Category: invasive plants

In Absence of Federal Action, States take Initiative

As the federal government continues to dawdle in responding to invasive species challenges, some states are ramping up their efforts in significant ways.

 

California: New Legislation Creates a Program – but Only for One Year

The California state legislature has created a new invasive species program that focuses on those bioinvaders that threaten native ecosystems and the urban environment. It thus addresses some of the criticisms that I have previously levelled at the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) [see my  earlier blogs here and here]

The new program has been established for one year; it will have to be renewed by the legislature next year.

The program results from adoption of legislation that combines what were initially two bills:

  • Assemblyman Timothy Grayson introduced AB 2470. This bill provided a legal foundation for the California Invasive Species Council and its Invasive Species Advisory Committee. It also provided funding for early detection and control projects targetting high-priority species, including weed management areas; and for supportive research and diagnostics work by the University of California.
  • Assemblywomen Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher introduced AB 2054 focused specifically on the invasive shot hole borers [see descriptions of the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borer here https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/ ]. The “Protect California Trees with Shot Hole Borer Beetle Prevention” (1) established a framework for a coordinated statewide effort; (2) instructed the Invasive Species Council of California and the California Invasive Species Advisory Committee to coordinate with state and local agencies and stakeholder groups to develop a plan to suppress the disease spread by this beetle.

The final legislation provided the full $5 million for addressing the shot hole borer but cut funding for the other components of the combined programs to just $2 million (so, a total of $7 million).

State officials have begun developing a shot hole borer management plan; they are expected to get input from a subcommittee by the Invasive Species Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee held a meeting in mid-July to begin carrying out its coordinating functions.

Congratulations and thanks go to John Kabashima, who retired from his position as extension horticultural advisor with the University of California’s Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. John has devoted two years to building the alliances needed to make this happen.

 

 

Minnesota: New Funding for Research

In 2014, the Minnesota legislature created the Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pests Center at the University of Minnesota. The Center applies science-based solutions to protect the state’s terrestrial ecosystems and agricultural resources. It utilizes an allocation from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund to support a competitive research grant program. The current funding level is $3.5 million. Recently funded projects include evaluating the role of fungi in protecting ash trees from emerald ash borer and disease, genetic control of invasive insects, and use of goats in invasive plant control

The Center’s draft list of priority insects, plant pathogens, and invasive plants includes numerous forest pests. Among the 40 insect species listed, 19 are forest pests. Those in the top ten include mountain pine beetle, emerald ash borer, European and Asian gypsy moths, two elm beetles, and Asian longhorned beetle. Nineteen of 39 plant pathogens are tree-killers. Among the top ten are Dutch elm disease, oak wilt, Japanese oak wilt, Annosum root rot, sudden oak death, thousand cankers disease, and white pine blister rust.

In both cases, the lists include species that are already present and those not yet in the state (or even on the continent).

 

Western Governors’ Association: Initiative on Biosecurity

Incoming chairman, Hawaiian Gov. David Ige, has announced a Biosecurity and Invasive Species Initiative. The Initiative will focus on the impacts that invasive species have on ecosystems, forests, rangelands, watersheds, and infrastructure in the West, and examine the role that biosecurity plays in addressing these risks. Governor Ige hosted a webinar on 12 July [not yet posted on the WGA website] on which he was joined by such experts as Chuck Bargeron,  Center for Invasive Species & Ecosystem Health, University of Georgia; Pam Fuller, Program Leader, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, USGS; Stinger Guala, Director of Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON), USGS; Jamie Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council; and Lori Scott, Interim President & CEO, and Chief Information Officer, NatureServe. The Association is sponsoring regional workshops on various components of the invasive species response on the following dates

  • Lake Tahoe, NV Sept 17-18 – prevention, control, management of established species
  • Cheyenne, WY Oct 11 -12 – restoration
  • Helena, MT Nov 14 – early detection and rapid response
  • Hawai`i Dec 9 & 10 – biosecurity and agriculture

 

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.

 

 

 

The 2018 Farm Bill – It’s Complicated!

As you might remember, the Center for Invasive Species Prevention and the Vermont Woodland Owners Association last year proposed several amendments to the Farm Bill that we hoped would strengthen the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s programs on non-native insects, plant pathogens, and invasive plants. These proposed amendments are here and here.

Two of our amendments sought to strengthen funding for long-term strategies to counterpests and restore pest-depleted tree species to the forest. We intended these proposals to be implemented together.  They were put forward as two proposals only because they fell into different sections, called “titles”, of the Farm Bill.

Our first proposal would create a grant program managed by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to fund research focused on biocontrol and genetic manipulation of the pests; enhancement of host-resistance mechanisms for tree species; and development of other strategies for restoration. U.S. government agencies, state cooperative institutions, academic institutions with a college of agriculture or wildlife and fisheries, and non-profit organizations would all be eligible for funding.

Our second proposal would provide long-term funding to a similar array of organizations to support research into and deployment of strategies for restoring pest-resistant genotypes of native tree species to the forest. We suggested funds be drawn from the McIntyre-Stennis program. Successful grant applicants would be required to integrate several components into a cohesive forest restoration strategy:

  • Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material;
  • Production of sufficient numbers of  propagules of pest-resistant native trees to support landscape scale restoration;
  • Site preparation in native trees’ former habitat;
  • Planting of native tree seedlings; and
  • Post-planting maintenance of the trees.

Furthermore, priorities for competitive grants issued by this second fund would be based on the level of risk to forests in the state where the activity would take place, as determined by the following criteria:

  • Level of risk posed to forests of that state by non-native pests, as measured by such factors as the number of such pests present there;
  • Proportion of the state’s forest composed of species vulnerable to non-native pests present in the United States; and
  • Pests’ rate of spread via natural or human-assisted means.

 

Several coalitions presented these two proposals – in various forms – to the House and Senate Agriculture committees earlier this year.

 

ACTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Stefanik Amendment

In the House, Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY21) inserted a modified version of CISP’s proposed amendments into the Farm Bill (H.R. 2) . Ms. Stefanik’s speech on the House floor introducing her amendment, and support of that amendment by Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania and Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-TX) can be heard here; scroll to time 25.16

The Stefanik amendment includes some of the key provisions advocated by CISP but it also differs in significant ways. That is, it relies on an existing grant-making program, the Competitive Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environmental Grants program. This program funds proposals pursuing numerous purposes, including pest management and genetic tree improvement. Rep. Stefanik’s amendment adds a new purpose, restoring forest tree species native to American forests that have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native pests. It is unclear whether this approach will significantly increase resources available for breeding trees resistant to non-native pests.

Another difference is that institutions receiving funds would have to demonstrate that their activity is part of a broader strategy that includes at least one of the following components:

1) Collection and conservation of genetic material;

2) Production of sufficient numbers of propagules to support the tree’s restoration to the landscape;

3) Site preparation of former native tree habitat;

4) Planting; and

5) Post planting maintenance

The original CISP proposal required any funded program to incorporate all of these components.

The Stefanik amendment would award grants based on the same three criteria proposed by CISP.

