international trade – Page 13 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

European study buttresses case for revolutionary changes to phytosanitary system

rhododendron in Europe sickened by P. ramorum; photo from EPPO website

A recently published study by European researchers [Jung, T. et al. 2015] documents the failure of current European and global phytosanitary programs and calls for “a new holistic and integrated systems approach”. The authors specifically criticize Article VI.2 of the International Plant Protection Convention because it requires that a plant pest be identified and its risks assessed before a country may adopt a phytosanitary measures. The authors call this requirement “paradoxical” given the large number of potentially damaging plant pests that remain unknown to science.

The study focuses on the genus Phytophthora, which contains about 150 identified species and perhaps 500 species not yet identified by scientists. The identified species include plant pathogens which are responsible for more than 66% of all fine root diseases & more than 90% of all collar rots of woody plant species. Examples include the pathogens responsible for the Irish potato famine, sudden oak death, Port-Orford-cedar root disease, the die-off of many endemic plant species in Western Australia and damage to many other species in Europe and North America, and mortality and decline of oaks and alders across Europe.

The authors note that

Most of the ~150 currently known species and designated taxa of Phytophthora were unknown to science before they turned up in new environments on other continents as invasive aggressive pathogens of native plants.
Forty-four of the 64 Phytophthora taxa detected in the present study were unknown to science before 1990.
None of the 59 putatively exotic Phytophthora taxa detected in the present study had been intercepted at European ports of entry. (Some of these introductions are known to be recent; see UK reports on the 4^th P. ramorum lineage ) and P. lawsonii detections in the U.K., France and the Netherlands in 2010.)
In many cases, had a Phytophthora been detected, the detection would not have resulted in rejection of the shipment because only 5 Phytophthora species are regulated under European regulations.
Spread of the quarantine organism ramorum was not halted despite the presence of strict quarantine regulations.

I have written several times about the threat to U.S. trees and forests from insects and – especially – pathogens introduced via the trade in live plants; see Fading Forests II and III . Fading Forests II discusses the threat from unknown pests and the roadblocks to managing that threat raised by the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the implementing procedures adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention. Fading Forests III discusses USDA APHIS efforts to adopt more effective regulatory approaches through adoption of both international and regional standards (ISPM#36 and RSPM#24) and revision of its own Q-37 regulations.

Jung and his 65 (!) coauthors present some frightening facts about the situation in European nurseries and forest, landscape, and ornamental plantings:

They found a total of 68 Phytophthora taxa (species, informally designated taxa, and previously unknown taxa). 49 taxa were found in nurseries, 56 in forest and landscape plantings.
91% of the 732 nurseries analyzed had at least 1 Phytophthora taxon present; in the 101 infested nurseries in which more than 5 stands were tested, an average of 3.6 Phytophthora taxa per nursery were detected
66% of forest & landscape plantings had at least 1 Phytophthora taxon present
The majority of infested plants in nurseries did not display symptoms; the sampling methods for plantings relied to a large extent on symptoms, so the presence of symptomless plants could not be evaluated.
Hundreds of previously unknown Phytophthora–host associations were observed.
One or more of 19 Phytophthora which can attack native European or widely-planted trees and shubs were isolated from 84% of ornamental planted stands. Two such pathogens were detected in 11.8% of those stands.
In a single British ornamental and amenity planting, 15 different Phytophthora taxa were isolated from 33 different species and varieties of plants. Smaller numbers were isolated from smaller numbers of sampled plants in other countries.
The infestation rate for various types of plantings ranged from 94% for riparian plantings through 83.1% for horticultural plantings to 79.3% for forest plantings. About half of amenity and ornamental plantings had one or more infestations.
64% of oak plantings were infested by at least one Phytophthora species associated with decline of mature oak stands. Eight of the 9 plantings of Laurus nobilis in Spain and the UK hosted Phytophthora. Rates varied for other types of trees.
In total, 755 ornamental plantings of 281 broadleaved woody and herbaceous species were sampled in 8 countries. 45% had at least one of the 21 Phytophthora taxa known to damage a wide range of European and widely planted exotic tree and shrub species. About 10% of the tested stands had more than one.

As the authors state, their results clearly demonstrate that the vast preponderance of nursery stands across Europe are infested by a large array of Phytophthora species. Nurseries and other plantings relied on as sources of plants for afforestation and other outplantings are routinely infected by the most aggressive Phytophthora pathogens that attack the respective tree or crop species. The result is continuous high-frequency spread of these aggressive pathogens to planted forests and horticultural systems — and will inevitably result in their introduction to the wider environment.

They estimate that 4.8 million ha of the 6 million ha of new forests planted in Europe over the past 20 years are potentially infested by Phytophthora pathogens. Another 17.6 million ha of forests replanted after harvesting or fire were possibly established with Phytophthora-infested nursery stock.

Why has this happened? The authors note that under current nursery growing practices, individual plants often flow largely unregulated through several nurseries both within and between countries before being sold to a consumer. In addition, such common nursery practices as reusing containers, irrigating with unfiltered surface water or recirculated water, poor drainage and failure to remove dead plants and debris all contribute to establishment and spread of Phythothora. These same criticisms have been made by U.S. scientists – and incorporated into APHIS’ revised regulations for management of sudden oak death and the nursery-regulatory SANC program now being tested.

Is the situation equally bad in North America? Jung et al. cite several publications that cumulatively demonstrate high infestation rates of U.S. ornamental nurseries with at least 31 Phytophthora species. They say that the situation in forest nurseries is largely unknown.

Certainly both continents are at high risk of additional introductions. U.S. plant imports reached 3.2 billion in 2007 (Liebhold et al. 2012). I am unaware of a more recent calculation … In 2010, ten European countries cumulatively imported 4.3 billion living plants from overseas; almost all were imported first to the Netherlands. The principal source was Africa (3.6 billion). Asia shipped 456 million plants; North America 181 million; South America 81 million; Oceania only 2.4 million plants. Between 2007 and 2010, the volume of imported woody plants increased by 44%, and in 2010, the proportion of woody plants reached 20.8% of all imported plants. Only 3% of the imported consignments are subject to phytosanitary inspections.

As Jung et al. note, their study joins an ever-longer list of analyses that have concluded that current international plant health protocols based on random visual inspections for symptoms of listed quarantine organisms have failed and must be changed fundamentally. (See, for example, the writing of Clive Brasier and the Montesclaros Declaration.

