riparian ash killed by EAB; in this case, Mattawoman Creek in Maryland. Photo by Leslie A. Brice
Good news at the recent 33rd USDA Research Forum on Invasive Species. Scientists presented the first study that demonstrates significantly lower ash tree mortality in sites with high parasitism rates of two larval parasitoids, Tetrastichus planipennisi and Spathius galinae.
Their study area is the ash-dominated riparian area along the Connecticut River that flows north to south across the middle of Massachusetts. Knowing in advance that the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis; EAB) would invade the area, scientists established monitoring plot that consisted of marked individual ash trees. EAB was first detected in the southern reach of the riparian area in 2015. It gradually moved north. By 2020 isolated mortality was observed at all sites. Meantime, they released three biocontrol agents – T. planipennis,S. galinae, and Oobius agrilii – early in the invasion at three of the six monitoring sites. These released occurred in 2018 – 2020 and again in 2022.
In 2021 and 2025, the scientists counted the numbers of biocontrol agents in the marked trees or sentinel logs. Thus the first evaluation occurred six years after EAB arrived, three years after the first releases of biocontrol agents.
They found that at southern Massachusetts sites, where EAB density was higher at the time of the biocontrol agents’ initial release, remaining ash grew more slowly than in the North. They believe the trees’ growth rate was suppressed by the trees having fewer resources. They also observed dieback. Smaller trees grew faster, perhaps responding to opening of the canopy as mature ash succumbed to EAB invasion.
The most important finding was that ash mortality at all sites was ~50% or less … not the 90% expected based on experience in the upper Midwest where the EAB invasion occurred before biocontrol agents were developed.
SOURCE
Ash survival and growth response to emerald ash borer invasion in Massachusetts riparian forests: impacts of biological control. Mitchell A. Reed, Jian Duan, Ryan S. Crandall, Roy G. van Driesche, Jeremy C. Anderson, Joseph S. Elkington. Presentation to the 33rd USDA Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species, Annapolis, Maryland February 25-28, 2025 (The proceedings should be posted online before the end of the year.)
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
emerald ash borer; some of PPA grants are funding evaluation of biocontrol efficacy
USDA APHIS has released information about its most recent annual allocation of funds under the Plant Pest and Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program under §7721 of the Plant Protection Act. (Also see Fading Forests II and III; links provided at the end of this blog.) These funds support both critical needs and opportunities to strengthen the nation’s infrastructure for pest detection, surveillance, identification, and threat mitigation. Since 2009, this USDA program has provided nearly $940 million to more than 5,890 projects.
For FY25 APHIS allocated $62.725 million to fund 339 projects, about 58% of the proposals submitted. About $10 million has reserved for responding to pest and plant health emergencies throughout the year.
According to APHIS’ press release, the highest amount of funds (almost $16 million) is allocated to the category “Enhanced Plant Pest/Disease Survey.” Projects on “Enhanced Mitigation Capabilities” received $13.6 million. “Targetting Domestic Inspection Efforts to Vulnerable Points” received nearly $6 million. “Improving Pest Identification and Detection Technology” was funded at $5 million. Outreach & education received $4 million. I am not sure why these do not total $63 million.
Funding for States and Specific Pests
Wood-boring insects received about $2.3 million. These included more than $869,800 to assess the efficacy of biocontrol for controlling emerald ash borer (EAB) Agrilus planipennis, $687,410 was provided for various detection projects, and $450,000 for outreach efforts related to various pests. Ohio State received $93,000 to optimize traps for the detection of non-native scolytines (bark beetles).
Biocontrol efficacy will also be assessed for hemlock woolly adelgid, invasive shot hole borers, cactus moth, and several invasive plants (including Brazilian pepper). (Contact me to obtain a copy of CISP’s comments on this biocontrol program.)
Opuntia basilaris in Anza Boreggo; one of flat-padded Opuntia vulnerable to the cactus moth; photo by F.T. Campbell
Funding for other pests exceeded $1 million for spotted lanternfly (nearly $1.4 million), Asian defoliators ($1.2 million) and box tree moth (just over $1 million).
$630,000 was provided for detection surveys and studies of the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, especially how it infects nursery stock. Nursery surveys are funded in Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Most of these states are in regions considered most at risk to SOD infection of wildland plants.
sudden oak mortality of tanoak trees in southern Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry
Oregon received much-deserved $41,000 to evaluate the threat of the NA2 and EU2 lineages of P. ramorum to nurseries and forests Oregon also received $104,000 to respond to the detection of Phytophthora austrocedri in nurseries in the state. The Oregon outbreak has been traced to Ohio, but I see no record of funds to assist that state in determining how it was introduced.
Asian defoliator (e.g., Lymantrid moths) surveys have been funded for several years. This year’s projects are in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. While I agree that the introduction risk is not limited to coastal states with maritime ports, I don’t what criteria were applied in choosing the non-coastal states which are funded to search for these insects
Spotted lanternfly surveys (including technological improvements) or related outreach are funded in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. California’s project is focused on postharvest treatments.
The Don’t Move Firewood project continues to be funded by APHIS. Several states also direct attention specifically to the firewood pathway: Kentucky, Maine, and Michigan.
I applaud the precautionary funding of the Agriculture Research Service to generate of high-quality genomic resources for managing the causal agent of Japanese oak wilt Dryadomyces quercivorous
Florida Department of Agriculture, North Carolina State University, and West Virginia University each received more than $100,000 to improve detection and management of invasive hornets.
Tennessee State University got $100,000 to continue efforts to detect and understand Vascular Streak Dieback in redbud Cercis canadensis.
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
ʻŌhiʻa trees killed by ROD; photo by Richard Sniezko, USFS
Several Hawaiian tree species are at risk due to introduced forest pests. Two of the Islands’ most widespread species are among the at-risk taxa. Their continuing loss would expose watersheds on which human life and agriculture depend. Habitats for hundreds of other species – many endemic and already endangered – would lose their foundations. These trees also are of the greatest cultural importance to Native Hawaiians.
I am pleased to report that Hawaiian scientists and conservationists are trying to protect and restore them.
Other tree species enjoy less recognition … and efforts to protect them have struggled to obtain support.
1) koa (Acacia koa)
Koa is both a dominant canopy tree and the second-most abundant native tree species in Hawai`i in terms of areas covered. The species is endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago. Koa forests provide habitat for 30 of the islands’ remaining 35 native bird species, many of which are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Also dependent on koa forests are native plant and invertebrate species and the Islands’ only native terrestrial mammal, the Hawaiian hoary bat. Finally, koa forests protect watersheds, add nitrogen to degraded soils, and store carbon [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Koa forests once ranged from near sea level to above 7000 ft (2100 m) on both the wet and dry sides of all the large Hawaiian Islands. Conversion of forests to livestock grazing and row-crop agriculture has reduced koa’s range. Significant koa forests are now found on four islands – Hawai’i, Maui, O‘ahu, and Kauaʻi. More than 90% of the remaining koa forests occur on Hawai`i Island (the “Big Island) [Inman-Narahari et al.]
In addition to its fundamental environmental role, koa has immense cultural importance. Koa represents strength and the warrior spirit. The wood was used traditionally to make sea-going canoes. Now Koa is widely used for making musical instruments, especially guitars and ukuleles; furniture, surfboards, ornaments, and art [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Koa timber has the highest monetary value of any wood harvested on the Islands. However, supplies of commercial-quality trees are very limited (Dudley et al. 2020). Harvesting is entirely from old-growth forests on private land. [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Koa forests are under threat by a vascular wilt disease caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. koae (FOXY). This disease can kill up to 90% of young trees and – sometimes — mature trees in native forests. The fungus is a soil-dwelling organism that spreads in soil and infects susceptible plants through the root system (Dudley et al. 2020).
Conservation and commercial considerations have converged to prompt efforts to breed koa resistant to FOXY. Conservationists hope to restore native forests on large areas where agriculture has declined. The forestry industry seeks to enhance supplies of the Islands’ most valuable wood. Finally, science indicated that a breeding program would probably be successful. Field trials in the 1990s demonstrated great differences in wilt-disease mortality among seed sources (the proportion of seedlings surviving inoculation ranged from 4% to 91.6%) [Sniezko 2003; Dudley et al. 2009].
In 2003, Dudley and Sniezko outlined a long-term strategy for exploring and utilizing genetic resistance in koa. Since then, a team of scientists and foresters has implemented different phases of the strategy and refined it further (Dudley et al. 2012, 2015, 2017; Sniezko et al. 2016]
First, scientists determined that the wilt disease is established on the four main islands. Having obtained more than 500 isolates of the pathogen from 386 trees sampled at 46 sites, scientists tested more than 700 koa families from 11 ecoregions for resistance against ten of the most highly virulent isolates (Dudley et al. 2020).
The Hawaiian Agricultural Research Center (HARC), supported by public and private partners, has converted the field-testing facilities on Hawai`i, Maui, and Oahu into seed orchards. The best-performing tree families are being grown to maturity to produce seeds for planting. It is essential that the seedlings be not just resistant to FOXY but also adapted to the ecological conditions of the specific site where they are to be planted [Dudley et al. 2020; Inman-Narahari et al. ] Locally adapted, wilt-resistant seed has been planted on Kauaʻi and Hawai`i. Preparations are being made to plant seed on Maui and O‘ahu also. Scientists are also exploring methods to scale up planting in both restoration and commercial forests [R. Hauff pers. comm.].
koa; photo by David Eickhoff via Flickr
Restoration of koa on the approximately half of lands in the species’ former range that are privately owned will require that the trees provide superior timber. Private landowners might also need financial incentives since the rotation time for a koa plantation is thought to be 30-80 years. [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Plantings on both private and public lands will need to be protected from grazing by feral ungulates and encroachment by competing plants. These management actions are intensive, expensive, and must be maintained for years.
Some additional challenges are scientific: uncertainties about appropriate seed zones, efficacy of silvicultural approaches to managing the disease, and whether koa can be managed for sustainable harvests. Human considerations are also important: Hawai`i lacks sufficient professional tree improvement or silvicultural personnel, a functioning seed distribution and banking network — and supporting resources. Finally, some segments of the public oppose ungulate control programs. Inman-Narahari et al.
Finally, scientists must monitor seed orchards and field plantings for any signs of maladaptation to climate change. (Dudley et al. 2020).
