Dead ash along Mattawoman Creek in 2019; Mattawoman Creek is a Maryland tributary of the Potomac River, hence of the Chesapeake Bay. Photo courtesy of Leslie A. Brice
In this blog I describe one state’s forest health efforts – Virginia. The pertinent lesson is the importance of external funding, especially that provided by USFS Forest Health Protection program, in supporting states’ efforts. Is your state’s forest health program as dependent upon federal funding as Virginia’s is? If so, there is a role for everyone: lobby your Congressional representative and senators to increase funding for this program!
I have based most of this blog on the Virginia Department of Forestry’s annual report for 2022.
Forests grow on more than 16 million acres in Virginia, or 62% of the Commonwealth’s land area. Eighty percent of these forests are hardwood or hardwood-pine. They break down as follows: 61% oak-hickory; 11% oak-pine; 5% bottomland hardwood; and 2% maple-beech-birch. A fifth of the forest is pine, composed of pine plantation (14%) and natural pine (7%). The long term trend is growth, especially among hardwoods.
The report devotes much of its attention to the agency’s programs to advise private landowners (individuals own 80% of the Commonwealth’s forestland); fire management (including prescribed burns); and state and federal conservation programs (e.g., easements). A major program shares reforestation costs on harvested pine lands. In 2022, this program assisted reforestation practices on 74,702 acres. Virginia has an impressive tree-raising program. VDOF grows more than 40 species, including longleaf and shortleaf pine, several spruce species, and dozens of hardwoods. The aim is to provide stock suited for the Commonwealth’s soils and climate. Many of the hardwood species are grown from acorns and seeds collected and donated by volunteers.
VDOF also helps to protect and improve the Commonwealth’s water quality through tree planting and sound forest management. VDOF has an unusual responsibility: enforcing the Virginia Silvicultural Water Quality Law.
The report also summarizes several urban and community forestry programs focused on education, community engagement, tree selection, and grants for tree planting to ensure canopy retention & management.
Slightly over 1 million acres was mapped by aerial surveys in FY22. I believe the funding for these surveys came largely from the USFS. The surveys detected heavy to moderate defoliation by the spongy moth on 24,493 acres (almost twice the area detected in FY21). The spongy moth infestation is primarily in counties on the western side of the state, in the mountainous region, which has the highest densities of oaks and other hardwoods.
The spotted lanternfly (SLF) was detected in Virginia early – in 2018 in Winchester at the northern end of the Shenandoah Valley. Winchester is connected to central Pennsylvania by Interstate 81, so rapid movement of SLF to Virginia from outbreaks slightly to the east of I-81 in Pennsylvania doesn’t surprise me. SLF has been spreading south along the mountains and over the Blue Ridge to Loudoun and Fairfax counties (in 2022). Fairfax County has announced a four-year, $200,000 effort to try to slow SLF spread by eradicating high densities of its preferred host, Ailanthus, from two county parks in the far south and north ends of the county. Ailanthus removal requires not just cutting the trees, but applying herbicide to prevent sprouting from the roots. This work is funded by the county, the local park authority and a $20,000 grant from the regional energy company, Dominion Energy Charitable Foundation.
Virginia has six species of ash: white and green (both common), and smaller populations of black, blue, pumpkin and Carolina. EAB is now confirmed in 84 counties – most of the Commonwealth except the far southeast. The Department of Forestry treats 130 – 150 trees per year – half or more on state lands. At least in FY21, the funding came from federal sources. The report also notes outreach efforts at two minor league baseball games. Virginia recently adopted a priority of protecting the Chesapeake Bay watershed by promoting tree planting in riparian forest buffers. The EAB threatens this goal; see the photo (at top) of ash mortality along a Maryland tributary of the Bay. In 2021, EAB was detected in Gloucester County – a peninsula east of the York River that has Bay shoreline on the eastern side, tributary on the west (see photo).
Gloucester Point – Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences “living shoreline”; EAB was detected in Gloucester County in 2021, threatening riparian areas. Photo courtesy of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Threats to Beech
Beech bark disease is present in the western mountainous parts of the Commonwealth. One new county – Augusta – was detected in 2022. Three other counties are infested with the scale, but the fungal pathogen has not yet been detected. The alarming new threat, beech leaf disease, was detected in Prince William County in 2021. In 2022, it was confirmed in neighboring Fairfax County. The source of funding is not specified.
beech in a typical northern Virginia second-growth forest; photo by F.T. Campbell
I am pleased that the Commonwealth is paying attention to laurel wilt disease, which has been spreading north on sassafras. The closest outbreaks are in Tennessee, to the southwest of Virginia. The Commonwealth hosted a detection training program attend by 26 participants from six agencies from three states. The report does not specify the source of the funding.
Southern Pine Beetle
Virginia has also utilized funding from the USFS FHP program to manage the southern pine beetle. Since the program’s inception in 2004, Virginia has thinned pines on more than 70,000 acres, including 4,240 acres in FY22.
Invasive Plants
USFS FHP invasive species grants funded control treatments of invasive plants on somewhat less than 1,300 acres of state lands. Different figures on different pages of the report cause confusion. However, it is clear that nearly all the funds came from the USFS FHP program. Ailanthus was the main target; other species mentioned are privet, mimosa, autumn olive and Miscanthus.
State Funding of Conservation Initiatives; Will They Continue?
