits; and loan equipment.
Are feral hog programs in other
states using the same methods? Are they as successful?
SOURCES
Missouri Department of Conservation.
More
than 9,300 Feral Hogs Eliminated from Missouri in 2018. Press Release. January
25, 2019.
Missouri Department of Conservation.
Interference with feral hog trapping sites costs trappers time, taxpayers
money. Press Release. February 21, 2019.
Florida Looks to Biocontrol to Makes Progress Against Some of its Worst Invasive Plants
Brazilian peppertree tangle John Randall, The Nature Conservancy www.bugwood.org
Until
recently, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia)
was considered the worst invasive tree or shrub in Florida. It threatened to
convert the everglades “sea of grass” into a thicket of exotic trees which
could not support native wildlife. Thanks to the biocontrol agent Oxyops vitiosa, melaleuca is considered to be under maintenance control on
public conservation land in the state. Still, melaleuca control demands about
$2 million per year because of the huge area previously (and still) affected by
the tree.
Now
Florida is about to release biocontrol agents to attack Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). In Florida,
Brazilian peppertree is found from Monroe County in the south to St. Johns,
Levy, and Nassau counties in the north plus Franklin County in the Panhandle.
An estimated 283,000 hectares of south and central Florida are invaded. The
South Florida Water Management District alone is spending approximately $1.7
million per year (as of 2011) to control it.
Brazilian peppertree invades disturbed sites such as canal banks and fallow farmlands. Of greater concern to me are the many natural communities invaded – Brazilian peppertree infests more natural areas in Florida than any other invasive plant species. Invaded ecosystems include pinelands, hardwood hammocks, and critically important mangrove forests. The coastal mangroves are valued because of their high productivity, wildlife habitat, and shoreline protection and stabilization.
Brazilian peppertree infestation in the Everglades Tony Pernas, USDI National Park Service www.bugwood.org
Dense
stands of Brazilian peppertree shade out and may kill food plants used by
white-tailed deer – key prey for the endangered Florida panther. Other mammals
and birds might be poisoned by toxic resins in the bark, leaves and fruits —
although some birds feed extensively on the fruits – and thereby contribute to
spread of the invasive plant.
Existing
options for management of Brazilian peppertree, including chemical, mechanical,
and physical control measures, have been used with some success against this
weed. However, applying these strategies repeatedly to prevent regrowth is costly
and labor intensive. Furthermore, such practices can be detrimental to native
vegetation. For example, mangroves are particularly sensitive to both
herbicides and the soil disturbances associated with mechanical control
After
more than 20 years of searching, Florida hopes it has identified useful
biocontrol agents. USDA APHIS is seeking public comment on the proposed release
of two insect species, Calophya
latiforceps (a leaf galling psyllid) and Pseudophilothrips ichini (a thrips) as
biological control agents targetting Brazilian pepper.
Much
as I sympathize – Brazilian peppertree is a highly damaging invasive plant and
there are no other effective control measures – I have questions. First, the
psyllid is sedentary; dispersal would be by wind. Would this limit its
efficacy?
More troubling is host specificity. The Environmental Assessment (available here) reveals that the thrips can reproduce in low numbers on several non-target plant species, including the Hawaiian sumac Rhus sandwicensis. True, the proposal is to release the biocontrol agents on the continent, not on Hawai`i. But insects have often been transported inadvertently to Hawai`i – and the islands’ plant species have often proved highly vulnerable to attack by non-native species (I confess that the most recent examples are pathogens, e.g., ‘ōhi‘a rust and rapid ‘ōhi‘a death.)
APHIS is accepting comments on the Environmental Assessment until March 29. Please consider providing your views. Again, the document is available here.
RESULTS
In June 2019, APHIS announced that it would issue permits for release of the two biocontrol agents on the continent – starting in Florida – without any restrictions. APHIS dismissed my concerns about the potential threat to native Hawaiian plants — Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa. See the agency’s responses in Appendix 7.
As
regards the potential threat to the two Hawaiian species from the thrips Pseudophilothrips ichini APHIS chose to ignore
my two greatest concerns:
1)
that insects are introduced accidentally to Hawai`i frequently – so the threat
from this thrips must be considered.
2)
if introduced to Hawai`i, P. ichini would have ample resources to
maintain high population levels and so could put constant pressure on Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa even ‘though neither plant
itself supports more than one generation of the thrips.
