wood packaging – Page 2 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

America & Russia – Sharing the Pests

*Platanus orientalis* in Turkey; photo by Zeynek Zebeci

A current issue of the journal Forests (2022 Vol. 13) is a special issue focused on forest pests. This topic was chosen because of increased pest incursions. Choi and Park (full citations at the end of the blog) link this to climate change and increased international trade, as well as difficulties of predicting which pests will cause damage where.

The journal issue contains 15 papers. Several patterns appear throughout. First is the important role of international trade in living plants – “plants for planting” – in introductions. This is hardly news! A second pattern is that at least two North American species were introduced to Europe during the 1940s, probably in wood packaging used to transport military supplies during World War II.

This compilation provides the opportunity to review which organisms of North American origin have become damaging invaders in Eurasia — and sometimes other continents. For example, the journal carries four articles discussing pine wilt disease (PWD). It is caused by the North American nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, and is vectored by wood-boring insects in the genus Monochamus. Beetles introduced from North America and those native to the invaded area are both involved. This disease is considered a severe threat to forest health globally. No apparent association with WWII exists for PWD.

Two fungal pathogens from North America cause serious damage in urban and natural forests of Europe and central Asia. Neither is discussed in the special issue:

Ceratocystis platani has devastated urban trees in the Platanus genus, especially the “London plane” hybrid, and the native European tree, Platanus orientalis. This fungus was accidentally introduced to southern Europe during WWII – as were the two insects described by Musolin et al. It was first reported in northern Italy and Mediterranean France in the early 1970s, but disease symptoms had been observed years earlier. C. platani is established across the northern rim of the Mediterranean and to the east in Armenia and Iran. The worst damage has been in Greece, especially in natural forest stands in riparian areas. Spread of the pathogen there is facilitated by root grafts and by tree wounds caused by floating wooden debris during floods (Tsopelas et al. 2017.)

*Platanus orientalis* along Voidomatis River in Greece; photo by Onno Zweers, via Wikimedia

Heterobasidion irregulare infects conifers. It has spread and killed large numbers of Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea). The disease was inadvertently introduced to central Italy in the 1940s. H. irregulare has greater sporulation potential and decays wood more quickly than the native congener H. annosum. H. irregulare appears to be replacing the European species; scientists fear it will exacerbate tree infection and mortality rates (Garbelotto, Leone, and Martiniuc. date?)

A third North American pathogen, sooty bark disease (Cryptostroma corticale) has been introduced to Europe. This disease, found on sugar maple in eastern North America, was detected in Great Britain in 1945; it is now throughout Europe (Tanney 2022). EPPO reports that it is widespread in western Europe and in some Balkan countries. The website provides no information on its impact in Europe.

Pests in Russia

A paper authored by Musolin, et al. discusses 14 species of invasive or emerging tree pests found in Russian forest and urban ecosystems. Of these, two are native to North America. Another eight pose a threat to North America if they are introduced here.

As Musolin et al. point out, Russia covers a huge territory across Europe and Asia – stretching 10,500 km, or 6,500 miles. These encompass a great variety of ecological zones. Russia is also actively involved in international trade. It is not surprising, then, numerous non-native organisms have been introduced.

As of 2011, 192 species of phytophagous non-native insects from 48 families and eight orders were documented in the European part of Russia. This number does not include the vast areas in Asian Russia. Additional introductions have probably occurred in the most recent decade. Some of these introduced species have cause significant economic losses. Still, Russia appears to rarely mount a serious control effort.

Of course, the opposite is also true: pests native to some part of Russia can be transported to new regions of Russia or beyond its borders. We North Americans have focused on various species of tussock moths (Lymantria spp., etc.). There are many others. Musolin et al. describe eight in detail. All the information in this blog are from that article unless otherwise indicated.

Two North American Species’ Damage in Eurasia

Both these introductions were detected around the year 2000. Was there some event – other than simply expanding trade – that might explain these introductions?

*Leptoglossus occidentalis*; photo by nutmeg66 via Flickr

Western Coniferous Seed Bug, Leptoglossus occidentalis

This insect from western North America has invaded Eurasia, North Africa, and Central America. The first detection in Europe was in 1999 in Italy. It spread quickly and is present now from Morocco to Japan, as well as in South Africa and South America. The seed bug is spreading northward in European Russia, including into the forest-steppe zone. Its ability to spread to the East is uncertain.

L. occidentalis attacks a wide range of Pinaceae and Cupressaceae. In the Mediterranean region it has had serious impacts on the pine nut supply (Ana Farinha, IUFRO, Prague, September 2021). In southern parts of Russia it has caused “significant damage”. L. occidentalis also vectors a pathogenic fungus Sphaeropsis sapinea (=Diplodia pinea), which causes diplodia tip blight. The cumulative damage of insect and pathogen to pines can be significant.

The introduction pathway to Russia is unknown. It might have flown from established populations in Europe, or it might have been transported on plants for planting or Christmas decorations.

Oak Lace Bug, Corythucha arcuata

This insect is widespread in the United States and southern Canada. It was first detected in Europe – again, Italy – in 2000. Twenty years later it has spread to almost 20 countries.

Russia was invaded relatively recently; the first outbreak was detected in 2015 in the subtropical zone along the Black Sea coast and Caucasus. Musolin et al. expect the lace bug to spread to natural forests of Central Asia and other countries of the Caucasus. Its spread will be assisted by air currents and movement of plants for planting. The insect is causing considerable aesthetic damage, but other impacts have not been estimated.

Hosts include many species of oak (Quercus spp.), European and American chestnuts (Castanea spp.) plus trees from other botanical families: willows and maples (Salicaceae), redbay (Fagaceae), and alder (Betulaceae).

Pests in Russia that Could Damage North America if Introduced Here

*Malus sierversii*; photo by Lukacz Szczurowski via Wikimedia

Threat to Apples — Apple Buprestid, Agrilus mali

This Asian beetle has caused extensive mortality of wild apple (Malus sieversii) forests in Xinjiang, China. Wild apple trees are important components of deciduous forests in the Central Asian mountains. The species is also an ancestor of the domestic apple tree. Consequently, the borer is considered a potential threat to cultivated apple trees – presumably everywhere. A. mali might also attack other fruit trees in the Rose family, i.e., Prunus (plums, cherries, peaches, apricots, almonds) and Pyrus (pears).

Unlike most of the other species described here, A. mali is a quarantine pest in Russia and across Europe and the Mediterranean regions – the region where phytosanitary policies are coordinated by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Russia bans imports of apple seedlings from infested areas.

China is reported to be experimenting with a possible biocontrol agent, Sclerodermus pupariae (a parasitoid of emerald ash borer).

Threat to Pines and Firs, Already Under Invasive Species Threats

Small Spruce Bark Beetle, Ips amitinus

This European beetle has been considered a secondary pest of dying conifers. Over the last 100 years, it has moved farther North. The first Russian record was 100 years ago, in the region where Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine meet. (Did military action during World War I play a role? This is not discussed by the authors.) By 2022, the beetle occupies 31 million ha. It is probably spread through transport of logs by rail.

In Western Siberia, the spruce beetle has attacked a new host, Siberian pine (Pinus sibirica).

The danger to North America arises from this beetle’s preference for five-needle pines (genus Pinus section Quinquefoliae). North America’s five-needle pines are already under severe pressure from the introduced pathogen white pine blister rust (Cornartium ribicola) and the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae).

Four-Eyed Fir Bark Beetle, Polygraphus proximus

This East Asian beetle feeds on firs (Abies spp.). Less commonly, it feeds on other genera in the Pinaceae: spruce (Picea ), pines (Pinus), larch (Larix), hemlock (Tsuga).

This beetle has been spreading west; the first substantiated record in European Russia was 2006 in Moscow. The beetle was probably present in western Siberia in the 1960s, although it was not detected until 2008. Again, the probable pathway of spread is movement of lumber by railroad.

P. proximus vectors an obligate symbiotic fungus, which can rapidly weaken the host. Musolin et al. comment on the beetle’s impacts – which they rarely do in this article. (Does this signify more damaging impacts, or availability of past studies?) They note significant changes in the forests’ ecosystem structure and microclimate, vegetation cover, and local insect fauna.

The danger to North America arises from this beetle’s preference for firs from the sections Balsamea and Grandis. Many North American firs are in these sections, including Fraser fir (Abies fraseri), balsam fir (A. balsamea), subalpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), grand fir (A. grandis), white fir (A. concolor), and others. Several of these firs already are challenged by the introduced balsam woolly adelgid. Firs in central and western Europe are less vulnerable since they are in the section Abies, which the beetle prefers less.

Threats to Poplars

Spotted Poplar Borer, Agrilus fleischeri

This boring beetle is native to northern Asia. It has caused significant mortality in native and exotic Populus plantations in China. Although there have been no reports of this beetle moving beyond its native range, many other Agrilus species have. Canada has twice intercepted adult spotted poplar borers on wood packaging. Musolin et al. fear that the adoption of non-native hosts might trigger an outbreak that would facilitate spread.

Poplar Leafminer, Phyllonorycter populifoliella

balsam poplar; photo by Matt Lavin via Flickr

This micromoth is widely distributed across the Palearctic. It was recently detected on introduced poplars growing in India.