While we are disappointed that research underlying tree restoration has merely been added to an already-long list of purposes under the Competitive Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environmental Grants program, this approach might be the best we can hope for. There had been considerable opposition to our proposal because it would have changed the formula under which McIntire-Stennis funds are apportioned to the states. Adopted in 1962, the existing formula is based on each state’s

1) area of non-Federal commercial forest land;

2) volume of timber cut annually;

3) total expenditures for forestry research from non-Federal sources;

4) base amount distributed equally among the States.

 

The Faso Amendment

The House also accepted an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Faso (R-NY19) that would require APHIS and the US Forest Service to collaborate on surveillance to detect newly introduced tree-killing pests. The agencies would also report to Congress by 2021 on which pests are being detected on imports of wood packaging and living plants (APHIS’ so-called “plants for planting”) and the geographic origins of those pests. Rep. Faso’s speech introducing the amendment and supportive statements by Reps. Thompson and Conaway can be heard here; scroll to time 32 (immediately after the Stefanik amendment).

 

The Welch Bill

Meanwhile, as I blogged earlier, Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) has introduced a separate bill (H.R. 5519) that contains modified versions of several CISP proposals.

Rep. Welch’s bill would do two things: strengthen APHIS’ access to “emergency” funds to respond to invasive pests, and create a competitive grant program to support research on biological control of plant pests or noxious weeds, enhancing host pest-resistance mechanisms, and other strategies for restoring tree species. These studies must be part of comprehensive forest restoration research. Eligible institutions would include federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations. Funding  would come from a USDA corporation, the Commodity Credit Corporation so they would not be subject to annual appropriations.

The House has taken no action on Rep. Welch’s bill.

 

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE FARM BILL – AND CISP’s BOTTOM LINE

On 17 May,  the House of Representatives failed to pass the Farm Bill. No Democrats voted for the bill. About 30 Republicans also voted against the bill – not because they objected to its contents, but because they wanted to force a vote on an immigration bill. House leaders now promise a new vote on the Farm Bill on June 22nd.

Is this good news? As I said, it is complicated! The House bill contains several provisions to which there is significant opposition. The most controversial is a requirement that recipients of food stamps prove that they are working. Other provisions – which have not received much attention in the media, would:

  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management to decide for themselves whether an activity might “jeopardize” an endangered species (eliminating the need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service) (Section 8303);
  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to avoid preparing an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a long list of actions which currently must be assessed. That is, they could claim a “categorical exclusion” when taking a wide variety of “critical” actions aimed at addressing several goals. These include countering insect and disease infestations, reducing hazardous fuel loads, protecting municipal water sources, improving or enhancing critical habitat, increasing water yield, expediting salvage of dead trees following a catastrophic event, or achieving goals to maintain early successional forest. These “categorical exclusions” would apply to projects on up to 6,000 acres. (Sections 8311 – 8320); and
  • Require the EPA Administrator to register a pesticide if the Administrator determines that the pesticide, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practices, is not likely to jeopardize the survival of a species listed under the Endangered Species Act or to alter critical habitat. Unlike under current law, the Administrator would not be required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service when making such determinations (Section 9111).

The Endangered Species Act, adopted almost unanimously in 1973, requires such “consultations” because experience had shown that agencies proposing projects tended to underestimate the damage that they might cause to imperiled species.  NEPA is one of the foundational statutes of U.S. environment protection; it was adopted in 1970. Finally, the EPA Administrator is supposed to decide whether to allow pesticide use based on science, per a much weaker but still important environmental protection statute, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (originally adopted in 1910; significantly amended in 1972).

Is getting an imperfect and partial program that might stimulate breeding of tree species resistant to invasive pests worth accepting this level of damage to fundamental environmental programs?

I don’t think so.

We don’t yet know what the Senate will do. We hope the Senate bill will support strong conservation programs – including strengthening APHIS and research into and application of long-term strategies such as resistance breeding – while not undermining the foundations of our Nation’s conservation and environmental programs.

Meanwhile, the House should rewrite the Farm Bill to remove the objectionable provisions.

 

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.

 

National Park Service Experts Urge Improvements to Invasive Species Efforts

 

cats – reported to be the most widespread invasive animal in National parks

In two recent evaluations and resulting reports, National Park Service experts admit the agency has fallen short on managing the invasive species threat and suggest ways to improve. One report – that on invasive animals (see below) identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership.

They’re not alone: I have previously criticized the NPS here and here

 

Invasive Animals

The bolder of the two reports addresses invasive animals – “Invasive Animals in U.S. National Parks – By a Science Panel” https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/594922 commissioned by the NPS Chief of Biological Resources Division. The report was released in December 2017.

The report is blunt – which I welcome.

 

Key Message

The NPS’ mission of preserving America’s natural and cultural resources unimpaired for future generations is “under a deep and immediate threat as a consequence of invasive animal species, yet the National Park Service does not have a comprehensive understanding of the costs and impacts of invasive animals or a coordinated strategy for their management.”  The result: “The consequence is a general record of failure to control invasive species across the system.”

The report says there are opportunities for the NPS to take a lead in addressing the threat – including to help counter invasive species denialism. It suggests ways to provide the needed capacity and to change the agency culture that hampers efforts to realize this ambition.

 

Current Picture

More than half of all National Park units reporting to the report’s authors (245 out of 326 parks) reported the presence of invasive animals – ranging from freshwater mussels to feral cats. In the process of compiling the report, the authors received reports of 1,409 invasive animal populations – comprising 331 species — probably an underestimate. Only a small percentage can be considered under some form of management. The most widely reported species:

Domestic cat                69 parks

Common starling         66 parks

Common pigeon          47 parks

House sparrow             40 parks

Red imported fire ant   40 parks

Feral hog                      39 parks

Rainbow trout              36 parks (often introduced deliberately)

 

The report mentions several tree-killing insects or pathogens among the damaging animal invaders in National parks: emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, and rapid ohia death (a pathogen). (Background on all three is here.)

 

This new report acknowledges management efforts. They reviewed 80 NPS projects in the pipeline from 2000 through 2023. Most projects target a limited number of species: feral hogs, cats, and horses/burros; fire ants; hemlock woolly adelgid; and emerald ash borer.

EAB-killed ash tree in Shenandoah NP  (F.T. Campbell)

Eradication has reportedly been attempted for 21 invasive animal populations; 17 of those populations remained under some control efforts (e.g., monitoring to detect any re-invasion) in 2016. Nine of the eradicated populations were in the Pacific West region – especially Channel Islands National Park. Another eight were in the Southeast. Three other regions — Intermountain, Northeast, and National Capital regions — each reported one invasive animal population eradicated and under control. Another 150 invasive animal populations were reportedly “controlled”.

 

What’s the Problem?

The report’s authors note numerous (and well-known) difficulties in managing invasive animals. These include difficulty detecting invaders at early stages of invasion; paucity of effective management tools; and social constraints such as perceived benefits associated with some (e.g., trout and other sport fishes) and ethical and humane objections to killing vertebrates.

However, the report identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership. Constraints that hamper park managers’ efforts within the agency include Service-wide coordination, lack of capacity, park culture, “social license” (i.e., public approval), and cross-boundary coordination.

The authors suggest that to correct these deficiencies, the Service should formally acknowledge that invasive animals represent a crisis on par with each of the three major crises that drove Service-wide change in the past:

1) over-abundance of ungulates due to predator control (leading to the “Leopold Report” in the 1960s);

2) Yellowstone fire crisis (which led to new wildfire awareness in the country); and

3) recognition of the importance of climate change (which resulted in the report “Leopold Revisited: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks”).