2) ʻŌhiʻa Metrosideros polymorpha)
ʻŌhiʻa lehua is the most widespread tree on the Islands. It dominates approximately 80% the biomass of Hawaii’s remaining native forest, in both wet and dry habitats. ʻŌhiʻa illustrates adaptive radiation and appears to be undergoing incipient speciation. The multitude of ecological niches and their isolation on the separate islands has resulted in five recognized species in the genus Metrosideros. Even the species found throughout the state, Metrosideros polymorpha, has eight recognized varieties (Luiz et al. (2023) (some authorities say there are more).
Loss of this iconic species could result in significant changes to the structure, composition, and potentially, the function, of forests on a landscape level. High elevation ‘ohi‘a forests protect watersheds across the state. ʻŌhiʻa forests shelter the Islands’ one native terrestrial mammal (Hawaiian hoary bat), 30 species of forest birds, and more than 500 endemic arthropod species. Many species in all these taxa are endangered or threatened (Luiz et al. 2023). The increased light penetrating interior forests following canopy dieback facilitates invasion by light-loving non-native plant species, of which Hawai`i has dozens. There is perhaps no other species in the United States that supports more endangered taxa or that plays such a geographical dominant ecological keystone role [Luiz et al. 2023]
For many Native Hawaiians, ‘ōhi‘a is a physical manifestation of multiple Hawaiian deities and the subject of many Hawaiian proverbs, chants, and stories; and foundational to the scared practice of many hula. The wood has numerous uses. Flowers, shoots, and aerial roots are used medicinally and for making lei. The importance of the biocultural link between ‘ōhi‘a and the people of Hawai`i is described by Loope and LaRosa (2008) and Luiz et al. (2023).
In 2010 scientists detected rapid mortality affecting ‘ōhi‘a on Hawai‘i Island. Scientists determined that the disease is caused by two recently-described pathogenic fungi, Ceratocystis lukuohia and Ceratocystis huliohia. The two diseases, Ceratocystis wilt and Ceratocystis canker of ʻōhiʻa, are jointly called “rapid ‘ōhi‘a death”, or ROD. The more virulent species, C. lukuohia, has since spread across Hawai`i Island and been detected on Kaua‘i. The less virulent C. huliohia is established on Hawai`i and Kaua‘i and in about a dozen trees on O‘ahu. One tree on Maui was infected; it was destroyed, and no new infection has been detected [M. Hughes pers. comm.] As of 2023, significant mortality has occurred on more than one third of the vulnerable forest on Hawai`i Island, although mortality is patchy.
[ʻŌhiʻa is also facing a separate disease called myrtle rust caused by the fungus Austropuccinia psidii; to date this rust has caused less virulent infections on ‘ōhi‘a.]
rust-killed ‘ōhi‘a in 2016; photo by J.B. Friday
Because of the ecological importance of ‘ōhi‘a and the rapid spread of these lethal diseases, research into possible resistance to the more virulent pathogen, C. lukiohia began fairly quickly, in 2016. Some ‘ōhi‘a survive in forests on the Big Island in the presence of ROD, raising hopes that some trees might possess natural resistance. Scientists are collecting germplasm from these lightly impacted stands near high-mortality stands (Luiz et al. 2023). Five seedlings representing four varieties of M. polymorpha that survived several years’ exposure to the disease are being used to produce rooted cuttings and seeds for further evaluation of these genotypes.
ʻŌhiʻa flowers
Encouraged by these developments, and recognizing the scope of additional work needed, in 2018 stakeholders created a collaborative partnership that includes state, federal, and non-profit agencies and entities, ʻŌhiʻa Disease Resistance Program (‘ODRP) (Luiz et al. 2023). The partnership seeks to provide baseline information on genetic resistance present in all Hawaiian taxa in the genus Metrosideros. It aims further to develop sources of ROD-resistant germplasm for restoration intended to serve several purposes: cultural plantings, landscaping, and ecological restoration. ‘ODRP is pursuing screenings of seedlings and rooted cuttings sampled from native Metrosideros throughout Hawai`i while trying to improve screening and growing methods. Progress will depend on expanding these efforts to include field trials; research into environmental and genetic drivers of susceptibility and resistance; developing remote sensing and molecular methods to rapidly detect ROD-resistant individuals; and support already ongoing Metrosideros conservation. If levels of resistance in wild populations prove to be insufficient, the program will also undertake breeding (Luiz et al. 2023).
To be successful, ‘ODRP must surmount several challenges (Luiz et al. 2022):
increase capacity to screen seedlings from several hundred plants per year to several thousand;
optimize artificial inoculation methodologies;
determine the effects of temperature and season on infection rates and disease progression;
find ways to speed up seedlings’ attaining sufficient size for testing;
develop improved ways to propagate ʻōhiʻa from seed and rooted cuttings;
establish sites for field testing of putatively resistant trees across a wide range of climatic and edaphic conditions;
establish seed orchard, preferably on several islands;
establish systems for seed collection from the wide variety of subspecies/varieties;
if breeding to enhance resistance is appropriate, it will be useful to develop high-throughput phenotyping of the seed orchard plantings.
Developing ROD-resistant ‘ōhi‘a is only one part of a holistic conservation program. Luiz et al. (2023) reiterate the importance of quarantines and education to curtail movement of infected material and countering activities that injure the trees. Fencing to protect these forests from grazing by feral animals can drastically reduce the amount of disease. Finally, scientists must overcome the factors there caused the almost complete lack of natural regeneration of ‘ōhi‘a in lower elevation forests. Most important are competition by invasive plants, predation by feral ungulates, and the presence of other diseases, e.g., Austropuccinia psidii.
Hawaii’s dryland forests are highly endangered: more than 90% of dry forests are already lost due to habitat destruction and the spread of invasive plant and animal species. Two tree species are the focus of species-specific programs aimed at restoring them to remaining dryland forests. However, support for both programs seems precarious and requires stable long-term funding; disease resistance programs often necessitate decades-long endeavors.
naio in bloom; photo by Forrest & Kim Starr via Creative Commons
1) naio (Myoporum sandwicense)
Naio grows on all of the main Hawaiian Islands at elevations ranging from sea level to 3000 m. While it occurs in the full range of forest types from dry to wet, naio is one of two tree species that dominate upland dry forests. The other species is mamane, Sophora chrysophylla. Naio is a key forage tree for two endangered honeycreepers, palila (Loxioides bailleui) and `akiapola`au (Hemignathus munroi). The tree is also an important host of many species of native yellow-face bees (Hylaeus spp). Finally, loss of a native tree species in priority watersheds might lead to invasions by non-native plants that consume more water or increase runoff.
The invasive non-native Myoporum thrips, Klambothrips myopori, was detected on Hawai‘i Island in December 2008 (L. Kaufman website). In 2018 the thrips was found also on Oahu (work plan). The Myoporum thrips feeds on and causes galls on plants’ terminal growth. This can eventually lead to death of the plant.
Aware of thrips-caused death of plants in the Myoporum genus in California, the Hawaii Department of Lands and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife and the University of Hawai‘i began efforts to determine the insect’s distribution and infestation rates, as well as the overall health of naio populations on the Big Island. This initiative began in September 2010, nearly two years after the thrips’ detection. Scientists monitored nine protected natural habitats for four years. This monitoring program was supported by the USFS Forest Health Protection program. This program is described by Kaufman.
naio monitoring sites from L. Kaufman article
The monitoring program determined that by 2013, the thrips has spread across most of Hawi`i Island, on its own and aided by human movement of landscaping plants. More than 60% of trees being monitored had died. Infestation and dieback levels had both increased, especially at medium elevation sites. The authors feared that mortality at high elevations would increase in the future. They found no evidence that natural enemies are effective controlling naio thrips populations on Hawai`i Island.
Kaufman was skeptical that biological control would be effective. She suggested, instead, a breeding program, including hybridizing M. sandwicensis with non-Hawaiian Myoporum species that appear to be resistant to thrips. Kaufman also called for additional programs: active monitoring to prevent thrips from establishing on neighboring islands; and collection and storage of naio seeds.
Ten years later, in February 2024, DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife adopted a draft work plan for exploring possible resistance to the Myoporum thrips. Early steps include establishing a database to record data needed to track parent trees, associated propagules, and the results of tests. These data are crucial to keeping track of which trees show the most promise. Other actions will aim to hone methods and processes. Among practical questions to be answered are a) whether scientists can grow even-aged stands of naio seedlings; b) identifying the most efficient resistance screening techniques; and c) whether K. myopori thrips are naturally present in sufficient numbers to be used in tests, or – alternatively – whether they must be augmented. [Plan]
Meanwhile, scientists have begun collecting seed from unaffected or lightly affected naio in hotspots where mortality is high. They have focused on the dry and mesic forests of the western side of Hawai`i (“Big”) Island, where the largest number of naio populations still occur and are at high risk. Unfortunately, these “lingering” trees remain vulnerable to other threats, such as browsing by feral ungulates, competition with invasive plants, drought, and reduced fecundity & regeneration.
Hawai`i DLNR has secured initial funding from the Department of Defense’s REPI program to begin a pest resistance project and is seeking a partnership with University of Hawai`i to carry out tests “challenging” different naio families’ resistance to the thrips [R. Hauff pers. comm.]
wiliwili; photo by Forrest & Kim Starr
2) wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis)
Efforts to protect the wiliwili have focused on biological control. The introduced Erythrina gall wasp, Quadrastichus erythrinae (EGW) was detected on the islands in 2005. It immediately caused considerable damage to the native tree and cultivated nonnative coral trees.
A parasitic wasp, Eurytoma erythrinae, was approved for release in November 2008 – only 3 ½ years after EGW was detected on O‘ahu. The parasitic wasp quickly suppressed the gall wasp’s impacts to both wiliwili trees and non-native Erythrina. By 2024, managers are once again planting the tree in restoration projects.
However, both the gall wasp and a second insect pest – a bruchid, Specularius impressithorax – can cause loss of more than 75% of the seed crop. This damage means that the tree cannot regenerate. By 2019, Hawaiian authorities began seeking permission to release a second biocontrol gent, Aprostocitus nites.Unfortunately, the Hawai’i Department of Agriculture still has not approved the release permit despite five years having passed. Once they have this approval, the scientists will then need to ask USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for its approval [R. Hauff, pers. comm.]