The danger to North America arises from the beetle’s preference for black and balsam poplars. Several species in these taxonomic groups are common in North America, including Populus balsamifera, P. trichocarpa, P. deltoides, and Populus × Canadensis.

Threat to Oaks — Leaf Blotch Miner Moth, Acrocercops brongniardella

This micromoth is widely distributed in Europe and expanding to the north. The pest mines the leaves of several oak species (Quercus spp.), especially English oak, Q. robur; and sometimes European chestnut (Castanea sativa). Leaf blotch miner is considered one of the most important folivore insect pests of oaks in Russia. Damage has been greater in Omsk Oblast (Siberia), where both English oak and the micromoth are introduced species, than in St. Petersburg, which is on the northern limit of their natural range. Musolin et al. fear that the warming climate will lead to the pest causing greater damage in the northern portions of its range.

Threat to Basswood — Lime Leaf Miner, Phyllonorycter issikii

This Asian moth has been moving west since the mid-1980s. It now occupies most of European Russia with some outbreaks in Siberia. In Europe, it is a conspicuous pest of Tilia species.

In these invaded regions, the leaf miner has shifted to novel hosts, including American basswood (T. americana). Basswood is a common plant in the eastern deciduous forest of North America.

Threat to Horse Chestnuts & Urban Trees — Horse-Chestnut Leaf Miner, Cameraria ohridella

This tiny moth was unknown to science before the first recorded outbreak in the late 1980s. Over the next three decades it spread to most of Europe, where horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum)has been widely planted for three centuries. It has caused significant damage.

The first Russian detection was in Kaliningrad, on the shores of the Baltic Sea, in 2003. The leaf miner now occupies 69% of administrative units of European Russia. It is considered one of the Top 100 most dangerous invasive species in Russia.

In North America, the moth might attack native horse chestnuts, Ae. octandra (=flava) and Ae. glabra. Urban plantings are at particular risk because the leaf miner might attack both European horse chestnuts and two non-native maples that have been planted widely, sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus) and Norway maple (A. platanoides). Data cited by Musolin et al. are contradictory regarding larval development on the maples. Once introduced, the leaf miner is difficult to contain because it spreads through natural flight of adults, wind-blown leaves, hitchhiking on vehicles, and movement of infected plants.

Shared Pests

Russia has been invaded by two species that have been introduced in many countries (beyond pine wilt nematode). These two entered the country on plants for planting being imported to landscape venues for the XXII Winter Olympic Games – held in Sochi in 2014.

First to arrive was the Box Tree Moth, Cydalima perspectalis. This East Asian species was first detected outside its native range in Germany in 2006. By 2011 it was widespread in European and Mediterranean countries. In 2021, the boxwood moth was found in North America (first Canada, then the United States). [I discuss the boxwood moth briefly here.]

In Russia, box tree moth larvae were first recorded in 2012 on the planting stock of its principal host, Buxus sempervirens. The moth quickly spread around the Black Sea region and to the North Caucasus. It spread farther, too: it reached the Kaliningrad Oblast (southeast coast of the Baltic Sea) in 2020. The main pathway of C. perspectalis invasion was the introduction of infested box-wood planting material.

Further spread of C. perspectalis is likely from Russia into the natural forests across the Caucasus (Transcaucasia) and to countries located further south. This is most distressing because the region has extensive natural forests of Buxus sempervirens. In 2015–2017, C. perspectalis almost completely destroyed the natural boxwood populationsin these regions of Russia and further eastwards in Abkhazia. Boxwood stands in Georgia and northern Iran are already suffering intensive defoliation as the result of infection by two non-native pathogens, Calonectria pseudonaviculata [synonym Cylindrocladium buxicola] and Calonectria henricotiae. Damage to these forests could lead to reductions in soil stability and subsequent declines in water quality and flood protection, changes in forest structure and composition, and declines in Buxus-associated biodiversity (at least 63 species of lichens, fungi, chromista and invertebrates might be obligate). (In December 2022, Iryna Matsiakh presented a compelling overview of threats to these forests in a webinar sponsored by the Horticulture Research Initiative; apparently no recording is available.)

The second global invader to appear was the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, Halyomorpha halys.

This insect from southeast and east Asia invaded the United States in 1996. The first detection in Europe was in Liechtenstein in 2004. In both cases, it spread quickly across these continents.

Russia’s first detection of stinkbug was in 2014 in parks in Sochi and elsewhere along the Black Sea coast. The spread in Russia appears to have been limited to the Black Sea – Caucasus area.

The brown marmorated stinkbug is highly polyphagous, feeding on more than 300 species of plants. In southern Russia, 107 species have been documented as hosts. At times, stinkbug feeding has caused severe losses in yields of fruit and vegetable crops.

Patterns

Musolin et al. stress the importance of the pest shifting to new hosts–usually from the same or a closely related genus. They cite several examples of these shifts occurring in the pest’s native range, including Agrilus planipennis (from local Asian ash species to introduced North American ash species); Phyllonorycter populifoliella and Agrilus fleischeri (from local poplars to widely cultivated introduced North American poplars and hybrids); Agrilus mali (from cultivated to wild apples).

As I noted above, the introduction and spread pathways are the usual ones: plants for planting (three species) and shipments of logs. There is one indication of wood packaging – Spotted Poplar Borer, Agrilus fleischeri at the Canadian border.

SOURCES

Choi, W.I.; Park, Y.-S. Management of Forest Pests and Diseases. Forests 2022, 13, 1765. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111765

Garbelotto, M., G. Lione, and A.V. Martiniuc. date? The alien invasive forest pathogen Heterobasidion irregulare is replacing the native Heterobasidion annosum. Biological Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02775-w

Musolin, D.L.; Kirichenko, N.I.; Karpun, N.N.; Aksenenko, E.V.; Golub, V.B.; Kerchev, I.A.; Mandelshtam, M.Y.; Vasaitis, R.; Volkovitsh, M.G.; Zhuravleva, E.N.; et al. Invasive insect pests of forests and urban trees in Russia: Origin, pathways, damage, and management. Forests 2022, 13, 521.

Tanney, J. Forest Health Challenges Exacerbated by a Changing Climate: Swiss Needle Cast and Sooty Bark Disease in B.C. 65th ANNUAL FOREST PEST MANAGEMENT FORUM (Canada). December 7, 2022.

Tsopelas, P., A. Santini, M.J. Wingfield, and Z.W. de Beer. Canker Stain: A Lethal Disease Destroying Iconic Plane Trees. Plant Disease 2017. 101-645-658 American Phytopathological Society

Wood Packaging: Pests Still Coming, USDA Not Taking Action

photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Agriculture

As we know, wood packaging (SWPM; crates, pallets, spools, etc.) is a high-risk pathway for introduction of bark- and wood-infesting insects (borers). (To see my 40 earlier blogs about wood packaging material, scroll down below archives to “Categories,” click on “wood packaging”.) Examples of highly damaging pests introduced to North America include Asian longhorned beetle; emerald ash borer; redbay ambrosia beetle; sirex woodwasp; possibly the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers; Mediterranean oak borer; and dozens of others. (As of 2014, 58 new species of non-native wood- or bark-boring insects had been detected in the past 30 years [Leung et al. 2014]).

The Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer were probably introduced before the World Trade Organization (WTO) came into effect in 1994; many of the others were detected – if not introduced – after that date. This global trade agreement not only facilitated rapid growth in trade volumes; it also imposed stringent conditions for adoption of plant health (= phytosanitary) measures aimed at preventing pest introductions. (For a review of the WTO restrictions, see my Fading Forests II report, here).

While the risk of pests travelling in raw wood was well known, U.S. and international phytosanitary agencies became aware that wood packaging fit into that category with detection of the ALB in New York and other wood-borer introductions. They acted remarkably rapidly to reduce this risk by negotiating and adopting International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) #15 in 2002.

The goal of ISPM#15 is to “significantly reduce” [not eliminate] the risk of pests associated with solid wood used for constructing packaging (e.g., crates, pallets), from being introduced to other countries through international trade.

This first international standard addressing a pathway of introductions was adopted 20 years ago. (The U.S. fully implemented ISPM#15 in 2006; see either article by Haack for a description of the phase-in period.) So – how great is the risk of pest introduction in wood packaging now? What proportion of these incoming containers are likely to be harboring tree-killing insects? Since it is impossible to reduce that risk to 0 while continuing trade using wood packaging, what is an acceptable level of risk? In determining that level, we must keep in mind the huge volumes of wood packaging being used in international trade, and the serious damage these wood-borers can cause. (See the pest profiles in the links provided above.)

I applaud the international phytosanitary community for acting fast and for choosing a pathway standard rather than try to differentiate the level of risk associated with any particular transaction – given that wood packaging could be made from dozens or hundreds of tree taxa, there are thousands of species of wood-boring insects, and the likelihood of an introduction depends in part on the exporting and importing countries. Plus, international trade involves huge volumes of goods. According to Haack et al. (2022), ~ 55 million TEU (shipping containers measured as twenty-foot equivalents) entered the U.S. in 2020. This is a 68% increase over the volume in 2003. Imports in the first half of 2020 were down because of the COVID epidemic. They then grew rapidly through the first half of 2022; imports from Asia in the first 10 months of 2022 were 21% higher than in the same period in 2019 (Mongelluzzo 2022). Haack et al. (2022) note that the number of countries from which SWPM originated more than doubled from 2003–2004 to 2010–2020, although it dropped after 2018.