To achieve true success in such a major undertaking, all levels of NPS management must be engaged. Further NPS’ current culture and capacity must be changed. The report suggests providing incentives for (1) efforts to address long-term threats (not just “urgent” ones) and (2) putting 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.

An additional step to realizing a comprehensive invasive animal program would be to integrate 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).

The report notes the need for increased funding. Such funding would need a flexible timeline (unlike existing Service-wide funding for more general purposes), allowing parks to be responsive to time-sensitive management issues. It would also have to be available consistently over the long term – since eradication can take a long time. Several approaches are proposed, including incorporating some invasive species control programs (e.g., weeds, wood borers) into infrastructure maintenance budgets; adopting invasive species as fundraising challenges for “Friends of Park” and the National Park Foundation; and adopting invasive species as a priority threat.

The authors would like NPS to become a leader on the invasive species issue – specifically by testing emerging best management practices and by better educating visitors on the ecological values of parks and the serious threat that invasive species pose to the their biodiversity. The authors suggest that the NPS also take the lead in countering invasive species denialism.

While officially-approved deliberate introductions of non-native species are probably unlikely to continue, the report expects that the numbers of invasive animals and species in national parks will increase due to continuing spread of invaders from neighboring areas. Therefore, NPS’ current piecemeal approach needs to be replaced with a much stronger, strategic approach in which parks engage in collaboration with conservation partners on adjacent lands or waters and across the greater landscape.

 

Invasive Plants

The NPS launched a coordinated effort targetting invasive plants years ago — in 2000. The most obvious component of which was the Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMTs). The broader program was officially named the Invasive Plant Program (IPP) only in 2014. The IPP provides leadership to individual parks, regions, and the park system on invasive plant management, restoration, and landscape level protection. The IPP released its strategic plan in December 2016. (Ok! More than a year ago. I am tardy.)

Despite the large size of the program – 15 EMPTs across the country – and the clear and recognized threat that invasive plants pose to NPS values, I got the impression that the program struggles to gain  support from the Service. In that way, the situation is similar to the challenges to efforts on animal invasives described above.

   removing Miconia to protect Haleakala National Park

The Strategic Plan identifies goals and actions to optimize the program’s effectiveness, while increasing program and park capacity and leveraging human and fiscal resources with state, federal, and private entities.

The plan articulates a mission, a vision, five broad goals, and actions for the next 10 years. It’s intended to guide annual planning and major projects, as well as to identify and help prioritize funding needs and initiatives.

The overall vision is for the Invasive Plant Program to guide park service efforts to enhance landscape level stewardship of resources by applying “technically sound, holistic, collaborative, adaptive, and innovative approaches.” The hope is that other NPS units will increasingly rely on the IPP’s expertise in implementing their programs and building partnerships.

The strategic plan lays out five broad goals, each supplemented by a list of detailed activities. Priority actions have been identified for the first 5 years (2017-2021) with the expectation that actions will be re-prioritized during annual reviews. These five goals are:

  1. Develop program standards

Clarify and standardize administrative and operational roles and tasks. Improve data management and train colleagues in those standards. Incorporate science-informed procedures to support park management of invasive plants.

Interestingly, the Plan calls for IPP staff to quantify the invasive plant threat and effort needed to manage it and then to communicate the gap between effort needed and resources available to decision makers.

2. Promote the Invasive Plant Program by highlighting the services it provides and the significance of the invasive plant issue both internally and with stakeholders. Assure that IPP efforts parallel those in the Department of Interior Action Plan for invasive species.

  1. Build capacity of individual parks and the Service to prevent the arrival of invasive plants and manage infestations that are already present

Enhance resource and information sharing and field-based training. Find ways to encourage parks to continue managing the invaders after the EMPT completes the initial eradication. Also find ways to increase the EPMT Program’s efficiency. Possibly develop an NPS pesticide applicators’ certification course (the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense already have one).

Increase partnerships to deal with actions that are outside parks’ control. Specifically, participate in regional and state invasive plant councils, and collaborate with a full range of external partners to identify successful techniques, conduct control and restoration campaigns, improve and implement efficient plant management across park boundaries, and recruit and manage youth and volunteers.

  1. Promote holistic and integrated invasive plant management

Work with other NPS programs and parks (across all divisions) to establish resource stewardship and landscape preservation / restoration goals. Integrate integrated pest management strategies in management actions. Continue close collaboration with Climate Change Response Program (if it still exists!). Identify research needs and get the research done.

  1. Collaborate on invasive plant management

Foster and encourage internal and external collaboration and coordination to leverage available resources, expertise, and knowledge.

Identify parks, NPS programs, partner agencies, organizations, and related initiatives with similar objectives to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Coordinate with NPS monitoring programs (although the invasive animal study authors thought the monitoring program is not structured to serve invasive species needs). Partner with BLM and US Fish and Wildlife Service and non-federal partners to cooperatively manage invasive plants on the landscape. Coordinate compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act.

 

Each IPP unit is expected to develop an annual work plan that aligns with an annual financial plan. Priorities will be reviewed annually. Each IPP unit will also submit an annual accomplishment report. IPP might develop a tracking system to be applied to each assigned action.

Plus the IPP strategic plan will be reviewed annually and actions will be re-prioritized as needed. The annual status reports will be made available to stakeholders and partners on the Web.

 

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.

 

Spring! the good & the ugly

Virginia bluebells

 

It’s spring in the Mid-Atlantic!

Spring prompts many memories for me. I first committed to environmental causes 48 (!) years ago when I discovered the glories of spring in the woods owned by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, NJ.  I would rise at 5 AM or earlier to greet the sunrise in the woods. There were wonderful birds, deer, even weasels … and carpets of spring ephemerals. The floodplain was covered by spring beauties, violets of every hue, trout lilies, occasional toothwarts … for reasons no one has never been able to explain, very few bluebells (other floodplains I have visited in the Mid-Atlantic — e.g., Brandywine & Bull Run —  have lots of bluebells). Within weeks, there were mayapples and some trilliums and even some pink ladyslippers.

trout lilies & spring beauty

(My studies at Princeton had nothing to do with nature or conservation … )

Yesterday I visited a floodplain near my home in Northern Virginia (Accotink Creek downstream from the dam; Fairfax County). I found those same wildflowers – but they are struggling to find space under a tsunami of invasive herbaceous plants – especially European buttercup and Leucojum. (Garlic mustard is much less common – I think volunteers might be pulling it.)

European buttercups

 

Leucojum  

The shrub layer is dominated by multiflora rose, honeysuckles (shrub & vine), and privet .

Makes me sad … makes me mad! Let’s redouble our efforts.

What is invading your favorite bottomland hardwood forest? Send me your comments!

Faith

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.

APHIS Nursery Stock Regulations (Q-37) – Modernization Finally Completed!

citrus longhorned beetle – entered country several times in imported bonzai plants

After about 20 years, APHIS has finalized important changes to the regulations which govern imports of living plants (what they call “plants for planting”; the regulation is sometimes called “the Quarantine 37” rule).  The new regulation takes effect on April, 18, 2018.

I congratulate APHIS on this important achievement!