In
response to my query as to who in Texas would be consulted re: possible release
of the biocontrol agents in that state, APHIS replied the chief state plant
regulatory official (head of plant pest issues in the state Department of
Agriculture) and the APHIS representative in the state. No conservation
authorities are designated. Nor would APHIS prepare a new environmental
assessment – although the current one cites data almost exclusively for Florida.
One good response: in response to my concerns that the psyllid Calophya latiforceps is too sedentary to spread through the hundreds of thousands of acres invaded by Brazilian pepper, APHIS clarifies that a mass rearing and release program is under development.
Posted by Faith Campbell
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.
Much-Heralded Major Conservation Legislation — S. 47 – Mandates “On-the-Ground” Actions
Senate
bill S. 47 enjoyed strong support from the conservation community because it
expanded protection for several National parks and wilderness areas, mandated
easier access to public land for hunters and anglers, and provided permanent status
for the most important program that funds purchase of lands and waters for
recreation and other purposes – the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It passed
the Senate on February 12, 2019 by a vote of 92 for, 8 against. The bill passed
the House of Representatives on February 26, 2019 by a vote of 363 for, 62
against. Everyone expects President Trump to sign it into law.
The new language had previously been a stand-alone bill introduced in two previous sessions of Congress. The first version, S. 2240, was introduced in 2016; I blogged about a hearing on that legislation in May 2016, describing my reservations. The bill was not enacted in that Congress. It was reintroduced in 2017, when it was called the “WILD Act” (S. 826).
Title VII of the new legislation now expected to become law governs programs implemented by the Departments of Interior, Agriculture (specifically the Forest Service) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It also applies to the head of “any federal agency” having duties related to planning or treatment of invasive species “for the purpose of protecting water and wildlife on land and in water.”
Title
VII takes the form of an amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
As in the original 2016 bill (S. 2240), the new law – at Title VII, §10(c)(2)(C) – agencies are required to adopt strategic plans for their invasive species programs. The priorities in the federal agencies’ invasive species plans will be set by state governors – not the federal agency charged with managing that land unit and its resources.
Under§10(a)(4)(C),
tribal, regional, State, or local authorities are authorized to weigh in on the
determination of which terrestrial or aquatic species fit the definitions of
‘invasive’ and ‘alien’ species.
Under
§10(c)(3).the Secretaries are required, in developing their strategic plans,
to take into
consideration the ecological as well as the economic costs of acting or not
acting, I welcome this provision.
Like the original 2016 bill (S. 2240), the new law – at Title VII, §10(g) – (i) – requires land-managing agencies to allocate their invasive species funds according to the following formula: 75% for on-the-ground activity; 15% for combined research and outreach; 10% or less for administrative costs.
Fortunately, “on-the-ground” activities have been expanded to include
detection and monitoring.
“the use of appropriate methods to remove invasive species from a vehicle or vessel capable of conveyance.”
“investigations regarding methods for early detection and rapid response, prevention, control, or management of the invasive species.”
It is unclear whether “on-the-ground” activities include the salaries of staff who manage such programs from desks (as distinct from people who work in the field).
Unfortunately, the definition of “prevention” is unnecessarily limited by §10(a)(6) (B). This clause authorizes agencies ‘‘to impede the spread of the invasive species … by inspecting, intercepting, or confiscating invasive species threats prior to the establishment of the invasive species onto land or water of an eligible State.” This clause reflects too narrow an understanding of prevention actions. They are not limited to (inefficient) inspection and seizure programs at “borders”. It is much more efficient to apply measures intended to prevent the presence of a pest in the transported good in the place of production. One example is APHIS’ requirements governing nursery stock intended to be shipped interstate so as to prevent the spread of the sudden oak death pathogen.
Following the revised 2017 version of the bill (text here; see my blog here) the law requires the agencies to make “substantive annual net reduction of invasive species populations or infested acreage …” (The original bill mandated an annual reduction of 5%.) It is unclear whether this mandate applies to all invasive species on the affected acreage, or only those designated by a flawed process (see below) and included in the agency’s strategic plan [Title VII, §10(c)(1)].
Under
Subsection (d),
the plan is to prioritize the use of methods that are effective (as determined
by the Secretary, based on sound scientific data); that minimize environmental
impacts; and control and manage invasive species in the least costly manner. I
worry that this requirement, combined with the mandate to achieve “annual net
reductions” in invasive species numbers, will promote the use of chemical
pesticides.