While the state’s government was controlled by Democrats, the governor and state legislature launched new programs with broader conservation goals. It is unclear whether they will continue now that Republicans have won the governorship and control of the House of Delegates.
Among the programs enjoying increased funding from the state budget during the current two-year cycle are
Efforts to restore depleted populations of two groups of tree taxa, shortleaf and longleaf pines. The emphasis has shifted to longleaf pine: the number of projects and acreages rose from 220 acres in FY21 to 1,212 acres in FY22. Restoration of shortleaf pine forests was limited to slightly over 600 acres in both years.
Programs to improve management of hardwood stands. These projects included crop tree release, control of “invasive species” (I think probably targetting invasive plants), prescribed burning and commercial thinning. There were also several demonstration projects on state-owned lands, a small land-owner planning assistance program, and training of state foresters and private consulting foresters in hardwood management. Apparently these aspects had been largely ignored in the past.
Creation of a dedicated Watershed program focused on increasing riparian forest buffers. This section of the report does not mention the threat posed by loss of ash to the emerald ash borer (EAB) [see EAB section above]
Urban forestry projects, many linked to protecting surface and ground water (including Chesapeake Bay watershed).
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
nearly dead ash in Shenandoah National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell
I participated in the annual USDA Interagency Invasive Species Research Forum in Annapolis in January 2023; as usual, I learned interesting developments. I focus here on updates re: efforts to protect ash and hemlock
Hopeful Developments re: countering EAB to protect ash
There are hopeful results in both the biocontrol and resistance breeding programs. The overall goal is to maintain ash as a viable part of the North American landscape.
Biocontrol
Juli Gould (APHIS) reminded us that the agency began a classical biocontrol program targetting emerald ash borer (EAB) in 2003 – only a year after EAB had been detected and much earlier than is the usual practice. [Thank you, former APHIS PPQ Deputy Administrator Ric Dunkle!] By 2007 scientists had identified, tested, and approved three agents; a fourth was approved in 2015.
Nicole Quinn (University of Florida) stressed that the egg prarasitoid, Oobius — if it is effective — could prevent EAB from damaging trees. However, it is so small that it is very difficult to sample. One small study demonstrated that Oobius will parasitize EAB eggs laid in white fringe trees (Chionanthus virginicus) as well as in ash. This is important because it means this secondary host is not likely to be a reservoir of EAB.
The numbers
According to Ben Slager (APHIS), more than 8 million parasitoids have been released at 950 sites since the program began in 2007. These releases have been in 418 counties in 31 states, DC, and four Canadian provinces. Still, these represent just 28% of infested counties. Parasitoids have been recovered in 21 states and two provinces.
Rafael de Andrade (University of Maryland) specified that these releases included more than 5 million Tetrastichus in 787 sites; ~2.5 million Oobius in 828 sites in 30 states; ~500,000 Spathius agrili – lately only north of the 40th parallel. Releases of Spathiusgalinae began in 2015; so far ~ 470,000 in 395 sites.
Impact
Several presenters addressed questions of whether the agents are establishing, dispersing, and – most important – improving ash survival. Also, can classical biocontrol be integrated with other management techniques, especially use of the pesticide emamectin benzoate.
Dispersal
Several studies have shown that the four biocontrol agents disperse well (with the caveat that Oobius is very difficult to detect so its status is much less certain).
Implementation considerations
De Andrade found that the longer the delay between the date when EAB was detected and release of Oobius, the less likely Oobius will be recovered. Tetrastichus surprised because the higher the numbers released, the fewer were recovered. He could determine no association between recovery of S. agrili and variations in release regime [numbers released; delay in releasing biocontrol agents; or frequency of releases]. He said it is too early to assess Sp. galinae since releases began only in 2015, but he did see expected relationship to propagule pressure – the more wasps released, the higher the number that were recovered. Sp. galinae did surprise in one way: it seemed to perform better at lower latitudes. De Andrade noted he was working data from less than half of release sites. He asked collaborators to submit data!!!!
Initial signs of ash persistence and recovery
Claire Rutledge (Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station) determined that
More large trees were surviving in plots where the biocontrol agents were released
EAB density was lower at long-invaded sites
Parasitism rates were similar across release age treatments and release/control plots
Gould focused on protecting saplings so they can grow into mature trees which could be sources of seeds to establish future generations. She noted that there are many “aftermath” forests across the northern United States – those dominated by ash saplings.
In Michigan, at a site of green ash, as of 2015 – 2021, EAB populations are still low, parasitism rate by Tetrastichus and S. galinae high. The percentage of saplings that remained healthy was greater than 80%. There were similar findings in white ash in New York: very low EAB larval density; and more than 70% of ash saplings had no fresh galleries. Gould reported that Tetrastrichus impcts could be detected within three years of release.
So, EAB are being killed by the biocontrol agents combined with woodpecker predation; but in their fourth instar, after considerable damage to the trees.
downy woodpecker in Central Park, NYC. photo by Steven Bellovin, Columbia University
Jian Duan reported on two long-term studies in green & white ash in Michigan and New England. His team used the most labor-intensive but best approach to determine EAB larval mortality and the cause – debarking trees – to determine whether the EAB larva were parasitized, were preyed on by woodpeckers, or were killed by undetermined cause, such as tree resistance, disease, or competition. In Michigan, he linked a crash of EAB population in 2010 was caused by Tetrastichus; EAB tried to recover, but crashed again, due to S. galinae. EAB larval densities had been reduced to 10 / m2. Predation by abundant woodpeckers and the native parasitoid Atanycolus was also important.