[Twenty years is a long time – so changes happen. When APHIS released its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in December 2004 and its proposed rule in April 2013, I was employed by The Nature Conservancy and submitted comments for that organization. I will refer to those earlier comments in this blog. However, I now represent the Center for Invasive Species Prevention, so my comments here on the final regulations reflect the position of CISP, not the Conservancy.]

APHIS’ 2004 ANPR came after years of preparation. Then, more than eight years passed until the formal proposal was published on April 25, 2013. Comments were accepted from the public until January 30, 2014. During this nine-month period, 17 entities commented, including producers’ organizations, state departments of agriculture, a foreign phytosanitary agency (The Netherlands), private citizens, and The Nature Conservancy. [You can view the ANPR and proposal, comments on these documents, and APHIS’ response here — although you need to click on “Restructuring of Regulations on the Importation of Plants for Planting” and then “Open Docket Folder” to pursue the older documents.]

In the beginning, APHIS had a few goals it hoped to achieve: to allow the agency to respond more quickly to new pest threats, to apply practices that are more effective at detecting pests than visual inspection at points of import, and to shift much of the burden of preventing pest introductions from the importer and APHIS to the exporter.

Progress has been made toward some of these goals outside this rule-making. APHIS instituted a process to temporarily prohibit importation of plants deemed to pose an identifiable risk until a pest risk assessment has been completed (the NAPPRA process). APHIS has further enhanced its ability to act quickly when a pest risk is perceived by relying increasingly on “Federal Orders”.

At the same time, APHIS participated actively in efforts by international phytosanitary professionals to adopt new “standards.” These define a new approach to ensure that plants in international trade are (nearly) pest-free. Both the North American Plant Protection Organization’s regional standard (RSPM#24)  and the International Plant Protection Organization’s global standard (ISPM#36)  envision a system under which countries would no longer rely primarily on inspections at ports-of-entry. Instead, they would negotiate with the supplier or exporting country to develop programs to certify that growers’ pest management programs are effective. Both standards detailed: 1)  how the place of production might manage pest risk and ensure traceability of plants; 2) how the importing and exporting countries might collaborate to administer the program; 3) how audits (including site visits) would ensure the program’s efficacy; and 4) what actions  various parties might take in cases of noncompliance.

It was hoped that these international standards would lead to widespread adoption of “integrated pest management programs” composed of similar requirements – similar to the impact of ISPM#15 for wood packaging.  However, living plants are more complex pest vectors than the wooden boards of crates and pallets, so each country was expected to negotiate its own specific programs – something not  encouraged for wood packaging.

APHIS’ decades-long effort to amend its regulations is warranted because of the high risk of non-native insects and – especially – pathogens being introduced via international trade in living plants. U.S. examples include white pine blister rust, chestnut blight, dogwood anthracnose, and sudden oak death (all described briefly here )

dogwood anthracnose

According to Liebhold et al. 2012 (full reference at end of blog), 12% of incoming plant shipments in 2009 were infested by a quarantine pest. This is an approach rate that is 100 times greater than the 0.1% rate documented for wood packaging (Haack et al. 2014). I have discussed the living plant introductory pathway and efforts up to 2014 to get it under control in my report, Fading Forests III.

 

Shortcomings of the Final Q 37 Rule

So – how well does this final rule  meet APHIS’ objectives?

First, will it shift much of the burden of preventing new pest introductions from the importer and APHIS to the exporter, while ensuring the system’s efficacy? In my view, on behalf of CISP, it falls short.

The new rule sets up a process under which APHIS might require that some types of imported plants be produced and shipped under specified conditions intended to reduce pest risk. However, non-American entities have little incentive to protect America’s natural and agricultural resources and from invasive species. So any new process needs severe penalties for violators.

We have seen how widespread and persistent compliance failures are for wood packaging under ISPM#15. http://nivemnic.us/wood-packaging-again-11-years-after-ispm15-problems-persist/ For this reason, I (on behalf of the Conservancy) had suggested that APHIS formally adopt a specific goal of “no new introductions”. I recognized that this goal was unachievable per se, but suggested that it should stand as a challenge and be the basis for adopting stringent restrictions on plant imports. I suggested  limiting plant imports to those either a) produced under integrated pest management measures systems (verified by third-party certification) or b) plants brought into facilities operating under post-entry quarantine conditions — and following other best management practices that had been developed and supervised by independent, scientifically-based bodies.

In my current view, APHIS’ regulation falls far short of either this goal of shifting burdens or setting a truly stringent requirement. In fact, APHIS has explicitly backed away from its own original goals and procedures.

The new regulation does authorize APHIS to choose to set up import programs under which the exporting country agrees to produce plants for the U.S. market under a system of integrated pest risk management measures (IPRMM) approved by APHIS. In accordance with the international standards, the programs established under this new power will address how the place of production will manage pest risk and ensure traceability of plants; how APHIS and the exporting country will administer the program; how plant brokers will ensure plants remain pest-free while in their custody; how audits will be performed to ensure program efficacy; and what actions various parties will take in cases of noncompliance.

How efficacious this new approach will be in preventing new introductions will depend on how aggressive APHIS is in both choosing the plant taxa and places of-origin to be managed under such IPRMM programs and in negotiating the specific terms of the program with the exporting country.

It is discouraging that APHIS has ratcheted down how frequently it expects to rely on the IPRMM approach. In the explanatory material accompanying the final regulation, APHIS clarifies that did not intend that IPRMM would be used for all imports of living plants. The IPRMM framework is described as only one of several means to achieve the goal of preventing introduction of quarantine pests. APHIS will choose the “least restrictive measures” needed to prevent introduction of quarantine pests. To clarify its position, APHIS changed the introductory text to indicate that IPRMM will be applied when such measures are necessary to mitigate risk – that is, “when the pest risk associated with the importation of a type of plants for planting can only be addressed through use of integrated measures.” [Emphases added]

The final rule is also discouraging in some of its specifics.

  • Whereas the draft regulation specified steps that places of production must take to ensure traceability of the plants they produce, in the final regulation the traceability elements specified in each IPRMM agreement will depend on the nature of the quarantine pests to be managed. Again, APHIS seeks to ensure that its requirements are not unnecessarily restrictive.
  • Although the international standard had specified severe penalties when a grower or broker violated the terms of the IPRMM agreement, APHIS proposed to base the regulatory responses to program failures on existing bilateral agreements with the exporting country. Despite the Conservancy’s plea that APHIS follow ISPM#36 in adopting more specific and severe penalties, APHIS has not done so. The one bright spot is that APHIS may verify the efficacy of any remedial measures imposed by the phytosanitary agency of the exporting country to correct problems at the non-compliant place of production. [Emphasis added]
  • APHIS is relaxing the detailed requirements for state post-entry quarantine agreements – despite the Conservancy’s concern that such agreements’ provisions could be influenced by political pressure and other nonscientific factors.

 

Two Improvements

I am pleased that APHIS has retained requirements applied to plant brokers, despite one commenter’s objections. Brokers handling international shipments of plants grown under an IPRMM program must both handle the plants themselves in ways that prevent infestation during shipment and maintain the integrity of documentation certifying the origin of the plants. A weakness, in my current view, is that APHIS will allow brokers to mix consignments of plants from more than one producer operating under the IPRMM program.  APHIS does warn that if non-compliant (infested) plants are detected at import, all the producers whose plants were in the shipment would be subject to destruction, treatment, or re-export.