Under
Section (f), agencies are to apply all available tools and flexibilities to
expedite invasive species control projects and activities. Those projects are to be located in an
area that is at high risk for invasive species introduction, establishment, or
spread; and determined by the Secretary to require immediate action to address
that risk. These actions are to be carried out in accordance with applicable
agency procedures, including any applicable land or resource management plan.
This language apparently replaces earlier efforts to exclude invasive species
control projects from analysis under NEPA. How this mandate interacts with
state governors’ setting priorities under §10(c)(2)(C) is unclear.
Remember
that under the funding allocations specified in Title VII, §10(g) – (i), “… not
more than 10% may be used for administrative costs incurred to carry out those
programs, including costs relating to
oversight and management of the programs, recordkeeping, and implementation of
the strategic plan …”. At the same time, §§10(e), (j), and (l) require
economic analyses and reports detailing compliance with requirements and
results of projects. In other words, the new law restricts expenditure of funds
for “administrative costs” but imposes significant additional administrative
duties.
Fortunately,
Title VII §10(k)(1) states that “Nothing in this section precludes the
Secretary concerned from pursuing or supporting, pursuant to any other
provision of law, any activity regarding [invasive species] control, prevention,
or management …, including investigations to improve the control, prevention,
or management of the invasive species.
In all iterations, the
bills called for the projects to be carried out through collaboration with wide
range of partners, including private individuals and entities – apparently
including non-governmental organizations such as state or local invasive plant
coalitions.
Earlier
in Congressional consideration of the new law’s provisions, the National
Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS) responded by adopting its own description
of an effective, comprehensive invasive species program. Under the title “Tackling the Challenge of
Invasive Species,” the coalition makes the following major points:
Focus
prevention efforts on pathways of introduction. Until they are closed, managing
established infestations will be a never-ending burden.
Broader
and more aggressive efforts to control existing invaders is a solid investment,
but should not be at the expense of other aspects of a comprehensive national
response.
Close
loopholes in the “Injurious Wildlife” sections of the Lacey Act to provide
agencies with more agile processes for regulating the importation and transport
of harmful invasive species.
Enhance
funding for invasive species control and management projects; prioritize
efforts to reduce invasive species’ spread at landscape scales.
Ensure
that federal actions do not inadvertently promote the introduction or spread of
harmful invasive species; use caution when promoting nonnative species for
biofuels, bioenergy, or other
purposes.
Adopt
metrics to gauge the effectiveness of efforts to prevent the introduction and
spread of new invasives and to achieve long-term control or removal of existing
invaders.
Support
robust research and outreach programs, which are essential to improving the
efficacy of federal, state, and local invasive species prevention and control
efforts.
Given
the new legislation’s focus on land-managing agencies, I point to the importance
the coalition gave to research on the invasion processes utilized by various
species and education of land and water users so as to gain their cooperation. These
recommendations are directly counter to the new law’s stringent limitations on
research and “outreach”.
I
think particularly pertinent are the recommendations on metrics to measure
programs’ efficacy. Proper metrics should metrics address outcomes and program effectiveness re:
efforts
to prevent species introduction and spread
activities
that target pathways or vectors
the
effectiveness of treatments in eradicating or reducing the target invasives.
Potential
additional metrics include, but are not limited to:
Rate
of new invasions; possibly categorized by type of invader or geography
Acres
infested and changes in infestations over time
Acres
protected, based on projections of future spread avoided by eradication
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.
Last month, in my blog about the US Geological Survey’s report on invasive species I announced release of a report by South Africa on its invasive species management programs – available here. Because this report is unusual in both its rigor and its honesty, I’m returning to it here. I think it is a model for our country and others.
The report provides the basics. That is, it analyzes pathways of introduction and spread; number, distribution and impact of individual species; species richness and abundance of alien species in defined areas; and the effectiveness of interventions. Of the 775 invasive species identified to date, 556, or about 72%, are listed under some national regulatory program. Terrestrial and freshwater plants number 574 species; terrestrial invertebrates number 107 species. A different set of 107 species, or about 14%, are considered by experts to be having major or severe impacts on biodiversity and/or human wellbeing. The highest numbers of alien species are in the savanna, grassland, Indian Ocean coastal belt, and fynbos biomes. South Africans are particularly focused on the reductions in surface water resulting from plant invasions. Much of the control effort is under the egis of the decades-old “Working for Water” program.