In 2014, Haack et al. published an estimate of the pest approach rate in wood packaging as of 2009. Depending on which countries were included and how the time periods were selected to separate pre- and post-adoption of ISPM#15, they reported a 36–52% reduction in the SWPM infestation rate following ISPM#15 implementation. This resulted in an estimated infestation rate of 0.1% (1/10^th of 1%). In a recent blog, I applied this estimated approach rate to find that probably 11,000 containers per year transported pests to North America in 2021; 80% of these shipments came to the United States.

Since 2009, traders have gained 13 more years of experience. More important, in 2009 the standard was changed to require that wood packaging be constructed from wood that had been debarked before treatment. There is a tolerance limit for small patches of residual bark. Given that bark provides shelter both for insects already there, and facilitates any new infestation after the treatment was performed, it was expected that this change would further reduce the pest risk.

Since more than a decade has passed since the original analysis, and wood-borers continue to be found in wood packaging – in the U.S. and elsewhere – Haack and colleagues have re-analyzed the pest approach rates (see Haack et al. 2022). Their objectives were to

(1) compare pre-and post-ISPM#15 borer-infestation rates;

(2) compare the borer detection rates individually for three kinds of imports and key US trading partners;

(3) see whether wood borer presence varies by season; and

(4) assess the diversity of borer taxa detected overall, and by cargo category and country of origin.

Over the entire 17-year period 2003 – 2020, 87,571 consignments met the conditions for the study: they contained wood packaging that bore the ISPM#15 mark (from 2006 and onwards) indicating it had been treated as required; and the shipment was not from Canada (the U.S. does not require wood packaging from Canada to comply with ISPM#15).

They analyzed the data for the entire 17-year period and separately for four phases:

1) before the U.S. implemented ISPM#15 (2003-2004);

2) phasing-in of U.S. implementation (2005 – 2006);

3) full implementation – but without any restriction on THE presence of bark (2007-2009); and

4) full implementation with restrictions on bark (2010 – 2021).

Over the period 2003– 2020, wood borers were detected in 180 of the 87,571 consignments, or 0.21%. This was 38% less than the 0.34% infestation rate in 2003-2004, before the U.S. implemented ISPM#15. Still, the US had required China to treat its wood packaging as of December 1998 because of introduction of ALB. However, the reduction was greatest in the first phase (2005-2006); in subsequent periods the pest approach rate inched back up. Detection rates have been relatively constant since 2005 despite the requirement in 2009 that bark be removed and a resulting reduction in the presence of bark (it fell from 40% or more of inspected consignments before 2009 to 15% after 2010).

Unfortunately, the data used in the study do not indicate if borers detected on wood were located under any bark that was present. There might be some indication from the species detected: 100% of Scolytinae identified to genus or species detected before 2007 were true bark beetles (which develop primarily under bark), but only 23% in 2010–2020 period.

The data revealed no strong seasonal pattern.

Types of Wood Packaging

The study findings indicate that crates are the type of wood packaging most likely to be infested by insects. While crates constituted only 7.5% of the wood packaging inspected, they made up 29.4% of the infested packaging – or four times greater than their proportion of the dataset. Pallets constituted 88.6% of the inspected wood packaging, but only 67.2% of the infested shipments. Dunnage and “other” wood packaging made up insignificant proportions of both total wood packaging inspected and wood packaging found to be infested. (Of course, dunnage can still pose a threat; see my blog about issues in Houston with dunnage bracing breakbulk cargo.) The Haack et al. (2022) study did not examine dunnage accompanying breakbulk shipments.

Records of Various countries

The 180 infested consignments originated from 30 countries. For two of these countries, the percentage of wood packaging found to be infested was higher than the proportion of all wood packaging from that country that was inspected. Packaging from China made up 4.6% of all shipments inspected, but 22% of the 180 consignments with infested wood packaging. Thus the proportion Chinese consignments with infested wood is five times greater than expected based on their proportion of the dataset. The rate of wood packaging from China that is infested has remained relatively steady – as I noted above. The Chinese infestation rate was 1.26% during 2003–2004, and ranged from 0.58 to 1.11% during the next three periods.

I remind you, again, that the U.S. has required treatment of wood packaging from China since December 1998. Why does this country continue to ship pest-infested wood packaging to the United States? Why are the responsible agencies in the United States not taking action to correct this problem? (DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection enhanced its enforcement in 2017; see my blogs.)

A second country with a record of non-compliant wood packaging – Italy – has done better. The level of pest detection still exceeded their expected proportional level – that is, Italy constituted 12.7% of all inspected shipments, but had 15% of infested consignments. Still, Italy has reduced detection rates by almost two-thirds over the 17 years of the study. The Italian statistics would have been even better if there had not been a spike of infested wood in 2015 – 2018 – for unknown reasons.

The data indicate that a third country, Mexico, has improved the pest-free quality of wood packaging accompanying it exports.

Wood from Costa Rica and Turkey has deteriorated as regards pest infestation rates.The borer detection rate on Costa Rican shipments rose from 0.072% during all of 2003–2009 to 0.665% during 2010–2020. Pest-detection rates for Turkey were actually 0 during 2003–2004 (only 59 consignments) but rose to 1.05% during 2010– 2020.

Disturbing Trends

The data reveal other trends that I find disturbing:

While the pest approach rate has fallen since U.S. implementation of ISPM#15, the extent of the decline has progressively decreased during each period studied: the reduction during 2005–2006 was 61%; during 2007–2009, 47%; during 2010-2020 only 36%.
The 2010 – 2020 pest approach rate was calculated at 0.22%. This is more than double the rate based on 2009 data (0.1%, as stated in the 2014 paper). However, we should be cautious in making this comparison because the 2014 and 2022 studies used different methods (see below). The bottom line, however, is that the approach rate remains too high, in my view. Our forests continue to be exposed to the risk of introduction of highly damaging wood-boring pests. Furthermore, since the number of countries sending us infested wood packaging has increased, those potential pests include insects from a greater variety of countries (biomes).
Given the higher number of countries involved and rising proportion of wood that is infested, it is not surprising that the diversity of wood borers found in wood packaging increased. Cerambycidae were consistently the most commonly intercepted borers – making up just under half of the total for the 17 years. Scolytinae were consistently second, at 39%. Still, all major families of borers had been intercepted throughout the period.

Explanation

From the perspective of protecting our forests, what matters is whether the “current” infestation rate is significantly below the rate before ISPM#15 was implemented. As noted, the infestation rate in the 2010-2020 period (0.22%) is, on first glance, more than twice as high as the 2009 approach rate as calculated in the 2014 paper (0.1%). However, the earlier calculation excluded reports of wood packaging from China and Mexico for reasons given in the 2014 paper. Since these countries are among the top three sources of imports to the U.S., and all have had relatively high levels of infested wood packaging, this difference must have had a significant impact on the final finding.

Indeed, the supplementary materials in Haack et al. (2022) show just such a big impact. When records from China and Mexico are excluded from the calculation, the 2010-2020 approach rate appears to have been even higher — 0.272%. This is a reduction from the pre-ISPM#15 approach rate (0.299%) of only 9% — a quarter of the reduction found when data from China and Mexico were included (note the 36% reduction noted above). This difference in approach rate estimates reflects Mexico’s success in cleaning up its wood packaging (as noted above). Since China had “steady” infestation rates throughout, adding or dropping China had less of an impact.

The data do not show a significant drop in pest approach rates during the period 2010-2020 compared to pre-ISPM#15 levels, which is disappointing. Scientists do not know why this happened. It could reflect many of the reasons discussed in the 2022 paper. Perhaps the most important factor is that reporting data on a consignment basis does not allow us to detect whether the numbers of a pest species present have decreased. [See point 5 below.]

The fact is that a pallet or crate bearing the ISPM#15 mark has not proved to be reliable as to whether the wood is pest-free. (This might be because the wood had not been treated, or that it was, but the treatment failed). All the pests detected in study (after 2006) were in wood packaging bearing the ISPM#15 mark. I have noted in past blogs [click on the “wood packaging” category to bring up blogs about wood packaging and enforcement] that Customs and Border Protection also reported that nearly all the wood packaging in which that they detected insect pests bore the mark.

Conclusions: Haack et al. (2022)

Haack et al. (2022) note that U.S. imports have risen 68% by volume from 2003 to 2020 (with additional growth since; see above); however, borer detection rates have remained rather steady. This, plus the apparently lower number of woodborers established in recent years, suggest that ISPM#15 is helping to mitigate risks. However, the reduction in detection rates is less than hoped. They discuss ten possible explanations. Six of these factors were discussed in the original analysis (Haack et al. 2014); four others are new.