Jung et al. call for adoption of a pathway regulation approach based on pathway risk analyses, and risk-based inspection regimes performed by an adequate number of skilled staff using molecular high-throughput detection tools. Nurseries wishing to ship plants internationally would have to comply with mandatory best practices. The requirements must be supported by rigorous enforcement and bold outreach campaigns. This approach would minimize the risks of further introductions and dissemination of both known and, even more importantly, unknown potential pathogens.

MY CONCLUSION

Revising the international phytosanitary regime will be difficult, requiring 170 countries to agree to amend both the World Trade Organization’s SPS Agreement and the International Plant Protection Convention. The difficulties will be not only political. Allowing countries to regulate unknown organisms that are potential pests will open a door to protectionist restrictions. The countries that wrote these agreements have long sought to block protectionist restrictions by requiring that phytosanitary measures be based on scientific analyses of specific risks.

However, as Jung et al. – and before them many others, especially Clive Brasier – have demonstrated, the current requirement that each pathogen be identified and its risk analyzed before regulations are adopted is counter to the scientific fact that most pathogens and arthropods are not known to science. The knowledge gap is many times greater when the question is how those microorganisms and arthropods will interact with millions of plant species if introduced to novel habitats.

Meanwhile, USDA APHIS has begun trying to close some of the regulatory gaps. In 2011 APHIS adopted regulations creating a temporary holding category, called “Not Authorized (for importation) Pending Pest Risk Analysis,” or NAPPRA. Now, APHIS has authority to temporarily prohibit import of certain types of plants, from specific countries of origin, that it considers to pose a particular pest risk. The temporary ban gives APHIS time to complete a pest risk analysis and then enact appropriate safeguards to ensure that imported plants will be as pest-free as possible. However, APHIS has been unable to utilize this new power. The agency proposed a second round of “NAPPRA” species in May 2013, but nearly 3 years later it has not finalized that action. Even if fully implemented, NAPPRA does not address the problem of unknown pests and pathogens.

APHIS has also proposed a major revision of its plant import regulations (called “Q-37”). This change would implement the IPPC standard on living plants (ISPM#36) and authorize APHIS to require foreign suppliers of plants to apply hazard identification and mitigation practices to ensure plants are pest-free. APHIS proposed this rule change 3 years ago, in 2013. Again, the change has not yet been finalized.

What You Can Do

Write to your member of Congress and Senators and ask them to urge the Secretary of Agriculture to finalize the two pending regulations – to add the second round of species to the NAPPRA list and to update the Q-37 regulations.

SOURCES

Jung, T. et al. 2015 “Widespread Phytophthora infestations in European nurseries put forest, semi-natural and horticultural ecosystems at high risk of Phytophthora disease” Forest Pathology. November 2015; available from Resource Gate

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

Time to view “Trees in Trouble”!

Andrea Torrice’s film “Trees in Trouble: Saving America’s Urban Forests” depicts the impact of non-native tree-killing insects and diseases.

The film is being broadcast in April as part of Earth Day and Arbor Day programming on the PBS World Channel. Check your local public television station website for their schedule or visit the filmmaker’s site for more information.

Andrea’s film focuses on emerald ash borer in Cincinnati. It explores our connections to the trees and forests in our communities – and the threats to those trees. Featured experts and speakers include Prof. Dan Herms of Ohio State, Jenny Gulcik, a community forestry consultant, and Cincinnati Council member Wendell Young.

Because of the high value of urban trees, these pests’ greatest economic damage is in urban and suburban areas. [See my earlier blogs about the wood packaging pathway and this study: Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.^. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)]

Nor is this damage limited to southern Ohio – or even the Northeast broadly. Such pests are usually introduced first in cities – not necessarily ports! – because that is where crates and pallets, imported ornamental plants, and other articles to which pests attach arrive. Furthermore, trees along streets and in yards and parks are often more vulnerable than forest trees to such introduced pests because they are often subject to other stresses such as soil compaction, air pollution, elevated temperatures, and salt exposure. Finally, city trees are often planted as multiple individuals of the same species; when a pest that attacks that species arrives, entire neighborhoods can lose their tree canopy – and the real values that canopy provides.

See the film. Ask your friends to watch it! Be inspired by the film to contact members of Congress to ask that they support programs aimed at preventing tree pest introductions. (These programs are operated by APHIS; see my blog about APHIS’ funding needs posted in March.)

If you want to do more – visit the “resources” page of the filmmaker’s website to obtain toolkits for outreach and hosting an event.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Eradicate ALB – of course! But what about the other pests?

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is the target of most of APHIS’ spending on non-native, tree-killing insects and pathogens. I have been on the record for 18 years – representing a sequence of three organizations – supporting ALB eradication efforts. But other damaging pests do not get adequate attention. Much of the explanation is probably money – APHIS is inadequately funded. But why have the other tree-killers slipped from the attention of politically important constituencies? How do we reverse this situation so that needed actions are taken?

The ALB Eradication Effort

After consulting several sources — Haack 2009, periodic news releases by APHIS and the Ohio Department of Agriculture – I conclude that in the 20 years since ALB was detected in Brooklyn in 1996, US and Canadian authorities have removed at least 188,000 trees. Data on the numbers of high-risk trees treated with systemic pesticides are much less complete. However, it appears from these same sources that U.S. and state authorities have treated more than 800,000 trees. Easily available data do not reveal how many of the treated trees were later found to be infested and therefore had to be cut down. I do hope agency and academic scientists are tracking that information – it is crucial to evaluating the efficacy of programs that allow treatment of “high risk” trees instead of removing them. A related issue is how many trees at early stages of infestation are missed by surveyors.

In carrying out the eradication program over 20 years, APHIS has spent about $600 million (Santos pers. comm.; US Department of the Interior 2016). Canada has spent far less – something more than $35 million Canadian (Marcotte pers. comm.).

In FY15 APHIS allocated $41.6 million to eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle [US DoI 2016]. This represented 77% of all funds in the agency’s “Tree and Wood Pests” account. The President’s FY17 budget calls for cutting funding for this account from its current level of $54 million to $46 million. If Congress accepts President’s proposed cut and funding for ALB eradication remains at the FY15 level, the proportion allocated to this one pest would rise to 90% of the total account. Perhaps APHIS anticipates spending less on the ALB program. APHIS has announced (USDA news release) that it will no longer apply systemic pesticides to “high-risk” trees in order to prevent beetle infestation. Instead, the program will focus on identifying and removing infested trees. I worry that with ALB outbreaks still present in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, any reduction in the program would be risky. (Official USDA budget documents don’t provide an explicit funding level for the ALB program, so we can’t be sure whether cuts are planned.)