SOURCES
www.RapidOhiaDeath.org
Dudley, N., R. James, R. Sniezko, P. Cannon, A. Yeh, T. Jones, & Michael Kaufmann. 2009? Operational Disease Screening Program for Resistance to Wilt in Acacia koa in Hawai`i. Hawai`i Forestry Association Newsletter August 29 2009
Dudley, N., T. Jones, K. Gerber, A.L. Ross-Davis, R.A. Sniezko, P. Cannon & J. Dobbs. 2020. Establishment of a Genetically Diverse, Disease-Resistant Acacia koa Seed Orchard in Kokee, Kauai: Early Growth, Form, & Survival. Forests 2020, 11, 1276; doi:10.3390/f11121276 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests
Friday, J. B., L. Keith, and F. Hughes. 2015. Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death (Ceratocystis Wilt of ʻŌhiʻa). PD-107, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI. URL: https://www.ctahr.HI.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/PD-107.pdf Accessed April 3, 2018.
Friday, J.B. 2018. Rapid ??hi?a Death Symposium -West Hawai`i (“West Side Symposium”) March 3rd 2018, https://vimeo.com/258704469 Accessed April 4, 2018 (see also full video archive at https://vimeo.com/user10051674)
Inman-Narahari, F., R. Hauff, S.S. Mann, I. Sprecher, & L. Hadway. Koa Action Plan: Management & research priorities for Acacia koa forestry in Hawai`i. State of Hawai`i Department of Land & Natural Resources Division of Forestry & Wildlife no date
Kaufman, L.V, J. Yalemar, M.G. Wright. In press. Classical biological control of the erythrina gall wasp, Quadrastichus erythrinae, in Hawaii: Conserving an endangered habitat. Biological Control. Vol. 142, March 2020
Loope, L. and A.M. LaRosa. 2008. ‘Ohi’a Rust (Eucalyptus Rust) (Puccinia psidii Winter) Risk Assessment for Hawai‘i.
Luiz, B.C. 2017. Understanding Ceratocystis. sp A: Growth, morphology, and host resistance. MS thesis, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo.
Luiz, B.C., C.P. Giardina, L.M. Keith, D.F. Jacobs, R.A. Sniezko, M.A. Hughes, J.B. Friday, P. Cannon, R. Hauff, K. Francisco, M.M. Chau, N. Dudley, A. Yeh, G. Asner, R.E. Martin, R. Perroy, B.J. Tucker, A. Evangelista, V. Fernandez, C. Martins-Keli’iho.omalu, K. Santos, R. Ohara. 2023. A framework for establishlishing a rapid ‘Ohi‘a death resistance program New Forests 54, 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-021-09896-5
Sniezko, R.A., N. Dudley, T. Jones, & P. Cannon. 2016. Koa wilt resistance & koa genetics – key to successful restoration & reforestation of koa (Acacia koa). Acacia koa in Hawai‘i: Facing the Future. Proceedings of the 2016 Symposium, Hilo, HI: www.TropHTIRC.org , www.ctahr.HI.edu/forestry
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
The National Plant Board’s members are the lead plant health officials of the states and territories. Many federal officials also attend – from APHIS and DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Representatives of other North American phytosanitary entities participate – i.e., Canada, Mexico, and the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). Some stakeholder groups participate, especially the nursery industry. I have attended these meetings for over a decade because they provide an overview of pest issues and programs plus an unparalleled opportunity to network. The Nature Conservancy’s Leigh Greenwood also attends. We are the only representatives of the species conservation community to attend – others are missing great opportunities.
Here, I’ve listed 10 items that are among the most important the group discussed.
1) The funding situation for APHIS is worse than I realized
APHIS Administrator Mike Watson and Deputy Administrator (for plants) Mark Davidson both spoke about the need to cut programs to stay within the limits set by congressional appropriations. Funding for APHIS, as a whole, was cut only 1% for the current year (Fiscal Year 2024), cost-of-living salary increases mean less money for programs. (I believe Dr. Watson said $41 million less for FY24). If FY25 funding is the same, Congressionally mandated additional payraises will mean an another $20 million decrease in program funding.
Dr. Davidson said that the plant programs (Plant Protection and Quarantine) had been cut by 5% in FY24. However, Congress did not finalize the funding levels until about half-way through the fiscal year – so staying within the limits required even more severe cuts to programs in the remainder of FY24. To stay within these limits, APHIS cut several programs, among them a $3.6 million cut from the “tree and wood pest” program. This meant loss of funds to manage the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, smaller cuts for programs managing Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer, and perhaps the Asian flighted spongy moth. They anticipate additional cuts in these programs in FY25. The one bright light is the Section 7721 Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program. It provides steady funding for a range of plant health programs. The House version of the still-pending Farm Bill calls for increasing funding for this program by $15 million each year.
Nearly 100% ash trees in Oregon wetland — exposed to spreading EAB. Photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Department of Forestry
Remember this when I ask you to lobby for appropriations! If we don’t advocate for funding the programs dealing with “our” pests, they will shrink.
Watkins and Davidson also worry that whoever is the next secretary of USDA might not support the agency when it seeks to withdraw funds to cover emergencies from the Commodity Credit Corporation – as Secretary Vilsack has.
APHIS and the DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) both praised a recent regulatory action that increases user fees for importers having goods cleared at ports. Kevin Harriger, CPB official in charge of agriculture programs, said the new funds would allow CBP to hire 700 new agricultural inspectors (currently there are 2,800 agricultural officials). That sounds great, but … when trade and passenger volumes crashed early in the COVID pandemic, things looked dicey for a while. Plus – as I have argued repeatedly – real protection against pest introductions will come from stronger policies, not ramped-up inspections.
Pathologist Bruce Moltzan reported on the USFS Forest Health Protection program. He pointed out that the USFS has a very limited toolbox. In this fiscal year, the program has about $48 million, after salaries, to support its activities. Projects targetting insects receive 70% of the funding; those targetting pathogens 15%.
2) Invasive hornets
Washington State has not found any new nests of the Northern (formerly Asian) giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia). Miraculous!
However, Georgia detected another species, the yellow-legged hornet (Vespa velutina), near Savannah in August 2023. The Georgia Department of Agriculture, APHIS, and the University of Georgia are working to find nests – which are located at the top of tall pine trees in residential areas. Five nests were found in 2023; another four so far in 2024. Georgia hopes to place traps 100 miles out from each detection site. Like the northern hornet, V. velutina preys on honey bees. It was probably transported by ship or with its cargo.
A third species, V. tropica, has been introduced on Guam.
3) Better Federal-State Cooperation — Sometimes
APHIS and the state phytosanitary officials have set up structures – e.g., Strategic Alliance/Strategic Initiative, or SASI – to work together more closely. CBP joins the coordinating meetings. One program described at the meeting is the effort to contain spread of the box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis). This effort came out of discussions at last year’s Plant Board meeting, with follow-up gatherings of APHIS, the states, and the nursery industry. The moth is known to be present in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and now Delaware – plus several Canadian provinces.
A second project concerns how much data to share about state detections of pests – which are recorded in the National Plant diagnostic Network database. These data have accrued over 20 years … and are sought by both other states and academic researchers. States are often reluctant to allow public review of detection data because they fear it will cause other states or private parties to avoid buying plants or other goods from the infested area. While the project team has not yet decided how to deal with these conflicts, they said they were more inclined to share “nonconsequential data” – meaning data on a pest everyone already knows is present, not a pest under regulation or a new detection. In other words, “consequential” seems to pertain to industry profits, not damage to agricultural or natural resources.
EAB-killed ash along Mattawoman Creek, Maryland. Photo by Leslie A. Brice
Craig Kellogg, APHIS’ chief plant health representative in Michigan, reviewed 20 years of dealing with the emerald ash borer (EAB). He is optimistic about the impact of the biocontrol agents that have now been released in 32 states and four provinces. The larval parasitoids are dispersing and EAB densities are coming down. He conceded that over-story and mature ash are still dying, but says ash in long-infested areas are regenerating well. Scientists agree (see Wilson et al. 2024; full citation at end of the blog). Woodpeckers are still the most effective biocontrol agent of EAB for over-story ash, especially in locations where introduced parasitoids are not established. So far, the growing numbers of biocontrol agents are still parasitizing too few EAB larvae to prevent decline of over-story ash trees.
APHIS reported on recent detections of flighted spongy moth from Asia on ships coming to U.S. ports. The program covers four closely related species of Lymantria. All have much broader host ranges than Lymantria dispar, plus the females are capable of sustained flight, so they spread more rapidly.
The principal strategy to prevent their introduction is to require ships that call at ports along the Pacific coast in Russia, China, Japan, and North and South Korea to ensure that the ships’ superstructures and cargo are clean. Before arriving at U.S. ports, the ship’s captain must inform CBP where it has called over the last 24 months. Then, CBP conducts an inspection. If CBP inspectors find a small number of egg masses, they remove the eggs and spray pesticide. If the inspectors detect a large number of egg masses, the ship is ordered to leave port, clean itself, and undergo re-inspection before it can return.
Four countries in the Americas – the U.S., Canada, Chile, and Argentina – and also New Zealand have very similar programs.
Detections follow natural changes in population levels in the exporting regions. APHIS’ program leader, Ingrid Asmundsson, reported on an unfortunate coincidence in 2014. A huge moth population outbreak occurred simultaneously with very low fuel prices in Russia. The latter attracted many ships to call there. An even bigger population surge occurred in 2019. Asmundsson expects another high-moth period this year.
flighted spongy moths infesting a ship superstructure
APHIS is working on putting this program on a regulatory foundation; this would allow the agency to be more specific in its requirements and to impose penalties (other than expulsions from ports). I’ll let you know when the proposed rule is published for comment.
6) Regional Reports: Old Pests, New Pests
Representatives of the regional plant boards informed us of their “new pest” or other concerns.
Gary Fish, president of the Eastern Plant Board, mentioned
awareness that laurel wilt is moving into Virginia and maybe farther north.
elm zig-zag sawfly; photo by Gyorgy Csoka via Bugwood
There was a more general discussion of beech leaf disease. What can be done, given that the disease is so widespread that no one is regulating movement of beech. Gary Fish advised outreach and efforts to reach agreement on management approaches. Chris Benemann, of Oregon, suggested informing other states so that they can decide whether to take regulatory action. A representative of CBP urged engaging stakeholders by asking for their help.