(1) Pest Thermotolerance. Can pests tolerate the heat treatment schedule mandated by ISPM#15? Haack et al. (2022) note that this schedule was based on one intended to kill the pinewood nematode and that it was recognized that some pests might be able to tolerate those conditions (Haack et al. 2014). The authors review the literature and conclude that some of the live borers found in heat-treated wood packaging in the study probably did survive the heat treatment. They note that studies are now under way to test temperatures that are lethal to various borers. I have raised the issue that standards must be based on lethal temperatures that can be achieved in practice; otherwise, they won’t protect forests from introduced pests.

(2) Unintentional non-compliance. The authors concluded that accidental treatment failures are likely. They note that the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) has issued guidance on handling and testing during heat treatment and fumigation.

(3) Fraud. The authors conclude that fraud is possible, but that the incidence at the global scale is unknown. Each country is responsible for their own compliance. Unfortunately, there is no effective means for independently testing whether treatments have been applied. Still, we note that all live insects evaluated in this paper were in wood package that bore the required stamp and was apparently compliant.

(4) Post-treatment colonization. Haack et al. (2022) note that adoption of the bark requirements in 2009 was intended to reduce re-infestation risk. They note that fewer true bark beetles (that develop under bark) have been detected in recent years compared w/ ambrosia beetles (that develop in wood). As I noted above, the survey data do not reveal whether insects detected by inspectors were under any remaining bark.

(5) AQIM data collection protocols. The authors note that reporting of wood borer detections by consignment conceals the per-piece infestation rate. There might be many fewer individuals of a pest in a container now – and this is important because fewer individuals pose a lower establishment risk (lower propagule pressure).

(6) Pre-ISPM actions. Some countries had begun requiring treatment of wood packaging before 2003, when data collection for the study began. Thus the approach rate might have already been reduced before ISPM#15 was implemented in the U.S., leading to a smaller apparent change.

(7) Level of detection. All the analyses assumed that the detection abilities of port inspectors remained the same over the 17 years of the study. However, inspectors might have improved their efficacy through improvements in training, inspection techniques, or technology. If so, the apparent impact of ISPM#15 would be lessened in recent years. Haack et al. (2022) say estimating the effectiveness of inspections is not possible in the absence of a “leakage survey” conducted on inspected goods to see how often target pests are missed.

(8) Changing trade partners. Countries have varying levels of effort and efficacy in enforcing ISPM#15.

(9) Varying trees and their associated borers. Countries and global regions are home to different tree species and associated insects. Therefore, changes in trading partners – or forest pest conditions within a country – can affect the number and species of potential pests harbored in the wood packaging approaching our borders.

(10) Practical limits on compliance. Reducing infestation levels to near zero through reliance on application of the ISPM#15 standard would require nearly universal compliance by industry, using highly effective treatments. Haack et al. (2022) note that such compliance levels might be difficult to achieve without either very strong incentives or intensive oversight and significant penalties for noncompliant exporters. I note that I have urged the U.S. to enhance both; link to blogs at least CBP has taken action to step up enforcement.

Haack et al. (2022) call for improved education and outreach by the IPPC, plus greater cooperation and information sharing among trading countries. I note that the Cary Institute is pursuing opening data on treatment facilities’ records so importers can hire the best.

Haack et al. (2022) conclude that ISPM#15 has resulted in marked decreases in rates of borer detection in wood packaging. However, problem areas remain re: some types of commercial goods and exporting countries. Given the enormous and growing volume of international trade, the relatively low risk associated with individual crates or pallets still poses a real risk for pest intro.

Still, they consider that the near global acceptance of ISPM#15 indicates a strong commitment by the world community to minimize movement of wood pests in SWPM through international trade.

Haack et al. (2022) call for several improvements. Some concern data to support analysis of the risk level. First, recording the numbers of infested pieces instead of reporting only consignments would help determine the numbers of insects reaching our borders. They also wish to learn whether when bark is present if it exceeds the current tolerance limits; and the type of treatment applied to each infested piece of wood packaging.

They also note opportunities to improve ISPM#15 implementation and enforcement through training on applying treatments, marking and repairing wood packaging, compiling the required records, and inspecting treatment facilities.

Oregon ash swamp; photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Department of Forestr

Faith’s Conclusions

In my view, it is less important whether the current approach rate is exactly 0.22% or somewhat less or more. What is important:

the pest approach rate is not acceptable given the huge and rising volume of imports, potential for introductions from new trading partners (with different insect faunas), and the great damage caused by wood-boring insects.

long-standing enforcement problems have not been resolved (i.e., Chinese wood packaging). Perhaps DHS CBP’s enhanced enforcement will bring improvements. CBP staff expressed disappointment in August 2022.

American government agencies must take more effective action to ensure that trade partners comply with ISPM#15. They should also look more aggressively at other actions to curtail introductions via this pathway, e.g.,

U.S. and Canada refuse to accept wood packaging from foreign suppliers that have a record of repeated violations – whatever the apparent cause of the non-compliance. Institute severe penalties to deter foreign suppliers from taking devious steps to escape being associated with their violation record.
APHIS and CBP and their Canadian counterparts provide guidance to importers on which foreign treatment facilities have a record of poor compliance or suspected fraud – so they can avoid purchasing SWPM from them. I am hopeful that the voluntary industry program described here will help importers avoid using wood packaging from unreliable suppliers in the exporting country.
Encourage a rapid switch to materials that won’t transport wood-borers. Plastic is one such material. While no one wants to encourage production of more plastic, the Earth is drowning under discarded plastic. Some firms are recycling plastic waste into pallets.

The two articles by Haack et al. – 2014 and 2022 – fully describe the methodology used, the structure of USDA’s Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) program, detailed requirements of ISPM#15, the phases of U.S. implementation, etc. Also see the supplemental data sheet in Haack et al. (2022) that compares the methods used in each analysis.

SOURCES

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

Haack RA, Hardin JA, Caton BP and Petrice TR (2022) Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117

Leung, B., M.R. Springborn, J.A. Turner, and E.G. Brockerhoff. 2014. Pathway-level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. Front Ecol Environ. 2014. doi:10.1890/130311

Mongelluzzo, B. Trans-Pacific volume decline picks up pace in October. JOC. November 17, 2022. https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/trans-pacific-volume-decline-picks-pace-october_20221117.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%2011%2F18%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-148476_KB_1118_0617

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

www.fadingforests.org

Australia Builds Capacity to Address Forest Pests

Australian Eucalypts; photo by John Turnbull via Flickr

I congratulate Australian scientists for bringing about substantial improvements of their country’s biosecurity program for forest pests. While it is too early to know how effective the changes will be in preventing new introductions, they are promising. What can we Americans learn from the Australian efforts? [I have previously praised South Africa’s efforts – there is much to learn there, too.]

Australia has a reputation of being very active in managing the invasive species threat. However, until recently biosecurity programs targetting forest pests were minimal and ad hoc. Scientists spent 30 years trying to close those gaps (Carnegie et al. 2022). Their efforts included publishing several reports or publications (listed at the end of the blog) and an international webinar on myrtle rust. Scientists are hopeful that the new early detection program (described below) will greatly enhance forest protection. However, thorough pest risk assessments are still not routinely conducted for forest pests. (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022).

The native flora of Australia is unique. That uniqueness has provided protection because fewer of the non-native insects and pathogens familiar to us in the Northern Hemisphere have found suitable hosts (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Also – I would argue – the uniqueness of this flora imposes a special responsibility to protect it from threats that do arise.

Only 17% of Australia’s landmass is covered by forests. Australia is large, however; consequently, these forests cover 134 million hectares (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). This is the 7th largest forest estate in the world (Carnegie et al. 2022).

Australia’s forests are dominated by eucalypts (Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora). These cover 101 million ha; or 75% of the forest). Acacia (11 million ha; 8%); and Melaleuca (6 million ha) are also significant. The forest also includes one million ha of plantations dominated by Pinus species native to North America (Carnegie et al. 2022). A wide range of native and exotic genera have been planted as amenity trees in urban and peri-urban areas, including pines, sycamores, poplars, oaks, and elms (Carnegie et al. 2022). These urban trees are highly valued for their ecosystem services as well as social, cultural, and property values (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Of course, these exotic trees can support establishment and spread of the forest pest species familiar to us in the Northern Hemisphere. On the positive side, they can also be used as sentinel plantings for early detection of non-native species (Carnegie et al. 2022 and Nahrung and Carnegie 2020).

Despite Australia’s geographic isolation, its unique native flora, and what is widely considered to be one of the world’s most robust biosecurity system, at least 260 non-native arthropods and pathogens of forests have established in Australia since 1885 (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). [(This number is about half the number of non-native forest insects and pathogens that have established in the United States over a period just 25 years longer (Aukema et al. 2010).] As I noted, forest scientists have cited these introductions as a reason to strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system specifically as it applies to forest pests.

What steps have been taken to address this onslaught? For which pests? With what impacts? What gaps have been identified?

Which Pests?

Nahrung and Carnegie (2020) compiled the first comprehensive database of tree and forest pests established in Australia. The 260 species of non-native forest insect pests and pathogens comprise 143 arthropods, 117 pathogens. Nineteen of them (17 insects and 2 fungal species) had been detected before 1900. These species have accumulated at an overall rate of 1.9 species per year; the rate of accumulation after 1955 is slightly higher than during the earlier period, but it has not grown at the exponential rate of import volumes.