Certainly, ALB eradication deserves continued priority. The beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families – especially maples and birches, which constitute much of the hardwood forest reaching from Maine to Minnesota, as well as urban trees worth an estimated $600 billion. Furthermore, adequately funded eradication efforts have proven to be a successful tactic.

pshb_1 PSHB damage to coast live oak;

photo by Akif Eskalen, UCRiverside

Other tree-killing insects are being ignored

However, other species need to be addressed, too. If these efforts are to succeed, they need more than the leftovers from funding ALB work.

Some funds are available through the Farm Bill Section 10007 “Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program” grant program. Still …

The Asian gypsy moth demands constant attention from APHIS. That effort is ramping up in response to moth detections in the Pacific Northwest. Apparently most of the funds for this program are from the Farm Bill Section 10007 program – but how long can this funding source be sustained? (See my blog posted earlier in March.)

Efforts to eradicate the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) from Pennsylvania continue. The lanternfly attacks 25 or more plant species that grow in the Mid-Atlantic states. Concern focuses on grapes and fruit trees including apples and stone fruits. (The lanternfly prefers tree of heaven (Ailanthus) (PA DoA) but the insect’s host range is too wide to use it as a biocontrol agent for this widespread invasive plant. The spotted lanternfly entered country as egg masses attached to imported slate. It has been detected in four counties in southeastern Pennsylvania ]

What is – or should be – done about the 20 species of non-native wood-boring and bark insects that have been detected for the first time in the United States over just the past decade? While some appear not to be causing major damage, that impression could be wrong. The polyphagous shot hole borer was first detected in California in 2003 ]. It has taken over 10 years to determine that the PSHB and very similar Kuroshio shot hole borer transport fungi that threaten over 300 plant species, including trees that make up the majority of trees in riparian areas and half of the trees planted in urban areas across southern California.

Tree species in other warm regions of the country such as the Gulf Coast are also at risk if the shot hole borers’ spread is not curtailed. Examples include native boxelder and American sweetgum; as well as such widely planted ornamentals as camellia, mimosa, and Japanese maple. The insects and the Fusarium pathogen that they transport might also attack other species in the oak, maple, sycamore, holly, and willow genera which grow in the Southeast.

Other funding needs

APHIS needs to continue efforts to slow the spread of and reduce impacts on forests from the emerald ash borer, including by continuing to support programs aimed at curtailing movement of firewood. While the emerald ash borer has spread to 25 states, significant areas of natural and urban ash forests remain pest-free, especially in the deep South, Great Plains, and Pacific Coast. APHIS might also continue funding research aimed at improving both biological control and breeding of ash trees resistant to the emerald ash borer. See my blog about resistance breeding posted in February.

APHIS must also have sufficient resources to respond when additional insect introduction are detected – which seems likely since an estimated 35 shipping containers entering the country each day carry wood packaging infested by damaging pests. [see my blogs about wood packaging posted in July and August 2015 and the SWPM fact sheets.

And – as the AGM and spotted lanternfly examples demonstrate – the risk of introduction of tree-killing insects goes far beyond imports of “agricultural” commodities – even when those commodities are widely interpreted to include wooden crates and pallets.

Please re-visit my blogs of 22 February to learn the details of funding issues and then contact your Representative and Senators to support increased funding for APHIS.

Posted by Faith Campbell

SOURCES

Haack, R.A., F. Herard, J. Sun, J.J. Turgeon. 2009. Managing Invasive Populations of Asian Longhorned Beetle and Citrus Longhorned Beetle: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010. 55:521-46.

Marcotte, M. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Email to F.T. Campbell 29 April, 2013.

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture: Agriculture Secretary Urges Consumers to Help Keep Foreign Insect from Spreading through Pennsylvania, United States News for Immediate Release Nov. 3, 2014

Santos, R. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Email to F.T. Campbell, April 12, 2013.

USDA APHIS NEWS RELEASE 3/28/16

Contact: Rhonda Santos, (508) 852-8044, rhonda.j.santos@aphis.usda.gov

Suzanne Bond, (301) 851-4070, suzanne.m.bond@aphis.usda.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Safeguarding America’s lands and waters from invasive species: A national framework for early detection and rapid response, Washington D.C., 55p.

Asian gypsy moth – the risk is still too high

The Asian gypsy moth would be more damaging than the European gypsy moth because it feeds on a wider range of plants – including conifers – and the female flies – speeding up its spread.

Asian gypsy moth; John H. Ghent; bugwood.org

The United States and Canada have a joint program – under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (see RSPM #33 here) aimed at preventing introduction of species of gypsy moths native to Asia. The principal risk arises from moths attaching their egg masses to ships (and containers on deck) when the ships visit ports in Far Eastern Russia, China, Korea, and Japan. The NAPPO standard originally went into force in March 2012. Under its terms, ships leaving ports in those countries during gypsy moth flight season must be inspected and cleaned before starting their voyage.

Gypsy moth populations rise and fall periodically; thus, it is much more likely that egg masses will be attached to ships during years of high moth population densities.

These variations are seen in U.S. and Canadian detection reports.

AGM Interceptions by year

United States Canada

2010 4

2011 21

2012 44 32

2013 42 33

2014 76 39

2015 7 15

(U.S. data from Kevin Harriger, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, at the 2015 meeting of the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases [http://continentalforestdialogue.org/continental-dialogue-meeting-november-2015/] ; Canadian data from Wendy Asbil, National Manager, Invasive Alien Species and Domestic Plant Health Programs Section, Plant Health and Biosecurity Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

While most AGM detections are at West Coast ports, the risk is not limited to that region. In 2013, Asian gypsy moths were detected at Baltimore, MD; Charleston, SC; Savanna and Brunswick, GA; Jacksonville, FL; New Orleans, LA; Houston and Corpus Christi, TX; and McAlester, OK.