Chris Benemann, President of the Western Plant Board, expressed concern about APHIS’ reduced funding for spongy moth detection and control efforts. She also worries about the recently detected population of Phytophthora austrocedriiin an Oregon nursery. The western states are also focused on several longstanding pest problems – grasshoppers, Japanese beetle; and a new beetle from Australia that is attacking almonds, pistachios, and walnuts.
tree infested by hemlock woolly adelgid; photo by F.T. Campbell
Megan Abraham of Indiana reported that members of the Central Plant Board are concerned about
funding decrease for APHIS and USFS efforts to slow the spread of spongy moth and manage Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer;
She noted that nursery stock is increasingly coming from more distant – and cheaper – producers, raising the risk of new pests being introduced.
Finally, Abraham expressed concern about decreased funding at the same time as the need is growing – and asked with whom states should collaborate in order to reverse this trend.
Kenny Naylor of Oklahoma, Vice President of the Southern Plant Board, concurred that funding levels are a major concern. He mentioned specifically the spongy moth Slow the Spread program and eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle outbreak in South Carolina. Another concern is the Georgia hornet outbreak.
7) Phasing Out Post-Entry Quarantine
APHIS and the NPB have agreed to phase out the post-entry quarantine (PEQ) program. A program review revealed several problems, some of which astound me. When examining plants in quarantine the scientists still relying on visual inspection! And they are looking for pests identified 45 years ago (1980)! While I think PEQ programs can be valuable in preventing introduction of disease agents, as implemented in recent decades it does not. Twenty years ago, citrus longhorned beetles escaped from a “quarantine” area in a commercial nursery in Washington state. These Cerambycids are more than an inch long!
citrus longhorned beetle; photo by Art Wagner, USDA via Bugwood
Part of this phase-out is to transfer plant species harboring pests of concern to the Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Assessment (NAPPRA). While the APHIS speaker said that NAPPRA allows the agency to act quickly when it detects evidence of pest risk, I have found lengthy delays. The third round of proposals was published in December 2019! The fourth round of species proposed for NAPPRA listing should be published soon; a fifth round is now in draft inside the agency.
8) Christmas Greens – Spreading Pests
Officials from Oregon, Maine, and Illinois described their concerns about pests being spread by shipments of various forest or plant products, especially Christmas greens. Mentioned were spongy moths, link hemlock woolly adelgid, link elongate hemlock scale, balsam woolly adelgid, link and box wood moth. Part of the challenge is that the vectoring items are often sold by unregulated outlets – multiple stores, Christmas tree lots – and through on-line or catalog outlets. There are also extreme demands on the regulatory enforcement staff during the brief holiday sales season. Several states are unsure whether they have authority over decorative products – although others pointed out that they are regulating the pest, regardless of the object for sale or type of store.
9) Pests in Firewood
Leigh Greenwood of The Nature Conservancy noted that the state agencies that issue firewood regulations – often the plant protection organization (state department of agriculture) — do a good job alerting the public about the risks and rules. However, the public looks first to state parks agencies for information about camping – and those agencies have less robust educational efforts. It is important to put the message where the public can find it when they don’t know it exists – before they include firewood from home in their camping gear.
10) Projects of the North American Plant Protection Organization
The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) is working on several projects of interest to those of us concerned about tree-killing pests. One project is evaluating risks associated with wood products, especially how well one international regulation, ISPM#15 is working for dunnage. Another projects is testing the efficacy of the heat treatment specified by ISPM#15 (50o C for 30 minutes). A third project — almost completed – is evaluating fumigants that can be alternatives to methyl bromide.
In conclusion, each annual meeting of the National Plant Board is packed with new information, updates on current pests, and comments on by the state agencies who suggest new approached to APHIS and hold the agency to account. It is well worth attending. Information about upcoming meetings of both the national and four regional plant boards is posted on the NPB website, https://www.nationalplantboard.org/
Signatories to the APHIS-NPB strategic alliance
SOURCE
Wilson, C.J., T.R. Petrice, T.M. Poland, and D.G. McCullough. 2024. Tree species richness and ash density have variable effects on emerald ash borer biological control by woodpeckers & parasitoid wasps in post-invasion white ash stands. Environmental Entomology.
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
Flighted spongy moths infesting a ship’s superstructure
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued its annual report for Fiscal Year 2023. The report is part of an enhanced outreach effort that I believe is an effort to persuade the Congress to provide additional funds. However, as I describe below, at this summer’s annual meeting of the National Plant Board, link APHIS’ leadership stated that funding shortfalls are forcing them to curtail many programs. These include ones important to those of us concerned about threats to North American trees. I applaud this action and hope it succeeds!
The report contains some good news but I consider the overall approach depressing. Tree-killing pests continue to receive little attention. The report also emphasizes APHIS’ efforts to facilitate export of agricultural products – an understandable stance given American politics.
The opening summarizes the agency’s activities includes:
Examples of programs targetting pests abroad, before they can reach the U.S. All are fresh fruits and vegetables;
APHIS or staff at U.S. borders:
Approved (cleared) 27,235 shipmentscontaining over 1.87 billion plant units (e.g., a single plant or cutting, or vial of tissue culture plantlets) and 670,811 kilograms of seeds. They intercepted 2,176 quarantine pests. (APHIS carry out these inspections at Plant Inspection Stations – separate from the port environment where DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff inspects other cargo.)
Identified approximately 92,000 pestsfound during CBP inspections of cargo, mail, and express carrier shipments and took quick action to prevent those of concern from entering the U.S.
Facilitated entry of regulated agricultural cargo by monitoring more than 62,000 treatments of various kinds, that is, fumigations, cold or heat treatments, and irradiation.
Examples of APHIS’ efforts to slow pests’ spread within the country cited plant pest surveys — with coordinated responses — for approximately 45 pests. Also APHIS described funding to help citrus growers combat citrus greening.
The report has separate subreports on the following programs: risk analysis, pest detection, “specialty crop” pests, and tree and wood pests. The last two contain information specific to our interests.
Tree and Wood Pests
This program protects forests, private working lands, and natural resources. It targets specific pests: the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, and most recently the invasive shot hole borers. The report notes that numerous native, widespread hardwood tree species are vulnerable to these pests. APHIS asserts an economic justification for the program: conserving forests enhances rural communities’ economic vitality, supports forest-related industries, and maintains the ecosystem services provided by urban trees.
Unfortunately, at this summer’s annual meeting of the National Plant Board APHIS leadership said funding shortfalls forced them to pull back on all these programs.
ALB eradication aims to protect the 30% of U.S. trees that are ALB hosts. These trees support multi-billion-dollar maple syrup, timber, tree nursery, trade, and tourism industries. After reviewing the history of ALB detections, starting in Brooklyn in August 1996, the report describes APHIS’ eradication strategy as comprising surveys, regulatory inspections and quarantine restrictions, removal of infested and high-risk trees, and chemical treatment applications. In FY 2023, the program surveyed more than 763,000 trees across the four regulated areas: New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and South Carolina. Each program is summarized.
Good news at two locations. On Long Island: only 11 new infested trees were found after a survey of 43,480 trees. In Worcester County, Massachusetts, no new infested trees were found after surveying nearly 360,000 trees. However, in Tate Township, Ohio, surveys detected 163 new infested trees. And in
South Carolina, the program is at an earlier stage — surveying a portion of the quarantine area. The program surveyed nearly 140,000 trees and removed 1,700 in FY 2023.
At the National Plant Board Meeting, Deputy Administrator Mark Davidson explained that the FY2024 appropriation cut $3.6 million from the “tree and wood pests” account. This required the agency to reduce funding for the ALB eradication program.
The report summarizes the spread of EAB since its first detection in 2002 in Michigan to 37 states and the District of Columbia (APHIS does not mention EAB’s presence in five Canadian provinces.)
Saying that EAB has spread beyond what a regulatory program can control, the report notes that APHIS ended the regulatory program in FY 2021. In FY 2023 the agency continued the transition to a program relying primarily on biocontrol. In FY2023, APHIS provided parasitoids to 155 release sites – three in Canada, the rest in 122 counties in 25 states. APHIS and cooperators continue to assess their impacts on EAB populations and tree health at release sites and nearby areas. Field evaluations indicate the EAB parasitoid wasps and other EAB natural enemies (woodpeckers) are protecting regenerating sapling ash from EAB.
At the National Plant Board Meeting, Deputy Administrator Mark Davidson explained that the FY2024 appropriation cut $3.6 million from the “tree and wood pests” account. This required the agency to reduce funding for the EAB containment program – probably the biocontrol component.
Spongy moths (the species formerly called European gypsy moths) are established in all or parts of 20 eastern and midwestern states, plus the District of Columbia. APHIS and state cooperators regulate activities in the quarantine area to prevent the moths’ human-assisted spread to non-quarantine (non-infested) areas – primarily West coast states. To address the moths’ natural spread, APHIS PPQ monitors the 1,200-mile-long border of the quarantine area and adds newly infested areas to the regulated area. The USDA Forest Service – APHIS – Slow-the-Spread Foundation program has greatly reduced the moth’s rate of spread and has eradicated isolated populations.
Another component of the program aims to prevent introduction of members of the flighted spongy moth complex link from Asia. The Asian species have broader host ranges and the females can fly, so they could spread faster. A multi-nation cooperative program is designed to prevent the moths’ hitchhike on vessels coming from Asia. link APHIS supports this program through negotiations and support of CBP’s offshore vessel inspection, certification, and cleaning requirements. Canada participates in the same program.
In FY 2023, APHIS and state cooperators continued efforts to delimit possibly introductions in Washington State (no additional moths detected); and California and Oregon (initial detections in FY 2020).
At the National Plant Board Meeting, Deputy Administrator Mark Davidson explained that the FY2024 appropriation cut $3.6 million from the “tree and wood pests” account. This required the agency to reduce funding for the flighted spongy moth program.
California sycamore infested by polyphagous shot hole borer; photo by Beatriz Nobua-Behrmann UC Cooperative Extension
The report notes that various non-native shot hole borers have been detected in several states. Their hosts include trees in forests and urban landscapes, tea plantations, and avocado orchards. The program’s focus was apparently on the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers devastating riparian habitats in southern California and urban areas in other parts of California. At California’s request, APHIS and the USDA Forest Service helped establish a working group, led by USFS, with the goal of strategically addressing both shot hole borers in California. In FY 2023, APHIS’ helped with foreign explorations for possible biocontrol agents, as well as host specificity testing.
APHIS leadership told the National Plant Board in July 2024 that it had dropped this entire program due to funding shortfalls.