While over the entire period insects and pathogens were detected at an almost equal rate (insects at 1.1/year; pathogens at 0.9/year), this disguises an interesting disparity: half of the arthropods were detected before 1940; half of the pathogens after 1960 (Nahrung and Carnegie (2020). By 2022, Nahrung and Carnegie (2022) said that, on average, one new forest insect is introduced each year. Some of these recently detected organisms have probably been established for years. More robust surveillance has just detected them recently. I have blogged often about an apparent explosion of pathogens being transported globally in recent decades.

In a more recent article (Nahrung and Carnegie, 2022), gave 135 as the number of non-native forest insect pests. The authors don’t explain why this differs from the 143 arthropods listed before.

damage to pine plantations caused by *Sirex noctilio*; photo courtesy of Helen Nahrung

Eighty-seven percent of the established alien arthropods are associated with non-native hosts (e.g., Pinus, Platanus, Populus, Quercus, Ulmus) (Carnegie et al. 2022). Some of these have escaped eradication attempts and caused financial impact to commercial plantations (e.g., sirex wood wasp, Sirex noctilio) and amenity forests (e.g., elm leaf beetle, Xanthogaleruca luteola) (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019).

About 40% of the alien arthropods were largely cosmopolitan at the time of their introduction in Australia (Carnegie et al. 2022). Only six insects and six fungal species are not recorded as invasive elsewhere (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Of the species not yet established, 91% of interceptions from 2003 to- 2016 were known to be invasive elsewhere. There is strong evidence of the bridgehead effect: 95% of interceptions of three species were from their invaded range (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022). These included most of the insects detected in shipments from North America, Europe and New Zealand. These ubiquitous “superinvaders” have been circulating in trade for decades and continue to be intercepted at Australia’s borders. This situation suggests that higher interception rates of these species reflect their invasion success rather than predict it (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021).

I find it alarming that most species detected in shipments from Africa, South America, and New Zealand were of species not even recorded as established in those regions (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021; Nahrung and Carnegie 2022).

*Arhopalus ferus*, a Eurasian pine insect often detected in wood from New Zealand; photo by Jon Sullivan – in New Zealand; via Flickr

Half of the alien forest pests established in Australia are highly polyphagous. This includes 73% of Asian-origin pests but only 15% of those from Europe (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021). Nahrung and Carnegie (2022) confirm that polyphagous species are more likely to be detected during border inspections.

PATHWAYS

As in North America and Europe, introductions of Hemiptera are overwhelmingly (98%) associated with fresh plant material (e.g. nursery stock, fruit, foliage). Coleoptera introductions are predominantly (64%) associated with wood (e.g. packaging, timber, furniture, and artefacts). Both pathways are subject to strict regulations by Australia (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021).

Eradication of High-Priority Pests

Eight-five percent of all new detections were not considered high-priority risks. Of the four that were, two had not previously been recognized as threats (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). One high-priority pest – expected to pose a severe threat to at least some of Australia’s endemic plant species – is myrtle rust, Austropuccinia psidii. Despite this designation, when the rust appeared in Australia in 2010, the response was confused and ended in an early decision that eradication was impossible. Myrtle rust has now spread along the continent’s east coast, with localized distribution in Victoria, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and – in 2022, Western Australia. `

*Melaleuca quinquenervia* forest; photo by Doug Beckers via Wikimedia

There have been significant impacts to native plant communities. Several reviews of the emergency response criticized the haste with which the initial decision was made to end eradication (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). (A review of these impacts is here; unfortunately, it is behind a paywall.)

A second newly introduced species has been recognized as a significant threat, but only after its introduction to offshore islands. This is Erythina gall wasp Quadrastichus erythrinae (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). DMF Although Australia is home to at least one native species in the Erythrina genus, E. vespertilio,, the gall wasp is not included on the environmental pest watch list.

Four of the recently detected species were considered to be high impact. Therefore eradication was attempted. Unfortunately, these attempts failed in three cases. The single success involved a pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus hunanesis. See Nahrung and Carnegie (2021) for a discussion of the reasons. This means three species recognized as high-impact pests have established in Australia over 15 years (Nahrung and Carnegie (2021). In fact, Australia’s record of successful forest pest eradications is only half the global average (Carnegie and Nahrung (2019).

Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) conclude that improving early detection strategies is key to increasing the likelihood of eradication. They discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various strategies. Non-officials (citizen scientists) reported 59% of the 260 forest pests detected (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). Few alien pests have been detected by official surveillance (Carnegie et al 2022). However, managing citizen scientists’ reports involves a significant workload. Futhermore, surveillance by industry, while appreciated, is likely to detect only established species (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019).

Interception Frequency Is Not an Indicator of Likelihood of Establishment

Nahrung & Carnegie (2021) document that taxonomic groups already established in Australia are rarely detected at the border. Furthermore, only two species were intercepted before they were discovered to be established in Australia.

Indeed, 76% of species established in Australia were either never or rarely intercepted at the border. While more Hemiptera species are established in Australia, significantly more species of Coleoptera are intercepted at the border. Among beetles, the most-intercepted family is Bostrichid borers (powderpost beetles). Over the period 2003 – 2016, Bostrichid beetles made up 82% of interceptions in wood packaging and 44% in wood products (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022). This beetle family is not considered a quarantine concern by either Australian or American phytosanitary officials. I believe USDA APHIS does not even bother recording detections of powderpost beetles. Nahrung and Carnegie (2021) think the high proportion of Bostrichids might be partially explained by intense inspection of baggage, mail, and personal effects. While Australia actively instructs travelers not to bring in fruits and vegetables because of the pest risk, there are fewer warnings about risks associated with wood products.

Nahrung & Carnegie (2021) concluded that interception frequencies did not provide a good overall indicator of likelihood of risk of contemporaneous establishment.

Do Programs Focus on the Right Species?

Although Hemiptera comprise about a third of recent detections and establishments, and four of eight established species are causing medium-to-high impact, no Hemiptera are currently listed as high priority forestry pests by Australian phytosanitary agencies (Nahrung & Carnegie (2021). On the other hand, Lepidoptera make up about a third of the high-priority species, yet only two have established in Australia over 130 years. Similarly, Cerambycidae are the most frequently intercepted forest pests and several are listed as high risk. But only three forest-related species have established (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). (Note discussion of Bostrichidae above.).

Unlike the transcontinental exchanges under way in the Northern Hemisphere, none of the established beetles is from Asia; all are native to Europe. This is especially striking since interceptions from Asia-Pacific areas account for more than half of all interceptions Nahrung and Carnegie (2021).

Interestingly, 32 Australian Lepidopteran and eight Cerambycid species are considered pests in New Zealand. However, no forest pests native to New Zealand have established in Australia despite high levels of trade, geographic proximity, and the high number of shared exotic tree forest species (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020).

STRUCTURE OF PROGRAM

The structure of Australia’s plant biosecurity system is described in detail in Carnegie et al. (2022). These authors call the program “comprehensive” but to me it looks highly fragmented. The federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR,[recently renamed the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, or DAFF) is responsible for pre-border (e.g., off-shore compliance) and border (e.g., import inspection) activities. The seven state governments, along with DAFF, are responsible for surveillance within the country, management of pest incursions, and regulation of pests. Once an alien pest has become established, its management becomes the responsibility of the land manager. In Australia, then, biosecurity is considered to be a responsibility shared between governments, industry and individuals.

Even this fragmented approach was developed more recently than one might expect given Australia’s reputation for having a stringent biosecurity system. Perhaps this reflects the earlier worldwide neglect of the Plant Kingdom? Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) describe recent improvements. Until the year 2000, Australia’s response to the detection of exotic plant pests was primarily case-by-case. In that year Plant Health Australia (PHA) was incorporated. Its purpose was to facilitate preparedness and response arrangements between governments and industry for plant pests. In 2005, the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD) was created. It is a legally-binding agreement between the federal, state, and territorial governments and plant industry bodies. As of 2022, 38 were engaged. It sets up a process to implement management and funding of agreed responses to the detection of exotic plant pests – including cost-sharing and owner reimbursement. A national response plan (PLANTPLAN) provides management guidelines and outlines procedures, roles and responsibilities for all parties. A national committee (Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests (CCEPP) works with surveys to determine invaded areas (delimitation surveys) and other data to determine whether eradicating the pest is technically feasible and has higher economic benefits than costs..

*Austropuccinia psidii* on *Melaleuca quinquenervia*; photo by John Tann via Flickr

Even after creation of EPPRD in 2005, studies revealed significant gaps in Australia’s post-border forest biosecurity systems regarding forest pests (Carnegie et al. 2022; Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). These studies – and the disappointing response to the arrival of myrtle rust – led to development of the National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy (NFBSS) – published in 2018; accompanied by an Implementation Plan. A National Forest Biosecurity Coordinator was appointed.

The forest sector is funding a significant proportion of the proposed activities for the next five years; extension is probable. Drs. Carnegie and Nahrung are pleased that the national surveillance program has been established. It includes specific surveillance at high-risk sites and training of stakeholders who can be additional eyes on the ground. The Australian Forest Products Association has appointed a biosecurity manager (pers. comm.)