Well aware of the risk associated with ships, U.S. and Canadian customs officials are vigilant in conducting inspections; if egg masses are found, the ships are required to return to international waters and clean off the egg masses. The ships are inspected again before they are allowed back into port. The process delays deliveries that are often on tight schedules and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

However, the risk is not limited to the ships themselves. In 2014, more than 500 Asian gypsy moth egg masses were found on four shipments of imported steel slabs arriving at ports on the Columbia River. Efforts were made to clean the more than 5,000 steel slabs, but some egg masses were still present after the cleaning. The steel was then sent to a furnace for final processing; the furnace heated the steel to more than 2,000^oF – sufficient to kill any remaining eggs! Still … (report by APHIS: Asian Gypsy Moth interceptions and mitigation of risk at Columbia River Ports of Entry, 2014. 18 February 2015)

Some question whether a global company with annual earnings close to $2 billion can be persuaded to take the necessary steps to ensure that its imports are free of gypsy moth eggs. The cleanup costs charged by APHIS would be minimal.

Besides, cleaning large steel plates is apparently difficult and probably requires fumigation with methyl bromide – which must be administered in a closed facility with appropriate safety measures.

Implementing the NAPPO standard that presents a unified front to Asian exporters – they must clean ships headed to North America – clearly has reduced the risk of introduction of Asian gypsy moths. But the smaller risk remains. Indeed, Oregon and Washington occasionally catch small numbers of Asian gypsy moths in their traps. In 2015, ten Asian gypsy moths were trapped in Washington State (Report of the Technical Working Group for the Response to Asian Gypsy Moth Captures Washington-Oregon 2015 October 30, 2015).

Oregon caught two Asian gypsy moths in the Portland area (15,000 traps had been placed statewide; the state also trapped 12 European gypsy moths). Previous detections of Asian gypsy moth in Oregon were one each in 1991, 2000, and 2006. Two of these moths were trapped near the location of the 2015 detections. A vessel that called at Tacoma in January 2013 had 275 egg masses.

The Asian gypsy moths were caught in traps across a broad area, including eight captures around southern Puget Sound and three in the Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA area. For these and other reasons, experts concluded that it is likely that females moths are also present in one or more of these areas (Report of the Technical Working Group for the Response to Asian Gypsy Moth Captures Washington-Oregon 2015 October 30, 2015).

The expert group recommended enhanced trapping plus eradication at the four sites where captures were clustered. The group discussed the pros and cons of various approaches, including spraying with Btk, Diflubenzuron (“Dimilin”), or Tebufenozide (“Mimic”); or with Gypchek (gypsy moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus); and augmentation of spray programs by releasing sterile males.

Both Washington and Oregon plan gypsy moth eradication measures in 2016. Washington plans to treat 10,500 acres at seven locations in Pierce and Thurston counties (both at the southern end of Puget Sound). Oregon will spray in several places in northern and northwest Portland.

Posted by Faith Campbell

How should regulators address strains of pathogens?

Species of tree-killing pathogens can have several “strains” that may vary in virulence or hosts affected.

`ohi`a tree on Hawai`i

This is a phenomenon well known to pathologists, but regulators have not adapted their programs to address it. Once a pathogenic species is determined to be established in the country, APHIS considers the entire species to be “non- actionable” and will not attempt to prevent introduction of any new strains. As the examples below illustrate, allowing introduction and spread of new strains poses risks to North America’s trees.

World-renowned British forest pathologist Clive Brasier has spoken out often on the risk posed by various strains of a pathogen. He has also written about the potential for pathogen species to hybridize and for that hybrid to threaten new hosts.

How widespread a problem is this? Some of the pathogens causing the greatest damage have several strains that vary in their virulence and host range.

The sudden oak death pathogen, Phytophthora ramorum is known to have four strains: NA1, NA2, EU1 and EU2. The EU1 lineage has primarily been found in European nurseries and forests. It has also been recovered from several nurseries and waterways on the U.S. west coast. Last year, the EU1 lineage was detected in a forest in Oregon (see my blog posted 15August 2015). This is troubling for two reasons:
* the EU1 lineage is more aggressive than the NA1 lineage already present in the forests of California and Oregon. Some of the individual tree which now appear to be resistant to the NA1 lineage might succumb to the EU1 lineage.
* The EU1 and NA1 lineages belong to opposite mating types, so they can potentially reproduce, thereby increasing the genetic variability of the pathogen. (Sexual reproduction in P. ramorum can only occur when opposite mating types meet; in the absence of opposite mating types, all reproduction is clonal.)

• The guava rust or myrtle rust pathogen, Puccinia psidii, also has several strains which vary in their virulence. Already, a new strain introduced to Jamaica in the 1930s caused extensive damage to the allspice industry – although a different strain had been on the island for decades (Carnegie 2016).

Hawaiian conservationists worry that a more virulent strain of P. psidii might be introduced and threaten additional species of Myrtaceae on the Islands – especially the `ohi`a tree which is the major canopy tree in 80% of the Islands’ remaining native forest. These forests are key to maintaining the Islands’ watersheds and biodiversity, especially because `ohi`a nectar is the principal food source for many of the remaining native and rare bird species. (See writeup here)

Multiple strains of `ohi`a rust have been identified in the pathogen’s native range of Brazil. Using funds from the USDA Forest Service, scientists in Brazil (Costa da Silva et al. 2014) tested five of the strains; three proved to be highly virulent on most `ohi`a seedlings tested. `Ohi`a from several locations were tested; none showed significant resistance to these three strains of the P. psidii pathogen.

The tests were carried out under conditions highly conducive to infection, so the results cannot be used to predict epidemiological behavior and ecological ramifications in natural conditions. Nevertheless, the results do support the need for greater efforts to prevent introduction of new strains to the Islands.

Additional tests are under way to determine whether the Brazilian strains are more virulent than that strain currently found in Hawai`i and to learn more about possible variation in vulnerability among `ohi`a trees from a greater variety of sites.
• The pathogen that causes Port-Orford cedar root disease (Phytophthora lateralis) has now been found to have four lineages. Scientists compared isolates from the pathogen’s putative native range on Taiwan to isolates from the North American west coast (where it has been established since early in the 20th Century) and Europe (where it began killing trees in the 1990s). They found one slow- growing strain from Taiwan, one fast-growing strain from North America and Europe, and one of intermediate growth from a small area of the United Kingdom (Brasier et al. 2012).

Sometimes, pathogens behaving in unexpected ways are initially thought to be a strain or lineage, but are later classified as a novel species. Thus the Ceratocystis causing `ohi`a wilt was initially thought to be a strain of C. fimbricata, a widespread fungus that has been on the Hawaiian Islands for decades. Scientists now think it is a new species (Keith 2016).