Specialty Crop Pests
While much of this report concerns pests of agricultural crops (e.g., grapes, citrus, potatoes), it also summarized efforts re: Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death) and spotted lanternfly. APHIS says its efforts protected nursery stock production worth approximately $1.3 billion as of 2019, and tree fruit production worth approximately $1.7 billion in 2021.
map showing areas of the Eastern United States at risk to P. ramorum – developed by Gilligan of Cambridge University
The report states that APHIS seeks to limit P. ramorum’s spread from affected nurseries. The agency does this via regulatory strategies. During FY 2023, 16 nurseries were governed by more stringent rules under the federal program which are imposed on nurseries that have been determined in past years to harbor P. ramorum-infected plants.
In addition, Oregon officials continued surveys of an area outside its quarantine zone because of a detection the previous year. APHIS will adjust the federal quarantine depending on the state’s findings.
The APHIS report does not discuss several pertinent events that occurred in FY2023. [For more details, read the California Oak Mortality Task Force newsletters for 2023 – posted here.
First, APHIS does not mention or discuss the implications of detection of two new strains of P. ramorum — EU1 & NA2 — in west coast forests. The presence of EU1 in a new California county (Del Norte) was confirmed in Feb 2023.
Second, the report said that Oregon is trying to determine the extent of the P. ramorum infection detected outside the state’s quarantine zone. However, it does not mention that this outbreak involves the new NA2 lineage – and that NA2 was known to be present in nurseries in the region since 2005.
The report also does not clarify that three nurseries to added to the more stringent program were so treated because SOD-infected plants were found on their premises.
Nor does the report note that at least two new naturally-infected hosts of P. ramorum were identified: Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and Arbutus x ‘Marina’.Koch’s postulates need to be completed on the latter so it has not yet been added to APHIS’ official host list.
Spotted Lanternfly (SLF) was found in 16 states in FY 2023. APHIS’ program enjoyed funding provided through Specialty Crop Pests and from the Plant Protection Act’s Section 7721 link ($6 million from the latter).
The report notes that APHIS still does not have enough data to determine SLF’s impacts on agriculture. Thus far, vineyards have been the most adversely affected agricultural segment, mostly due to SLF acting as a stressor to vines. Also, the sticky, sugary “honeydew” produced by SLF attracts other insects and promotes sooty mold growth. These can ruin the fruit and further damage the plant.
SLF populations are strongly linked to major transportation pathways, such as railroads and interstate highways. APHIS targets treatments and, in some areas, removes SLF’s preferred host plant (tree of heaven [Ailanthus]), from transportation hubs. The aim is to reduce the risk of SLF’ spread to new areas and to eradicate isolated infestations. In FY 2023, APHIS and cooperators treated 4,637 properties covering 6,455 acres in affected areas. However, during the National Plant Board meeting both state and APHIS officials complained to me that managers of these transportation hubs raise many barriers to their access, sharply limiting the program’s chance of success.
Ailanthus altissima – drive of spotted lanternfly invasion
The program was expanded after National Environmental Policy Act-mandated environmental review. This allowed APHIS to conduct treatments in four additional states—Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Rhode Island. In addition, program cooperators identified three potential biological control organisms, one that targets the tree of heaven and two that target SLF. APHIS will continue to evaluate them and develop methods to rear them in the laboratory.
Finally, in fiscal year 2023, APHIS joined the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the National Plant Board to develop a national strategic plan outlining the future direction of the SLF program. With the strategic plan, PPQ aims to harmonize the approach across states to slow SLF’s spread, develop consistent outreach messaging for a nationwide audience, and more effectively use existing state and Federal resources. Continued spread of SLF despite the huge effort, rising costs of the program, and new scientific findings spurred reconsideration of the strategy.
To summarize, I hope that APHIS’ annual report will – in the future – help members of Congress and their staff understand the agency’s programs’ purpose and past successes. This increased understanding might make it easier to advocate for more funding. I am troubled, however, by the agency’s glossing over significant problems.
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
The House and Senate Agriculture committees are edging toward adopting the next Farm Bill, which is a year past due. Farm bills set policy, funding levels, and more, for 5 years. Each covers a wide range of subjects, including crop subsidies and insurance; food stamps; rural development (including wifi access); forestry policy; and research.
As you might remember, CISP aims to improve USDA’s programs — not only to prevent introductions of non-native tree killing pests and pathogens but also to better respond to those that enter the US and become established. I summarize here what the Senate and House bills have in common and how they differ on these issues.
I understand that the minorities, that is, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, have not accepted all aspects of the majorities’ drafts. So let’s take the opportunity to ask for better bills.
Both the House and Senate bills would “simplify” the USDA Forest Service’s obligations to prepare environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I have not analyzed which bill weakens NEPA more.
The Senate Bill: The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024
The Senate bill addresses forest pest species in several places: Title II — Conservation, Title VII — Research, and Title VIII — Forestry. Here, I describe relevant sections, beginning with the section that partially addresses CISP’s proposal.
Title VIII — Forestry. Section 8214 requires the USDA Secretary to establish a national policy to counter threats posed by invasive species to tree species and forest ecosystems and identify areas for interagency cooperation.
This mandate falls far short of what we sought in a previous bill (S. 1238). However, depending on the exact wording of the bill and accompanying report, perhaps we can succeed in building a stronger program.
It is most important to obtain funding for applied, directed research into resistance breeding strategies, “bulking up,” and planting seedlings that show promise. Please contact your senators and ask them to work with the sponsors – Peter Welch [D-VT], Maggie Hassan [D-NH], and Mike Braun [R-IN] – to try to incorporate more of S. 1238 in the final bill.
The Senate bill contains other provisions that might be helpful for invasive species management – although not part of what CISP and our partners asked for.
‘ōhi‘a trees killed by rapid ‘ōhi‘a death; photo by Richard sniezko, USFS
Title VIII — Forestry. In Section 8506, the Senate bill would require that the US Departments of Agriculture and Interior continue working with Hawai`i to address the pathogen that causes rapid ‘ōhi‘a death. The section authorizes $5 million for each of the coming five fiscal years to do this work. Unfortunately, authorization does not equal funding. Only the Senate and House Appropriations Committees can make this funding available. Hawai`i’s endemic ‘ōhi‘a trees certainly face a dire threat. CISP is already advocating for funding to support resistance breeding and other necessary work.
Title VIII — Forestry. Sections 8247 and 8248 support USDA Forest Service’s nursery and tree establishment programs. My hesitation in fully supporting these provisions is that I fear the urge to plant lots of trees in a hurry will divert attention for the need to learn how to propagate many of the hardwood tree species that have been decimated by non-native pests. However, I agree that the U.S. lacks sufficient nursery capacity to provide anything close to the number of seedlings sought. Perhaps this program can be adjusted to assist the “planting out” component of our request.
Title VII — Research. Section 7208 designates several high-priority research initiatives. On this list are spotted lanternfly, and “invasive species”. A number of forest corporations have been urging Members of Congress to upgrade research on this broad category, which I believe might focus more on invasive plants than the insects and pathogens on which CISP focuses. How the two ideas are integrated will be very important.
Another high-priority initiative concerns the perceived crisis in failed white oak regeneration.
Title VII — Research.Section 7213 mandates creation of four new Centers of Excellence at 1890 Institutions. These are historically Black universities that are also land-grant institutions]. These centers will focus on: 1) climate change, 2) forestry resilience and conservation; 3) food safety, bioprocessing, and value-added agriculture; and, 3) food and agricultural sciences and the social sciences.
Title II — Conservation. Section 2407 provides mandatory funding (which is not subject to annual appropriations) of $75 million per year to the national feral swine eradication/control program (run by USDA APHIS’ Wildlife Service Division). I discuss this program in a separate blog.
The Senate bill also mandates use of several conservation and other programs to address the causes and impacts of climate change. This requirement is directly countered by the House Agriculture Committee’s bill (see below).
Title VIII — Forestry. This section contains none of the provisions CISP’ sought to USDA’s management of tree-killing non-native insects and diseases.
Instead, the House bill calls on the USFS to establish a comprehensive approach to addressing the demise of the giant sequoia trees.
Title VII — Research The House bill, like the Senate’s, lists the invasive species and white oak research initiatives as high priority. The House, unlike the Senate, does not include spotted lanternfly.
Title II — Conservation. As I noted above, the House bill explicitly rescinds all unobligated conservation funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. It reallocates these funds to the traditional conservation programs, e.g., the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention. The bill would use these funds to support “orphan” programs – naming specifically the national feral swine eradication/control program. The House bill provides $150 million – apparently across the five years covered by the Farm Bill, so $30 million per year. Finally, the House allocates 60% of the hog management funds to APHIS, 40% to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
spotted lanternfly – target of at least 11 projects funded through APHIS’ the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program in FY24. Photo by Holly Raguza, Pennsylvania Department of Agriuculture
Title X —Horticulture, Marketing, and Regulatory Reform. The House’s summary says it is taking steps to protect plant health. It does this by increasing funding for the grant program under the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program – §7721 of the last (2018) Farm Bill. The increase would raise the amount of money available each year from the current level of $70 million to $90 million. These funds are mandatory; they are not subject to annual appropriations. Research, development, and outreach projects funded by this program have certainly added to our understanding of plant pests, hence to their effective management. However, they are usually short-term projects. Therefore they are not suitable for the long-term commitment required for resistance breeding programs. See here and here.
Title III — Trade. Here, the House bill exacerbates the current imbalance between trade promotion and phytosanitary protection. The bill doubles the authorized funding for USDA’s Market Access and Foreign Market Development programs. I concede that this measure probably does reflect a bipartisan consensus in the Congress to support robust programs for promoting agricultural exports.
Also under this Title, the House bill requires the USDA Secretary to conduct regular assessments to identify risks to critical infrastructure that supports food and agriculture sector. This might be helpful – although it is not clear that this assessment would include to threats to forest or urban trees not used commercially (e.g., for timber).
At a recent forum on biological control sponsored by the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), it was reported that participants noted several problems: insufficient funding, significant delays in refilling positions, inadequate research capacity, lack of brick-and-mortar infrastructure, and declining college enrollments in biocontrol-related studies. The NASF Forest Science Health Committee is developing a “Statement of Needs” document that NASF and others can use to lobby for funding to fill these gaps. I hope you will join them in doing so!
salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) attacked by biocontrol agent; photo by J.N. Stuart via Flickr
However, as I note above, empowering resistance breeding programs requires a long-term commitment, that is, a comprehensive alteration of policies and infrastructure – beyond annual appropriations.