In New England, EAB has also declined from 20-30 larvae /m2 to ~ 10 m2.
In Michigan, healthy ash with dbh of larger than 5 inches were much more plentiful in sites where parasitoids had been released. Their survival/healthy rate also was much higher in release sites but the difference declined as years passed. In New England there were growing numbers of healthy trees in 2021-22; (almost none in 2017). Duan conceded that he could not prove a direct link but the data points to recovery.
Tim Morris (SUNY-Syracuse) found that white ash saplings continued to die in large numbers, but the mortality rate was significantly below the rate in 2017. Canopy conditions varied; some trees that were declining in 2013 were recovering in 2017. Forty percent of “healthy” ash in 2013 continued recovering in 2021. Few living trees were declining; trees were either healthy or dead. He thinks probably a combination of genetics and presence of parasitoids explains which trees recover. Morris also reported some signs of regeneration.
beaver feeding on ash saplings, Fairfax County, Va; photo by F.T. Campbell
At this point, I noted that in parts of northern Virginia, beavers have killed ash saplings. Morris reported finding the same in some sites in New York. Perhaps others have, also; my comment was greeted by laughter.
Theresa Murphy (APHIS) looked at integration of biocontrol and insecticide treatment in urban and natural sites. A study of black and green ash in Syracuse, NY Naperville, IL, and Boulder, CO found continued high parasitism by Tetrasticus and S. galinae and woodpecker attacks in trees treated with emamectin benzoate. Researchers could not detect Oobius. By 2020, most of the untreated trees had died but treated trees remained healthy.
Murphy has begun studying integration of biocontrol and pesticides in green and black ash forests. The goal is to protect large trees to ensure reproduction; the biocontrol agents do not yet protect the large trees. This is especially important for black ash because it declines very quickly after EAB invades. Sites have been established in New York, through collaboration with New York parks, Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Mohawk tribe. She is still looking for sites in Wisconsin – where EAB is spreading more slowly than expected.
1 of the infested ash in Oregon; photo by Wyatt Williams, ODF
Max Ragozzino of the Oregon Department of Agriculture reported on imminent release of biocontrol agents targetting the recently detected outbreak there. I am encouraged by the rapid response by both the state and APHIS.
EAB resistance in ash
Jennifer Koch (USFS) said the goal is not to produce populations where every seedling is fully EAB-resistant, but to develop populations of ash trees with enough resistance to allow continued improvement through natural selection while retaining sufficient genetic diversity to adapt to future stressors (changing climate, pests, diseases). The program has developed methods to quantify resistance in individuals.. Initial field selections of “lingering ash” were shown to be able to kill as many as 45 % of EAB larvae. Already green ash seedling families have been produced by breeding lingering ash parents. This first generation of progeny had higher levels of resistance, on average, than the parent trees. Each generation of breeding can increase the proportion of resistance. Although the bioassays to test for EAB-resistance are destructive (e.g., cutting and peeling to count numbers of surviving larvae), the potted ash seedling stumps can resprout. Once the new sprouts are big enough they are planted in field trials to correlate bioassay results with field performers. Poor performers are culled; those with higher levels of resistance remain and become sources of improved seed.
To ensure preservation of local adaptive traits, this process must be repeated with new genotypes to develop many seed orchards from across the species’ wide range. To support this work, concerned scientists are building multi-partner collaborative breeding networks. These organizations provide ways for citizens and a variety of partners to engage through monitoring and reporting lingering ash, making land available for test planting, and helping with the work of propagation.
Resistance levels in some of the first generation progeny were high enough for use in horticulture, where it is important that trees can remain healthy in challenging environments (street trees, city parks, landscaping, etc.). Koch hopes to develop about a dozen cultivars comprising the best-performing trees, appropriate for planting in parts of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Local NGO partners are planting some of these promising genotypes in Detroit to see how they withstand EAB attack.
a black ash swamp; photo via Flickr
The threat to black ash is especially severe, and this species presents unique difficulties. While scientists found several seedlings from unselected seedlots had killed high levels of larvae, those deaths did not always result in better tree survival. Koch thinks the tree’s defense response becomes detrimental to tree by blocking transport of water and nutrients. She is working with experts in genomics and others, such as Kew Royal Botanic Gardens, to try to identify candidate trees for breeding programs. The genomics work has been supported by APHIS and the UK forest research agency, DEFRA. Michigan and Pennsylvania have supported the breeding work. USFS Forest Health Protection has supported work with black and Oregon ash (see below) (J. Koch, USFS, pers. comm.).
Koch has also begun working with Oregon ash, in collaboration with the USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center (located in Cottage Grove, Oregon) and other partners.
dead hemlock in Massachusetts; photo by Ian Kinahan, University of Rhode Island
Scientists are still trying to find the right combination of biocontrol, chemical treatments, and silvicultural manipulation.
For several years, hope has focused on two has been on two predatory beetles, Laricobius nigrinus and L. osakiensis. Scott Salom (Virginia Tech) reports that release of these beetles over the past 20 years has had a significant impact on HWA density and tree photosynthetic rate and growth. However, Laricobius aredifficult to rear and they attack only the sistens generation of the adelgid. Ryan Crandall (University of Massachusetts) reports it has been difficult to establish these beetles in the Northeast. He links this difficulty is caused by temporary drops in HWA populations after cold snaps.