Pathogens are difficult to manage. The vast majority of species remain undescribed. They are difficult to detect until they cause noticeable damage. For a longer discussion of the challenges posed by pathogens and other unknown organisms, read Chapter 3 of Fading Forests II, available here.

However, the great threat to our forests necessitates that APHIS and other phytosanitary agencies (in states and around the world) develop improved methods for addressing the challenge that pathogens pose. Our forests simply cannot afford introductions of more tree-killing fungi, oomycetes, and other pathogens.

At a minimum, APHIS should respond to evidence that a particular pathogen is composed of multiple strains with varying virulence by agreeing to designate such novel strains as “actionable” and applying all its authorities and powers to prevent introduction and spread of the novel strains.

As I noted in my blog of earlier this month, APHIS also needs to develop more effective strategies for addressing introduction and spread of pathogens generally. USDA should assist such efforts to improve controls over pathogens by bringing about prompt finalization of two APHIS initiatives:
1) Prohibiting temporarily plants suspected of transporting known damaging pathogens. This action is allowed under the NAPPRA (not authorized for importation pending pest risk assessment) program.
2) Requiring foreign suppliers of living plant imports to implement “hazard analysis and critical control point” programs to ensure that the plants are pest-free during production and transport. This approach is allowed under ISPM#36 and would be authorized under pending changes to APHIS’ “Q-37” regulation. (See Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 80 April 25, 2013.)

(See longer discussions of these programs in Fading Forests III, available here.)
Sources

Clive M. Brasier, C.M, S. Franceschini, A.M. Vettraino, E.M. Hansen, S. Green, C. Robin, J.F. Webber, and A.Vannini. 2012. Four phenotypically and phylogenetically distinct lineages in Phytophthora lateralisFungal Biology. Volume 116, Issue 12, December 2012, Pages 1232–1249

Carnegie, A.J., A. Kathuria, G.S. Pegg, P. Entwistle, M. Nagel, F.R. Giblin. 2016. Impact of the invasive rust Puccinia psidii (myrtle rust) on native Myrtaceae in natural ecosystems in Australia. Biol Invasions (2016) 18:127–144 DOI 10.1007/s10530-015-0996-y

Costa da Silva, A., Magno Teixeira de Andrade, P. Couto Alfenas, A., Neves Graca, R., Cannon, P., Hauff, R., Cristiano Ferreira, D., and Mori, S. 2014. Virulence and Impact of Brazilian Strains of Puccinia psidii on Hawaiian `Ohi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha). Pacific Science (2014), vol. 68, no. 1:7-56
Keith, L. 2016. Ceratocystis fimbriata, Rapid O’hi’a Death: Unraveling the mystery. 27th USDA Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species January 12-15, 2016 Annapolis, Maryland

Posted by Faith Campbell

Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership – implications for pests in forests

The aim of the TPP is to further expand trade between the U.S. & Canada and other nations bordering the Pacific. (This does not include China, which is not a party to the pact). At same time, completion of a program to widen the Panama Canal means more huge container ships will travel directly to the East coast from Pacific countries. Clearly, rising trade with distant countries – especially those with similar plant genera – raises the risk of pest introductions. Stress federal and state agencies that are already struggling to counter this threat.

The question is whether the TPP agreement itself will exacerbate this threat. Is there language in the agreement that will further hamper adoption and deployment of effective phytosanitary programs?

Fortunately, I think largely not.

The TPP’s section on sanitary and phytosanitary programs – Chapter 7 largely reiterates or clarifies procedures already included in the WTO SPS Agreement and International Plant Protection Convention. TPP provides additional clarity on some points, e.g., transparency & communication.
(Unfortunately, I believe that the SPS Agreement and IPPC already hamper efforts to protect our trees from alien pests – especially those that are not yet known – the infamous “unknown unknowns”. For my analysis see Fading Forests II, available here. A more optimistic analysis of the SPS Agreement as an obstacle to preventing pest introductions is provided by Burgiel et al. 2006, available here.

I am quite pleased to see that the TPP explicitly allows importing countries to consider their level of confidence in the exporting country’s phytosanitary capability when deciding what measures to impose – a very important improvement! This occurs twice:
• Article 7.8: Equivalence

5. In determining the equivalence of a sanitary or phytosanitary measure, an importing Party shall take into account available knowledge, information and relevant experience, as well as the regulatory competence of the exporting Party. [emphasis added]

• Article 7.10: Audits

6. A decision or action taken by the auditing Party as a result of the audit shall be supported by objective evidence and data that can be verified, taking into account the auditing Party’s knowledge of, relevant experience with, and confidence in, the audited Party. This objective evidence and data shall be provided to the audited Party on request. [emphasis added]

I am also pleased that the TPP acknowledges the need to act proactively in the face of a threat. Under Article 7.1, Definitions, the definition of “emergency measure” reads:

“ … a sanitary or phytosanitary measure that is applied by an importing Party to another Party to address an urgent problem of human, animal or plant life or health protection that arises or threatens to arise in the Party applying the measure;” [emphasis added]

The TPP also puts protecting human, animal, or plant life or health first – before facilitating trade – when specifying the agreement’s objectives. See Article 7.2: Objectives, paragraph (a), which reads:
(a) protect human, animal or plant life or health in the territories of the Parties while facilitating and expanding trade by utilising a variety of means to address and seek to resolve sanitary and phytosanitary issues;

The TPP reiterates parties’ rights under the World Trade Organization’s SPS Agreement and IPPC to adopt more stringent regulations as long as they justify such action by both adopting a higher level of protection and conducting a risk assessment appropriate to the circumstances. See especially Article 7.9, paragraph 2:
2. Each Party shall ensure that its sanitary and phytosanitary measures either conform to the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations or, if its sanitary and phytosanitary measures do not conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations, that they are based on documented and objective scientific evidence that is rationally related to the measures, while recognising the Parties’ obligations regarding assessment of risk under Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.

I do worry some about Article 7.11, Import Checks, paragraph 8, which states:

8. An importing Party that prohibits or restricts the importation of a good of another Party on the basis of an adverse result of an import check shall provide an opportunity for a review of the decision and consider any relevant info submitted to assist in the review. The review request and info should be submitted to the importing Party within a reasonable period of time.