Also, the report has features that are all-too-rare in work of its kind. First is the authors’ focus on rigor – of data sources and interpretation of those data using standardized criteria. Second – and even more important – is their call for analyzing the efficacy of the components of invasive species program. They insist on the need to measure outcomes (that is, results), not just inputs (resources committed) and outputs (“acres treated”, etc.). Inputs are far easier to measure and are, unfortunately, the mainstay of how most U.S. efforts are tracked – if they are tracked at all.
As they note, measure of inputs and outputs are not useful because they provide no guidance on the purpose of the action or treatment or of its effectiveness in achieving that purpose.
(For earlier CISP advocacy of measuring outcomes, visit the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species and read the bullet points under “Recommendations for a Comprehensive National Response”.)
The report has been praised by international conservationists, including Piero Genovesi – chair of the IUCN’s Invasive Species Specialist Group. British ecologist Helen Roy says that, to her knowledge, it is “the first comprehensive synthesis of the state of invasive species by any country.”
How well are programs working?
The authors’ focus on rigor includes being scrupulously honest in their assessments of current program components. They note deficiencies and disappointments, even when the conclusions might be politically inconvenient. To be fair, all countries struggle to achieve success in managing bioinvasions. And South Africa is, in many ways, a developing country with a myriad of economic and social challenges.
So it is probably not surprising that, for most factors analyzed, the authors say data are insufficient to determine the program’s impact. Where data are adequate, they often show that programs fall short. For example, they conclude that control measures have been effective in reducing populations of established invasive species, usually plants, in some localized areas but not in others. While the situation would arguably have been worse had there been no control, current control efforts have not been effective in preventing the ongoing spread of IAS when viewed at a national scale. Only one of South Africa’s 72 international ports of entry has consistent inspection of incoming air passengers and cargo – and even those inspections are not carried out outside of regular working hours (e.g., nights and weekends).
The authors are even critical of the “Working for Water” program – which is the basis for most control efforts in South Africa and enjoys wide political support. WfW has two goals: providing employment and development opportunities to disadvantaged individuals in rural areas, and managing invasive alien plants. Despite substantial funding, the WfW program has supported control teams that have reached only 2% – 5% of the estimated extent of the most important invasive plants. Furthermore, programs structured to provide employment have not ensured use of the most efficient control strategies.
What’s needed in South Africa — and around the world
The authors conclude that South Africa needs new processes to monitor and report on bioinvasions in order to achieve evidence-based policy and management decisions. They call for (1) more research to determine and assess invasive species impacts; (2) better monitoring of the effectiveness of current control measures; and (3) the development of methods to look at the impact of bioinvasions and their management on society as a whole.
The authors say it is important for South Africa to improve its management of invasive species because their impacts are already large and are likely to increase significantly. They note that improving management efficiency will require difficult choices and trade-offs. They recommend a focus on priority pathways, species, and areas. They also stress return on investment.
I don’t know how this report has been received in South Africa. I hope government officials, media observers, landowners, political parties, and other stakeholders appreciate the honesty and expertise involved. I hope they take the analyses and recommendations seriously and act on them.
(Preparation of the report was was overseen by a team of editors and contributing authors employed by the South African National Biological Diversity Institute (SANBI) and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology at (C.I.B). Drafts were widely circulated to contributing authors and other stakeholders for comments. An independent review editor will be appointed to assess the review process and recommend any ways to strengthen the process for future reports.)
Meanwhile, how do we Americans apply the same rigor to analyzing our own efforts?
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
USDA APHIS released its Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2019-2023 just after Thanksgiving. The report is 21 pages long. There is no evidence that any stakeholders were asked for input or review.
The Plan has a disappointing – but not surprising – emphasis on deregulation and “customer service”. A second – and more surprising weakness is the lack of attention to plant pests – even those of agriculture, much less natural resources. The emphasis is clearly on animal pests and diseases – including zoonotics.
APHIS’ mission is “To safeguard the health, welfare and value of American agricultural and natural resources.” To accomplish this mission, APHIS has set three goals:
Deliver efficient, effective, and responsive programs.
Safeguard American agriculture.
Facilitate safe U.S. agricultural exports.