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
whitebark pine in Glacier National Park killed by white pine blister rust; National Park Service photo
As I noted in the accompanying blog, the U.S. Department of Interior has also weighed in on how to mitigate climate change as part of the Nation’s response to COP24 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Interior’s Nature-Based Solutions “Roadmap” (citation at the end of the blog) is 480 pages long! It includes lots of pictures and extensive lists of examples of various types of projects. The document reviews “nature-based” restoration techniques, the benefits they provide in various realms (ecosystem, economy, social values); and the challenges or barriers likely to be encountered. These analyses cover six types of ecosystems – coastal (further divided into five subgroups), forests, grasslands (two types), inland wetland habitats, riverine habitats (three subgroups), and built environments. The obvious emphasis on aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats reflects the Department’s responsibilities. The threat from invasive species is recognized in each case. Plus there are separate chapters discussing management/removal of invasive pests and pathogens, plants, and vertebrates in all types of ecosystems.
The document’s purpose is to provide Interior’s staff – and others who are interested – with reliable information on determining the conditions and goals under which “nature-based” strategies perform best, the benefits they are likely to provide, instructive examples, and additional resources. Much of the information is intended to help staff persuade skeptics that a “nature-based” approach can solve a climate-related problem, such as sea level rise, as well as, or better than, “grey” infrastructure. This includes discussion of: construction and maintenance costs, efficacy in solving a specific problem, and managing conflicts over land use. Also, it considers benefits to other realms, for example, protecting biodiversity and providing opportunities for recreation and mental and physical well-being.
I will focus on aspects dealing with forests. These occur in several chapters. Each chapter has a brief description of the climate and other services provided by that ecosystem type, followed by sections on ways forward (“Technical Approach”), factors affecting site suitability, tools and training resources, likely benefits and outcomes (economic and ecological), barriers and solutions, and examples of projects.
The forest chapter (Chapter 10) discusses forest conservation and restoration with an emphasis on improving forest health, including fuels management, reforestation, and addressing threats from native and non-native pests. One proposed solution is thinning. This measure is said to enhance tree health and promote invasive plants. The “Roadmap” does not recognize that experts consider thinning is helpful in managing native pests such as mountain pine beetle but not non-native pests.
I was startled to find another suggestion – to plant native tree species that are resistant to non-native pests to restore stands. The “Roadmap” refers readers to the National Park Service Resilient Forests Initiative for Region 1 [which reaches from Virginia to Maine]. The Initiative encourages collaboration among parks with similar issues; provides park-specific resource briefs for 39 parks in the Region; and offers management strategies for a host of problems. These include invasive species control, prescribed fire, deer management, silvicultural treatments, tree planting, and fencing. My confusion is that – as far as I know – there are no sources of trees resistant to the non-native pests plaguing forests of the Northeast, e.g., beech, butternut, chestnut, hemlocks, ash, and oaks.
test planting of pathogen-resistant whitebark pine seedlings in Glacier National Park; photo by Richard Sniezko
In the “Tools” section Chapter 10 lists forest restoration guides published by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the International Union of Forest Research Organizations. The “Examples” section includes a few thinning projects.
Chapter 16 advises on enhancing urban forests, which provide many benefits. The chapter stresses the importance of ensuring that projects’ budgets can support protecting trees from such risks as flooding, fire, pests, disease, “invasive species” (presumably other than insects or pathogens), and climate change. The authors note that urban trees are often more susceptible to pests because of their proximity to human activities that facilitate pests’ spread. However, there is no mention that such pests spread to nearby natural forests. They warn against planting a single tree species. An issue noted but not discussed in detail is the use of non-native species in urban forests, some of which have already become invasive.
Three chapters discuss invasive species per se — insects and pathogens (Chap. 26), plants (Chap 27), and vertebrates (Chap. 28) Each chapter summaries invasion stages and stresses the importance of preventing new introductions, detecting them early, and responding rapidly. Most of the text deals with managing established populations – with the emphasis on applying integrated pest management (IPM). Each raises caveats about biological control agents possibly attacking non-target organisms. Again, the authors emphasize the necessity of ensuring availability of adequate resources to carry out the program.
Chapter 26 addresses Invasive and Nuisance Insects and Pathogens. Examples listed include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, spongy moth, Dutch elm disease, sudden oak death, laurel wilt, white pine blister rust, chestnut blight and butternut canker. (All these invaders are profiled under the “invasive species” tab here). The examples also include several native pests, e.g., mountain pine beetle, southern pine beetle, and several pathogens, including Swiss needlecast. I am confused by a statement that priorities for management should be based on pests’ traits; my understanding of the science is that other factors are more important in determining a pest’s impact. See, for example, Lovett et al. 2006.This chapter reiterates the impractical advice to plant trees resistant to the damaging pest. I also wonder at the following statement:
“The process of detection and prevention will need to continue over time to prevent reintroductions or reinvasions of nuisance or invasive pests and pathogens. In some cases, long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread.” [p. 425] I believe long-term management will required in all cases!
The tools listed in the chapter include various DOI websites re: training and funding; the USDA website listing states’ plant diagnostic laboratories; a USDA IPM “road map”; The Nature Conservancy’s guidebook for assessing and managing invasive species in protected areas; the DOI Strategic Plan; and the University of Georgia’s Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health.
Chapter 27 discusses invasive and nuisance plants. It starts by noting that an estimated 5,000 non-native plant species are stablished in the US. While not all are invasive, there is still potential for these plants to spread and cause harm. The authors state that controlling such plants reduces fire risk and lowers demand for water in arid areas.
The authors say early management is crucial to eradicate or control invasive plant species. Because plant invasions cross property lines, agencies must form partnerships with other agencies and private landowners. Because invasive and nuisance plant species are so widespread, managers must set priorities. The “Roadmap” suggests focusing on sites at the highest risk, e.g., heavily trafficked areas. Continued effort will be necessary to prevent reinvasions or reintroductions. However, long-term management and containment can be incredibly costly and labor-intensive.
lesser celandine invade bottomlands of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
The “Roadmap” complains that many invasive and nuisance plant species are still offered for sale; in fact, that this is the primary pathway by which invasive plants enter the US, (While which we have known this for decades, it is encouraging to see a U.S. government report say: “Advocating for federal regulation and cohesive local policies for preventing invasive [plant] sales is essential to avoid disjointed state rulings.” – even if it does not specify which agencies should take the lead.
In the “Tools” section the chapter lists two USFS guides on managing invasive plants; two California Invasive Plant Council guides; the Interior Department’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan; EDDMapS (a University of Georgia site on which members of the public can report invasive species); and the TNC guidebook for Assessing and Managing Invasive Species in Protected Areas.
Chapter 28 addresses invasive & nuisance vertebrates (called “wildlife”). It notes that invasive animals are present in more than half of all US National parks. It briefly mentions the Lacey Act as providing legal power to curb the introduction and spread of these animals. It does not discuss strengths and weaknesses of this statute, both of which are substantial. This chapter repeats the odd wording from the pest and pathogen chapter – that in some cases long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread of invasive species. I find it doubtful that short-term actions will be effective in virtually all cases.
Tools listed include Interior guides on IPM, funding sources, and protecting aquatic systems along with the Department of Interior’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan. Other tools include the USDA guide on IPM, EDDMapS, and the TNC guidebook.
Forests were also mentioned in the discussion of assisted migration of coastal wetlands to avoid drowning by rising seas (Chapter 1). The text notes that forests upland from coastal wetlands might be killed – either as a result of waterlogging as sea levels rise or as deliberate action to make room for the new marsh. Mortality in either case will reduce carbon sequestration. The authors also note the probability that invasive plants – shrubs in the woods, Phragmites on the edge of the wetland — will be present and have to be controlled.
SOURCES
Lovett, G.M, C.D. Canham, M.A. Arthur, K.C. Weathers, R.D. Fitzhugh. 2006. Foret Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol 56 No. 5 May 2006.
Warnell, K., S. Mason, A. Siegle, M. Merritt, & L. Olander. 2023. Department of the Interior Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap. NI R 23-06. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/department-interior-nature-based-solutions-roadmap.
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
Woldstedtius flavolineatus – one of at least 13 taxa of non-native ichneumonid wasps established in restoration forests in Hawaiian Forest National wildlife rfefuge; photo by Torgrim Breiehagen for the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre; via Wikipedia
As we know, non-native insects and pathogens pose a significant and accelerating threat to biodiversity in forests and other ecosystems. They undermine some conservation programs and reduce ecosystem services and quality of life in urban areas. Nevertheless, damaging introductions continue.
Two recent articles have advocated accelerating biocontrol programs. These articles have reminded us of ongoing failures of international and national biosecurity programs, including that of the US. The articles also make interesting suggestions regarding ways to be more pro-active in preventing introductions.
1. “Self-introductions” of invaders’ enemies
Weber et al. (full citation at end of blog) provide many examples of unintentional “self-introductions” of natural enemies of arthropod pests and invasive plants. In fact, “self-introductions” of natural enemies of arthropod pests might exceed the number of species introduced intentionally. These introductions have been facilitated by the usual factors: the general surge in international trade; lack of surveillance for species that are not associated with live plants or animals; inability to detect or intercept microorganisms; huge invasive host populations that allow rapid establishment of their accidentally introduced natural enemies; and lack of aggressive screening for pests already established.
Among the examples illustrating failures of biosecurity programs:
Across six global regions, nearly two-thirds of parasitoid Hymenoptera species were introduced unintentionally. The proportion varies significantly by region. For example, four-fifths of these insects in New Zealand arrived accidentally.
The unintentional spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter (Homalodisca vitripennis) and a biocontrol agent Cosmocomoidea ashmeadi has been so rapid among islands in the Pacific Ocean (including Hawai`i) they are considered ‘biomarkers’ of biosecurity failures.
Regarding the United States specifically, an estimated 67% of beneficial insects introduced to Hawai`i and 64% of parasitoid Hymenoptera introduced to the mainland U.S. were accidental “self-introductions.”
Weber et al. consider their figures to be underestimates. The situation is particularly uncertain regarding pathogens that kill arthropods. Many microbial species are not yet described.
spotted lanternfly; photo by Stephen Ausmus, USDA
In some cases, these “self-introduced” arthropods have proved beneficial. Two examples are Entomophaga maimaiga and Lymantria dispar nucleopolyhedrovirus (LdNPV), which help control the spongy moth (Lymantria dispar). In other cases the “self-introduced” creatures are pests themselves. A prominent example is the invasion by the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula). This was facilitated by the widespread presence of the highly invasive plant Ailanthus altissima. It illustrates what Weber et al. call “receptive bridgehead effects.” That is, once an invasive pest is well-established, the chance that its natural enemies will find a suitable host and also establish in the pest’s invaded range is much higher.