How does this requirement apply to the U.S. policy of rejecting shipments in wood packaging that does not comply with ISPM#15? (For discussions of the role of wood packaging as a pathway for introduction of highly damaging pests, review my blogs posted on July 15, August 31, September 11, and October 30.) The U.S. does not currently consult with exporting country before denying entry to individual shipments. Nor do we want the U.S. to be required to do so!

Finally, Article 7.17: Cooperative Technical Consultations, paragraph 5 requires countries to involve “relevant trade and regulatory agencies” but says nothing about including other stakeholders, such as cities or homeowners whose trees are at risk to introduced pests.

Posted by Faith Campbell

What is being introduced, and how? APHIS — make data public!

It is important that officials responsible for phytosanitary protection, Congressional oversight committees, and stakeholders have access to key trade and pest data as well as independent analyses of them in order to evaluate programs’ effectiveness.

But we don’t have such access … and existing analyses cannot be used to detect trends.

My focus is on tree-killing insects and diseases, but these constitute a small fraction of the total number of all plant pests that have become established in North America since Jamestown was settled. According to Aukema et al. (2010), approximately 450 non-native insects have colonized forest and urban trees. This is about 17% (less than one-fifth) of the total of 3,540 non-native insects established in North America according to Yamanaka et al. (2015). The larger number includes ones apparently causing negligible harm, along with a significant proportion of insects and diseases affecting row crops.
What could we learn from comparisons of data on introduced tree-related vs. overall plant pests? Could we uncover new pathways? Identify more effective approaches to phytosanitary protection?
Unfortunately, neither published studies nor USDA/APHIS’ data allow comparisons and tracking of trends in pest establishment.

For example, a study by Work et al. (2005) estimated that during the late 1990s, approximately 10 new phytophagous insects were established each year. The authors considered all phytophagous insect pests, not just tree-killing pests; but they did not include pathogens or insects that feed on dead wood (e.g., termites).

The Work team’s number is about four times larger than the estimated rate of establishment provided by Aukema et al. (2010), which estimated that approximately 2.5 new tree-killing insects and pathogens became established each year from 1860 to 2006. The Aukema study did not attempt to track establishments of all pests that use arboreal hosts. On the other hand, it did include pathogens. So the two studies’ findings are not truly comparable.

In its 2009 Implementation Plan for Section 10201 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, APHIS reported that between 2001 and summer 2008, 212 plant pests had been reported as new to the United States – an average of 30 new pest establishments detected each year. This estimate does include pathogens … but not insects that do not feed on living plants. So it is not comparable to the Yamanaka study. Still, the APHIS figure is 12 times higher than the Aukema et al. estimate for tree-killing pests.

I am unaware of a publicly available estimate for more up-to-date establishment rates.

An internal USDA APHIS database was made available to me. It lists about 90 new species of plant pests (of all types, ranging from insects to nematodes to fungal pathogens) with populations that were detected in the U.S. during the four-year period 2009 – 2013. The rate of detection of “new” species established during this four-year period was approximately 22 per year. This establishment rate is higher than the estimate of approximately 10 new phytophagous insects per year during the late 1990s put forward by Work et al. — not surprising since taxa other than insects are included. However, this estimate is lower than the 30 new pest introductions each year estimated by USDA APHIS for 2001-2008.

So what is the current rate? How has the establishment rate been affected by changing volumes of imports over this 20-year period (imports rose until 2008, then fell because of the Great Recession)? How has the reported number of new establishments been affected by changes in monitoring program criteria and funding levels?
Do the databases include sufficient information about dates of probable establishment, likely pathways of introduction, etc., to allow a more complete analysis of at least the new insect species?
I have not seen the database compiled by Yamanaka’s team so I don’t know.

The USDA database from 2009-2013 does not specify the probable pathways by which these pests entered the United States. I have concluded that the viruses, fungi, aphids and scales, whiteflies, and mites were probably introduced via imports of plants, cuttings, or cut foliage or flowers. These pests number 37 – or 41% of the total.

The database on tree-killing insects and pathogens compiled by the Aukema team includes both date of probable introduction and likely pathway; and articles by this team discuss trends in introduction rates. Thus, Liebhold et al. 2012 reports that approximately 69% of the pests in the database were introduced via the trade in live plants. This figure is one-third higher than the proportion I calculated from the USDA database (which, I remind you, includes all plant pests, not only those that attack trees).

Many of the pests associated with imports of plants in the Liebhold study were introduced decades ago, before the U.S. adopted phytosanitary regulations. Does the difference in the proportion of pests associated with plant imports in the 2009-2013 period compared to the earlier period covered by Liebhold et al. reflect a reduced risk from this pathway as the result of tighter regulations and shifts in the market? I doubt anyone can say – beyond the acknowledged increase in wood-borers associated with wood packaging.

Without better, and more readily available, data, we won’t ever be able to answer key questions. It is urgent that APHIS make available its data on trade volumes, pest interceptions, newly established pests, etc., for analysis by academics, other agencies, and stakeholders. And certainly it would be helpful if both APHIS and other researchers used more consistent approaches so to make possible longitudinal studies that can disclose trends.

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

Work, T.T.; McCullough, D.G.; Cavey, J.F.; Komsa, R. 2005. Arrival rate of nonindigenous species into the United States through foreign trade. Biological Invasions7: 323-3

Yamanaka, T., N. Morimoto, G.M. Nishida, K. Kiritani, S. Moriya, A.M. Liebhold. 2015. Comparison of insect invasions in NoAm, JP and their Islands Biol Invasions DOI 10.1007/s10530-015-0935-y
Posted by Faith Campbell

Wood packaging again ???!!!!!! Yes – problems need to be fixed!!

CBP inspector views Cerambycid larvae found in wood packaging that bears ISPM#15 stamp

Do we want triple the current number of wood-boring non-native insects to be established in just 35 years? We all know the damage that some of these insects can do (see summary or longer descriptions; for specific insects).
Over the past 30 years, at least 58 non-native species of wood- or bark-boring insects have been detected in the United States (not quite 2 new insects per year). Most were presumably introduced via imported wood, especially wood packaging (Haack et al.).