Most references to protecting natural resources relate to finding more environmentally sensitive approaches for the program under which APHIS reduces human-wildlife conflicts (e.g., birds being struck by airplanes).
In the Plan, APHIS Administer Kevin Shea writes in his opening message that achieving APHIS’ difficult mission of protecting the health and value of America’s agriculture and natural resources cannot be accomplished by APHIS alone. Instead, the agency must work collaboratively with other government agencies and industry, and consult regularly with partners and stakeholders regarding programs’ effectiveness. Administer Shea also highlights the importance of “delivering our programs and services efficiently, effectively, with integrity, …” The agency promises to modernize information technology, data management, methods of communication with collaborators, exporters and importers, etc., in order to give good return on expenditure of taxpayer resources. APHIS also pledges to make decisions based on science. There are seven references to basing decisions on scientific data.
Fair enough. Such emphases were to be expected from Trump Administration and prefigured by USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue during his nomination hearing, e.g., facilitating exports, supporting better information technology.
However, the Plan refers to “customer service” or “customer experience” 34 times. An additional seven references are made to reducing regulatory burdens. The Plan also speaks of the need to “protect the health, welfare, and value of American agriculture and natural resources. … at a reasonable cost. … Easing regulatory burdens makes it easier to create jobs and promote economic growth.” (Emphasis added.)
Perhaps the recent proposal to deregulate the emerald ash borer is driven in part by the emphasis on minimizing costs to regulated industries and seeking alternative approaches? (Although the deregulation has been under discussion for several years, predating the Trump Administration.)
from APHIS PPQ website
The imbalance in attention to animal versus plant pests and disease is striking. Each of the 14 goals is supported by a number of specific tactics. There are a total of 100 “tactics” under the two goals most directly relevant to preventing or managing pest introductions. These goals are: “Protecting America’s agriculture” and “Promoting U.S. agricultural exports.” Of the 100 tactics, only ten are clearly related to plant pests; 19 are pretty clearly activities that apply to both plant and animal pests and diseases; and five are unclear as to whether they include plant pests as well as animal diseases. Thus, only a third of the tactics apply!
[In making this calculation, I did not include 43 tactics listed under the first goal (“Deliver efficient, effective, and responsive programs”) or three objectives under the goal of “Protecting American agriculture” that apply explicitly to wildlife management, regulating genetically engineered organisms, or ensuring humane treatment of animals.]
Specific examples of such lack of balance include the six examples illustrating the declaration (on p. 4) that “Pest and disease events are more frequent, more complex, and less predictable.” Five of the examples are animal diseases, the sixth is the insect-vectored human disease caused by the Zika virus.
In discussing its efforts to balance its safeguarding efforts against increasing requests for market access by international trading partners, APHIS mentions some activities pertinent to plant as well as animal pest management, e.g., examining disease and pest risks and inserting mitigation strategies into international agreements and interstate movement protocols. However, the only specific action it mentions is helping countries to build capacity to implement the Global Health Security Agenda.
The only reference to forest pests is under one of the 24 tactics associated with Goal 2. Safeguard American agriculture, Objective 2.1: Prevent damaging plant and animal pests and diseases from entering and spreading in the United States to promote plant and animal health. This tactic calls for strengthening the North American perimeter against pest threats from outside the region to prevent introduction of agricultural, forest, and other invasive pests.
Why are Plant Pests slighted?
Perhaps plant-related efforts were left out because they are less “sexy”? Or because they are more distantly linked to human health? The Plan does state that “The tactics in this plan represent only a portion of APHIS activities and by no means embody all the important work APHIS does to fulfill its mission.”
Who knows what was left out?
How will adoption of this strategy affect future efforts to address tree-killing insects and pathogens – both those already present in the country and those yet to be introduced?
Might PPQ Fill in the Gaps?
In 2014 APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine issued its own strategic plan. This supplementary plan made frequent mentions of safeguarding natural resources. Indeed, the third of the plan’s seven goals stated:
Goal 3: Protect forests, urban landscapes, rangelands and other natural resources, as well as private working lands from harmful pests and diseases
Several “tactics” under each goal also directly applied to protecting natural resources. I list them below:
1) Prevent the entry and spread of ag pests and diseases.
Coordinate with Canada to implement an effective multi-national system that reduces the threat of tree pests arriving from Asia and other parts of the world (e.g. AGM).