Scientists now agree that need to find predators that attack HWA during other parts of its lifecycle. Hope now focuses on silverflies — Leucotaraxis argenticollis and Le. piniperda. While both species are established in eastern North America, the clades in the east feed almost exclusively on pine bark adelgid, and have not begun attacking HWA. Biocontrol practitioners therefore collect flies in the Pacific Northwest for release in the east. Salom is increasing his lab’s capacity to rear silverflies and exploring release strategies.
Preliminary evidence indicates that the western clades of Leucotaraxis are establishing, although data are not yet definitive (Havill, USFS).
Detecting the presence of biocontrol agents presents several challenges. Tonya Bittner (Cornell) described efforts to use eDNA analysis for this. Some puzzles have persisted; e.g., at some sites, she detected eDNA but caught no silverflies. This raised the question of long eDNA associated with the original release might persist. Another problem is that the assay cannot separate the introduced western L. nigrinus from the native congener, L.rubus (which also does not feed on HWA). She continues efforts to improve this technique.
Others explored interactions of the biocontrol agents with insecticides. Salom is studying the impact of soil-applied insecticides on Laricobius populations, which aestivate in the soil. Preliminary results showed significant reduction in the beetle’s population under soil drench application but not under soil injection. He has not yet analyzed all the data.
Michigan is trying to prevent spread of HWA from five counties along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan (where HWA was introduced on nursery stock) to widespread hemlock forests in northern part of the state. Phil Lewis (APHIS) is studying persistence of systemic insecticides in hemlock tissues, particularly twigs and needles. The pesticides involved are imidacloprid, dinotefuran, and Olefin. He has found that pesticide levels are highest 18 – 22 months after treatment, then decline. They are significantly higher after trunk injection compared to bark spray or soil treatments. Imidacloprid had higher residues in twigs; dinotefuran in needles. This difference affects the likelihood of adelgids actually ingesting the toxin.
healthy hemlock in experimental gap; Jefferson National Forest, VA; photo by Bud Mayfield, USFS
Bud Mayfield (USFS) reported on his study of silvicultural strategies to support healthier hemlocks. While hemlocks normally thrive in shade, it has been determined that sunlight assists small trees reducing HWA sufficiently to counter the tree’s leaf-level stress. Small sapling hemlocks grown in sunlight fix more carbon and convert it to growth in shoots and trunk diameter.
Mayfield found promising immediate suppression of HWA in large gaps in Georgia and Tennessee. By the third year the saplings were still growing, although their faster growth had attracted more HWA. These findings were less clear farther north in central Virginia and western Maryland – Mayfield thinks because HWA pressure there is lower. However, managers must maintain the gaps by cutting rapidly-growing competing woody species. He plans to test this strategy farther north in Pennsylvania. He is still trying to determine the optimal size of the gap.
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
Phytophthora ramorum-infected rhododendron plant; photo by Jennifer Parke, Oregon State University
APHIS has released the list of projects funded under §7721 of the Plant Protection Act in Fiscal Year 2023. Projects funded under the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program (PPDMDPP) are intend to strengthen the nation’s infrastructure for pest detection and surveillance, identification, threat mitigation, and safeguard the nursery production system.
APHIS has allocated $62.975 M to fund 322 projects in 48 states, Guam, & Puerto Rico. ~ $13.5 M has been reserved for responding to pest and plant health emergencies throughout the year. USDA is funding ~70% of the more than 460 PPDMDPP proposals submitted.
2 – Target Domestic Inspection Activities at Vulnerable Points $6,356,964
3 – Pest Identification and Detection Technology Enhancement $5,295,125
4 – Safeguard Nursery Production $2,079,119
5 – Outreach and Education $4,131,333
6 – Enhance Mitigation Capabilities $13,875,775
By my calculation (subject to error!), the total for projects on forest pests is ~$6.5 M – or a little over 10% of the total. The top recipient was survey and management of sudden oak death: ~$700,000 for research at NORS-DUC and NCSU plus detection efforts in nurseries of 14 states. Other well-funded efforts were surveys for bark beetles and forest pests (projects in 14 states); surveys for Asian defoliators (projects in 14 states); and outreach programs targetting the spotted lanternfly (10 states, plus surveys in California).
Three states (Iowa, Kentucky and Maryland) received funding for surveys targetting thousand cankers disease of walnut; two states (Kentucky and Maine) obtained funding for outreach about the risk associated with firewood. Funding for the Nature Conservancy’s “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign appears under the home state of its leader, Montana.
Massachusetts obtained funding for outreach re: Asian longhorned beetle. Ohio State received funding for developing a risk map for beech leaf disease.
Ten states received funding for no forest pest projects; I don’t know whether they sought funding for this purpose. These states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawai`i, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Puerto Rico. The “National” funding category also contained no forest pest projects.
Looking at the overall funding level might give a somewhat skewed impression because several of the projects with total funding of ~ $500,000 are actually carried out by USDA agencies. These awards are listed under the state in which the USDA facility happens to be located. Nearly half this money ($213,000) goes to a project by an Agriculture Research Service unit in Delaware to study the efficacy of the biocontrol targetting emerald ash borer. Another $105,588 is allocated to detection of the SOD pathogen (Phytophthora ramorum) in irrigation water, undertaken – I think – at the ARS quarantine facility in Frederick, Maryland. A smaller project at a USFS research facility in Connecticut is studying egg diapause in the spotted lanternfly. The Delaware ARS unit is also pursuing biological control of the red-necked longhorn beetle (RNB) Aromia bungi, which attacks primarily stone fruits. Native to China and other countries in Asia, RNB has been intercepted in wood packaging by the U.S. and Europe; it has become established in Italy and Japan [Kim Alan Hoelmer, ARS, pers. comm.] The APHIS lab in Massachusetts is developing a light trap for detection of the Asian spongy mothsLymantria dispar.