Weber et al. reaffirm that there are many good reasons not to allow such random invasions of diverse non-native species – including their natural enemies. Deliberately introduced biocontrol agents are chosen after determining their efficacy, host-specificity, and climatic suitability. Random introductions, on the other hand, might favor generalist species, which could threaten non-target species. Accidental introductions might also be accompanied by pathogens and hyperparasitoids that could compromise the efficacy of biocontrol agents.
In short, unintentionally introduced natural enemies might have about the same level of success in controlling the target pest’s populations as do intentionally introduced agents. However, unintentional introductions of both pests and pathogens carry additional risks of non-target impacts and contamination with their own natural enemies that would hamper the efficacy of the biocontrol agent. Weber et al. conclude that delays in releasing a deliberately chosen and evaluated biocontrol agent reduce the probability that it will successfully establish instead of an unintentionally introduced organism.
cactus moth larva on Opuntia; photo by Doug Beckers via Flickr
It is especially likely that an arthropod – whether or not a biocontrol agent – will spread within a geographic region. Weber et al. say both the U.S. and Canada have received more than a dozen species intentionally introduced into the other country. They also cite spread of the cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum, into Florida from several Caribbean countries. The cactus moth has spread and now threatens the center of diversity of flat-padded Opuntia cacti in the American southwest and Mexico.
Another example is California: 44% of invading terrestrial macroinvertebrates that have established in the state came from populations established elsewhere in the US and Canada (Hoddle 2023). This number exceeds the total number of invasive macroinvertebrates in the state that originated anywhere in Eurasia (Weber et al.).
True, it is very difficult to prevent natural spread. But a lot of this spread is facilitated by human activities, e.g., transporting vectors such as living plants, firewood, outdoor furniture or storage “pods.” I have complained often — here and here and here — that interstate movement of invasive plant pests is particularly poorly controlled.
Some scientists and regulators have responded to these situations by improving phytosanitary programs. California officials, in 2019, set up a program to fund projects aimed at developing integrated pest management strategies for species thought to have a high invasion potential before they arrive. I urge other states to do the same. This would probably be most effective in controlling the target species – and in relation to cost — if developed by regional consortia.
Weber et al. suggest that given continuing unintentional introductions of non-native species, phytosanitary agencies need to focus on those invasion pathways that are particularly likely to result in invasions, e.g. live plants, raw lumber (including wood packaging), and bulk commodities e.g.quarried rock.
The authors also suggest research opportunities that arise from biocontrol agents’ “self-introductions”. These include:
Comparing actual host ranges to those predicted by laboratory and other studies;
Quantifying the role of Allee effects, for example by studying the spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter and its biocontrol agent across the Pacific region;
Usingmolecular analyses to disentangle multiple routes of entry (e.g., the “invasive bridgehead effect”) and hybridization.
2. Door-knocker species
Hoddle (2023) suggests further that early detection programs should focus on “door-knocker” species — those likely to enter and cause significant negative impacts. In an earlier article (Hoddle, Mace and Steggall 2018) argued that the benefits of a pro-active biocontrol program outweigh the costs. The authors say the information gained would cut the time needed to deploy effective biocontrol. Ultimately, this could reduce the prolonged and even irreversible ecological and economic disruption from invasive pests, associated pesticide applications, and lost ecological services.
Asian citrus psyllid (Diaphorina citri); USDA photo by Justin Wendell; Hoddle cites this species as one that a pro-active biocontrol program should have targetted
Hoddle calls funding pro-active biocontrol research programs before they’re needed as analogous to buying insurance. The owners of insurance policies hope not to need them but benefit when catastrophe strikes. Furthermore, the information gained from early research might identify natural enemy species that could “self-introduce” along with the invading host. Finally, proactive research might clarify whether the increasing number of natural enemy species that are “self-introducing” pose a threat to non-target organisms.
Recognizing the difficulty of identifying an “emerging invasive species” before its introduction, Hoddle endorses other components of prevention programs:
Collaborating with non-U.S. scientists to identify and mitigate invasion bridgeheads. Such efforts would both lessen bioinvasion threats and possibly aid in determining native ranges and facilitating location of natural enemies.
Sentinel plantings, such as those established under the International Plant Sentinel Network. These plantings can also support research on natural enemies of key pests.
Integrating online platforms, networks, professional meetings, and incursion monitoring programs into “horizon scans” for potential invasive species. He mentions specifically PestLens; online community science platforms, e.g., iNaturalist; international symposia; and official pest surveillance, e.g., U.S. Forest Service’s bark beetles survey and surveys done by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and border protection stations.
date palm mealybug (Pseudaspidoproctus hyphaeniacus); threat to native Washingtonia palms of California; one of pests tracked by PestLens
Weber et al. also support the concept of sentinel plant nurseries – especially because accidental plant and herbivore invasions often occur at the same points of entry.
Both Weber et al. and Hoddle urge authorities not to strengthen regulations governing biocontrol introductions. Weber et al. say that would be to make perfect the enemy of the good. The need is to balance solving problems with avoiding creation of new problems.
SOURCES
Hoddle, M.S., K. Mace, J. Steggall. 2018. Proactive biological control: A cost-effective management option for invasive pests. California Agriculture. Volume 72, No. 3
Weber, D.C. A.E. Hajek, K.A. Hoelmer, U. Schaffner, P.G. Mason, R. Stouthamer, E.J. Talamas, M. Buffington, M.S. Hoddle, and T. Haye. 2020. Unintentional Biological Control Chapter for USDA Agriculture Research Service. Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior Laboratory. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=362852
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
African Tulip Tree (Spathodea campanulata) on Puerto Rico; photo by Joe Schlabotnik via Flickr
While it is widely accepted that tropical island ecosystems are especially vulnerable to invasions, there has been little attention to terrestrial bioinvaders in the Caribbean; there has been more attention to marine bioinvaders such as lionfish. I am glad that is starting to change. Here I review a new study by Potter et al. (full citation at end of this blog), supplemented by information from other recent studies, especially Poland et al.
Potter et al. used USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) survey data to examine regeneration rates by non-native tree species introduced to the continental United States, Hawai`i, and Puerto Rico. I rejoice that they have included these tropical islands, often left out of studies. They are part of the United States and are centers of plant endemism!
Potter et al. sought to learn which individual non-indigenous tree species are regenerating sufficiently to raise concern that they will cause significant ecological and economic damage in the future. That is, those they consider highly invasive. They defined such species as those for which at least 75% of stems of that species detected by FIA surveys are in their small tree categories – saplings or seedlings. They concluded that these species are successfully reproducing after reaching the canopy so they might be more likely to alter forest ecosystem functions and services. They labelled species exhibiting 60 – 75% of stems in the “small” categories as moderately invasive.
The authors recognize that many factors might affect tree species’ regeneration success, especially at the stand level. They assert that successful reproduction reflects a suite of factors such as propagule pressure, time since invasion, and ability of a species to adapt to different environments.
As I reported in an earlier blog, link 17% of the total flora of the islands of the Caribbean archipelago – including but not limited to Puerto Rico – are not native (Potter et al.). In Puerto Rico, two-thirds of forests comprise novel tree assemblages. The FIA records the presence of 57 non-native tree species on Puerto Rico. Potter et al. identified 17 non-native tree species as highly invasive, 16 as potentially highly invasive, and two as moderately invasive. That is, 33 of 57 nonnative tree species, or 58% of those species tallied by FIA surveyors, are actual or potential high-impact bioinvaders. While on the continent only seven non-native tree species occurred on at least 2% of FIA plots across the ecoregions in which they were inventoried, on Puerto Rico 21 species occurred on at least 2% of the FIA plots (38%). They could not assess the invasiveness of the eight species that occurred only as small stems on a couple of survey plots. These species might be in the early stages of widespread invasion, or they might never be able to reproduce & spread.
The high invasion density probably reflects Puerto Rico’s small size (5,325 mi² / 1,379,000 ha); 500 years of exposure to colonial settlement and global trade; and wide-scale abandonment of agricultural land since the middle of the 20th Century
Naming the invaders
The most widespread and common of the highly invasive non-native tree species are river tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala), on 12.6% of 294 forested plots; algarroba (Prosopis pallida) on 10.9%; and African tuliptree (Spathodea campanulata)on 6.1%. Potter et al. attribute the prevalence of some species largely to land-use history, i.e., reforestation of formerly agricultural lands. In addition, some of the moderately to highly invasive species currently provide timber and non-timber forest products, including S.campanulata, L. leucocephala, Syzgium jambos (rose apple) and Mangifera indica (mango).
Potter et al. contrast the threat posed by Spathodea campanulata with that posed by Syzgium jambo. The latteris shade tolerant and can form dense, monotypic stands under closed canopies. Because it can reproduce under its own canopy, it might be able to remain indefinitely in forests unless it is managed. In contrast S. campanulata commonly colonizes abandoned pastures. Since it is shade intolerant, it might decline in the future as other species overtop it. Meanwhile, they suggest, S. campanulata might provide habitat appropriate for the colonization of native tree species.
Second-growth forest in Caribbean National Forest “El Yunque”
Poland et al. say the threat from Syzgium jambos might be reduced by the accidentally introduced rust fungus Puccinia psidii (= Austropuccinia psidii), which has been killing rose apple in Puerto Rico. In Hawai`i, the same fungus has devastated rose apple in wetter areas.
Potter et al. note that stands dominated by L. leucocephala and Prosopis pallida in the island’s dry forests are sometimes arrested by chronic disturbance – presumably fire. However, they do not report whether other species – native or introduced – tend to replace these two after disturbance. The authors also say that areas with highly eroded soils might persist in a degraded state without trees. The prospect of longlasting bare soil or trashy scrub is certainly is alarming.