3: Protect forests, urban landscapes, rangelands and other natural resources, as well as private working lands from harmful pests and diseases
Maintain EAB regulatory framework to focus on the leading edge of infestations while minimizing impacts on regulated businesses in quarantined areas.
Evaluate the effectiveness of biocontrol releases in states and combining both regulatory & outreach activities to address the risks of moving logs, firewood, and nursery stock.
Examine detection technologies and partnering with states to determine and apply the most effective strategies to survey & eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle
Partnering with federal and state agencies to enact measures such as a public outreach campaign to mitigate the movement of forest pests through firewood.
Ensure the safe trade of ag products, creating export opportunities for U.S. producers
play a leadership role in revising ISPM#15
Protect the health of U.S. agricultural resources, including addressing zoonotic disease issues and incidences, by implementing surveillance, preparedness and response, and control programs
Strengthen partnerships with Tribal Nations to develop a robust surveillance and early detection system for detecting and reporting invasive species.
Work with all stakeholders to coordinate all-hazards agriculture and natural resources response support.
Develop science-based programs in collaboration with industry and academia to jointly identify practices that will mitigate pest damage. E.G., SANC program http://sanc.nationalplantboard.org/ [a Systems Approach to Nursery Certification] implemented jointly with the National Plant Board and nursery industry
Dare we hope that PPQ adopts an updated strategic plan that fills in some of the gaps in the overall APHIS plan?
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.
Several scientists at the United States Geological Service (USGS) have published a report and accompanying datasets that attempts to provide a publicly accessible and comprehensive list of non-native species established in United States.
Led by Annie Simpson and Meghan C. Eyler, a team of six scientists worked six years (2013–2018). They reviewed 1,166 authoritative sources to develop a list of 11,344 unique names – most of them binomials (genus and species), a few genera, plus some viruses.
This was a Herculean effort that produced very valuable products. We are all in their dept!
Simpson and Eyler point out that knowing which species are non-native to a region is a first step to managing invasive species. Lists compiled in the past were developed to serve a variety of purposes, including watch lists for preventing invasions, inventory and monitoring lists for research and modeling, regulatory lists for species control, and non-regulatory lists for raising awareness. As a result, they are not comprehensive.
Among the sources these authors consulted in preparing the list were peer-reviewed journal articles, books, brochures, circulars, databases, environmental assessments, technical reports, graduate theses, and websites.
Data – by Region
The report also notes which non-native species were established in each of three regions: the “lower 48” states, Alaska, and Hawai`i. Not surprisingly, more than half the non-native taxa are established in the vast area (nearly 7.9 million km2) comprising the “lower 48” states – 6,675 taxa. Almost half of the total number of non-native taxa have established in the tiny geographic region (only 28,311 km2) of Hawai`i – 5,848 taxa. One-tenth as many non-native taxa – 598 – are reported as established in Alaska (1.7 million km2).
This report includes taxa that are not native to any part of the specific region, but established (naturalized) somewhere in the region. An “established” species must have at least one population that is successfully reproducing or breeding in natural systems. The list includes domesticated animals and plants introduced for crops or horticulture when the taxon has escaped cultivation or captivity and become established in the wild. Species listed range from feral hogs (Sus scrofa) to plum pox virus and citrus canker to ohia rust (Puccinia psidii).
Of the total 11,344 taxa, 157 are established in all three regions. These included 125 vascular plants (especially grasses and asters); 13 arthropods, 11 mammals; 6 birds; 3 mollusks; 1 bryozoan. One of the ubiquitous plant species is tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). I find it entirely appropriate that the cover photo shows this tree – the photo was taken 8 miles from my home in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Nearly three-quarters (71.4%) of the non-native species in Alaska are plant species. More than half (59.7%) of the non-native species in the “lower 48” region are also plants. Nearly all the remainder of the non-native species in both regions are some kind of animal. Fungi constitute only 1.8% of the non-native species in the “lower 48” region; all the rest of the groups (Bacteria, Chromista, Protozoa, Virus) constitute less than 1% of the non-native species recorded in either region.
By contrast, in Hawai`i, animals make up 69.7% of the listed non-native species; most are invertebrates. Plants constitute 29.8% of the Hawaiian list.