A major improvement under the new regulation is that APHIS will now operate under streamlined procedures when it wishes to amend the requirements for importing particular plants (whether a taxon, a “type”, or a country of origin). Until now, APHIS has been able to make such changes only through the cumbersome rulemaking process, Instead, APHIS will now issue a public notice, accept public comments, and then specify the new requirements through amendment of the “Plants for Planting Manual” [  https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/Manuals/ports/downloads/plants_for_planting.pdf ] APHIS estimates that such changes can be finalized four months faster under the new procedure.

 

A Final Caveat

Finally, APHIS needs to be able to measure what effect the new procedures have on preventing pest introductions.  Such measurement depends on a statistically sound monitoring scheme. APHIS has stated in some documents that the current Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) system doesn’t serve this purpose. APHIS needs to develop a valid monitoring program.

 

References

 

Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff  EG, Cavey JF, Garrett LJ, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on Reducing Wood Borer Infestation Rates in Wood Packaging Material Entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096611

Liebhold, A.M., E.G. Brockerhoff, L.J. Garrett, J.L. Parke, and K.O. Britton. 2012. Live Plant Imports: the Major Pathway for Forest Insect and Pathogen Invasions of the US. www.frontiersinecology.org

 

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.

 

New study evaluates “candidate pool” from which invasive species might come

Campanula latifolia – one of the species detected as an “emerging” invasive species in the database relied upon by the authors of the study

The authors of a new study note that officials managing invasive species programs rely largely on knowledge of a species’ previous invasion history to predict its level of threat in the geographic area under their responsibility. This approach does not work with the many introduced species that have no history of a previous detected invasion. Hanno Seebens and 49 coauthors – including tree-pest experts Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Marc Kenis, Andrew M. Liebhold, and Alain Roques — have sought to figure out how great a handicap that lack of data is. See “Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source.” The study is available for $10 here. Figures, tables, and references are available without charge.

The study used a database of 45,984 first records of establishment of 16,019 species belonging to the following major taxonomic groups: vascular plants, mammals, birds, fishes, insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates.

Last year, many of the same scientists, relying on the same database, found that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and shows no sign of slowing down. The adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th century have slowed introductions – but they are not sufficiently effective, especially regarding those plants and animals that are introduced primarily accidentally as stowaways on transport vectors or contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, mollusks and other invertebrates). The 2017 study found a strong correlation between these “accidental” alien species’ spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest. For that study, go here.  I blogged about the findings on 1 March 2017 – here.

In the new 2018 article, the scientists found that even after many centuries of invasions the rate of emerging alien species is still high. Across all taxonomic groups, one out of four detections during 2000 – 2005 was of a species that had not been previously recorded anywhere as alien. Detections of “new” or “emerging” aliens is occurring at an even higher rate for some taxonomic groups. But new detections of insects fit the average – every fourth detection during 2000 – 2005 was of a species not previously recorded outside its native range.

The authors conclude that the continuing high proportion of “emerging” alien species is best explained by the interplay of 1) the incorporation into the pool of potential alien species of species native to regions formerly not accessible to traders; 2) increases in introduction rates due to higher import volumes; and 3) probably rising establishment rates as a consequence of land degradation that facilitates establishment in recipient regions. This process compensates for the decrease of new invaders from historically important source regions – from which potentially invasive species have presumably already taken advantage of pathways and been recorded as introduced somewhere.

emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis – one of the species in the database of “emerging” invasive species

 

The number of insect species in the database candidate species pool is 20,611 species – an admittedly small fraction of all insects (for example, there are more than 350,000 beetle species worldwide). Twenty-four percent of these insect species have already been established somewhere outside their native ranges. However, the authors note that data gaps – which are larger for some taxonomic groups and geographic regions – mean that the number of actual “first” introductions is probably larger than records indicate, and consequently the estimated size of the candidate species pools may also be higher. Indeed, the paper does not attempt to estimate the actual size of the invasive species “pool” for insects.

The authors analyzed the importance of eight factors – temperature, relative humidity, import values, three land-use categories, number of botanical gardens, and human population size – in explaining the continued high number of “emerging” invaders detected in recent years. While these factors were explanatory for some taxonomic groups, they had a very low predictive value for insects.

For vascular plants, every third record of an introduction in 2000 – 2005 was of an “emerging” alien  species. Interestingly, the number of botanical gardens in a country was a significant predictor for emerging alien vascular plants. However, as the authors of the article point out, reliance on this factor ignores the probable importance of other contributors such as the number of species planted in the receiving country; similarities between source and receiving environments; and introductions by acclimatization societies, European explorers or settlers, and plant hunters.

Acer ginnala –one of the species detected as an “emerging” invasive species in the database; photo by J. Weisenhorn, University of Minnesota extension

In any case, lots of previously undetected alien species are detected each year. In this database, 58% of the species had a single record; 86% of all species have no more than two first records in countries on the same continent. The large number of species with only one or two records led the authors to conclude that most species will not spread widely. I question that conclusion because species often require some time to spread to new locations – either local or distant. The authors do admit that they are unable to determine which species have a high potential for spread.

ash trees at the St. Louis arch – before arrival of emerald ash borer

 

The continued high rate of introduction of new species leads the authors to estimate that between 1% and 16% of all species on Earth – depending on the taxonomic group – qualify as potential invasive alien species. The authors did not attempt to estimate the true candidate pool or percentage of invasive species for insects. For vascular plants, the authors estimated the candidate pool at 47,000 species (out of a total of 368,000 species on Earth), or 13%.

Like its predecessor, this study’s importance arises from its broad perspective – covering the entire globe and a wide range of taxonomic groups. Its major conclusion that invasions will continue on a large scale serves as a warning to all stakeholders. These include officials charged with protecting agriculture and the broader economy, or the natural environment; conservationists; and those engaged in the economic activities that promote invasion.

However, the authors found that the data did not support more specific advice. First, as noted above, they were unable to determine which of the “emerging” invasive species in all taxonomic groups have a high potential to spread.

For those of us focused on invasive species that threaten native plants, data gaps limit the predictive value of the study the most. The database is too scant even to estimate the invasive species “pool” of potential insect pests. Plant pathogens are not included in the analysis.

 

 

Posted by Faith Campbell and Phyllis Windle

 

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.

 

 

Bad News & Good News – current situation

  American beech; FT Campbell

 

I recently attended USDA’s annual Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species in Annapolis, MD,  and have good and bad news to report about forest pests – mostly about insects but also a little on weeds.

Bad News

New pest: The European leaf-mining weevil is killing American beech in Nova Scotia. Jon Sweeney of Natural Resources Canada thinks it could spread throughout the tree species’ range. (I alerted you to another new pest of beech – beech leaf disease – at the beginning of December.  Beech is already hard-hit by beech bark disease.)