This mechanism is expected to ensure that current and future needs of the plant biosecurity system can be mutually agreed on, issues identified, and solutions found. Plant Health Australia’s independence and impartiality allow the company to put the interests of the plant biosecurity system first. It also supports a longer-term perspective (Carnegie et al. (2022). Leading natural resource management organizations are also engaged (Carnegie, pers. comm.).

Presumably the forest surveillance strategy (NFBSS) structure is intended to address the following problems (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019):

Alien forest pests are monitored offshore and at the border, but post-border surveillance is less structured and poorly resourced. Australia still lacks a surveillance strategy for environmental pests.
Several plant industries have developed their own biosecurity programs, co-funded by the government. These include the National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy (NFBSS).

Some pilot projects targetting high risk sites were initiated in the early 2000s. By 2019, only one surveillance program remained — trapping for Asian spongy (gypsy) moth.

The states of Victoria and New South Wales have set up sentinel site programs. Victoria’s uses local council tree databases. It is apparently focused on urban trees and is primarily pest-specific – e.g., Dutch elm disease. The New South Wales program monitors more than 1,500 sentinel trees and traps insects near ports. This program is funded by a single forest grower through 2022.

Dr. Carnegie states: “With the start of the national forest biosecurity surveillance program in December 2022, the issues and gaps identified by Carnegie et al. 2022 are starting to be addressed. The program will conduct biosecurity surveillance specifically for forest pests and pathogens and be integrated with national and state biosecurity activities. While biosecurity in Australia is still agri-centric, a concerted and sustained effort from technical experts from the forest industry is changing this. And finally, the new Biosecurity Levy should ensure sustained funding for biosecurity surveillance.”

There is a separate National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement (NEBRA), adopted in 2012. It is intended to provide guidelines for responding, cost-sharing arrangements, etc. when the alien pest threatens predominantly the environment or public amenity assets (Carnegie et al. (2022). However, when the polyphagous shot hole borer was detected, the system didn’t work as might have been expected. While PSHB had previously been identified as an environmental priority pest, specifically to Acacia, the decision whether to engage was made under auspices of the the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD) rather than the environmental agreement (NEBRA). As a result, stakeholders focused on environmental, amenity and indigenous concerns had no formal representation in decision-making processes; instead, industries that had assessed the species as a low priority (e.g., avocado and plantation forestry) did (Nahrung, pers.comm.).

Additional Issues Needing Attention

Some needs are not addressed by the National Forest Pest Strategic Plan (Carnegie et al. 2022) (Nahrung, pers. comm.):

1) The long-term strategic investment from the commercial forestry sector and government needed to maintain surveillance and diagnostic expertise;

2) Studies to assess social acceptance of response and eradication activities such as tree removal;

3) Studies to improve pest risk prioritization and assessment methods; and

4) Resolving the biosecurity responsibilities for pests of timber that has been cut and used in construction.

In 2019, Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) called for developing more effective methods of detection, especially of Hemiptera and pathogens. They also promoted national standardization of data collection. Finally, they advocated inclusion of technical experts from state governments, research organizations and industry in developing and implementing responses to pest incursions. They note that surveillance and management programs must be prepared to expect and respond to the unexpected since 85% of the pests detected over the last 20 years—and 75% of subsequently mid-to high-impact species established—were not on high-priority pest list. See Nahrung and Carnegie 2022 for a thorough discussion of the usefulness and weaknesses of predictive pest listing.

SOURCES

Aukema, J.E., D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle, A.M. Liebhold, K. Britton, & S.J. Frankel. 2010. Historical Accumulation of Nonindigenous Forest Pests in the Continental United States. Bioscience. December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11

Carnegie A.J. and H.F. Nahrung. 2019. Post-Border Forest Biosecurity in AU: Response to Recent Exotic Detections, Current Surveillance and Ongoing Needs. Forests 2019, 10, 336; doi:10.3390/f10040336 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests

Carnegie A.J., F. Tovar, S. Collins, S.A. Lawson, and H.F. Nahrung. 2022. A Coordinated, Risk-Based, National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Program for AU Forests. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:756885. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.756885

Nahrung H.F. and A.J. Carnegie. 2020. NIS Forest Insects and Pathogens in Australia: Establishmebt, Spread, and Impact. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:37. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00037 March 2020 | Volume 3 | Article 37

Nahrung, H.F. and A.J. Carnegie. 2021. Border interceps of forest insects estab in AU: intercepted invaders travel early and often. NeoBiota 64: 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.64.60424

Nahrung, H.F. & A.J. Carnegie. 2022. Predicting Forest Pest Threats in Australia: Are Risk Lists Worth the Paper they’re Written on? Global Biosecurity, 2022; 4(1).

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

EAB: Why Quarantines Are Essential

area devastated by EAB; photo by Nathan Siegert, USFS

The emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis) is the most damaging forest insect ever introduced. In late June 2022 it was detected in Forest Grove, Oregon — 26 miles from Portland. This is the first confirmation of EAB on the West Coast – a jump of over 1,000 miles from outbreaks in the Plains states. The infested ash trees were immediately cut down and chipped (see Oregon Department of Agriculture website; full link at end of blog). See my earlier blog on EAB’s threat to ash-dominated riparian wetlands in Oregon.

ash-dominated swamp along the Willamette River in Oregon; photo by William Wyatt, ODF

Oregon has been preparing for the EAB:

The state finalized its response plan in March 2021; see reference at end of blog.
The state sought and received funds from USDA APHIS to initiate a biocontrol program. The funds were not from APHIS’ operational budget, but from the agency’s Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program (PPDMDPP) (Farm Bill money).
State and federal agencies have begun collecting seeds for resistance screening and a possible breeding program.

EAB: Why Quarantines Are Essential

As you might remember, in January 2021 APHIS dropped its federal regulations aimed at curtailing EAB’s spread via movement of wood and nursery plants. This shifted the responsibility for quarantines to state authorities. Instead, APHIS reallocated its funding to biological control. I raised objections at the time, saying the latter was no substitute for the former.

A new academic study shows that APHIS’ action was a costly mistake.

Hudgins et al. (2022; full citation at end of this blog) estimate EAB damage to street trees alone – not counting other urban trees – in the United States will be roughly $900 million over the next 30 years. These costs cannot be avoided. Cities cannot allow trees killed by EAB to remain standing, threatening to cause injury or damage when they fall.

ash fallen onto house in Ann Arbor, Michigan; photo courtesy of former mayor John Hieftje

The authors evaluated various control options for minimizing the number of ash street trees exposed to EAB. They assessed the trees’ exposure in the next 40 years, based on management actions taken in the next 30 years.

In their evaluation of management options, Hudgins et al. tried to account for the fact that the effect of management at any specific site depends on the effects of previous management. Additional complexity comes from the facts that the EAB is spread over long distances largely by human actions (i.e., movement of infested wood); and that biocontrol organisms also disperse.

They conclude that efforts to control spread at the invasion’s leading edge alone – as APHIS’ program did – are less useful than accounting for urban centers’ role in long-distance pest dispersal via human movement. Cities with infested trees are hubs for pest transport along roads. Hudgins et al. say that quarantine programs need to incorporate this factor.

Hudgins et al. concluded that the best management strategy always relied on site-specific quarantines aimed at slowing the EAB spread rate. This optimized strategy, compared to conventional approaches, could potentially save $585 million and protect an additional 1 million street trees over the next 40 years. They also found that budgets should be allocated as follows: 74-89% of funds going to quarantine, the remaining 11% to 26% to biocontrol.

In other words, a coherent harmonized quarantine program – either through reinstatement of the federal quarantine or coordination of state quarantines — could save American cities up to $1 billion and protect 1 million trees over several decades. Since street trees make up only a small fraction of all urban trees, up to 100 million urban ash trees could be protected, leading to even greater cost savings.

Unfortunately, such a coordinated approach seems unlikely. States continue to have very different attitudes about the risk. For example, Washington has no plans to adopt EAB regulations, despite it being detected in Oregon. To the north, Canada already has EAB quarantines and Hudgins et al. advise that they be maintained.

The authors recognize that quarantines’ efficacy is a matter of debate. Quarantines require high degrees of compliance from all economic agents in the quarantine area. Also they need significant enforcement effort. Some argue that meeting either requirement, let alone both, is unrealistic. However, under Hudgins et al.’s model, use of quarantines was always part of the optimal management method across a variety of quarantine efficiency scenarios. Again, these models point to allocating about 75% of the total budget to quarantine implementation. In all scenarios, reliance solely on biocontrol led to huge losses of trees compared to a combined strategy.

Hudgins et al. asked their model for optimal application of both quarantines and biocontrol agents. For example, quarantine enforcement could focus on limiting entry of EAB at sites that: 1) have many ash street trees, 2) currently have low EAB propagule pressure, but 3) are vulnerable to receiving high propagule influx from many sites. Seattle is a prime example of such a vulnerable city with many transportation links to distant cities with significant ash populations.

On the other hand, quarantine enforcement could strive to limit outward spread (emigration) of EAB from which high numbers of pests could be transported to multiple other locales, each with many street trees and low propagule pressure. These sites would be along the leading edge of the invasion and where the probability of long-distance pest dispersal is high.