I am intrigued that two states (Mississippi and Nevada) are conducting “palm commodity” surveys. Palms are important components of the environment in some states – although I am not certain these are the two most important!
As you might remember, I am also interested in some invaders other than forest pests. Washington has obtained $998,000 to support two projects integral to its efforts to find and eradicate the Asian (or Northern) Giant hornet. Oregon has obtained funding to carry out a survey for these hornets.
Cactus moth larvae feeding on prickly pear cactus; photo by Doug Beckers, via Flickr
I rejoice to see that the Florida Department of Agriculture continues efforts to deploy biocontrol agents targetting the cactus moth. The Agriculture Research Service is evaluating the establishment of biocontrol agents released to counter two highly invasive plants. Re: Brazilian peppertree, I don’t question the damage it has caused in southern Florida but I have grave concerns should the psyllid and thrips reach Hawai`i. I am most distressed to see that Hawaiian Division of Forestry and Wildlife and Department of Agriculture are actively pursuing deliberate introduction of the thrips. ARS is also searching for potential biocontrol agents targetting the invasive cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Penn State is working on registering a soil fungus native to North America, Verticillium nonalfalfae, as a biocontrol targetting the highly invasive tree of heaven (Ailanthus).
Phragmites invading Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; photo by Alicia Pimental, (c) Chesapeake Bay Foundation
APHIS is pursuing biocontrol for “Roseau” cane scale. This situation presents a conflict of geographic regions because the plant to be controlled is Phragmites australis.Phragmitesis highly invasive in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Great Lakes states . On the Mississippi delta it is considered important in maintaining wetlands crucial to protecting the Louisiana coast from rising seas.
Finally, USDA is pursuing management tools to contain the Box Tree Moth – a threat to the most widely planted ornamental shrub.
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
Spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana); photo by Jerald E. Dewey, USFS; via Bugwood; populations of several forest birds, including Cape May, Tennessee and Bay-Breasted warblers, become more numerous during budworm outbreaks
Now that Drs. Ziska and Aucott have educated us about the strong impact atmospheric CO2 can have on both plants and phytopagous insects, I have asked the experts whether these interactions have been incorporated in the models scientists are using to forecast pest activity in American forests as the climate changes.
The answer is no.
bay-breasted warbler; photograph by Dave Inman at Presque Isle State Park, PA; via Flickr
Dr. Bethany A. Bradley, Co-Director, Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center at the University of Massachusetts, says empirical models of species range shifts typically only use climate and sometimes other environmental factors (like soils or topography) as predictors of potential geography. Inclusion of demographic processes like how plant growth is affected by more or less water, CO2, competition with other plants etc. would require a lot of data. It is currently impossible since there are tens of thousands of plant species interacting in the forests of eastern North America – and perhaps these factors have been analysed for only a hundred of them.
Mike Aucott points to the same difficulty: inclusion of CO2 in models of the future populations of specific plants would be difficult since the impacts vary from species to species and are compounded by other factors such as soil nitrogen levels, moisture levels, temperature, presence of competing plants, etc.
Regarding insects, Dr. Aucott thinks it is clear that some orders, such as Lepidoptera, don’t fare as well when feeding on plants grown under elevated CO2. He is not aware of efforts to model impacts of high CO2 on specific insects or even orders or feeding guilds.
juniper geometer (inchworm); Dr. Tallamy says inchworms are hairless & good tasting – so sought by birds
Dr. Ziska concurs about the difficulties. Dr. Ziska asks why there is so little funding to study these issues, especially given their probable impact on human food supplies and health – as described in his blog and an opinion piece published in Scientific American two years ago.
I hope that scientists, decision-makers, readers of this blog … maybe even the media! – take into consideration these complexities, even if they cannot be defined.
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 – [but do not address climate or CO2 aspects] review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
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 waspQuadrastichus 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
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
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
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
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
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
Horton House on Jekyll Island, Georgia before laurel wilt killed the giant redbay trees; photo by F.T. Campbell
Close to four hundred tree species native to the United States are at risk of extinction. The threats come mainly from non-native insects and diseases – a threat we know gets far too little funding, policy attention, and research.
As Murphy Westwood, Vice President of Science and Conservation at the Morton Arboretum, which led the U.S. portion of a major new study, said to Gabriel Popkin, writing for Science: “We have the technology and resources to shift the needle,” she says. “We can make a difference. We have to try.”
Staggering Numbers
More than 100 tree species native to the “lower 48” states are endangered (Carrero et al. 2022; full citation at the end of this blog). These data come from a global effort to evaluate tree species’ conservation status around the world. I reported on the global project and its U.S. component in September 2021. This month Christina Carrero and colleagues (full citation at the end of this blog) published a summary of the overall picture for the 881 “tree” species (including palms and some cacti and yuccas) native to the contiguous U.S. (the “lower 48”).