New information added in June: according to Meurisse et al. (2018), the weevil overwinters under the bark of beech and trees that are not hosts, so it can be transported by movement of firewood and other forms of unprocessed logs and branches. [Meurisse, N. D. Rassaati, B.P. Hurley, E.G. Brockerhoff, R.A. Haack. 2018. Common Pathways by which NIS forest insects move internationally and domestically. Journal of Pest Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0990-0]

Other bad news concerns the spread of already-established pests:

  1. Hemlock woolly adelgid has been detected in Nova Scotia – where it has probably been present for years.
  2. Emerald ash borer has been detected in Winnipeg, Manitoba – home to an estimated 350,000 ash trees. Winnipeg is 1,300 km (870 miles) from Saulte Ste. Marie, the closest Canadian outbreak. The closest U.S. outbreak is in Duluth, Minnesota — 378 miles.
  3. Despite strenuous efforts by Pennsylvania (supported, but not adequately, by APHIS), (see my blog from last February ), spotted lanternfly has been detected in Delaware, New York, and Virginia. A map showing locations of apple orchards in the Winchester, Virginia area is available here.
  4. There is continued lack of clarity about biology and impact of velvet longhorned beetle (see my blog from last February.) The Utah population appears to be growing. APHIS is funding efforts to develop trapping tools to monitor the species.
  5. Alerted at the Forum, I investigated a disease on oak trees caused by the pathogen Diplodia corticola. Already recorded in Florida, California, Massachusetts and Maine, last year the disease was also detected in West Virginia. Forest pathologists Danielle Martin and Matt Kasson don’t expect this disease to cause widespread mortality. However, they do expect it to weaken oaks and increase their vulnerability to other threats.

spread of laurel wilt disease

Laurel wilt disease is one of the worst of the established non-native pests. Two speakers at the Forum described its ecological impacts.

Dr. John Riggins of the University of Mississippi reported that 24 native herbivorous insects are highly dependent on plants vulnerable to the laurel wilt insect-pathogen complex. One of these, the Palamedes swallowtail butterfly (Papilio palamedes) has suffered a three-fold to seven-fold decline in populations at study sites after the death of redbay caused by laurel wilt.

Dr. Frank Koch of the USDA Forest Service expects that the disease will spread throughout most of the range of another host, sassafras. (See a map of the plant’s range). With the climate changing, the insect is unlikely to suffer winter cold mortality in the heart of the tree’s range in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.

Apparently many birds depend on spicebush, a shrub in the Lauraceae family, but there is no easily available data on any changes to its distribution or health.

 

Good News

Other speakers at the Forum provided encouraging information.

Scientists described progress on breeding American elm trees resistant to or tolerant of the introduced Dutch elm disease (DED). USFS scientists led by James Slavicek and Kathleen Knight are trying to improve the genetic diversity and form of disease-tolerant American elms and to develop strategies for restoring them to the forest.

More than 70 seedlings planted in an orchard are being inoculated with the DED pathogen to test the trees’ tolerance. The project continues to collect seeds or cuttings from apparently resistant or tolerant trees. If you are aware of a large surviving elm in a natural setting (not urban planting), please contact the program via its website.

The project is also experimenting with methods for restoring trees in the forest. In one such experiment, elms, sycamores, and pin oaks have been planted at sites in Ohio where openings had been created by the death of ash attacked by emerald ash borer. Survival of the elm seedlings has been promising.

 

Also, there is cause to be optimistic re:

  1. Walnut / thousand cankers disease

In the East, walnut trees appear to recover from thousand cankers disease. One factor, according to Matt Ginzel of Purdue University, is that the thousand canker disease fungus, Geosmithia morbida, is a weak annual canker that would not cause branch or tree mortality in the absence of mass attack by the walnut twig beetle. Another factor is the greater reliability of precipitation in the East. Dr. Ginzel is now studying whether mass attack by the beetle is sufficient – alone – to kill walnut trees.

 

  1. b) Sirex noctilio

In Ontario, Laurel Haavik, U.S. Forest Service, finds both low impacts (so far) and evidence of resistance in some pine trees.

 

Also, scientists are making progress in developing tools for detecting and combatting highly damaging pests.

  1. Richard Stouthammer of U.C. Riverside has detected an effective chemical attractant for use in monitoring polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers.  He is testing other pheromones that could improve the attractant’s efficacy. He has also detected some chemicals that apparently repel the beetles. His colleague, pathologist Akiv Eskalen, is testing endophytes that attack the beetles’ Fusarium fungus.
  2. Several scientists are identifying improved techniques for surveillance trapping for wood-boring beetles. These include Jon Sweeney of Natural Resources Canada and Jeremy Allison of the Great Lakes Forestry Centre.

 

Progress has also been made in biocontrol programs targetting non-native forest pests.

  1. Winter moth

Joseph Elkington of the University of Massachusetts reports success following 12 years of releases of the Cyzenis moth – a classical biocontrol agent that co-evolved with the winter moth in Europe. The picture is complex since the moths are eaten by native species of insects and small mammals and parasitized by a native wasp. However, native predators didn’t control the winter moth when it first entered Massachusetts.

2) Emerald ash borer

Jian Duan of the Agriculture Research Service reported that biocontrol agents targeting the  are having an impact on beetle densities in Michigan, where several parasitoids were released in 2007 to 2010. The larval parasitoid Tetrasrticus planipennisi appears to be having the greatest impact. A survey of ash saplings at these sites in 2015 found that more than 70% lacked fresh EAB galleries. In other trees, larval density was very low – a level of attack that Duan thinks the trees can survive.

However, Tetrasrticus has a short ovipositor so it is unlikely to be able to reach EAB larvae in larger trees with thicker bark. Furthermore, most of the biocontrol agents were collected at about 40o North latitude. It is unclear whether they will be as successful in controlling EAB outbreaks farther South.

Consequently, Duan noted the need to expand the rearing and release of a second, larger braconid wasp Spathius galinae, continue exploration in the southern and western edges of the EAB native range for new parasitoids; and continue work to determine the role of the egg parasitoids.

A brochure describing the U.S. EAB biocontrol program is available here

Canada began its EAB biocontrol program in 2013, using parasitoids raised by USDA APHIS. While evaluating the efficacy of these releases, Canada is also testing whether biocontrol can protect street trees.

3) Hemlock woolly adelgid

Scientists have been searching for a suite of biocontrol agents to control HWA for 25 years. Scientists believe that they need two sets of agents – those that will feed on the adelgid during spring/summer and those that will feed on HWA during winter/spring.

The first agent, Sasajiscymnus tsugae, was released in large numbers beginning in 1995. It is easy to rear. However, there are questions regarding its establishment and impact.

Laricobius nigrinus – a winter/spring feeder from the Pacific Northwest – was released beginning in 2003. It is widely established, especially in warmer areas. A related beetle, L. osakensis, was discovered in a part of Japan where eastern North American populations of HWA originated. Releases started in 2012. Scientists are hopeful that this beetle will prove more effective than some of the other biocontrol agents.

Winter cold snaps in the Northeast have killed HWA. While HWA populations often rebound quickly, predatory insects might suffer longer-term mortality. This risk intensifies the importance of finding agents that attack HWA during the spring or summer. Two new agents – the silver flies Leucopis artenticollis and L. piniperda – may be able to fill this niche. Both are from the Pacific Northwest. Initial releases have established populations.

 

4) USDA scientists are at earlier stages of actively seeking and testing possible biocontrol agents targetting Asian longhorned beetle and spotted lanternfly.