Authorities should be prepared to adjust quarantine actions in response to changing rates and patterns of invasion spread.

Biocontrol agents should be deployed to sites with sufficient EAB density to support the parasitoids, especially sites predicted to be hubs of spread.

Hudgins et al. concede that they did not explicitly account for:

1) The impact of uncertainty regarding EAB spread on the model;

2) Alternative objectives that might point to other approaches, e.g., minimizing extent of invaded range, or reducing the number of urban and forest trees exposed to EAB;

3) Impacts of predators, such as woodpeckers, on EAB populations;

4) Synergistic impacts from climate change, which by exacerbating stress on ash trees will probably increase tree mortality from EAB infestations; and

5) Variation in management efficiency depending on communities’ capacities.

In the future, Hudgins et al. hope to test their model on other species to determine whether there is a predictable spatial pattern for all wood boring pests, that is, should quarantines always be focused on centers of high pest densities as probable sources of spread. Determining any patterns would greatly assist risk assessment and proactive planning.

dead ash near major road in northern Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

In an earlier study, Dr. Hudgins and other colleagues projected that by 2050, 1.4 million street trees in urban areas and communities of the United States will be killed by introduced insect pests – primarily EAB. This represents 2.1- 2.5% of all urban street trees. Nearly all of this mortality will occur in a quarter of the 30,000 communities evaluated. They predict that 6,747 communities not yet affected by the EAB will suffer the highest losses between now and 2060. However, they evaluated risks more broadly: the potential pest threat to 48 tree genera. Their model indicated that if a new woodboring insect pest is introduced, and that pest attacks maples or oaks, it could kill 6.1 million trees and cost American cities $4.9 billion over 30 years. The risk would be highest if this pest were introduced via a port in the South. I have blogged often about the rising rate of shipments coming directly from Asia to the American South

SOURCES

Hudgins, E.J., J.O. Hanson, C.J.K. MacQuarrie, D. Yemshanov, C.M. Baker, I. Chadès, M. Holden, E. McDonald-Madden, J.R. Bennett. 2022. Optimal emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) control across the U.S. preprint available here: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1998687/v2

Hudgins, E.J., F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology

Members of this team published an article earlier that evaluated the threat from introduced woodborers as a group to U.S. urban areas; see E.J. Hudgins, F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology

Oregon Department of Agriculture: https://www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/IPPM/SurveyTreatment/Pages/EmeraldAshBorer.aspx

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

West Coast Steps Up Efforts to Protect Ash

Oregon-ash dominated swamp in the Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge, Willamette Valley, Oregon; photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Department of Forestry

In April 2022 I blogged about efforts on the West Coast to prepare for arrival of the emerald ash borer (EAB).

That blog focused on Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), which is an important component of riparian forests. I alerted you to the availability of ODA/ODF EAB 2018 Response Plan.

I also mentioned Oregon’s active participation in “don’t move firewood” campaigns.

California has long inspected incoming firewood. In 2021 it establishment of a state quarantine in response to APHIS ending the federal quarantine. Washington State operates a statewide trapping program for invasive insects but does not regulate firewood.

Contributions from the Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District enabled the USDA Forest Service Dorena Genetic Resource Center to begin testing Oregon ash for resistance to EAB and related genetics work. Other funding came from the USFS Forest Health Protection program.

EAB has now been detected in Oregon — in the Willamette Valley! (See photo above, by Wyatt Williams) Concerned stakeholders have established a new newsletter to keep people informed and promote cooperative efforts.

The newsletter is “Ash across the West”.

The first issue of the newsletter provides the following information:

there are eight ash species in the West; all are vulnerable to the emerald ash borer (EAB)

Single-leaf ash (Fraxinus anomala) CA, NV, AZ, UT, NM, CO, WY

Fragrant ash (Fraxinus cuspidata) NV, AZ, NM, UT

Calif ash (Fraxinus dipetala) CA, NV, AZ, UT

Fresnillo (Fraxinus gooddingii) AZ

Gregg’s ash (Fraxinus greggii) AZ

OR ash (Fraxinus latifolia) WA, OR, CA

Chihuahuan ash (Fraxinus papillosa) AZ, NM, TX

Velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina) CA, NV, AZ, UT, NM, TX

EAB Risk Map for OR: based upon known occurrences of ash & corresponding human activities associated with known pathways of EAB introduction and establishment.
2022 status of the two field trials
- the Dorena Genetic Resource Center (DGRC): planted 600 seedlings from 27 families; 85% survival in 2022; controlling competing vegetation
- Washington State University Puyallup Research Center: planted seedlings from 26 of these families; 95% survival rate. Possible complication from a foliar disease.
Seedlings from 17 Oregon ash families (including 14 of those in the DGRC field trial) sent to Dr. Jennifer Koch (USFS) in Ohio) for EAB resistance/susceptibility testing.
Seed collections began in 2019; interrupted by COVID-19 in 2020 but resumed in 2021 and continue in 2022. Several consortia are involved in Oregon and Washington. In California and the other states, The Huntington Botanical Gardens will lead the collecting effort. Funding is from USFS Forest Health Protection. Seeds are stored for gene conservation; some are used for the field trials in Oregon and Washington and the initial EAB-resistance studies going on in Ohio.
Penn State Ash Genomic Project: Dr. Jill Hamilton is trying to create a ‘genomic passport’ for Oregon ash populations for use in establishing genotype-environment associations to inform seed transfer guidelines. If you would like to help Dr. Hamilton collect leaves for sampling, contact: Dr. Jill Hamilton at jvh6349@psu.edu

To help with seed collection, ash monitoring, documenting the importance of ash to various communities, and other activities; or to get on the mailing list for the newsletter, contact Richard Sniezko at Richard.sniezko@usda.gov

A video explaining the campaign to save Oregon ash is at https://youtu.be/uZmfLrxEA7g

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

APHIS: Release Study of Pest Approach Rates!

I have posted nearly 40 blogs about wood packaging (SWPM) since 2015. [You can view these by scrolling below archives to find category “wood packaging”.]

I first raised the need for APHIS to authorize Robert Haack to update his study analyzing pest “approach rates” in wood packaging in July 2018.

Why?

SWPM has delivered our worst forest pests.

SWPM has been recognized as a major pathway of introduction of wood-boring insects for 30 years. Examples include the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle, and, possibly, the invasive shot hole borers.

For decades, pest-infested wood packaging has come primarily from the same countries: Mexico, Italy, China, and, more recently, Turkey. Many of our most damaging invaders have come from Asia so growing import volumes from Vietnam and other Asian countries also raise concern.

2) The U.S. and Canada have required that wood be treated to kill pests for at least 16 years.

The U.S. and Canada fully implemented the international standard on wood packaging (ISPM#15) in early 2006 – nearly 17 years ago. They had earlier (1999) required treatment of SWPM from China – nearly 24 years ago.

3) Even old analyses concluded that more than 11,000 incoming containers harbored wood pests each year.

The U.S., Canada, and Mexico import more than 31 million shipping containers per year (see “Background” below). Applying decade-old estimates to this number, we conclude that 11,600 of these containers are probably transporting a quarantine wood-boring pest. About 80% of the containers – and probably the pests! – come to U.S. ports. This pest risk is not limited to the West Coast; expansion of the Panama Canal and congestion at West Coast ports mean that an increasing number of ships are travelling directly to ports on the East and Gulf coasts. These region have already been demonstrated to be highly vulnerable to pests from Asia (ranging from Dutch elm disease and Asian longhorned beetle to laurel wilt and beech leaf disease.)

dead redbay trees – killed by redbay ambrosia beetle + laurel wilt fungus – introduced from Asia to Savannah, Georgia

4) Efforts to reduce the pest “approach rate” have not worked yet.

Meantime, administrative efforts to reduce the numbers of containers carrying pests have not been successful. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has tried. CBP began penalizing individual shipments that are not in compliance with ISPM#15 in 2017 — 5 years ago.

As of the first three-quarters of Fiscal Year 2022 (John Sagle pers. comm. and Crenshaw-Nolan of CBD to Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases, September 2022), CBP has issued 510 Emergency Action Notifications (EAN) for noncompliant SWPM. About 38% (194) were issued because actionable pests had been discovered. The rest were issued because the ISPM#15 stamp (attesting to the wood having been treated) was either missing or fraudulent. The full-year interception rate will probably be comparable to interceptions in recent years: in FY2021, 548 EANs; in FY2020, 509; in FY2019, 746. CBP staff are disappointed that interceptions have not declined.

5) APHIS has avoided stricter enforcement.

APHIS has not adopted an enforcement stance. It has not stiffened penalties. The agency did not raise these phytosanitary issues when it negotiated a major agriculture trade agreement with China in 2020. The agency continued to insist that ISPM#15 is working – but agreed to work with Robert Haack to re-evaluate the approach rate only in 2021.

Correction: I became alarmed when the study had not been released four months after the analysis was completed (in May). I have since learned that the findings had not yet been completely written up and that internal reviews were proceeding. I apologize for the criticism in the original version of this blog. I impatiently await the study’s release, which I hope will be in a few weeks or months.