This study did not address tree species in Hawai`i or the U.S. Pacific and Caribbean territories. However, we know that another 241 Hawaiian tree species are imperiled (Megan Barstow, cited here).
Assessing Threats: IUCN, NatureServe, and CAPTURE
Carrero and colleagues assessed trees’ status by applying methods developed by IUCN and NatureServe. (See the article for descriptions of these methods.) These two systems consider all types of threats. Meanwhile, three years ago Forest Service scientists assessed the specific impacts of non-native insects and pathogens on tree species in the “lower 48” states and Alaska in “Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation). All three systems propose priorities for conservation efforts. For CAPTURE’s, go here.
Analyses carried out under all three systems (IUCN, NatureServe, and CAPTURE) concur that large numbers of tree species are imperiled. Both IUCN and CAPTURE agree that non-native insects and pathogens are a major cause of that endangerment. While the overall number of threatened species remained about the same for all three systems, NatureServe rated threats much lower for many of the tree species that IUCN and CAPTURE considered most imperiled.
This difference arises from the criteria used to rate a species as at risk. IUCN’s Criterion A is reduction in population size. Under this criterion, even extremely widespread and abundant species can qualify as threatened if the population declines by at least 30% over three generations in the past, present, and/or projected future. NatureServe’s assessment takes into account rapid population decline, but also considers other factors, for example, range size, number of occurrences, and total population size. As a result, widespread taxa are less likely to be placed in “at risk” categories in NatureServe’s system.
In my view, the IUCN criteria better reflect our experience with expanding threats from introduced pests. Chestnut blight, white pine blister rust, dogwood anthracnose, emerald ash borer, laurel wilt disease, beech leaf disease, and other examples all show how rapidly introduced pathogens and insects can spread throughout their hosts’ ranges. (All these pests are profiled here . ) They can change a species’ conservation status within decades whether that host is widespread or not.
Which Species Are at Risk: IUCN
Carrero and colleagues found that under both IUCN and NatureServe criteria, 11% to 16% of the 881 species native to the “lower 48” states are endangered. Another five species are possibly extinct in the wild. Four of the extinct species are hawthorns (Crataegus); the fifth is the Franklin tree (Franklinia alatamaha) from Georgia. A single specimen of a sixth species, an oak native to Texas (Quercus tardifolia),was recently re-discovered in Big Bend National Park.
Franklinia (with Bachman’s warbler); both are extinct in the wild; painting by John Jacob Audubon
The oak and hawthorn genera each has more than 80 species. Relying on the IUCN process, Carrero and colleagues found that a significant number of these are at risk: 17 oaks (20% of all species in the genus); 29 hawthorns (34.5% percent). A similar proportion of species in the fir (Abies), birch (Betula), and walnut (Juglans) genera are also threatened.
Other genera have an even higher proportion of their species under threat, per the IUCN process:
all species in five tree genera, including Persea (redbay, swampbay) and Torreya (yews);
two-thirds of chestnuts and chinkapins (Castanea), and cypress (Cupressus);
almost half (46.7%) of ash trees (Fraxinus).
Pines are less threatened as a group, with 15% of species under threat. However, some of these pines are keystone species in their ecosystems, for example the whitebark pine of high western mountains.
Carrero et al. conclude that the principal threats to these tree species are problematic and invasive species; climate change and severe weather; modifications of natural systems; and overharvest (especially logging). Non-native insects and pathogens threaten about 40 species already ranked by the IUCN criteria as being at risk and another 100 species that are not so ranked. Climate change is threatening about 90 species overall.
range of black ash
Considering the invasive species threat, Carrero and colleagues cite specifically ash trees and the bays (Persea spp.). In only 30 years, the emerald ash borer has put five of 14 ash species at risk. All these species are widespread, so they are unlikely to be threatened by other, more localized, causes. In about 20 years, laurel wilt disease threatens to cause extinction of all U.S. tree species in the Persea genus.
Carrero and colleagues note that conservation and restoration of a country’s trees and native forests are extremely important in achieving other conservation goals, including mitigating climate change, regulating water cycles, removing pollutants from the air, and supporting human well-being. They note also forests’ economic importance.
As I noted above, USFS scientists’ “Project CAPTURE” also identified species that deserve immediate conservation efforts.
Where Risk Assessments Diverge
All three systems for assessing risks agree about the severe threat to narrowly endemic Florida torreya and Carolina hemlock.
With three risk ranking systems, all can agree (as above), all can disagree, or pairs can agree in four different ways. Groups of trees fall into each pair, with various degrees of divergence. Generally, only two of the three systems agree on more widespread species:
black ash: IUCN and Project CAPTURE prioritize this species. NatureServe ranked it as “secure” (G5) as recently as 2016.
whitebark pine: considered endangered by IUCN, “vulnerable” (G3) by NatureServe. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the species as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. https://www.fws.gov/species-publication-action/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-threatened-species-18 However, Project CAPTURE does not include it among its highest priorities for conservation. Perhaps this is because there are significant resistance breeding and restoration projects already under way.
tanoak: considered secure by both IUCN and NatureServe, but prioritized by Project CAPTURE for protection.
dead tanoak in Curry County, Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry
Carrero notes the divergence between IUCN and NatureServe regarding ashes. Four species ranked “apparently secure” (G4) by NatureServe (Carolina, pumpkin, white, and green ash) are all considered vulnerable by IUCN. They are also prioritized by Project CAPTURE. I have described the impact of the emerald ash borer on black ash. Deborah McCullough, noted expert on ash status after invasion by the emerald ash borer, also objects to designating this species as “secure” (pers. comm.).