 

5) Invasive Plant Management

A study in New York City shows that invasive plant removal can have lasting effects. Lea Johnson  of the University of Maryland studied vegetation dynamics in urban forest patches in New York City. Her publications are available here.

In the 1980s New York undertook large scale restoration of its parks, including removal of invasive plants – especially multiflora rose, porcelainberry (Ampelopsis) and oriental bittersweet (Celastris). The goal was to establish self-sustaining forest with regeneration of native species. In 2006, Dr. Johnson was asked to evaluate the parks’ vegetation. She compared restored sites and similar sites without restoration.

I find it promising that Dr. Johnson found persistent differences in forest structure and composition as much as 15 or 20 years after restoration was undertaken. Treated sites had significantly lower invasive species abundance, a more complex forest structure, and greater native tree recruitment.

Still, shade intolerant species were abundant on all sites. The native shade tolerant species that had been planted did not do as well because gaps in the canopy persist.

 

CONCLUSIONS

As always, the annual Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species provides an excellent opportunity to get an overview of non-native pest threats to America’s forests and the ever-wider range of scientists’ efforts to combat those threats. Presenters from universities as well as USDA, Canadian, and state agencies describe the status of host tree and pest species, advance promising technologies for detection, monitoring and control, and – increasingly – strategies for predicting potential pests’ likely impact. The networking opportunities are unparalleled.

 

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.

 

You Might Be Surprised By Who is Authorized to Manage Wildlife on Federal Lands

mountain goats – introduced onto USFS-managed lands in the Columbia River Gorge at state initiative; in Utah, the state introduced mountain goats on lands adjacent to a USFS Research Natural Area

 

The journal Environmental Law has just published a 135-page article that debunks a common myth of wildlife management – a piece that the U.S. Forest Service tried to quash. The authors’ analysis could affect the introduction of potentially invasive non-native species – and the reintroduction of native ones – on federal lands.

Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt & S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands; debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law, Vol. 47, no. 4 (2017).

The article reviews the legal authority of federal and state governments to manage wildlife on federal lands.  The authors examined wildlife-related provisions within the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management, the special case of Alaska, the National Wilderness Preservation System, and the Endangered Species Act. They also reviewed cases where federal and state agencies came into conflict over wildlife management on federal lands.

Citing the U.S. Constitution, federal land laws, and relevant case law, the authors assert that federal agencies have an obligation, not just the discretion, to manage and conserve fish and wildlife on lands and waters under their management. They say that the often-cited statement that “the states manage wildlife and federal land agencies only manage wildlife habitat” is wrong from a legal standpoint. This is the myth that the article debunks.

Furthermore, the authors find that federal agencies frequently apply their powers in an inconsistent and sometimes even unlawful fashion. Due to political pressures, they may back down when confronted by states wanting to manage wildlife to achieve their own goals – even when the state’s goals conflict with the legally-mandated purposes of the federal land under question. Such goals might include ensuring maximum populations of “game” animals or introduction of species to new habitats – regardless of the potential impact on native plants and animals.

The authors note that federal land and wildlife laws provide ample opportunities for constructive intergovernmental cooperation in wildlife management. They call for truly mutual collaboration by federal, state, and tribal authorities in managing wildlife. However, such cooperation is blocked in part by states choosing to challenge the constitutional powers, federal land laws, and U.S. government supremacy. In addition, the authors contend, most states have not put together programs that address their own conservation obligations. These obligations are inherent in the widely recognized doctrine of wildlife being a public trust to be managed for the present and future benefit of the people, not the government or private individuals.

According to the website of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics,  posting of a draft of this article on the University of Montana website (where lead author Martin Nie teaches) led the U.S. Forest Service to pressure the university to withdraw the article. The university refused, and the Forest Service ended its contract with Nie and his research center.

The paper can be downloaded here. 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.

Posted by Faith Campbell

New Woodborer Detected – Importance of Surveillance By-Catch

 

Agrilus smaragdifrons – photo by Ryan Rieder, New Jersey Department of Agriculture

 

At least 11 non-native metallic wood-boring beetles in the genus Agrilus  have been introduced to either the United States or Canada – or both. The most recent detection is Agrilus smaragdifrons Ganglbauer, which feeds on the invasive plant tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). This information comes largely from an important new paper by noted entomologist E. Richard Hoebeke at the University of Georgia and others (see the reference Hoebeke et al. 2017 at the end of this blog).

 

Two more Agrilus species that are native to Mexico and – in one case, also Arizona – have been introduced to separate parts of the U.S. and are killing naïve hosts there. These are A. prionus (which attacks soapberry trees in Texas) and A. auroguttatus (the goldspotted oak borer, which attacks several oak trees in California). Both species are described here

 

The genus Agrilus is considered to be the largest genus of the entire Animal Kingdom; it has over 3,000 valid species (Hoebeke et al. 2017).

 

Most of the Agrilus introduced to North America do not attack trees. Several attack crops such as grapes, currants and gooseberries, and rasberries (Hoebeke et al. 2017; (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009; reference at the end of the blog). Others attack horticultural plants including roses, wisteria, and mimosa (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009).

 

Still others attack plants that are invasive, such as honeysuckles (Lonicera spp). One, A. hyperici Creutzer, was deliberately introduced as a biocontrol agent targeting St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009).

 

However, Agrilus sulcicollis attacks oaks, beech, chestnut and other trees in the Fagaceae family in its native Europe. The beetle was detected in Ontario in 2006 (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009).

 

The most recently detected East Asian “jewel” beetle, Agrilus smaragdifrons, was discovered by analysis of Agrilus species caught in surveillance programs targeting other species – usually emerald ash borer (EAB) (A. planipennis). The beetle was first identified in traps deployed by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture. Unlike in many trapping programs, New Jersey screened the trap catches for all beetles in the family Buprestidae (which includes EAB). In 2015, two samples from separate trapping sites in the state contained a distinct but unrecognized species. These were identified by Dr. Hoebeke as the East Asian A. smaragdifrons (Hoebeke et al. 2017).

 

Alerted to the new species, scientists conferred and found additional detections of the species. An EAB biosurveillance program in New England utilizing the native ground-nesting wasp Cerceris fumipennis also detected the A. smaragdifrons in at least one location in central Connecticut in 2015. (The wasps capture beetles in the Buprestid family to feed to their young. By observing which species of beetles are brought to their nests by the wasps, scientists can learn which species are present in an area.)

 

Pennsylvania has collected A. smaragdifrons in surveillance programs targeting either EAB or spotted lantern fly (Lycorma delicatula (White))(Hoebeke et al. 2017).

locations where A. smaragdifrons has been detected; map from Hoebeke et al. 2017

It turned out that A. smaragdifrons has been in the U.S. for several years. One scientist photographed the beetle – without knowing what it was – in 2011 in New Jersey and posted the image at BugGuide (http://bugguide.net/node/view/1139674/bgimage ; accessed by Hoebeke and colleagues on 1 May 2017).

 

Recent field observations in China and the U.S. have observed both adults and larvae feeding on tree of heaven. In Beijing, many Ailanthus trees in gardens or along roadsides have succumbed to attack by this wood-borer. Other tree species on the grounds of Beijing Forestry University have not been attacked by A. smaragdifrons (Hoebeke et al. 2017). Still, no proper host-specificity test has yet been conducted on the beetle.