Potter et al. warn that the FIA’s sampling protocol is not designed to detect species that are early in the invasion process. However, they do advise targetting eradication or control efforts on the eight species that occurred only as small stems on a couple of survey plots. While their invasiveness cannot yet be determined, these species might be more easily managed because presumably few trees have yet reached reproductive age. They single out Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper), since it is already recognized as moderately invasive in Hawai`i. I add that this species is seriously invasive in nearby peninsular Florida and here! APHIS recently approved release of a biocontrol insect in Florida targetting Brazilian pepper. It might easily reach nearby Puerto Rico or other islands in the Caribbean. I am not aware of native plant species in the Caribbean region that might be damaged by the biocontrol agent. However, two native Hawaiian shrubs might be harmed if/when this thrips reaches the Hawaiian Islands. Contact me for specifics, or read the accompanying blog about Potter et al. findings in Hawai`i.
Poland et al. looked at the full taxonomic range of possible bioinvaders in forest and grassland ecosystems. The Caribbean islands receive very brief coverage in the chapter on the Southeast (see Regional Summary Appendices). This chapter contains a statement that I consider unfortunate: “Introduction of species has enriched the flora and fauna of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.” The chapter’s authors assert that many of the naturalized species are restoring forest conditions on formerly agricultural lands. They say that these islands’ experience demonstrates that introduced and native species can cohabitate and complement one another. I ask – but in what kind of forest? These forests, are novel communities that bear little relationship to pre-colonial biodiversity of the islands. Was not this chapter the right place to note that loss? Forests are more than CO2 sinks.
I also regret that the chapter does not mention that the Continental United States can be the source of potentially invasive species (see several examples below).
Mealybug-infested cactus at Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Photo by Yorelyz Rodríguez-Reyes
The chapter does concede that some introduced species are causing ecological damage now. See Table A8.1. Some of these troublesome introduced species are insects:
the South American Harrisia cactus mealybug (Hypogeococcus pungens) is killing columnar cacti in the islands’ dry forests. The chapter discusses impacts on several cactus species and control efforts, especially the search for biocontrol agents.
the agave snout weevil (Scyphophorus acupunctatus), native to the U.S. Southwest and Mexico , is threatening the endemic and endangered century plant (Agave eggersiana) in St. Croix & Puerto Rico.
Tabebuia thrips (Holopothrips tabebuia) is of unknown origin. It is widespread around mainland Puerto Rico. Its impacts so far are primarily esthetic, but it does apparently feed on both native and introduced tree species in the Tabebuia and Crescentia genera.
The Caribbean discussion also devotes welcome attention to belowground invaders, i.e., earthworms. At least one species has been found in relatively undisturbed cloud forests, so it is apparently widespread. Little is known about its impact; more generally, introduced earthworms can increase soil carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as through speeded-up litter decomposition and soil respiration.
A factsheet issued by the British forestry research arm DEFRA reports that the pine tortoise scale Toumeyella parvicornis has caused the death of 95% of the native Caicos pine (Pinus caribaea var. bahamensis) forests in the Turks and Caicos Islands (a UK Overseas Territory). The scale is native to North America. It has recently been introduced to Italy as well as to Puerto Rico, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
SOURCES
Lugo, A.E., J.E. Smith, K.M. Potter, H. Marcano Vega, C.M. Kurtz. 2022. The Contribution of Non-native Tree Species to the Structure & Composition of Forests in the Conterminous United States in Comparison with Tropical Islands in the Pacific & Caribbean. USFS International Institute of Tropical Forestry General Technical Report IITF-54.
Poland, T.M., Patel-Weynand, T., Finch, D., Miniat, C. F., and Lopez, V. (Eds) (2019), Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector. Especially the Appendix on the Southeast and Caribbean. Springer Verlag. Available gratis at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45367-1
Potter K.M., Riitters, K.H. & Guo. Q. 2022. Non-nativetree regeneration indicates regional & national risks from current invasions. Frontiers in Forests & Global Change Front. For. Glob. Change 5:966407. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.966407
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
white ash: a species that might be restored under the programs envisioned in the proposed bills
Bills have been introduced into both the House and Senate to enhance USDA APHIS and Forest Service programs intended to curtail introduction and spread of non-native forest pests and disease and – especially – programs aimed at restoring pest-decimated trees to the forest.
The House bill is H.R. 3174; it was introduced by Reps. Becca Balint (VT).
The Senate bill is S. 1238; it was introduced by Senators Peter Welch (VT), Mike Braun (IN), and Maggie Hassen (NH). [Both senators Welch and Braun are on the Agriculture Committee – which will write the bill.]
CISP hopes that the contents of these two bills will be incorporated in the Farm Bill that Congress is expected to adopt this year or next. The proposals have the support of the Forests in the Farm Bill coalition. [Unfortunately, neither the “Consolidated Recommendations” nor “Summarized Recommendations appears to be posted on the internet at present.]
In the last Congress, a nearly identical bill introduced by then-Representative Peter Welch was endorsed by the organizations listed below. We hope they will endorse the new bills now! If you are a member of one of these organizations, please ask them to do so.
Organizations that endorsed the previous bill: Vermont Woodlands Association, American Forest Foundation, Center for Invasive Species Prevention, Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition, National Woodland Owners Association (NWOA), National Association of State Foresters (NASF), The Society of American Foresters (SAF), the North American Invasive Species Management Association (NAISMA), the Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, a broad group of university professors and scientists, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Vermont, Audubon Vermont, the Massachusetts Forest Alliance, the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, the Maine Woodland Owners Association, and the Pennsylvania Forestry Association.
I seek your help in generating support for incorporating these proposals into the 2023 Farm Bill. Please urge your representative and senators to co-sponsor the bills or otherwise support that action.
beech in a breeding experiment at The Holden Arboretum; photo by Jennifer Koch
Key points of the two bills:
They strengthen APHIS’ access to emergency funds. APHIS has had the authority to access emergency funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation since 2000. However, the Office of Management and Budget has often blocked its requests. See § 2, of the bills, EMERGENCY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
It creates two separate but related grant programs.
The first grant program – in § 3. FOREST RECLAMATION GRANTS – funds research addressing specific questions impeding the recovery of tree species that are native to the US and have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native plant pests or noxious weeds.
The second grant program – in § 4. FOREST RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS – funds implementation of projects to restore these pest-decimated tree species to the forest. These projects must be part of a forest restoration strategy that incorporates a majority of the following components:
(1) Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material.
(2) Production of propagules of the target tree species in numbers sufficient for landscape-scale restoration.
(3) Preparation of planting sites in the target tree species’ former habitats.
(4) Planting of native tree seedlings.
(5) Post-planting maintenance of native trees.
§ 5 states that the absence of a national policy on addressing nonnative forest pests has resulted in their receiving a low priority within all Federal agencies. It then mandates a study to analyze agencies’ available resources, raise the issue’s priority, and improve coordination among agencies. This study is to be carried out by an independent institution, for example the National Academy of Sciences. The authors are to consult with specialists in entomology, genetics, forest pathology, tree breeding, forest and urban ecology, and invasive species management.
Funding for all three action components – the emergency response and both grant programs – would come from the Commodity Credit Corporation, so it would not be subject to the vagaries of annual appropriations bills.
Forest Restoration Alliance volunteers potting hemlock seedlings; photo provided by Fred Hains
Entities which could apply for the research grants (§ 3 of the bills) include Federal agencies; State cooperative institutions; academic institutions offering degrees in the study of food, forestry, and agricultural sciences; and non-profit organizations exempt from taxes under §501(c)(3) of the tax code. Types of research funded could include:
‘‘(A) biocontrol of nonnative pests & diseases or noxious weeds severely damaging native tree species [the bill does not specify, but Project CAPTURE identifies many qualifying species; see also my earlier blog];
‘‘(B) exploration of genetic manipulation of the plant pests or noxious weeds;
‘‘(C) enhancement of pest-resistance mechanisms of hosts; and
‘‘(D) development of other strategies for restoring individual tree species.
The maximum amount of such grants is $400,000 per year.
Entities which could apply for the implementation grants (§ 4 of the bills) include a cooperating forestry school; a land-grant college or university; a State agricultural experimental station; a 501(c)(3) organization. Funding would begin at $3 million for FY 2023 and rise to $10 million for FY 2026.
The Secretary of Agriculture would be guided in implementing these programs by two committees. One – the committee of experts – would constitute representatives of the USFS, APHIS, ARS & State forestry agencies. The second – the advisory committee – would be composed of representatives of land-grant colleges and universities and affiliated State agriculture experiment stations, forest products industry, recreationists, and professional forester, conservation, and conservation scientist organizations.
Port-Orford cedar seedlings at USFS Dorena Center – a model for success! Photo provided by Richard Sniezko
Please contact your Member of Congress (Representative) and senators to urge them to support inclusion of these provisions in the Farm Bill. [Remember: they work for us!] Telling them of your support for these bills is especially important if your Representative or Senator is on the Agriculture Committee. I list those legislators here:
State
HOUSE AGRIC COMM
SENATE AGRIC COMM
AL
Barry Moore
Tommy Tuberville
AR
Rick Crawford
John Boozman
CA
Doug Lamalfa John Duarte Jim Costa Salud Carbajal
CO
Yadira Caraveo
Michael Bennet
CT
Jahana Hayes
FL
Kat Cammack Darren Soto
GA
Austin Scott David Scott Sanford Bishop
Raphael Warnock
HI
Jill Tokuda
IA
Randy Feenstra Zach Nunn
Joni Ernst Charles Grassley
IL
Mike Bost Mary Miller Nikki Budzinski Eric Sorensen Jonathan Jackson
Richard Durbin
IN
Jim Baird
Mike Braun
KS
Tracey Mann Sharice Davids
Roger Marshall
KY
Mitch McConnell
MA
Jim McGovern
ME
Chellie Pingree
MI
Elissa Slotkin
Debbie Stabenow
MN
Angie Craig
Amy Klobuchar Tina Smith
MO
Mark Alford
MS
Trent Kelly
Cindy Hyde-Smith
NC
David Rouzer Alma Adams
ND
John Hoeven
NE
Don Bacon
Deb Fischer
NJ
Cory Booker
NM
Gabe Vasquez
Ben Ray Lujan
NY
Marc Molinaro Nick Langworthy
Kirsten Gillibrand
OH
Max Miller Shontel Brown
Sherrod Brown
OK
Frank Lucas
OR
Lori Chavez-Deremer Andrea Salinas
PA
Glenn Thompson
John Fetterman
SD
Dusty Johnson
John Thune
TN
Scott Desjarlais Brad Finstad
TX
Ronny Jackson Monica de la Cruz Jasmine Crockett
VA
Abigail Spanberger
VT
Peter Welch
WA
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez
WI
Derrick van Orden
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