Port-Orford cedar is currently ranked as at risk by IUCN and Project CAPTURE, but not NatureServe. Growing success of the restoration breeding project has prompted IUCN to change the species’ rank from “vulnerable” to “near threatened”. IUCN is expected to reclassify it as of “least concern” in about a decade if breeding efforts continue to be successful (Sniezko presentation to POC restoration webinar February 2022).
While these differing detailed assessments are puzzling, the main points are clear: several hundred of America’s tree species (including many in Hawai`i, which – after all – is our 50th state!) are endangered and current conservation and restoration efforts are inadequate.
Furthermore, a tree species loses its function in the ecosystem long before it becomes extinct. It might still be quite numerous throughout its range – but if each individual has shrunken in size it cannot provide the same ecosystem services. Think of thickets of beech root sprouts – they cannot provide the bounteous nut crops and nesting cavities so important to wildlife. Extinction is the extreme. We should act to conserve species much earlier.
YOU CAN HELP!
Congress is considering the next Farm Bill – which is due to be adopted in 2023. Despite its title, this legislation has often provided authorization and funding for forest conservation (for example, the US Forest Service’ Landscape Scale Restoration Program).
There is already a bill in the House of Representatives aimed at improving the US Department of Agriculture’s prevention and early detection/rapid response programs for invasive pests. Also, it would greatly enhance efforts to restore decimated tree species via resistance breeding, biocontrol, and other strategies. This bill is H.R. 1389.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, who has been a solid ally and led on this issue for several years. As of August 2022, the bill has seven cosponsors, most from the Northeast: Rep. Mike Thompson [CA], Rep. Chellie Pingree [ME], Reps. Ann M. Kuster and Chris Pappas [NH], Rep. Elise Stefanik [NY], Rep. Deborah K. Ross [NC], Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick [PA].
Please write your Representative and Senators. Urge them to seek incorporation of H.R. 1389 in the 2023 Farm Bill. Also, ask them to become co-sponsors for the House or Senate bills. (Members of the key House and Senate Committees are listed below, along with supporting organizations and other details.)
Details of the Proposed Legislation
The Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act [H.R. 1389]
Expands USDA APHIS’ access to emergency funding to combat invasive species when existing federal funds are insufficient and broadens the range of actives that these funds can support.
Establishes a grant program to support research on resistance breeding, biocontrol, and other methods to counter tree-killing introduced insects and pathogens.
Establishes a second grant program to support application of promising research findings from the first grant program, that is, entities that will grow large numbers of pest-resistant propagules, plant them in forests – and care for them so they survive and thrive.
[A successful restoration program requires both early-stage research to identify strategies and other scientists and institutions who can apply that learning; see how the fit together here.]
Mandates a study to identify actions needed to overcome the lack of centralization and prioritization of non-native insect and pathogen research and response within the federal government, and develop national strategies for saving tree species.
Incorporating the provisions of H.R. 1389 into the 2023 Farm Bill would boost USDA’s efforts to counter bioinvasion. As Carrera and colleagues and the Morton Arboretum study on which their paper is based demonstrate, our tree species desperately need stronger policies and more generous funding. Federal and state measures to prevent more non-native pathogen and insect pest introductions – and the funding to support this work – have been insufficient for years. New tree-killing pests continue to enter the country and make that deficit larger –see beech leaf disease here. Those here, spread – see emerald ash borer to Oregon.
For example, funding for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection program has been cut by about 50%; funding for USFS Research projects that target 10 high-profile non-native pests has been cut by about 70%.
H.R. 1389 is endorsed by several organizations in the Northeast: Audubon Vermont, the Maine Woodland Owners Association, Massachusetts Forest Alliance, The Nature Conservancy Vermont, the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, Vermont Woodlands Association, and the Pennsylvania Forestry Association.
Also, major forest-related national organizations support the bill: The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF), American Forest Foundation, The Association of Consulting Foresters (ACF), Center for Invasive Species Prevention, Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO), National Association of State Foresters (NASF), National Woodland Owners Association (NWOA), North American Invasive Species Management Association (NAISMA), Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition, The Society of American Foresters (SAF).
HOUSE AND SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE MEMBERS – BY STATE
STATE
Member, House Committee
Member, Senate Committee
Key members * committee leadership # forestry subcommittee leadership @ cosponsor of H.R. 1389
Alabama
Barry Moore
Arizona
Tom O’Halleran
Arkansas
Rick Crawford
John Boozman*
California
Jim Costa Salud Carbajal Ro Khanna Lou Correa Josh Harder Jimmie Panetta Doug LaMalfa
Colorado
Michael Bennet #
Connecticut
Jahana Hayes
Florida
Al Lawson Kat Cammack
Georgia
David Scott * Sanford Bishop Austin Scott Rick Allen
Raphael Warnock Tommy Tuberville
Illinois
Bobby Rush Cheri Bustos Rodney Davis Mary Miller
Richard Durbin
Note that the report was led by scientists at the Morton Arboretum – in Illinois!