Gaps, by Taxon
The authors recognize that invertebrates and microbes are under-represented because species are still being discovered; non-charismatic and difficult-to-identify species tend to be overlooked; and the species composition of any nation in this era of globalization is constantly subject to change.
I have noted some gaps among the pathogens: the absence of some of the Phytophthora that have been detected infecting shrubs and herbaceous plants in California, e.g., Phytophthora cambivora, siskiyouensis, tentaculata; and the “rapid ohia death” pathogens, Ceratocystishuliohia and C. lukuohia. Dr. Simpson is aware of these gaps and is soliciting sources to help add these organisms – especially the various Phytophthora species – to the next version of the list.
Simpson and Eyler note that the relative geographic distribution of the list at its current state seems to reinforce three well established premises: that tropical island systems are particularly vulnerable; that higher latitudes host fewer but are not invulnerable; and that species diversity in general decreases with increasing latitude.
Comparisons to Other Databases
After standardizing the names in the list by comparing them to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), Simpson and Eyler also reviewed the USGS BISON database, which has more than 381 million occurrence records for native and non-native species in the U.S. and Canada, covering 427,123 different taxa. (The BISON database contains significantly more species occurrences for the U.S. than the largest invasive species database, EDDMapS, which contained 4.4 million species occurrences as of June 2018.) Simpson and Eyler had to evaluate which of these taxa met their definition of non-native, since most species occurrence records in the USGS BISON are not labeled as non-native in the original records.
Comparing the BISON and non-native lists, Simpson and Eyler found that the BISON list contained a larger number of occurrence records for non-native taxa: a total of 13,450,515.However, the BISON list does not provide complete coverage of non-native species: it includes records for 77% of list of non-native species Simpson and Eyler found in Alaska, 75% of the “lower 48” sublist, but only 37% of the Hawaiian sublist.
Simpson and Eyler state their intention to continue updating the list of non-native species, they welcome contributions to it from area experts, and they urge integration of new occurrence data into invasive species database such as EDDMapS.
Indicators of Non-Native Species Richness
Figure 3 in the report (above) maps the number of non-native taxa in BISON at the county level. Figure 4 displays the proportion of non-native to native species in BISON. Higher percentages are generally evident in coastal areas and other regional hotspots. For example, the proportion in Hawaiian counties is greater than 33%. Additional data are needed to perform a more in-depth analysis of non-native species richness and abundance.
UPDATE! New Report in the Works
In June 2021, USGS announced that it was updating its Comprehensive List of Non-Native Species Established in 3 Major Regions of the U.S. so that the document more closely aligns with the parameters of the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species. The new USGS dataset is to be called the US Register of Introduced and Invasive Species. The list in the current draft includes 15,364 records. About 500 of these records are in Alaska, 6,000 in Hawai`i, and 8,700 in the conterminous 48 States.
One of the lead authors, Annie Simpson, contacted invasive species experts seeking feedback and suggested additions – based on authoritative resources such as peer reviewed journal articles, pest alerts, databases, books, and technical bulletins.She sought input by 25 July, 2021.
The published version of this dataset will be made freely available on USGS’ ScienceBase (https://www.sciencebase.gov), and all reviewers will be acknowledged in the dataset’s abstract.
SOURCE
Simpson, A., and Eyler, M.C., 2018, First comprehensive list of non-native species established in three major regions of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1156, 15 p.
The report and accompanying data tables are available here.
South African report
In an unrelated but similar development, South Africa has issued a report on its invasive species — 2017 The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa. The report analyzes pathways of introduction and spread; number, distribution and impact of individual species; species richness and abundance of alien species in defined areas; and the effectiveness of interventions. The report notes that 775 invasive species have been identified to date, of which 556 are listed under some national regulatory program. Terrestrial and freshwater plants number 574 species; terrestrial invertebrates number 107 species. (This total does not include the polyphagous shot hole borer, which was detected too recently.) 107 species are considered by experts to be having either major or severe impacts on biodiversity and/or human wellbeing. Alien species richness is highest in the savanna, grassland, Indian Ocean coastal belt and fynbos biomes, lower in the more arid Karoo and desert biomes. South Africans are particularly focused on the reductions in surface water resulting from plant invasions. The decades-old “Working for Water” program has two goals: providing employment and development opportunities to disadvantaged individuals in rural areas, and managing invasive alien plants.
The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa is available here.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
Ailanthus altissima