 

Of course, Ailanthus is widespread across North America, from southern Canada to Florida, and even along river courses in the arid Southwest. According to the USDA Forest Service (see the third on-line reference at the end of the blog), Ailanthus is known to be present in 42 states. It is most abundant in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states. For example, 18% of the forest plots inventoried by the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory Analysis program in West Virginia had Ailanthus present. Efforts are under way to try to find biocontrol agents (Hoebeke et al. 2017).

 

 

Importance of analyzing by-catch in insect detection surveys.

 

While most managers of pest surveys ignore the non-target species caught in their traps (“by-catch”), this detection shows that examining the by-catch can sometimes result in discovering previously unknown species. (Other examples of such detections include the pine pest Sirex noctilio in New York in 2004 and the oak-feeding Agrilus sulcicollis in Ontario and later Michigan.

 

Hoebeke and his colleagues strongly recommend that scientists pay attention to non-target insects captured in their surveys, especially those insects that show up in any abundance for the first time.

 

SOURCES

 

Hoebeke, E.R., E. Jendek, J.E. Zablotny, R. Rieder, R. Yoo, V.V. Grebennikov and L. Ren. 2017. First North American Records of the East Asian Metallic Wood-Boring Beetle Agrilus smaragdifrons Ganglbauer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae: Agrilinae), a Specialist on Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima, Simaroubaceae) Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 119(3):408-422.

 

This article demonstrates how to distinguish the Ailanthus beetle from other Agrilus species.

 

Jendek, E. and V.V. Grebennikov. 2009. Agrilus sulcicollis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a new alien species in North America. Canadian Entomologist 141: 236–245.

Maryland has declared A. smaragdifrons its “invasive species of the month” for December 2017. Visit http://mdinvasivesp.org/invader_of_the_month.html

Information about Ailanthus as an invasive plant is available at

https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/treeheaven.shtml ; https://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/midatlantic.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/43136

Biological Control Approved for Invasive Black and Pale Swallow-wort!

black swallow-wort; photo by Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut

Help is on the way!

With funding support through the Northeast IPM Partnership, University of Rhode Island entomologist Richard Casagrande has been leading a team to find biological control agents for two invasive plant species. The target species, black swallow-wort (Vincetoxicum nigrum) and pale swallow-wort (Vincetoxicum rossicum), are native to Europe and members of the milkweed family Apocynaceae (previously Asclepiadaceae). In the U.S., their vigorous growth overtakes and smothers small trees, shrubs and other native plants and threatens the survival of the monarch butterfly whose larvae rely on milkweed for their development. They are currently found in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states but could spread much farther.

(See Faith’s earlier blog about USDA speeding up approvals of biocontrols for invasive plants here.

U.S. native swallow-wort species belong to the genus Cynanchum and include a dozen or so rare and endangered plant species. It was essential to consider these native species in the investigations. Feeding tests would need to show definitively that the potential biocontrol species would not attack native swallow-worts or other native members of the milkweed family. And, Jennifer Dacey, Casagrande’s graduate student, wanted to find out how well the exotic swallow-worts might provide for monarch butterflies. The results were alarming.  All of the monarch larvae died when hatching on black swallow-wort.  “They stopped eating after a single bite,” says Casagrande.

pale swallow-wort; photo by Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut

Why biological control?

Small infestations of invasive swallow-wort, seedlings and young plants can be pulled up by hand, mature plants can be dug up, and frequent mowing can suppress populations in fields. However, most infestations are too extensive to control by hand. Systemic herbicides – those that are carried through the plant to the roots — can be used to control large infestations, using foliar sprays. Several years of treatment will likely be needed due to the persistence of swallow-wort seeds. These efforts can be part of an overall Integrated Pest Management strategy but the best long-range solution is biological control. Biocontrol relies on finding herbivores that have coevolved to feed on specific invasive plants in their native range that will not have a significant impact on non-target species. Graduate student Aaron Weed worked with Swiss scientists to identify a handful of specialist plant herbivores, mainly beetles and moths that evolved with black swallow-wort and pale swallow-wort in their native ranges in Europe and were highly unlikely to feed on other plant species.

Approval process.

All biological control agents must be approved for release by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS sets up a Technical Advisory Group, or “TAG”, to review the research on feeding tests conducted by the researchers, called “no-choice” tests.  Potential biocontrol agents are tested for feeding on an extensive selection of native plant species and their relatives to ensure the agents are specific to the target species and won’t pose a threat to agriculture or to rare, threatened or endangered species or to other native species. The TAG list includes, naturally, most native milkweed relatives and even species more distantly related.

“Luckily, none of our native plants is closely related to the [invasive]swallow-worts,” says Casagrande. “That makes [swallow-wort] a great candidate for classical biological control.  The Tag list also includes a suite of Eurasian plants you might expect these specialists to nibble at now and then, and even plants that could host these specialists’ relatives. The bar is high for these no-choice tests: biocontrols must prove they’ll die before they switch.”

Casagrande’s team examined five possible biocontrol specialists in their quarantine lab, including two European moth species (Hypena opulenta and Abrostola asclepiadis) that feed on swallow-wort leaves in their native range. The researchers wanted to be sure these insects wouldn’t jump to non-target plants on the TAG list, since the last thing anyone wants is a new pest dominating the landscape, threatening agriculture, native ecosystems, and rare plants.

Results?

Both leaf-eating moths “passed the acid test,” says Casagrande. However, scientists have only petitioned for and received approval for Hypena opulenta, which was approved by the USDA in September 2017. They may seek approval for Abrostela in the future but for now are focused on rearing, releasing, and studying the effectiveness of Hypena.  Releases in Canada started in 2013 when Hypena was approved there. Since then, it has established and spread but it is too soon to evaluate its effectiveness.

Releases in the U.S.

Hypena opulenta was released on Naushon Island, Massachusetts, in early September 2017 – the only release in the United States – where both black and pale swallow-wort occur. The field release was carried out by placing about 400 larvae in each of 4 large cages containing both swallow-wort species in sun and shade locations. The larvae will be allowed to grow and develop in the cages for a little while before the cages are opened to allow the larvae to escape and start establishing on the island.

Next steps?

Funding will be sought to support rearing of Hypena at University of Rhode Island and other locations in the U.S. Dr. Lisa Tewksbury, Manager of Biological Control at URI, is running the program. It will take a few years to get to the point of having sufficient moths to distribute widely.  Best practices for releasing and monitoring will be developed.

Thanks to the Northeast IPM Partnership and the interest and dedicated efforts of Casagrande and his research team, we now have the most effective tool to use against two highly invasive plant species that will also protect our native species and natural ecosystems.

 

Posted by Jil Swearingen

Jil recently retired from the federal government and works as an invasive species consultant. She has 28 years of experience working on invasive species at the county, regional and national level in areas of education, outreach and management. Jil initiated and co-founded the Mid Atlantic Invasive Plant Council and serves on the board. Jil serves as the Coordinator for the Mid Atlantic Early Detection Network, a project she initiated and co-developed, and she continues to serve as Chair for the Plant Conservation Alliance’s Alien Plant Working Group and manager of the Weeds Gone Wild website. Jil is lead author of the book, Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas. She was recently elected to serve on the Board of Directors of the Maryland Native Plant Society

 

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.