Indiana
Jim Baird
Mike Braun
Iowa
Cindy Axne Randy Feenstra
Joni Ernst Charles Grassley
Kansas
Sharice Davids Tracey Mann
Roger Marshall#
Kentucky
Mitch McConnell
Maine
Chellie Pingree @
Massachusetts
Jim McGovern
Michigan
Debbie Stabenow *
Minnesota
Angie Craig Michelle Fischbach
Amy Klobuchar Tina Smith
Mississippi
Trent Kelly
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Missouri
Vicky Hartzler
Nebraska
Don Bacon
Deb Fischer
New Hampshire
Ann McLane Kuster @
New Jersey
Cory Booker
New Mexico
Ben Ray Lujan
New York
Sean Patrick Maloney Chris Jacobs
Kristen Gillibrand
North Carolina
Alma Adams David Rouzer
North Dakota
John Hoeven
Ohio
Shontel Brown Marcy Kaptur Troy Balderson
Sherrod Brown
Pennsylvania
Glenn Thompson
South Dakota
Dusty Johnson
John Thune
Tennessee
Scott DesJarlais
Texas
Michael Cloud Mayra Flores
Vermont
Patrick Leahy
Virginia
Abigail Spanberger #
Washington
Kim Schreir
SOURCES
Christina Carrero, et al. Data sharing for conservation: A standardized checklist of US native tree species and threat assessments to prioritize and coordinate action. Plants People Planet. 2022;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ppp3
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
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
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., Cuthbertet al. on bioinvasion costs, generally, and Moodleyet 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).
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
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
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
The Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted its recommendations for funding APHIS and the US Forest Service in Fiscal Year 2023, which begins on October 1. The full Senate has not yet acted; most people expect that it will not act before October, so the agencies will have to operate under a “continuing resolution” for at least the first several months. Under a “CR”, funding is maintained at the current level.
SOD-infected rhododendron plants detected by state officials in Indiana in 2019
Funding for APHIS in FY23
The Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report [available here] that recognizes APHIS’ objective of protecting the animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives are carried out through, inter alia, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response and Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.
The Committee recommends the following funding for specific APHIS programs (in $millions)
PROGRAM
FY22 FUNDING
FY23 ADMIN REQ
HOUSE $
SENATE COMM RECOMM
CISP ASK
Border inspections (AQI appropriated)
33.849
36.725
36.650
X
Pest Detection
28.218
29.137
29.825
29.075
30
Methods Development
21.217
21.854
31.807
23.557
23
Specialty Crops
209.533
219.533
219.698
222.072
219
Tree & Wood pests
61.217
62.854
62.562
62.719
70
Subtotal, Plant health
379.144
385.560
397.603
X
Emerg. Prepare & Response
42.021
44.242
44.317
X
Specific programs mentioned:
Northern (Asian) giant hornet eradication: $1.75 million to continue cooperation with Washington State to eradicate this pest; also to improve monitoring methods and lures, and build a rapid response platforms
sudden oak death (SOD): recognize that the EU1 and NA1 strains of this pathogen threaten Douglas-fir / tanoak forests and lead foreign governments to impose quarantines on U.S. timber exports. So APHIS should spend no less that FY22 funding to better understand threat and treatment methods in wildlands. This earmark disappoints because it focuses on APHIS’ role as certifying timber exports as pest-free rather than the spread of the pathogen within the U.S. via the nursery trade. The same language appears in the report’s discussion of the Agriculture Research Service (see below).
Pertinent action re: Agriculture Research Service
The Senate Committee report sets several priorities, including the following:
Invasive Pests: The Committee is concerned about the threats invasive pests pose to agriculture, the economy, environment, human health, and national security of the Pacific region. The Committee directs ARS to continue working with stakeholders in the region to assess options for combatting invasive species, including biocontrol research facilities, containment facilities, additional laboratory space.
Sudden oak death: the same language as for APHIS. Again, I wish the language referred to the pathogen’s spread via the nursery trade.
These numbers are disappointing; the increase for “specialty crops” demonstrates the lobbying clout of the nursery and berry industries! I appreciate the attention to sudden oak death – with the caveat I mentioned.
SOD-infected tanoaks in southern Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forstry
Forest Service
The Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report [available here] . The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends the following funding levels for USFS programs that address non-native forest pests and other invasive species (in $millions):
PROGRAM
FY22 FUNDING
FY ADMIN REQUEST
HOUSE $
S COMM RECOMM
CISP ASK
Research
296.616
317.733
$360.4
$302.773
317.733
State & Private Forest Health Protection TOTAL
48
59.232
$52.232
50
83
S&P FHP Federal lands
16,000
22,485
?
17,000
51
S&P FHP non-federal lands
32,000
36,747
?
33,000
32
R&D
The Senate wants to retain the current structure of five regional stations, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and Forest Products Laboratory.
The Senate listed several research priorities. Two pertain to forest health: 1) needle pathogens, and 2) Northeastern States Research Cooperative working to sustain the health of northern forest ecosystems and biological diversity management. I am disappointed that no mention is made of the need to respond to 400 introduced tree-killing insects and pathogens.
planting to test ash trees’ resistance to emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS
S&P
The Senate Committee recommends a significant increase in S&P overall ($8 million above FY22 level), but not for Forest Health Management. This is disappointing.
The Committee is concerned about high tree mortality on National Forests due to bark beetle infestations and instructs USFS to work with states and tribes to prioritize insect prevention, suppression & mitigation projects.
The Committee expects the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to continue efforts to treat sudden oak death in California and Oregon. It provides $3 million for this purpose, including for partnerships with private landowners.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