Yes, the U.S. has implemented the International Standard for Phytosanitary Management (ISPM)#15. Nevertheless, USFS researcher Bob Haack estimates that 13,000 shipping containers per year – or 35 per day – transport tree-killing pests to the U.S. This is the basis for an estimate that by 2050 – just 35 years from now – the number of wood-boring pests introduced to the country will triple above current levels.
We don’t need to rely only on extrapolations to know that APHIS’ implementation of ISPM#15 is not protecting our trees. As noted in my blog of 11 September, inspectors at the ports continue to find insects in wood packaging – even wood packaging marked as having been treated according to the requirements of the standard. Nearly half of the wood packaging entering the country that does not comply with the treatment requirements comes from Mexico. U.S. and Mexican forests are separated by deserts – allowing insects to evolve there to which our trees are vulnerable (see my blog from 11 September and descriptions of goldspotted oak borer, soapberry borer, and walnut twig beetle and its accompanying fungus here).
An on-going study seeks to identify insect larvae found in wood packaging; it is a cooperative effort of USDA APHIS’ laboratory at Otis, Massachusetts, and Customs and Border Protection staff at eight ports. Since 2012, these ports have sent 848 cerambycid and buprestid beetle larvae to Otis for identification. The APHIS scientists have succeeded in identifying 292 larvae, or only 34%. They constituted 39 species and 29 genera.

At least 44 of these insects were from China; they included 6 Asian longhorned beetles. Remember, the U.S. first adopted regulations requiring China to treat its wood packaging at the end of 1998 – nearly 17 years ago!!! Another 20 insects were from Russia – which has been required to treat its wood packaging since early 2006 – nearly 10 years ago.
As noted in the documents linked to above, and in earlier blogs (15 July, 22 and 31 August, 11 September), wood-boring pests collectively have been the most costly of the types of tree-killing pests introduced. One study estimated that they cost local governments and homeowners $2.4 billion each year to manage dying and dead trees. The homeowners lose another $830 million in residential property values.

What the Government Has Done

While USDA APHIS has cracked down on U.S. producers of wood packaging who cheat and is promoting workshops to educate our trade partners on wood packaging treatment requirements, the government should do more to protect our forests.

What More Can be Done

• At present, U.S. policy allows an importer to be caught 5 times in 1 year with wood packaging that does not comply with the regulatory requirements. Requirements adopted a decade or more ago should be enforced more strictly! The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and USDA APHIS should instead penalize all importers whose wood packaging does not comply with regulatory requirements.

• The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection should incorporate the wood packaging requirements into its “Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism” (C-TPAT) program .

• USDA APHIS should re-examine the economic pros and cons of requiring importers to switch to packaging made from materials other than wooden boards. The new review should incorporate the high economic and ecological costs imposed by insects introduced via the wood packaging pathway.

• USDA leadership should move forward and the President’s Office of Management and Budget should approve final regulations – proposed by APHIS 5 years ago! – that would apply the same treatment requirements to wood packaging used in trade between the US and Canada. (Canada has been ready to adopt this measure for several years.)

Sources (my apologies – I apparently cannot attach to specific points in the blog):

Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)

Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG, Cavey JF, Garrett LJ, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on Reducing Wood Borer Infestation Rates in Wood Packaging Material Entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.009661

Leung, B., M.R. Springborn, J.A. Turner, E.G. Brockerhoff. 2014. Pathway-level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. The Ecological Society of America. Frontiers of Ecology.org

Posted by Faith Campbell

APHIS has a tough job – and deserves praise

Carrying out a pest eradication program is a tough job – technically difficult, expensive, frustrating, and often generating opposition from various groups. But often eradication is crucial. It is the essential backup to the strategies aimed at preventing introduction in the first place.

Damage to red maple; photo by Michael Smith, USDA

USDA APHIS is responsible for developing and implementing eradication programs targeting non-native plant pests – including those that kill trees. APHIS just released an environmental impact statement covering its efforts to eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) it is available here. The EIS justifies both the eradication program targeting this species, itself, as well as the specific measures used.
The ALB is one of the most damaging pests ever introduced to North America; it would kill trees in 12 genera which collectively grow in forests across the 48 continental states. In the Northeast (a 20-state area reaching from Minnesota south to Missouri and east to Maine and Virginia), trees vulnerable to ALB dominate two forest types that collectively make up 45% of all forests. Indeed, these vulnerable forests cover almost 20% of the entire land area of these states. For a longer description of the ALB threat, read about the pest in the Gallery of Pests and consider the map below.

Areas at risk to ALB; USGS. 2014. Digital representations of tree species range maps from “Atlas of United States Trees” by Elbert L. Little Jr. (and other publications). — Areas at risk to ALB;
USGS. 2014. Digital representations of tree species range maps from “Atlas of United States Trees” by Elbert L. Little Jr. (and other publications).

The APHIS program – carried out with the help of the USDA Forest Service, other federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, and citizen volunteers – has succeed in eradicating ALB from six sites.
The EIS also makes clear what a tremendous effort such an eradication program demands. APHIS began trying to eradicate ALB 19 years ago, upon discovery of the outbreak in Brooklyn. Since then, APHIS has spent $500 million tackling outbreaks in five states, cut down more than 124,000 trees, and treated tens of thousands of additional trees with the systemic insecticide imidacloprid. Yet more work remains because large outbreaks in Worcester, Massachusetts and Clermont County, Ohio are not yet contained. Eradicating these outbreaks will take many years.
The EIS does not explicitly acknowledge the strong opposition that APHIS has faced from people who were understandably anguished over loss of their trees – especially the trees that were still healthy but posed a risk of enabling ALB to persist and spread across the Continent. Some of the opponents were further angered because they believed – based on misunderstandings or false information – that removing those trees was not a necessary action to protect trees across the Continent.
APHIS deserves our gratitude for persisting in its eradication efforts, despite vocal opposition, uncertainty over funding levels, and the many discouraging setbacks encountered while the agency was trying to improve methods to detect ALB and to contain pest populations.
I’m discouraged that the people who owe the most to APHIS don’t recognize the agency’s efforts. Unfortunately, many appear either to take these actions for granted or to ignore them completely. APHIS received only 27 comments on its notice that it would develop the EIS, and only 14 comments on the EIS itself.
Who should have commented? Everyone who cares about:
• The health of hardwood forests composed of maples, elms, ash, poplars, buckeyes, birch, or willows; these genera are most dense in forests of the Northeast, but – as the map above shows – they grow in forested areas throughout the “lower 48”.
• The health of urban forests and the ecosystem and public health benefits they provide. Cities with high proportions of trees vulnerable to ALB range from Seattle to Boston.
• Clean drinking water for. In the Northeast, 48% of the water supply originates on forestlands – and 45% of those forest lands are composed primarily of species that are vulnerable to ALB.
• The economy and jobs in the Northeast. Vulnerable hardwoods produce timber and maple syrup and are the foundation of the “leaf peeper” tourism industry.
Those who actually did provide comments included:
• Six state departments of Agriculture and their national association, the National Plant Board;
• Four officials in other state agencies (primarily forestry or environmental quality);
• Four officials from other federal agencies (three from National Park Service, one from Fish and Wildlife Service);
• About 20 representing the public, of which:
o Four were affiliated with the maple syrup industry;
o Six organizations focused on wildland or rural forests.

I hope that the next time APHIS seeks public input on its programs, the following organizations will provide thoughtful input:
• the national or regional representatives of state forestry departments;
• the many environmental organizations that engage so actively on other types of forest management issues;
• the organizations that advocate for planting and protecting urban forests;
• the groups that support recreation in forests and on associated lakes and streams;
• the organizations that advocate for protection of wildlife habitat.
APHIS tried hard to inform all who might be interested. APHIS posted the scoping notice and availability of the draft environmental impact statement in the Federal Register. Also, it posted alerts on its Stakeholder Registry (which contains almost 12,000 contacts); its e-newsletter; its Facebook and Twitter accounts; and the agency’s “news and information” and ALB-related web pages. In addition, APHIS notified ALB project managers in New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio and their state counterparts and asked that they notify their key contacts; tribal contacts; USDA Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contacts; plus several specific partners and organizations. APHIS also issued a press release which it shared with federal and state partners.
Why does it matter that APHIS received so few comments? This silence gives political and agency leaders the impression that the American public does not support efforts to prevent the spread or to eradicate tree-killing insects and pathogens. I hope this is not true!
This negative impression remains even if there are many stakeholders who are pleased with the program’s direction and progress. Their choice not to voice their support meant that only those who object to at least some components of the program are heard in the policy arena.
I plead with you – get involved! Support those parts of APHIS’s eradication and containment programs that you think are wise. Criticize those components that you think should be strengthened or changed.
Posted by Faith Campbell

Wood-borers in Wood Packaging: How Did We Get to This Crisis?

shipping container being unloaded at Long Beach

The rising numbers of tree-killing wood-boring insects introduced to the U.S. (see blogs from July 15 and August 3 & fact sheet and sources linked there) are a result of ballooning of trade volumes and use of wood packaging.

This irruption of trade was made possible by adoption of the shipping container to transport a wide range of goods.Moving from place to place are not just finished products but also components that originated in one country and that are to be assembled in another country.

How the shipping container revolutionized trade and manufacturing is detailed by Marc Levinson in his book, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger (Princeton University Press 2008). The transformation affected not only trade between countries, but also within countries, with some regional economies growing while others faltered.

Dr. Levinson recognizes that he has not addressed environmental damage caused by massive movement of cargo. While Dr. Levinson does not explain which damage he is thinking about, I doubt that he includes introductions of non-native wood-boring pests.

(I don’t know enough about the ballast water pathway to understand the impact of containerized shipping on introductions of aquatic invaders, but it seems likely to be an important factor through three factors: directing trade to new port areas; the ships’ huge size; and taking on of ballast water for those segments of a voyage carrying fewer filled cargo containers. On the other hand, Dr. Levinson says that a balance of cargo moving both ways on a trade route is an important factor in determining which ports thrive.)

Before containers, port costs represented the highest proportion of transport costs. Those costs are no longer an important consideration in determining manufacturing and transport choices. Nor is distance as important as before. What is most important are ports that can move large volumes of goods efficiently. The manufacturer or retailer at the top of the chain finds the most economical place for each step in the manufacturing and assembly process without regard to its location.

The containerization revolution was rapid. Containers were first used in international trade in 1966; within three years, nearly one-third of Japanese exports to the U.S. were containerized, half of those to Australia. In the decade after containers were first used in international trade, the volume of international trade in manufactured goods grew more than twice as fast as the volume of global manufacturing production, 2.5 times as fast as global economic output. Large numbers of specialized container ships were built, at ever-increasing sizes. The largest container ship in 1969 could carry 1,210 20-ft containers. By the early 2000s, ships being built to carry 10,000 20-foot containers; or 5,000 40-foot containers.

When Dr. Levinson wrote his book in 2005, the equivalent of 300 million 20-foot containers were crossing the world’s oceans each year.

The container revolution interacted with “just-in-time” manufacturing, which required rapid and reliable transport. Large companies signed written contracts with suppliers and shippers which included penalties for delays.

In the U.S., Long Beach quickly became the principal port because it (as well as Oakland and Seattle) had excellent rail connections to the interior. By 1987, one-third of containers from Asia destined for the East Coast landed at Long Beach and crossed the U.S. by rail. Perhaps counter to our expectation, only one-third of containers entering southern California in 1998 contained consumer goods. Most of the rest contained intermediate or partially processed goods as part of the new international supply and manufacturing chain.

Containers at Long Beach

On the East coast, Charleston SC and Savannah similarly grew because of transport connections – this time, primarily highways.

So, global trade is huge and growing; and the shipping container moves immense quantities of goods from one ecosystem to another and provide shelter for a vast range of hitchhiking living organisms (in addition to insects in the wood, there can be other insects’ eggs attached to the sides of the container, snails, weed seeds, even vertebrates – a raccoon once staggered out of a shipping container that had crossed the Atlantic from the U.S. to France!).

We need to imagine, test, and apply a variety of tools to suppress the numbers of living organisms traveling in shipping containers.

For example,
• if importer-supplier contracts specify penalties for delivery delays, we should ask why don’t importers amend the contracts to add penalties for non-compliant wood packaging?
• Might the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection incorporate the wood packaging requirements into its “Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism” (C-TPAT) program.
• A decade ago, USDA APHIS funded research which developed an ingenious method for detecting mobile pests inside a container. It was an LED light attached to a sticky trap. Placed inside a container, the light attracted snails, insects and possibly other living organisms. The whole mechanism was attached to a mailing container that could be pre-addressed for sending to a lab that could identify the pests. Why was this tool never implemented?

We can’t stop the trade, but we can be much more aggressive in adopting measures to minimize pest introductions.

Posted by Faith Campbell