In the meantime, APHIS has also hired the Entomological Society to carry out an extensive study that includes analysis of interception data from five ports over a period of five years and rearing insects extracted from incoming wood packaging. I don’t want to postpone action aimed at curtailing introductions via this pathway for another five years!

APHIS has instead tried to improve foreign suppliers’ and phytosanitary agencies’ compliance with ISPM#15 through education. In partnership with Canada and Mexico, APHIS has supported two regional education workshops sponsored by the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). APHIS is now expanding its outreach to smaller companies, industry associations, and foreign suppliers. APHIS and CBP are now collaborating with an industry initiative to train inspectors that insure other aspects of foreign purchases. In addition, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) is developing a “guidance document”. These educational efforts are supported by the U.S. pallet trade association, National Wooden Pallet and Container Association.

For all of these reasons we urgently need the updated data on the pest approach rate in the analysis by Haack and colleagues. Until we see these results, we can’t know the current level of risk associated with growing volumes of imports or assess the effectiveness of new policies. For example, CBP incorporated compliance with ISPM#15 into its government-importer partnership aimed at ensuring cleanliness of supply chains (C-TPAT) in February 2021. Only by comparing the results of the “approach rate” study with future data collected using the same techniques will it be possible to know how effective this action has been. I greatly appreciate CBP’s efforts.

There is still the issue of untrustworthy stamps.

Past data indicate a high proportion – 87% – 95% — of the SWPM found to be infested bore the ISPM#15 stamp. The same proportion was found in a narrower study in Europe (Eyre et al. 2018). Nor are all problems associated with Asia – importers in Houston have complained that stamps on dunnage from Europe also cannot be trusted.

While there are questions about whether this breakdown results from treatment inadequacy (i.e., 56^oC for 30 minutes does not kill the larvae), failure of application, or of fraud –

What matters is that neither regulators nor importers can rely on the stamp to identify pest-free wood packaging.

infested wood packaging bearing ISPM#15 mark; photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Agriculture

(True: ISPM#15 was never intended to prevent pest introductions, only to “reduce the risk of introduction and spread of quarantine pests associated with the movement in international trade of wood packaging material made from raw wood.” Still, we should be trying to minimize pest introductions which threaten our wildland, rural, and urban forests.)

CPB’s experience indicates that cracking down on individual shipments will not be sufficient.

Immediate actions to hold foreign suppliers responsible

U.S. and Canada refuse to accept wood packaging from foreign suppliers that have a record of repeated violations – whatever the apparent cause of the non-compliance. Institute severe penalties to deter foreign suppliers from taking devious steps to escape being associated with their violation record.
APHIS and CBP and their Canadian counterparts provide guidance to importers on which foreign treatment facilities have a record of poor compliance or suspected fraud – so they can avoid purchasing SWPM from them. I am hopeful that the voluntary industry program described here will help importers avoid using wood packaging from unreliable suppliers in the exporting country.
Encourage rapid switch to materials that won’t transport wood-borers. Plastic is one such material. While no one wants to encourage production of more plastic, the Earth is drowning under discarded plastic. Some firms are recycling plastic waste into pallets.

APHIS and CFIA have the authority to take these actions under the “emergency action” provision (Sec. 5.7) of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (WTO SPS Agreement). (For a discussion of the SPS Agreement, go to Fading Forests II, here.)

APHIS should also release the findings of the 2021-2022 study of approach rates by Haack and colleagues. Then the agency should invite stakeholders to discuss the implications, then develop and implement protective strategy reflecting its findings.

Longer-term Actions

APHIS and CFIA should cite their need for setting a higher “level of protection” to minimize introductions of pest that threaten our forests (described inter alia here.) They should then prepare a risk assessment to justify adopting more restrictive regulations that would prohibit use of packaging made from solid wood – at least from the countries with records of high levels of non-compliance.

Michigan champion green ash killed by emerald ash borer

APHIS and CFIA should also undertake the studies needed to determine the cause of the continuing issue of the wood treatment mark’s unreliability, then act to resolve it. Preferably, this work should be conducted with other countries and such international entities as the IPPC & International Forest Quarantine Research Group (IFQRG). However, if attempting such collaboration causes delays, they should begin unilaterally. Upcoming opportunities to address this issue include:

FAO International Day of Forests in 2023
FAO global assessment of forests & health – pest & disease outbreaks

Of course, these steps should be based on the findings of Haack and colleagues.

Meanwhile, what can we do?

Urge Congress to conduct oversight on APHIS’ failure to protect America’s natural resources from continuing introductions of nonnative insects and diseases.
- These hearings should be in the context of drafting the 2023 Farm Bill.
Raise the issue with local, state, and federal candidates for office;
Urge Congress to include provisions of H.R. 1389 in the 2023 Farm Bill;
Ask any associations of which we are members to join in communicating these concerns to Congressional representatives and senators. These include:
- if you work for a federal or state agency – raise to leadership; they can act directly or through National Plant Board, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of State Foresters, National Governors Association, National Association of Counties
- scientific membership societies – e.g., Society of American Foresters, Entomological Society of America, American Phytopathological Society;
- individual conservation organizations, either with state chapters or at the national level;
- woodland owners’ organizations, e.g., National Woodland Owners Association, National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) and their state chapters
- urban tree advocates
- International Forest Quarantine Research Group
Write letters to the editors of your local newspaper or TV news station.

BACKGROUND: Calculation of the Number of Infested Containers Entering U.S.

As of 2020 (when trade was greatly depressed by the COVID-19 pandemic), nearly 31 million TEUs [a standardized measure for containerized shipment; defined as the equivalent of a 20-foot long container] entered North America. Ports in the U.S. received 80% (24.5 million); Canada 11.5% (3.5 million); Mexico ~9% (2.7 million). U.S. imports have grown substantially since 2020; during the first quarter of 2022 U.S. imports from Asia each month were 20 to 30% higher than in 2019 before COVID-19 disrupted supply chains (blog #292). The U.S. is projected to handle ~26 million TEUs in 2022 [sources here and here.

A “TEU” equals a 20-feet container. Most containers now are twice as large – 40-feet. Several steps are involved in applying findings of Haack et al. 2014 and Meissner 2009 estimates:

divide estimated number of containers (26 million) in half = 13 million.
Assume that three-quarters of that number (13 million) contain wood packaging (based on Meissner) = 9.75 million.
If 1 out of each thousand of these containers with wood packaging is transporting a pest = 9,750 containers / year.

I performed the same calculation for North America-wide estimate of 31 million TEUs discussed at the beginning of the blog.

container being offloaded at Savannah harbor; photo by F.T. Campbell

A separate study (Hudgins et al. 2022) projected that introduction of a new woodboring insect pest that attacks maples or oaks it could kill 6.1 million trees and cost American cities $4.9 billion over 30 years. The risk would be highest if this pest were introduced via a port in the South. I have blogged often about the rising rate of shipments coming directly from Asia to the American South.

An analysis of fungi associated with Eurasian bark and ambrosia beetles reached a conclusion that the authors consider to be more optimistic. Li et al. (2021) found that none of the 111 fungi was sufficiently virulent to trigger tree mortality after a single-point inoculation. This level of lethality was considered analagous to Dutch elm disease DMF or laurel wilt DMF. Thirty-eight percent of the fungi were considered to be weak or localized pathogens that could kill trees under certain conditions. However, they tested the fungi against only two oak and two pine species. They did not evaluate fungi that might be lethal when the vector beetle engages in mass attacks. Finally, I think phytosanitary agencies should act promptly when a pathogen threatens levels of mortality somewhat below Dutch elm disease and laurel wilt!

SOURCES

Hudgins, E.J., F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology 59(5): 1302-1312.

Li, Y., C. Bateman, J. Skelton, B. Wang, A. Black, Y-T. Huang, A. Gonzalez, M.A. Jusino, Z.J. Nolen, S. Freeman, Z. Mendel, C-Y. Chen, H-F. Li, M. Kolařík, M. Knížek, J-H. Park, W. Sittichaya, P.H. Thai, S-I. Ito, M. Torii, L. Gao, A.J. Johnson, M. Lu, J. Sun, Z. Zhang, D.C. Adams, J. Hulcr. 2021. Pre-invasion assessment of exotic bark beetle-vectored fungi to detect tree-killing pathogens Phytopathology. 112(2): 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-01-21-0041-R

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Invasive Species Costs Point to Inadequate Effort – especially Prevention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Decision-Makers Delay

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

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

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

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

pallet “graveyard”; photo by Anand Prasad

Pathways of Species’ Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geographies of greatest concern to me

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

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

Equity Issues

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

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

Data deficiencies

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

SOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Funding APHIS & USFS in FY23 – Senate Recommendations

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

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

Funding for APHIS in FY23

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

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

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

Specific programs mentioned:

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

Pertinent action re: Agriculture Research Service

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

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

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

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

Forest Service

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

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

R&D

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

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

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

S&P

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

More & bigger ships, deeper ports = more pests?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East Coast Ports Deepening and Expanding to Accept Larger Ships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Trade

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

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

Updated Haack Analysis

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

SOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

Presentations on Individual Pests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell