forest pests – Page 12 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

USFS invasive species report: Herculean effort that could have had greater impact

In February the USFS published a lengthy analysis of invasive species: Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector (Poland et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog). More than 100 people contributed to the book; I helped write the chapters on legislation and regulations and international cooperation. The book is available for download at no cost here.

Chapters address impacts in terrestrial and aquatic systems; impacts on ecosystem processes; impacts on various sectors of the economy and cultural resources; interactions with climate change and other disturbances; management strategies for species and landscapes; tools for inventory and management. Each chapter evaluates the current status of knowledge about the topic and suggests research needs. There are also summaries of the invasive species situation in eight regions.

Miconia – one of many invasive plants damaging ecosystems in Hawai`i

I greatly appreciate the effort. Authors first met in 2015, and most chapters were essentially written in 2016. The long delay in its appearance came largely from negotiations with the publisher. The delay means some of the information is out of date. I am particularly aware that several experts – e.g., Potter, Guo, and Fei – have published about forest pests since the Aukema source cited. I wonder whether inclusion of their findings might change some of the conclusions about the proportion of introduced pests that cause noticeable impacts.

Since the report’s publication in February I have struggled with how to describe and evaluate this book. What is its purpose? Who is its audience? The Executive Summary says the report is a sector-wide scientific assessment of the current state of invasive species science and research in the U.S.

However, the Introduction states a somewhat different purpose. It says the report documents invasive species impacts that affect ecosystem processes and a wide range of economic sectors. This would imply an intention to enhance efforts to counter such effects– not just to shape research but also to change management. Indeed, the Conclusion of the Executive Summary (pp. xvi-xvii) is titled “An Imperative for Action”.

I am not the author to evaluate how effectively the book sets out research agendas. Regarding its usefulness in prompting policy-makers to do more, I regretfully conclude that it falls short.

Getting the balance right between an issue’s status and what needs to be done is difficult, perhaps impossible. I appreciate that the report makes clear how complex bioinvasion and ecosystem management and restoration are. Its length and density highlight the difficulty of making progress. This daunting complexity might well discourage agency leadership from prioritizing invasive species management.

On the other hand, summary sections sometimes oversimplify or bury important subtleties and caveats. The question of whether some key questions can ever be resolved by science is hinted at – but in detailed sections that few will read. The same is true regarding the restrictions imposed by funding shortfalls.

The Report Would Have Benefitted from Another Round of Editing

Editing this tome was a Herculean task. I feel like a curmudgeon suggesting that the editors do more! Nevertheless, I think the report would have been improved by the effort. One more round of editing – perhaps involving a wider range of authors – could have pulled together the most vital points to make them more accessible to policymakers. It could also have tightened the ecosystem-based descriptions of impacts, which are currently overwhelmed by too much information.

A precis for policymakers

A precis focused on information pertinent to policymakers (which the current Executive Summary does not) should contain the statement that the continued absence of a comprehensive investigation of invasive species’ impacts hampers research, management, and policy (mentioned only in §16.5, on p. 332). It should note situations in which insufficient funding is blocking recommended action. I note three examples: programs aimed at breeding trees resistant to non-native pests (resource issues discussed only in §§8.3.1 and 8.3.2, p. 195); sustaining “rapid response” programs (§6.4.3, p. 125); costs of ecosystem restoration, especially for landscape-level restoration (§16.4). I am sure there are additional under-funded activities that should be included!

cross-bred ash seedlings being tested for vulnerability to EAB; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch

Other important information that should be highlighted in such a precis includes the statement that many ecosystems have already reached a point where healthy functions are in a more tenuous balance due to invasive species (p. 51). Effective carbon storage and maintaining sustainable nutrient and water balance are at risk. Second, costs and losses caused by invasive forest pests generally fall disproportionately on a few economic sectors and households. They cannot be equated to governmental expenditures alone (p. 305). Third, even a brief estimate of overall numbers of invasive species appears only in §7.4. Information about individual species is scattered because it is used as example of particular topic (e.g., impacts on forest or grassland ecosystems, or on ecosystem services, or on cultural values).

Ecosystem Impacts Overwhelmed

As noted above, the report laments the absence of a comprehensive investigation of invasive species’ impacts. Perhaps the editors intended this report to partially fill this gap. To be fair, I have long wished for a “crown to root zone” description of invasive species’ impacts at a site or in a biome. Concise descriptions of individual invasive species and their impacts are not provided by this report, but they can be found elsewhere. (The regional summaries partially address the problem of too much information – but they do not provide perspective on organisms that have invaded more than one region, e.g., emerald ash borer or white pine blister rust.) Another round of editing might have resulted in a more focused presentation that would be more easily applied by policymakers.

Welcome Straightforward Discussion of Conceptual Difficulties

I applaud the report’s openness about some important overarching concepts that science cannot yet formulate. If supportable theories could be conceived, they would assist in the development of policies:

Despite decades of effort, scientists have not established a clear paradigm to explain an ecosystem’s susceptibility to invasion (p. 85). Invasibility is complex: it results from a dynamic interplay between ecosystem condition and ecological properties of the potential invader, especially local propagule pressure.
Scientists cannot predict how climate warming will change distributions of invasive species [see Chapter 4] and alter pathways. This inability hampers efforts to develop effective prevention, control, and restoration strategies (p. xi). Climate change and invasive species need to be studied together as interactive drivers of global environmental change with evolutionary consequences.

The Report’s Recommendations

Policy-oriented recommendations are scattered throughout the report. I note here some I find particularly important:

Measures of progress should be based on the degree to which people, cultures, and natural resources are protected from the harmful effects of invasive species.
Managers should assess the efficacy of all prevention, control, and management activities and their effect upon the environment. Such an evaluation should be based on a clear statement of the goals of the policy or action. [I wish the report explicitly recognized that both setting goals and measuring efficacy are difficult when contemplating action against a new invader that is new to science or when the impacts are poorly understood. Early detection / rapid response efforts are already undermined by an insistence on gathering information on possible impacts before acting; that delay can doom prospects for success.]
- Risk assessment should both better incorporate uncertainty and evaluate the interactions among multiple taxa. Risk assessment tools should be used to evaluate and prioritize management efforts and strategies beyond prevention and early detection/rapid response.
- Economic analyses aimed at exploring tradeoffs need better tools for measuring returns on invasive species management investments (§16.5).
Actions that might be understood as “restoration” aim at a range of goals along the gradient between being restored to a known historic state and being rehabilitated to a defined desired state. The report stresses building ecosystem resilience to create resistance to future invasions, but I am skeptical that this will work re: forest insects and disease pathogens.
Propagule pressure is a key determinant of invasion success. Devising methods to reduce propagule pressure is the most promising to approach to prevent future invasions (p. 115). This includes investing in quarantine capacity building in other countries can contribute significantly to preventing new invasions to the US.
Resource managers need additional studies of how invasive species spread through domestic trade, and how policies may differ between foreign and domestic sources of risk.

I appreciate the report’s attention to such often-ignored aspects as non-native earthworms and soil chemistry. I also praise the report’s emphasis on social aspects of bioinvasion and the essential role of engaging the public. However, I think the authors could have made greater use of surveys conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy’s Don’t Move Firewood program.

Lost Opportunities

I am glad that the report makes reference to the “rule of 25” rather than “rule of 10s”. I would have appreciated a discussion of this topic, which is a current issue in bioinvasion theory. As noted at the beginning of this blog, the long time between when the report was written and when it was published might have hampered such a discussion

Also, I wish the report had explored how scientists and managers should deal with the “black swan” problem of infrequent introductions that have extremely high impacts. The report addresses this issue only through long discussions of data gaps, and ways to improve models of introduction and spread.

I wish the section on the Northwest Region included a discussion of why an area with so many characteristics favoring bioinvasion has so few damaging forest pests. Admittedly, those present are highly damaging: white pine blister rust, sudden oak death, Port-Orford cedar root disease, balsam woolly adelgid, and larch casebearer. The report also notes the constant threat that Asian and European gypsy moths will be introduced. (The Entomological Society of America has decided to coin a new common name for these insects; they currently to be called by the Latin binomial Lymatria dispar).

And I wish the section on the Southeast and Caribbean discussed introduced forest pests on the Caribbean islands. I suspect this reflects a dearth of research effort rather than the biological situation. I indulge my disagreement with the conclusion that introduced tree species have “enriched” the islands’ flora.

SOURCE

Poland, T.M., P. Patel-Weynand, D.M Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M Lopez, editors. 2021. Invasive species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector. Springer

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

“Rule of Tens” – Time to Refine It

are wood-borers examples of species more likely to “proceed through the steps of invasion” than the theory suggests?

Much of the literature about biological invasion has relied on the “tens rule”. First enunciated in the mid-1990s by Williamson and Fitter (1996), it was actually conceived a decade earlier by Williamson and Brown (1986).

The “tens rule” hypothesizes that about 10% of all species transported to a new environment will be released or escape and become introduced species. Subsequently, 10% of those introduced species establish viable populations in the wild. Finally, about 10% of the established species become highly damaging. That is, 1% of the number originally transported to the new environment is a highly damaging invader.

Is the “tens rule” supported by evidence?

Empirical support for the hypothesis has been mixed; the number of studies questioning it has increased over the decades (Jeschke and Pyšek 2018). So Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) decided to evaluate the basis for the hypothesis. First, they divided the hypothesis into two sub-hypotheses so they could separate the concept of impact from the process of introduction, establishment, and spread. They justified this separation by noting that novel species can have an impact at any stage. The two sub-hypotheses:

1^st sub-hypothesis: At each of the three transitions between the invasion stages listed here the number of species completing the transition is reduced by 90% (invasion tens rule).

transport to exotic range

transition

introduction (release or escape into the environment)

transition

establishment of a least one self-sustaining population

transition

spread

2^nd sub-hypothesis: about 10% of established non-indigenous species cause a significant detrimental impact. This sub-hypothesis applies to the transition from establishment (iii, above) to significant impact (iv). Stepping back to the earlier introduction, so as to consider the situation overall, about 1% of all introduced non-native species cause a significant detrimental impact; this sub-hypothesis thus relates to the transition from introduction (ii) to significant impact (iv).

Jeschke and Pyšek carried out a quantitative meta-analysis of 102 empirical tests of the tens rule drawn from 65 publications. They found no support for the “invasion tens rule”. Indeed, their analysis found that about 24% of non-native plant and 23% of non-native invertebrate species are successful in taking consecutive steps of the invasion process. Among non-native vertebrates, about 51% are successful in taking consecutive steps of the invasion process.

The “impact tens rule” is also not supported by currently available evidence. However, Jeschke and Pyšek decided that more data are needed before a reasonable alternative hypothesis can be formulated.

Findings

Jeschke and Pyšek state that the “tens rule” is not based on a model or other defensible concept. It is also hampered by confusion of terms. Thus, different authors define the invasion process differently. Particularly confounding is the mixing of “impact” with steps in the invasion process. At the same time, there have been few studies of the “impact tens rule” hypothesis.

Finally, the “tens rule’s” predictions are not adjusted to consider changes in temporal and spatial scales. That is, it does not recognize that more invaders will be detected in any given place during more recent times than in the past. Furthermore, more invaders will find suitable niches in large areas than small.

The note that analysis is hampered by the paucity of reliable data about establishment success – especially for taxa other than mammals and birds. They do not discuss how this lack might affect efforts to analyze proportions of entering species that succeed in becoming invasive, especially among the small and inconspicuous taxa such as insects and fungal organisms that concern thus of us that focus on threats to forests. This same data gap has limited other studies as well; see, for example, Aukema et al. (2010) – who restricted their discussion of pathogens to “high impact” species.

Although Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) do not specify which studies they relied on to determine the proportion of successful invaders among species belonging to particular taxa, it seems likely that they relied principally on Vila et al. (2010) in determining that on average 25% invertebrates that are introduced (that is, proceed to the second stage in the process given above) become invasive. Vila et al. analyze introductions to Europe. They found that 24.2% of terrestrial invertebrates caused recognized economic impacts.

Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) Results and Discussion

Considering the “invasion tens rule”, two-thirds of the empirical tests in the dataset focused on the “invasion tens rule”. The majority of these focused on the transition from introduction to establishment (the transition from (ii) to (iii). The observed average percentage of species making this transition is more than 40% – or greater than four times larger than the “tens rule’s” prediction.

At the next transition, from establishment to spread (from iii to iv), the observed percentage of species making the transition is greater than 30% – or greater than three times the predicted value under the “tens rule”.

Considering the “impact tens rule”, on average a quarter of established non-indigenous species have a significant detrimental impact, which is again significantly more than the 1 out of 10 species predicted by the rule. Specifically by taxon, 18% of established plants have shown detrimental impacts. Among invertebrates and vertebrates that estimate is greater than 30%. All these observations are higher than predicted by the rule. However, sample sizes are low so more studies are needed to test whether these values hold true.

Regarding the fullest possible extent of the invasion process, 16 out of 100 species that were introduced (stage ii) had a significant impact. This is 16 times greater than the 1% predicted by the “tens rule”. Considering specific taxa, 6% of established plants and 15% of established invertebrates had a significant impact. Data were too poor to support an evaluation for vertebrates.

I note that the alarmingly high “impact” estimates for invertebrates are probably biased by scientists’ and funding entities’ lack of interest in species that don’t cause noticeable impacts.

Poor data preclude an analysis of the transition from transport (i) to introduced (ii).

Strengthening The Estimates

Might these introduction and impact estimates be tightened by analysis of additional sources, such as the studies led Seebens, forest pest impact analyses by Potter et al. (2019) and Fei (2019) and reviews of pest introduction numbers by Haack and Rabaglia (2013)?

Is it worth pursuing efforts to refine the Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) estimates? I think it is. An underestimation of the risk of introduction might lead decision-makers to downplay the need for a response.

Some scientists have accepted the new “rule of 25” (Schulz, Lucardi, and Marsico. 2021. Full citation at end of blog; also cited by USFS report – Poland et al. 2021). Others have not. Venette and Hutchison (2021; full reference at end of blog) continue to cite the estimate of approximately one “invasion success” for every 1,000 attempts – that is, a low-probability, high-consequence event. This challenges those responsible for managing invasive species.

Or are there other conundrums of introduction, establishment, and predicting impacts that have more direct relationship to improving programs? I note that the recent Forest Service report on invasive species (Poland et al. 2021) does not address the “rule of tens”.

Other Reasons Why Bioinvasion Damage is Underestimated

Jaric´ and G. Cvijanovic´ (2012) note that scientists lack a full understanding of ecosystem functioning, so they probably often miss more subtle – but still important – impacts.

Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) note that the percentage of introduced or established species with a quantifiable impact is not always the most important information. A single introduced species can have devastating impact by itself. They cite the amphibian disease chytrid (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) and such mammals as rats and cats.

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

Brockerhoff, E.G. and A. M. Liebhold. 2017. Ecology of forest insect invasions. Biol Invasions (2017) 19:3141–3159

Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. Liebhold. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 12 Aug 2019, 116(35):17371-17376

Haack, R.A. and R.A. Rabaglia. 2013 Exotic Bark and Ambrosia Beetles in the USA: Potential and Current Invaders. CAB International. 2013. Potential Invasive Pests of Agricultural Crops (ed. J. Pena)

Jaric´, I. and G. Cvijanovic´. 2012. The Tens Rule in Invasion Biology: Measure of a True Impact or Our Lack of Knowledge and Understanding? Environmental Management (2012) 50:979–981 DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9951-1

Jeschke J.M. and P. Pyšek. 2018. Tens Rule. Chapter 13 of book by CABI posted at http://www.ibot.cas.cz/personal/pysek/pdf/Jeschke,%20Pysek-Tens%20rule_CABI%202018.pdf

Poland, T.M., Patel-Weynand, T., Finch, D., Miniat, C. F., and Lopez, V. (Eds) (2019), Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector. Springer Verlag. (in press).

Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, G. Man, and B.S. Crane. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of United States tree species: Evaluating vulnerability to forest insect and disease threats. Global Ecology and Conservation. (2019)

Schulz, A.N., R.D. Lucardi, and T.D. Marsico. 2021. Strengthening the Ties That Bind: An Evaluation of Cross-disciplinary Communication Between Invasion Ecologists and Biological Control Researchers in Entomology. Annals of the Entomological Society of America · January 2021

Seebens, H., T.M. Blackburn, et al. 2018. Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719429115

Vilà, M., C. Basnou, P. Pyšek, M. Josefsson, P. Genovesi, S. Gollasch, W. Nentwig, S. Olenin, A. Roques, D. Roy, P.E. Hulme and DAISIE partners. 2010. How well do we understand the impacts of alien spp on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 8, No. 3 (April 2010), pp. 135-144

Venette R.C. and W.D. Hutchison. 2021. Invasive Insect Species: Global Challenges, Strategies & Opportunities. Front. Insect Sci.1:650520. doi: 10.3389/finsc.2021.650520

Williamson M.H. and K.C. Brown. 1986. The analysis and modelling of British invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 314:505–522

Williamson M. and A. Fitter. 1996 The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77(6):1661–1666

Early Warning Systems – Are They Helping Prevent Introductions?

symptoms of tomato brown rugose fruit virus; Wikimedia

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making efforts to strengthen pest prevention by setting up “early warning” systems. As part of this effort, the USDA-funded regional Integrated Pest Management Center in Raleigh, NC, has published a review of existing systems. These are intended to inform national phytosanitary agencies, such as APHIS, about pest species that might pose a threat to natural or agricultural resources. The ultimate goal is providing information that empowers the agency to enact effective preventive measures. [Noar et al. 2021. A full reference to the study is posted at the end of this blog.]

The review looked at six early warning systems’ goals, as well as their procedures for obtaining and disseminating information about potential threats. With one exception, these systems focus on plant pests.

The review did not undertake a rigorous analysis of the various programs’ efficacy.

The article points to the high economic costs associated with invasive plant pests. As a consequence of the huge volume of international trade – which is the principal vector of plant pests’ introduction – national phytosanitary agencies need information on which pests are moving most frequently, and on what commodities, so they can target the most risky pathways. The early warning systems are intended to do this before the pests are introduced to a new region. The several systems use different methodologies and criteria to identify such potential pests. They also are intended to raise awareness about high risk pests and pathways – but for different audiences.

Several of the early warning systems were set up and are managed by national phytosanitary agencies or their regional organizations. These include PestLens and the EPPO and NAPPO alert systems (described below). The article notes that these systems usually do not report diseases for which the causal agent has not been identified, because identification of the pathogen species is typically necessary before regulations can be adopted – and these are regulatory organizations. The authors do not analyze whether this constraint reduces the systems’ ability to provide timely warnings.

1. PestLens

PestLens is an early warning system set up by APHIS. It therefore focuses on pests that might become quarantine pests – that is, subject to regulation under terms of the Plant Protection Act. Such pests must pose a defined threat to US agricultural and natural resources. PestLens monitors more than 300 sources, including scientific journals, reports from national phytosanitary agencies, Google alerts, newspapers, e-mail lists and other plant-health-related websites. PensLens staff evaluate the information for relevance to APHIS based on: a) whether the information is new to APHIS; b) whether the plant pest is of quarantine significance to the US; c) its potential economic impact if introduced; d) the likelihood of a pathway for introduction; and e) the likelihood that action by APHIS might be needed to prevent its introduction. Information considered relevant includes indication that a pest is associated with a previously unknown host, has been detected in a new location, or has been eradicated from a country. The information has not necessarily been confirmed by the country (warning included in PestLens notices).

When the PestLens criteria are met, the analysts write a brief article including the new information and any existing background, such as previously known host range and distribution. These articles are compiled into a weekly e-mail notification sent to PPQ employees and thousands of other subscribers. They are also archived on the PestLens website. APHIS staff evaluate the information and make decisions as to whether some regulatory action is appropriate.

I am puzzled because some of the five criteria appear to require a pest risk analysis. Pest risk analysis is a complex task that I do not believe PestLens is equipped to carry out – certainly not as quickly as is required by an alert system.

Update

A review of PestLens (Meissner et al. 2015; full citation at end of the blog) describes the system more fully. It found that during the period October 2012 – October, 2014, 73% of PestLens articles were based on articles in scientific journals; 17% on federal, state, or regional governmental sources; 8% fon news media sources; and 3% on other sources. The principal government pest reports used were from the web sites of IPPC, EPPO & NAPPO.

The majority of PestLens articles reporting new locations, interceptions, and new hosts came from journals. New pest descriptions, new reports of an organism as a pest, and articles on research of interest came exclusively from journals. Articles on pest detections, outbreaks, and eradications came largely from government sources.

Meissner et al. analyzed APHIS’ response to PestLens notices. They said that certain APHIS actions, such as the implementation of official control programs, initiation of research activities, or the formation of specliazed task groups were not captured in this analysis. They found that over a ten month period in 2014, APHIS used the PestLens notices to update its pest databases 350 times; updated pest datasheets or pest profiles on the PPQ website 16 times; evaluated a pest’s regulatory status (e.g., prepared a risk assessment) 11 times; and revised its regulations 4 times.

Meissner et al. consider that it is vital to maintain up-to-date databases, especially regarding pest host and distribution ranges. Another benefit from the PestLens system is a set of metrics to improve accountability, for example identifying duplication of efforts and providing permanent records of when actions are taken (or declined) and the rationale.

2. EPPO Alert List and EPPO Reporting Service

The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) has 52 member countries stretching from Russia and Uzbekistan to Spain, Algeria, and Morocco, and including their off-shore islands. EPPO maintains a pest Alert List of species chosen by the EPPO Secretariat based on the scientific literature and suggestions by member’s phytosanitary agencies. Factors leading to a listing include newly described pests, reports of spread to new geographical locations, and reports of major outbreaks in the EPPO region. Each listed pest has a fact sheet which contains known hosts and distribution, the type of damage, the mode of dissemination, and potential pathways for spread. Some pests are selected for pest risk analysis (PRA). Once the PRA is completed, the pest might be placed on the EPPO A1/A2 lists, which are species recommended for regulation by the member states. Pests not selected for PRA stay on the EPPO Alert List temporarily, typically three years, then their information is archived.

The EPPO Secretariat also publishes a monthly Reporting Service newsletter, which details phytosanitary events that might threaten the EPPO region, including both officially designated quarantine pests as well as emerging ones. Information includes new hosts, new geographical locations, new pests, and new identification and detection methods.

3. NAPPO Phytosanitary Alert System

The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) comprises Canada, the United States and Mexico. It has a web-based alert system that provides official pest reports from member countries. NAPPO also puts out Emerging Pest Alerts that contain news about plant pests and pathogens not established in this region. Sources are public, including scientific journals, newspapers, records from port interceptions, and domestic plant pest surveys. Generally NAPPO does not confirm its reports with the corresponding country’s phytosanitary agency.

4. IPPC Pest Reports

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) has been ratified by more than 180 countries. The member countries’ phytosanitary agencies submit official pest reports concerning the occurrence, outbreak, spread, or eradication of organisms that are quarantine pests in that country or for neighboring countries and trading partners. These pest reports are posted on the IPPC website.

5. International Plant Sentinel Network

The International Plant Sentinel Network is a collaboration between the National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN) and the American Public Gardens Association. It is funded through cooperative agreements with APHIS under Section 10007 of the Farm Bill (Now Plant Protection Act §7721.) Launched in 2010, it has now grown to include more than 300 gardens across North America (information from the website).

The underlying premise is based on biogeography: plant-associated insects, fungi, and other pathogens introduced to plants that did not co-evolve with them (naïve plants) might cause unexpected damage. Since arboreta and botanical gardens cultivate many plant taxa outside their native range, they present an opportunity to observe new pest-host associations and the level of damage caused. Pests attacking native plants in North American botanical gardens might constitute “early detection” of a pest already in the country rather than a warning before the pest is introduced. Still, early detection is valuable.

6. ProMED

The Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases (ProMED) is a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases (ISID). ProMED was launched in 1994 as an Internet service to identify unusual health events related to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases and toxins affecting humans, animals and plants. It focuses on outbreaks in new geographic regions, newly described diseases, and diseases for which the causal agent is unknown. By its own estimation, ProMED is the largest publicly-available system conducting global reporting of infectious diseases outbreaks (information from the website). ProMED maintains several e-mail lists that disseminate information pertaining to disease outbreaks; subscribers can choose among lists to fit their areas of interest and their geographic region. ProMED has a much broader scope than the other early warning systems. Also, it uses informal and nontraditional sources, including local media, on-the-ground experts, and professional networks.

Stakeholders can access much of the information on these websites and use them to report findings of new alien species to phytosanitary agencies.

Gaps

The review of early warning systems has disappointing gaps. First, I am puzzled that the authors looked only at the U.S.-based sentinel gardens effort and did not consider a parallel international network. The International Plant Sentinel Network was established in 2013. It is coordinated by the Botanical Garden Conservation Initiative, headquartered at Kew Gardens, United Kingdom. At present, 67 gardens and arboreta are participating; they are located in China, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, South America, and Europe (including the Caucuses Mountains). After all, it is this international network that could inform APHIS about potential pests when they observe attacks on North American plants growing in their facilities. I confess that it is not clear to me whether participating gardens and arboreta would take the initiative to inform APHIS of pest attacks on North American plant species. It might be that APHIS would need to send inquiries to participants, probably focused on named pests. If these caveats are true, the network might not be a fully functional “early warning” body.

Update

Indeed, the USFS International Programs office is cooperating with the International Plant Sentinel Network to have some botanic gardens around the world monitor several North American species planted at their locations for disease and pest problems. In June 2021 the USFS sought suggestions from contacts on which North American tree species should be monitored. Candidates could be tree species of high economic, ecological, or urban/landscape value. The candidate list would probably be limited to 10 species. They should represent a diverse range of conifers and hardwoods.

Second, the articles authors make no mention of one of the principal sources of information on plant pests – CABI (Center for Agriculture and Bioscience International). CABI is a global source of information on organisms’ distribution. It is particularly strong in Commonwealth countries – which are important sources of plant material imported into the U.S.

Third, they apparently did not assess phytosanitary alert systems in place or anticipated in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. This is a significant gap since these countries are leaders on phytosanitary issues. They are also potential sources of damaging pests.

Most disappointing is the lack of analysis of programs’ efficacy and weaknesses. The only step in this direction is contrasting ProMED’s willingness to report diseases for which the causal agent is unknown. PestLens, EPPO, and NAPPO refuse to do this. We desperately need an analysis of the extent to which this narrow concept of the task limits the ability of these systems to provide early warnings.

At least several of the networks, including PestLens and NAPPO, do not limit themselves to information that has been confirmed by countries – which might be reluctant to admit the presence of a damaging organism on their turf.

I suggest that it would have been particularly instructive to analyze the reasons why Australia’s early warning efforts failed to detect introduction of the myrtle rust pathogen sufficiently early to facilitate eradication.

This review did discuss how several of the networks tracked the global movement of the Tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV). The virus was first detected in Jordan in 2015; this was reported by PestLens in 2016. PestLens reported the virus had spread to Israel 2017. The NAPPO system then reported the virus in Mexico in 2018. The virus was detected in the United States in 2018, although difficulties in taking official samples and diagnosing the virus probably delayed awareness of this outbreak. APHIS restricted imports of tomato and pepper seed, transplants and fruits from countries where the virus was known to be present in November, 2019. Still, APHIS acted after the virus had been detected in the country. ToBRFV has continued to spread; it is now found in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa. I am not completely convinced that this episode illustrates successful utilization of early warning networks. Did the apparently tardy action by APHIS arise from overconfidence that the virus would be limited to the Middle East? Or is it attributable to rules which limit agency actions until official confirmation of the detection? Another actor might have been delay in proving that the virus was being spread by the international seed trade; international phytosanitary rules require agencies to define the introductory pathway before regulating.

I hope other scientists will undertake a more comprehensive analysis of early warning systems. We need our phytosanitary systems to be made as effective as possible. Further evaluation of current efforts would provide valuable insight.

[A separate article reporting on the international sentinel gardens network from a British perspective is Marfleet, K. and S. Sharrock. 2020. The International Plant Sentinel Network: an update on phase 2. The International Journal of Botanic Garden Horticulture.]

SOURCES

Meissner, H., J. Fritz, L. Kohl, H. Moylett, J. Moan, S. Emerine, and A. Kaye. 2015. PestLens: An early-warning system supporting U.S. safeguarding against exotic plant pests. Bull. OEPP 45: 304-310

Noar, R.D, C.J. Jahant-Miller, S. Emerine, and R. Hallberg. 2021. Early Warning Systems as a Component of IPM to Prevent the Intro of Exotic Pests. Journal of IPM, (2021) 12(1): 16; 1–7 doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmab011

Posted by Faith Campbell

Federal Funding for Forest Pest Programs — Act Now! to Help Congress Decide

If you have not communicated to your Representative and senators your support for adequate funding of U.S. government programs to address non-native insects and pathogens threatening our forests, please do so now!

If political leaders do not hear from us that expanding these programs is important, these programs will continue to languish. It is easiest – and most direct – to inform your representative and Senators of your support. Please do so! If you do not agree that these programs should be expanded & strengthened, I ask that you send a comment outlining what approach you think would be more effective in curtailing introductions, minimizing impacts, and restoring affected tree species. I can then initiate a discussion to explore these suggestions. [I already have endorsed the suggestion to create a CDC-like body to oversee management of non-native forest pests.] You can find your member of Congress here. Your Senators here .

Last week the Biden Administration sent to Congress its proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021. I find it falls short in key areas. Next, the House and Senate will pass a package of appropriations bills to set actual funding levels. This is the moment to press for boosted funding. In an earlier blog I explained my reasons for seeking specific funding levels.

Asian longhorned beetles – introduced in wood packaging (USDA photo)

Two USDA agencies lead efforts to protect U.S. wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and pathogens. Their funding is set by two separate – and critical — appropriations bills:

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has legal responsibility for preventing introduction of tree-killing pests; detecting newly introduced pests; and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize their damage. Funding for APHIS is contained in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
USDA Forest Service (USFS)
- The Forest Health Management (FHM) program provides funding and applied science to help partners manage pests. The program has two sides: the Cooperative component helps states and private forest managers, so it can address pests where they are first found – usually near cities – and when they spread. The federal lands component helps the USFS, National Park Service, and other federal agencies counter pests that have spread to the more rural/wildland areas that they manage.
- The Research and Development (R&D) program supports research into pest-host relationships; pathways of introduction and spread;; management strategies (including biocontrol); and host resistance breeding

Forest Service funds are appropriated through the Interior Appropriations bill.

APHIS – the Administration’s official budget proposal, and justification, is here.

The Administration proposes a small increase for three of four APHIS programs that are particularly important for preventing introductions of forest pests or eradicating or containing those that do enter. The Administration proposed significant funding for a fourth program that plays a small but important role in managing two specific forest pests.

APHIS Program	Current (FY 2021)	FY22 Administration proposed	FY 2022 Campbell recommended
Tree & Wood Pest	$60.456 million	$61 million	$70 million
Specialty Crops	$196.553 million	209 million	$200 million
Pest Detection	$27.733 million	No change	$30 million
Methods Development	$20.844 million	No change	$25 million

Tree and Wood Pests: It will be a major challenge for APHIS to eradicate the current outbreak of Asian longhorned beetles (ALB) in the swamps of South Carolina. APHIS should also address other pests. Even after cutting spending on the emerald ash borer (EAB), I think APHIS needs significantly more money in this account.

The Specialty Crops program is supported by such traditional USDA constituencies as the nursery and orchard industries, which probably explains the proposed increase. APHIS’ program to curtail spread of the sudden oak death (SOD) pathogen through interstate nursery trade receives funding from this program – about $5 million. I believe this program also now funds the agency’s efforts to slow spread of the spotted lanternfly.

SOD-infected rhododendrons in Indiana nursery in 2019

I would like the Pest Detection program to receive a small increase so the agency and its cooperators can better deal with rising trade volumes and associated pest risk. Similarly, Methods Development should receive a boost because of the need for improved detection and management tools.

USDA Forest Service – the Administration’s official budget proposal is here.

While the Forest Health Management (FHM) and Research and Development (R&D) programs are the principal USFS programs that address introduced forest pests, neither has non-native pests as the principle focus. Non-native forest pests constitute only a portion of the programs’ activities. In the case of Research, this is a very small portion indeed.

President Biden’s budget proposes to spend $59.2 million on the Forest Health Management program and $313.5 million for Research. Both represent significant increases over spending during the current fiscal year. However, the FHM level is still below spending in recent years, although both the number of introduced pests and the geographic areas affected have been rising for decades.

In my earlier blog I suggested the funding levels:

USFS PROGRAM	Current (FY21)	FY22 Administration	FY22 my recommendation
FHP Coop Lands	$30.747 million	$36.747 million	$51 million (to cover both program work & personnel costs)
FHP Federal lands	$15.485 million	22.485 million	$25 million (ditto)

Research & Develop	$258.7 million; of which about $3.6 million allocated to invasive species	$313.560 million	$320 million; I seek report language instructing the USFS to spend more on invasive species

Under the FHM program, a table on pp. 46-47 of the budget justification lists existing and proposed spending on 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites). Spending on these 14 species is proposed to total $30.3 million. Of this amount, less than half – $14.9 million – is allocated to such high-profile invasive species of forests as the emerald ash borer (EAB), hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), sudden oak death (SOD), and threats to whitebark pine (recently listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act). (The USFS does not engage in efforts to eradicate Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) outbreaks; it leaves that task to APHIS.) And of the nearly $15 million allocated to invasive non-native pests, more than half – $8 million – is allocated to European gypsy moths. While I agree that the gypsy moth program has been highly successful, I decry this imbalance. Other non-native pests cause much higher levels of mortality among hosts than does the gypsy moth.

dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake National Park; photo by FT Campbell

I applaud the modest increases in the Administration’s budget for other non-native forest pests. These range from tens to a few hundred thousand dollars per pest. FHM also supports smaller programs targetting rapid ohia death, beech leaf disease, the invasive shot hole borers in southern California, Mediterranean oak beetle, etc. Budget documents don’t report on these efforts.

The imbalance of funding allocated to damaging non-native pests compared to other forest management concerns is even worse in the Research program. Of the $313.5 million proposed in the budget for the full research program, only $9.2 million is allocated to the 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites) specified in the table on pp. 46-47. Of this amount, less than half — $4.5 million – is allocated to the high-profile invasive species, e.g., ALB, EAB, HWA, SOD, and threats to whitebark pine. The budget does provide extremely modest increases for several of these species, ranging from $12,000 for ALB to $114,000 for EAB. Again, some smaller programs managed at the USFS regional level might address other pests. Still – the budget proposes that USFS R&D allocate only 1.4% of its total budget to addressing these threats to America’s forests! This despite plenty of documentation – including by USFS scientists – that non-native species “have caused, and will continue to cause, enormous ecological and economic damage.” (Poland et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog). Poland et al. go on to say:

Invasive insects and plant pathogens (or complexes involving both) cause tree mortality, resulting in canopy gaps, stand thinning, or overstory removals that, in turn, alter microenvironments and hydrologic or biogeochemical cycling regimes. These changes can shift the overall species composition and structure of the plant community, with associated effects on terrestrial and aquatic fauna. In the short term, invasive insects and diseases can generally reduce productivity of desired species in forests. Tree mortality or defoliation can affect leaf-level transpiration rates, affecting watershed hydrology. Tree mortality … also leads to enormously high costs for tree removal, other management responses, and reduced property values in urban and residential landscapes.

eastern hemlock in Shenandoah National Park; photo by FT Campbell

I seek report language specifying that at least 5% of research funding should be devoted to research in pathways of invasive species’ introduction and spread; their impacts; and management and restoration strategies, including breeding of resistant trees. Several coalitions of which the Center for Invasive Species is a member have agreed to less specific language, not the 5% goal.

Two other USFS programs contribute to invasive species management. The Urban and Community Forest program provided $2.5 million for a competitive grant program to help communities address threats to urban forest health and resilience. Of 23 projects funded in FY2020, 11 are helping communities recover from the loss of ash trees to EAB. (On average, each program received $109,000.)

The Forest Service’ International Program is helping academic and other partners establish “sentinel gardens” in China and Europe. North American trees are planted and monitored so researchers can identify insects or pathogens that attack them. This provides advance notice of organisms that could be damaging pests if introduced to the United States.

REFERENCE:

Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. Editors T.M. Poland, T. Patel-Weynand, D.M. Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M. Lopez Open access!

Posted by Faith Campbell

International Phytosanitary System Impedes Prevention

*Eugenia koolauensis* (endangered) damaged by ohia rust; photo courtesy of the U.S. Army Natural Resources Program, Oahu

I have written often about failings of the international phytosanitary systems – starting with my report Fading Forests II in 2004, and continuing in many blogs. As the International Year of Plant Health comes to an end, I do so again. I begin with a key recommendation.

Australia’s experience dealing with myrtle rust (Austropuccina psidii) demonstrates the need to integrate agencies responsible for conservation of natural ecosystems into the determination and implementation of phytosanitary policy.

These environmental agencies should be active participants in setting up surveillance and diagnostics protocols and on-the-ground surveillance, and should be directly involved in emergency response. Federal agricultural agencies have technical expertise in biosecurity but lack expertise in key elements of environmental management. In the Australian context, this recommendation is made by several studies cited by Carnegie and Pegg (2018) – full citation at the end of this blog. I strongly endorse the recommendation for the United States. In the U.S., the appropriate agencies would include USDA’s Forest Service and the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service.

While the USDA Forest Service is (apparently) more involved in US phytosanitary efforts than its Australian counterpart, its voice in setting USDA phytosanitary policy is limited to the most narrow details, e.g., treatment protocols for wood packaging.

Carnegie and Pegg note a second common problem: the ongoing decline in forest entomology and pathology capacity in government agencies. This decline has long been decried by U.S. natural resource experts as depriving agencies of needed expertise – but we have not yet managed to raise agency budgets so as to reverse it.

The forests of Australia, New Zealand, nearby islands, and South Africa formed during the period of the supercontinent Gondwana – 300 million years ago. While the threat to these unique forests from non-native pests is severe, so far it arises from a limited number of organisms. These are Phytophthora cinnamomi, Austropuccinia psidii, polyphagous shot hole borer and Fusarium fungus (in South Africa), and – in the future, laurel wilt disease. All these organisms threaten multiple hosts. In contrast, the threat to America’s forests comes from more than 100 highly damaging non-native insects, pathogens, and nematodes already here. Some threaten multiple hosts. Plus there is the constant risk of new introductions. Surely our federal conservation agencies have important resources to defend and expertise to contribute to the effort.

Flaws in the System

The international phytosanitary rules adopted by both the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures [WTO SPS Agreement] and the International Plant Protection Convention [IPPC] are fundamentally flawed. That is, they require regulatory officials to be unrealistically certain about an organism’s “pest” potential before regulating it. Yet uncertainty is likely to be at its highest at two critical times: before invasion or at its earliest stage. These times are precisely when phytosanitary actions are likely to be most effective.

The effect of this demand for certainty is exacerbated by decision-makers’ caution when confronted with the potential that their action might harm an economic interest. The vast majority won’t impose a regulation until they are sure that the organism under consideration poses a major threat to plant health.

Yet at the same time, most phytosanitary officials rarely carry out the scientific studies that might answer such questions about the risk.

For example, USDA APHIS has created its own Catch 22. It has not funded laboratory tests to get preliminary information on how vulnerable North American tree genera are to the 38 new Phytophthora species detected in Southeast Asia [see earlier blog]. European scientists are doing this testing; it is unclear whether their work is supported by European governments. American scientists could build on the Europeans’ work since our continents share many plant genera – but since vulnerability might vary at the species level, we still must assess North American species separately. At the same time as APHIS is not sponsoring such tests, it refuses to propose acting under its NAPPRA authority link to temporarily prohibit imports of Asian hosts of the Phytophthoras because it lacks information demonstrating the risk they pose to North American plants!

Sometimes, other agencies step in to fill the gap. Thus, the USDA Forest Service funded research to demonstrate that strains of the ‘ōhi‘a rust pathogen not yet introduced to the U.S. posed a risk to native plants in Hawai`i. (See the linked description and additional information later in this blog.) The Forest Service has also funded “sentinel gardens” – plantings inside the U.S. and abroad that are closely monitored to detect new pests.

British forest pathologist Clive Brasier (white hair) searching for *Phytophthora* species in Vietnam

Three pathogens illustrate the problems clearly:

1) brown alga in the Phytophthora genus;

2) myrtle (or ohia or eucalyptus) rust Austropuccinia psidii; and

3) the ophiostomatoid laurel wilt fungus Raffaelea lauricola.

These organisms present a variety of challenges to various countries. Individually and together, these pathogens threaten to transforms forest floras around the world.

Spread: the first two are spread internationally by movement of plants for planting but also spread locally by rain or wind. The third, laurel wilt fungus, arrived in the U.S. when its insect vector, the redbay ambrosia beetle Xyleborus glabratus, hitched a ride in solid wood packaging material.

How countries prepared for pathogen invasion – not always successfully

Numerous plant pathogens in the Phytophthora genus have long had the attention of phytosanitary officials. However, the species that causes sudden oak death (P. ramorum) was unknown when it was introduced to North America and Europe in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The established phytosanitary measures on two continents failed to detect and prevent its introduction.

areas of Australia vulnerable to myrtle rust; Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

The myrtle rust pathogen was already recognized by phytosanitary officials in Australia, New Zealand, and New Caledonia as a severe potential threat, especially to Eucalyptus in both natural forests and plantations. Its appearance in Hawai`i in 2005 raised the level of concern. However, that awareness neither prevented its entry to Australia (probably, although not certainly, on imported plants or foliage) nor prompted its detection early enough for eradication. New Zealand and New Caledonia became infested by wind transport of the pathogen from Australia. [For a thorough discussion of the Australia’s extensive preparations for possible introduction of this pathogen, see Carnegie and Pegg 2018, full citation at the end of this blog.]

The laurel wilt fungus was unknown before it was detected in Georgia, U.S.A. Phytosanitary officials were certainly aware of the pest risk associated with wood packaging material (see Fading Forests II, chapter 3) but at the time the invasion was detected – 2003 – U.S. regulations required that the wood be debarked only, not treated to kill pests.

redbay tree killed by laurel wilt in Georgia

Pathogens are more difficult to detect and manage than insects. They also get less attention. I can think of three possible reasons: 1) Usually we can’t see a pathogen – we literally can’t put a face on the “enemy”. 2) Disease intensity can vary depending on ecological factors, so it is more difficult to understand than an insect feeding on a plant. 3) In recent decades, many invading insects have been linked to a singlepathway of introduction — wood packaging — while pathogens enter through association with a myriad of imports, especially a variety of imported plants. A single pathway is a concept that is easier to understand and address. Because pathogens get little attention, it is more difficult to obtain data quantifying their risks.

The rapid spread and high mortality of laurel wilt in one host – redbay trees (Persea borbonia) – and threat to a second—sassafras (Sassafras albidum) – have alerted scientists to this threat. The pathogen apparently threatens trees and shrubs in the Lauraceae family that are native to regions other than Southeast Asia. These areas include the tropical Americas, Australia, Madagascar, and islands in the eastern Atlantic (Azores, Canary Islands, and Madeira). I understand that Australian phytosanitary officials are aware of this risk, but I don’t know about officials in the other regions. For example, laurel wilt is not listed among the pathogens thought to pose the greatest risk in Europe, i.e., the A1 list of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO)

Why do some organisms suddenly disperse widely? Who is figuring out why?

The myrtle rust pathogen Austropuccinia psidii experienced a burst of introductions after 2000: it was detected in Hawai`i in 2005, Japan in 2009, Australia in 2010, China in 2011, New Caledonia and South Africa in 2013, Indonesia and Singapore in 2016, and New Zealand in 2017. It is believed to have been carried to Hawai`i on cut vegetation for the floral trade; to New Caledonia and New Zealand by wind from Australia across the Tasman Sea. The introduction pathway to Australia has never been determined, although it first was detected in a nursery. I don’t have information on how it was introduced to Japan or China. Has anyone tried to figure out what triggered this expansion? Was it some fad in horticulture or floriculture? Would it not be useful to learn what happened so we can try to prevent a repetition?

Similar sudden dispersals occurred during roughly the same period for Phytophthora ramorum and the erythrina gall wasp (Quadrastichus erythrinae). The latter spread across the Indian and Pacific oceans within a dozen years of its discovery. Again, was there some fad that prompted international trade in host material? Or did the insect suddenly start utilizing transport facilities such as aircraft interiors or holds? Has anyone tried to figure this out? I doubt anyone is even searching for and recording the presence of the gall wasp now that it is so widespread.

Is the fungal genus Ceratocystis experiencing a similar dispersal burst now? Australian authorities (Carnegie and Pegg 2018) have noted Ceratocystis wilts threatening Acacia and Eucalyptus, as well as Metrosideros.

Efforts often wane at the management and restoration stages.

In the cases of all three pathogens, governments have reduced their efforts once they determined that they could not eradicate the pest.

In North America, USDA APHIS regulates movement of nursery stock with the goal of preventing spread of P. ramorum to the East. The agency has reduced the stringency of its regulations several times over the 18 years it has been regulated. These changes have been made at the urging of the nursery industry in California and Oregon, which are where the pathogen is present. Two years ago, a major regulatory failure resulted in infected plants being shipped to more than 100 retailers in more than a dozen states. This had huge costs to dozens, if not hundreds, of nurseries and state regulatory agencies. Yet APHIS has neither published a straightforward and complete analysis of what went wrong, nor promised to correct any weaknesses revealed by such an analysis. Another apparent regulatory failure is the appearance of the EU1 strain of P. ramorum in the country; this seems to indicate that introductions to North America have occurred more recently than the initial introduction in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

In Hawai`i, concern about the potential impact of myrtle rust on the Islands’ dominant native tree species, ‘ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha), spurred action. Although myrtle rust spread to all the islands within months, the state imposed an emergency rule prohibiting importation to the state of Myrtaceae plants or cut foliage in 2008. This action was relatively rapid, although it was three years after detection of the pathogen. The rule aimed to prevent introduction of possibly more virulent strains. However, it expired in 2009 (emergency rules are effective for only one year).

Concerned about the possible impacts of various strains, the USDA Forest Service sponsored studies in Brazil. Based on their findings, Hawai`i adopted a new permanent rule in 2020. It prohibited importation of plants or foliage of all Myrtaceae species.

Also, APHIS proposed in November 2019 a federal regulation to support the state’s action through its NAPPRA authority. However, it took seven years to resolve regulators’ concerns about the possible presence and virulence of various strains. During this time importation of high-risk materials was not prohibited. As of this writing, it has been 18 months since APHIS proposed the NAPPRA listing, so federal rules still allow imports of high-risk material.

a surprisingly bad outbreak of rust on ‘ōhi‘a in 2016; cause unclear but possibly related to extremely wet weather; photo by J.B. Friday

Meanwhile, the focus of on-the-ground conservation and restoration efforts in Hawai`i has shifted to different pathogens, those causing rapid ‘ōhi‘a death dontmovefirwood.org

In Australia and New Zealand, federal officials determined within months of detection that myrtle rust was too widespread to be eradicated. They now focus on trying to prevent introduction of additional strains. Within the country, Australia prohibits movement of Myrtaceae (hosts of myrtle rust) to the two states so far free of the pathogen (South and West Australia). However, some scientists believe enforcement of these regulations is too lax. In New Zealand, nurseries are reported to be very careful to produce plants free of the pathogen. Is this sufficient?

The Australian government also funds seed collection and other ex situ conservation efforts. But little funding has been available even for impact studies. In Australia, funding from both state (New South Wales) and federal authorities became available only after designation of three plant species as endangered. The federal government also has not designated myrtle rust as a “key threatening process,” which would have opened access to significant funds and possibly prompted more vigorous regulatory efforts. The rust is included as part of the process “novel biota threat to biodiversity”, but scientists and activists consider this to be insufficient. A conservation strategy https://www.anpc.asn.au/myrtle-rust/ was developed by a coalition of non-governmental organizations and state experts. While never adopted by the federal government, this plan became the basis for a state strategy adopted by New South Wales in 2018 – eight years after the pathogen was first detected. For a thorough discussion of weaknesses in the Australian phytosanitary system’s response to the myrtle rust introduction, see Carnegie and Pegg 2018, full citation at the end of this blog.

In June 2021, the Australian Center for Invasive Species Solutions (CISS) and the office of the Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer (CEBO) released a revised National Environment and Community Biosecurity RD&E Strategy. The sponsors sought feedback on the strategy from biosecurity and biodiversity researchers, investors, practitioners, the community, government and industry. Comments are due by 16 July 2021. The strategy is posted at https://haveyoursay.awe.gov.au/necbrdes

In New Zealand, the science plan for myrtle rust was described as advisory. The little funding available precludes resistance breeding and seed collection. There is not even a national program to track the rust’s spread.

Difficulties in Assessing Impact

Myrtle rust affects largely new growth of host plants, including flowers and seedlings and root sprouts. Thus, in many – but not all – host species the threat is primarily to reproduction rather than immediate mortality of mature plants. This delay in impacts complicates assessments of the threat posed by the rust.

NGO Action in Australia

After several years’ effort to build a broader coalition to support implementation of the NGO Action Plan, the Plant Biosecurity Science Foundation sponsored an international workshop in March 2021. The goal was to increase understanding of the rust and its impact and who is doing what. Time was devoted to discussions on how coordinate efforts to both raise awareness and spur government action. State and federal officials played prominent roles in both preparation of the Action Plan and the workshop – and did not shy away from criticizing Australia’s handling of the threat. The descriptions of myrtle rust’s impacts presented at the conference were much more dire than those of a few years ago. Information on impacts has accumulated slowly due to the few scientists doing the work. See https://www.apbsf.org.au/myrtle-rust/

Greater alarm about this pathogen is warranted.

Australia – Evidence of Disaster

According to speakers at the workshop, myrtle rust is causing an expanding disaster in Australia, where the flora is dominated by Myrtaceae. As of spring 2021, myrtle rust is widespread and well established in several native ecosystems in the eastern mainland states of New South Wales and Queensland and part of the Northern Territory. The disease has been detected in Victoria and Tasmania but impact is limited to urban gardens. It has not yet been detected in South or Western Australia. At this time, 382 of Australia’s Myrtaceae species – in 57 genera – are known to host the rust. Three species have been officially listed as critically endangered. Rhodamnia rubescens and Rhodomyrtus psidioides are formerly widespread understory trees in rainforests. Lenwebbia sp. is narrowly endemic, growing in stunted cloud forests on clifftops in a single mountain range. However, experts predict extinction of 16 rainforest species within a generation. (For comparison, only 12 plant species in Australia have become extinct since arrival of the first Europeans 200 years ago.) Several speakers at the conference stressed the speed at which rust is putting plant taxa in peril. Wetlands dominated by Melaleuca are apparently under immediate threat.

[For a thorough discussion of the rust’s impact on plant communities, see Carnegie and Pegg 2018, full citation at the end of this blog.]

New Zealand The vulnerability of each of the 27 – 30 native plant species remains unclear three years after the rust’s introduction.

New Caledonia The highly endemic flora of this small island group appears to be at great risk.

In Hawai`i, the rust has devastated one endangered plant species (Eugenia koolauensis) and damaged a non-endangered congener, E. reinwardtiana. The strain currently on the Islands does not threaten the dominant native tree species, ‘ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha).

Southern Africa

*Syzygium cordatum* South African plant in the Myrtaceae; photo courtesy of Bram van Wyk

South Africa has 24 native plant species in the Myrtaceae. I have been unable to learn the vulnerability of these species to the rust. South Africa relies heavily on plantation of Eucalyptus, some species of which might be vulnerable to the rust. The variant of the rust detected in South Africa 2013 is unique.

*Hetropyxis* sp. – South African plant in the Myrtacae; photo by Daniel L. Nikrent

Posted by Faith Campbell

SOURCES

Angus J. Carnegie, A.J. and G.S. Pegg. 2018. Lessons from the Incursion of Myrtle Rust in Australia. Annual Review of Phytopathology · August 2018

Jung, T.; Horta Jung, M.; Webber, J.F.; Kageyama, K.; Hieno, A.; Masuya, H.; Uematsu, S.; Pérez-Sierra, A.; Harris, A.R.; Forster, J.; et al.. The Destructive Tree Pathogen Phytophthora ramorum Originates from the Laurosilva Forests of East Asia. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ open access!

Rising risk to East Coast as Ship Capacities Expand

They’re coming! As I have blogged frequently over the past year, imports through ports other than Los Angeles-Long Beach are rising – and with them the risk of pest introductions.

Demonstrating this phenomenon is the fact that the largest container ship ever to call on the North American East Coast will arrive this week. The “Marco Polo” can carry 16,022-TEU (twenty-foot equivalent; a standardized measure of container capacity). It is scheduled to call at Nova Scotia today (May 17), then work its way down the coast to New York-New Jersey on May 20, Norfolk on May 23, Savannah on May 26, and Charleston on May 28. Most of these ports have a history of receiving tree-killing pests: beech bark disease, beech leaf weevil, and brown spruce longhorned beetle at Halifax, NS; Asian longhorned beetle at New York and possibly Charleston; redbay ambrosia beetle at Savannah.

The ship’s owner CMA CGM (a French company operating around the globe), also holds the previous record for the largest ship to visit the east Coast: the 15,072-TEU “Brazil” called at New York-New Jersey in September 2020. CMA CGM North America President Ed Aldridge credited the ports’ significant increases in capacity for allowing the increased volume.

CMA CGM is focused on imports from the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Ships headed to the North American East Coast are transitting the Suez Canal.

CMA CGM also operates the “Jules Verne” with a capacity of 16,022-TEU; and the “Ben Franklin” at 18,000-TEU. These ships serve trans-Pacific trade.

During the first 10 months of 2020, 15% of vessel calls were by ships with capacities of 10,000-TEU or higher, up from 11% in 2019.

Source:

https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/cma-cgm/largest-ship-call-east-coast-arrive-next-week-cma-cgm_20210514.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medicum=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%205/17/21%20_PC00000_e-production_E-98549_TF_0517_0617

Sudden Oak Death – two informative articles

I am alerting you to two publications about our “favorite” tree-killing pathogen, Phytopthora ramorum (sudden oak death).

SOD-infected rhododendron in a nursery in Indiana; photo by Indiana Department of Natural Resources

The Role of Nurseries in Spreading SOD

The first article informs the general public and raises important questions: “The Diseased Rhododendrons That Triggered a Federal Plant Hunt” by Ellie Shechet in The New Republic.

Ellie reviews the 2019 episode in which P. ramorum-infected rhododendron plants were shipped to retailers in the East and Midwest. Her article is based on interviews with state plant health and APHIS officials, several scientists and advocates (including me), and the executive director of the Oregon Association of Nurseries (OAN). Ellie notes that infected plants were found at more than 100 locations across 16 states.

Ellie notes that despite the risk to native plants in the eastern deciduous forest and the financial cost of implementing control actions (14 million plants were inspected in Washington State alone), plants have a “green” reputation; they are not recognized as potentially causing environmental harm.

The politics of the situation also are reviewed. She writes that the OAN representative has testified that he helped write the more relaxed regulatory approach that APHIS adopted by “federal order” in 2014 and formalized in changes to the regulations in 2019. APHIS denies this. [The article does not include the information that during this period, state regulatory officials detected P. ramorum-infected plants in between four and ten Oregon nurseries each year.] Ellie notes that individual consumers buying plants have few tools to try to ensure that plants they buy are not infected by SOD or other pathogens.

The fact is that the climate in the coastal areas of California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia is conducive to SOD, so the risk of diseased plants being produced there and sold is constant. The current APHIS regulations do not adequately address this, in my view!

Science: High Risk of Phytophthora Introductions from Southeast Asia

The second article reports results of intense scientific effort: Thomas Jung, Joan Webber, Clive Brasier, and other European plant pathologists report more completely on searches for P. ramorum and other Phytophthora species in East Asia. See the full citation at the end of this blog. [I blogged about their preliminary report a little over a year ago.] Jung et al. conclude that P. ramorum probably originates from the laurosilva forests growing in an arc from eastern Myanmar, across northern Laos, Vietnam, and southwestern China (Yunnan) to Shikoku & Kyushu islands in southwest Japan. The article notes that two other Phytophtoras – P. lateralis (cause of fatal disease on Port-Orford cedar) and P. foliorum – appear to be from the same area. Field science by this team has found 38 previously unknown Phytophthora species in these same forests – and expect that more are present.

Clive Brasier in Vietnam; UK Forestry Research

They warn that the lack of information about potential pathogens in many developing countries presents a high risk of introduction to naïve environments through burgeoning horticultural trade – especially since the World Trade Organization requires that a species be named and identified as posing a specific threat before phytosanitary regulations can be applied. [I addressed the issue of international phytosanitary rules in Fading Forests II; see the link at the end of the blog.]

Other Pathogen Risks from the Region

Phytophthoras transported on imported plants are not the only pathogens that could come from Asia. The vectors and associated pathogens causing laurel wilt disease across the Southeast and Fusarium disease in California are believed also to originate in the same region of Asia. Unlike the Phytophthoras, which are transported primarily through the trade in plants for planting, these fungi travel with the vector beetles in wood packaging material. U.S. imports of goods from Asia – often packaged in wooden crates or pallets – have skyrocketed since July 2020. The ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach, which receive 50% of U.S. imports from Asia, handled 6.3 million TEU (twenty-foot equivalent containers) from Asia during the period July 2020 through February 2021. The average of close to 800,000 TEU per month for eight consecutive months is unprecedented. Other ports also saw increased import volumes from Asia during this period. [I discussed these shifts in my blog in January.] Imports from Asia in 2020 accounted for 67.4% of total US imports from the world. Imports from China specifically accounted for 42.1% of total US imports. [Data on import volumes is from several reports posted by the Journal of Commerce at its website: https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/]

SOURCE

Posted by Faith Campbell

EAB Threat to Eastern Europe

The emerald ash borer (EAB) was first detected in European Russia in 2003, in Moscow. By 2020, EAB was recorded in 16 provinces [=‘oblast’] of European Russia, especially to the West of Moscow towards the borders with Belarus and Ukraine.

Russian scientists have documented that the emerald ash borer is spreading faster in the southwest of the country and in neighboring Ukraine than in the northwest (near St. Petersburg and the Baltic countries).

Despite an abundance of ash [both green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) – native to North America – and European ash F. excelsior], EAB population density in the northwest remains low and damage is in scattered clusters.

However, in September 2020 officials detected an isolated outbreak in a St. Petersburg suburb, 520 km away from the apparent edge of the principal Russian population. The authors believe this outbreak has been present since 2015. They think it is the result of transport of EAB either by “insect-hitchhiking” on vehicles or by movement of plants for planting or other commodities.

The Petersburg population is only 130 km from Estonia and Finland – the border with the European Union.

A thousand kilometers to the south, in southwest Russian eastern Ukraine, an outbreak was reported in June 2019. By the next summer, EAB were detected more than 100 km to the West. While this outbreak is still 800 km from Ukraine’s border with eastern Europe (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania), the authors note that rapid spread is likely since F. excelsior and F. pennsylvanica have been extensively planted along roads, railways, field shelter belts, and urban greenings.

The slower spread in the North is attributed to colder temperatures, the local abundance of food, and possibly pressure by the native parasitoid Spathius polonicus Niezabitowski (note that USDA APHIS has approved two Spathius species as biocontrol agents in the U.S.). On the other hand, the climate is milder in Saint Petersburg (along the coast) than it is inland; and ash woodlands are common along the Baltic coast.

Noting that ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) has devastated more than 95% of European ash populations, the authors express concern about the future of ash.

SOURCE

Musolin, D.L.; Selikhovkin, A.V.; Peregudova, E.Y.; Popovichev, B.G.; Mandelshtam, M.Y.; Baranchikov, Y.N.; Vasaitis, R. North-Westward Expansion of the Invasive Range of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) towards the EU: From Moscow to Saint Petersburg. Forests 2021, 12, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040502

Posted by Faith Campbell

13 (at Least) Exotic Tussock Moths Pose High Risk to North America

*Lymantria monacha* 1 Novlinder, Saxafraga -Ab H Bass

The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) has released a scientific study, Risks Associated with the Introduction of Exotic Tussock Moth Species (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Lymantriinae) of Potential Concern to the NAPPO Region.

The report identifies 13 species of tussock moths — other than several Asian gypsy moths – that pose a serious risk to Canada, Mexico, and the United States and that should be addressed as quarantine pests. However, vital information was missing in key areas, on one variable for more than 84% of the 79 species screened. Thus many additional species were not fully evaluated; some of these might also pose serious risks. Study findings

North American countries already regulate several species of Lymantria native to east Asia: Lymantria dispar asiatica, L. dispar japonica, L. albescens (includes L. postalba), and L. umbrosa. NAPPO’s Regional Standard for Phytosanitary Measure (RSPM) No. 33url sets up a system requiring inspection and cleaning of marine vessels travelling from China, Korea, and Russia to the NAPPO region during the specified risk periods (SRP) of moth flight and egg mass deposition by these species.

However, the U.S. and Canada have been intercepting egg masses belonging to other lymantriid species, especially Lymantria lucescens, Leucoma salicis, Lymantria mathura, and Lymantria xylina. In response, the NAPPO countries initiated this study. All life stages — egg masses, larvae, pupae, and adults — have been intercepted in the NAPPO region primarily during maritime port inspections of vessels and shipping containers originating in Asia (Russia, Japan, China, Philippines, and Korea) and Europe.

There are more than 2,400 species of Lymantriids found on all continents except Antarctica. The group is also missing from Pacific islands, including New Zealand and Hawai`i. The greatest diversity occurs in the tropical areas of Africa, India, and Southeast Asia.

Lymantriid moths can have high fecundity, which can result in large population increases in a single generation. Some undergo cyclical outbreaks resulting in large-scale defoliation of their host plants.

The larvae are highly polyphagous. Some species feed on more than 150 hosts, especially trees – both deciduous and coniferous. The host plants are better known in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere; little is known about hosts of tropical moth species.

The study concluded that there is a high likelihood of introduction of lymantriid species into the NAPPO region due to the high volume of trade coming from Asia, the large number of probable lymantriid host species in North America, and the apparently suitable climatic conditions. While there are several possible pathways for transporting the moths from Asia to North America, the most important is the presence of masses of resilient eggs on surfaces of ships and hard-sided cargo (containers, motor vehicles, etc.). Once in North American ports, mated female moths can disperse either by flight (some species) or by “ballooning” on wind currents.

The authors initially collected data on 189 species. The report does not indicate whether they focused on Asia, but the results seem to be limited largely to that region. The authors winnowed the initial list down to 79 species for further analysis due largely to lack of resources and information. The Risk Assessment Model and Data Sheet are available here.

The study concluded that 13 species pose a high and that the NAPPO countries should designate them as “actionable pests” and take other actions to prevent their introduction. The high-risk species are Lymantria monacha, L. mathura, L. lunata and L. xylina, Euproctis kargalika, Euproctis subflava, Euproctis chrysorrhoea, Leucoma candida, Orgyia thyellina, Euproctis lunata, Leucom wltshirei, Lymantria fumida, and Sarsina violascens.

Evaluation Process

The 79 species were evaluated based on eight questions:

1) Are adult females attracted to light? (The authors thought such behavior would make them more likely to be flying during risk periods and attracted to ports and vessels).

2) Has the species been reported as a contaminant pest of commodities in trade in its

overwintering stage? (This presence was thought to result in species that are likely to move via trade and have the highest risk of survival and introduction).

3) Is the species reported to cause economic or environmental damage in its native range?

4) Does the species have larvae capable of ballooning?

5) Does the species have adult females capable of flight?

6) Does the species’ life history include a dormant stage able to withstand harsh environmental conditions? (Such species were thought to be more likely to survive transit to the NAPPO region and to persist once introduced).

7) Is the species capable of natural dispersal farther than 1 km/year?

8) Is the species reported to have allergenic properties?

Questions 2 & 3 were given more weight because they were considered to have a greater effect on the likelihood of the species being introduced and causing unacceptable impacts.

Weaknesses

Both the apparent focus on Asia and the emphasis on question 3 result in a process that was unlikely to uncover any potential pests that are currently “unknown unknowns”.

Vitally important information was missing for many of the species. For six of the eight questions, the evaluation found no information for more than 50 percent of the species evaluated. Information was lacking for Question 2 – one of the questions assigned greater weight – on 84 percent of the species! Ability to disperse more than 1 km per year had an even higher percentage of answers as “unknown”. Regarding “ballooning” of larvae, 80 percent of the species could not be classified.

These data gaps created a high level of uncertainty regarding the risk rankings of those species ranked as “low” risk. See Figure 2 from the report.

One of the reasons cited for the information gaps was the inability to access literature in foreign languages, specifically Russian. Surely both the U.S. and Canada have access to native Russian speakers!

The authors admit that the lack of information “affected the risk scores and possibly the risk categories for certain species.” They call for additional research and periodic reviews of the report’s findings.

They note that the report is a quick screening tool, not a rigorous pest risk assessment. They suggested additional research and sharing of interception data to address the information gaps. The research should focus on species’ flight periods and biological information relevant to regulatory actions; and detection tools (e.g., traps, lures, predictive phenology models, and molecular identification tools).

They note that the three countries currently limit surveillance and management programs to a few taxa.

I concur with the authors’ recommendation that a moth species be considered to pose a serious threat if it feeds on a host included in a tree or shrub genus that has economic value in the NAPPO region. (Under the terms of the International Plant Protection Organization, ISPM#5, environmental damage is included in the term “economic value”.)

Posted by Faith Campbell

Funding – Appropriations – Crucial to Protecting Our Forests from Pests

Two USDA agencies lead efforts to protect U.S. wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and disease-causing pathogens:

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has legal responsibility for preventing introduction of tree-killing pests, detecting newly introduced pests, and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize the damage they cause.
USDA Forest Service (USFS)
- Forest Health Management (FHM) program assists partner agencies to counter pests where they are first found – usually near cities – and when they spread. This work falls primarily to the Cooperative component of Forest Health Management program. The Federal lands component helps the USFS, National Park Service, and other federal agencies counter pests that have spread to more rural/wildland areas.
- Research and Development (R&D) program supports research into pest-host relationships, introduction & spread pathways, management strategies (including biocontrol) and host resistance breeding

Since 2010, several new tree-killing pests have been detected in the US, including polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, two rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogens, and Mediterranean oak beetle. Over the same period. the Asian longhorned beetle has been detected in two new states – Ohio and South Carolina; the emerald ash borer expanded its range from 14 to 35 states; laurel wilt disease spread from five states to 11; a second strain of the sudden oak death fungus appeared in Oregon and California forests; and whitebark pine has been proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. (I have blogged often about policy failures that have contributed to these introductions; today I am focused on agencies’ ability to respond.)

Funding agencies’ essential programs has fallen behind these calamities. APHIS funding has been steady or has risen slowly – at least not dropping – but not enough to deal with the growing threat.

Meanwhile, the key USFS programs have been cut by half or more. In 2010, USFS FHP and Research, together, allocated $32 million to efforts to understand and manage a dozen introduced pests: Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, hemlock woolly adelgid, goldspotted oak borer, laurel wilt, thousand cankers disease, European gypsy moth, Port-Orford cedar root disease, Sirex woodwasp, and white pine blister rust (especially on whitebark pine). By 2021, this total had fallen to about $10 million. There was no indication that any USFS R&D funding has been allocated to recently detected, highly damaging pests, i.e., rapid ʻōhiʻa death, the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, Mediterranean oak beetle, or beech leaf disease. USFS FHP has funded work on some of these pests through its “emerging pest” fund – but that fund is limited to $500,000 for the entire country.

At present, more than 228 tree species growing in the “lower 48” states are infested by an exotic pest. The 15 most damaging of the introduced species threaten 41.1% of the total live forest biomass in the 48 conterminous states. Additional trees on the Hawaiian and other Pacific islands are also being killed by non-native insects and pathogens. Non-native forest pests have caused a 5% increase in total mortality by tree volume nation-wide. The greatest increases in mortality rates have been a four-fold increase for redbay; and a three-fold increase each for ash, beech, and hemlock.

Introductions of tree-killing pests occur because we import things! The highly damaging wood-borers can arrive in crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made of wood. Other pests – especially plant diseases – come here on imported plants. Gypsy moth and spotted lanternfly egg masses can be attached to virtually any hard surface, e.g., steel slabs, vehicles, stone, containers, or ship superstructures.

Imports from Asia pose a particularly high risk – illustrated by the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, sudden oak death, and spotted lanternfly.

U.S. imports from Asia rose almost a third between 2019 and 2020. No part of the country is safe. While nearly half of imports from Asia enter via Los Angeles/Long Beach, California, another 21% entered via New York – New Jersey and Savannah. Other ports in the “Top 10” were the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma, Oakland, Norfolk, Houston, Charleston, Baltimore, and Mobile.

Pests don’t stay in the cities where they first arrive. Instead, they proliferate and spread to other vulnerable trees – often assisted by people moving firewood, plants or household goods. For example, less than 20 years after their first detections, the emerald ash borer has spread to 35 states, the redbay ambrosia beetle to 11.

[For more information, read my earlier blogs posted here or species-specific descriptions here.]

Please contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to push for increased funding for key programs managed by these two agencies. I describe funding needs below. I list members of the appropriate Congressional subcommittees at the end of this blog.

USDA APHIS programs (all included under “Plant Protection and Quarantine”)

APHIS Program	FY 2020 (millions)	FY 2021 (millions)	FY 2022 ask
Tree & Wood Pest	$60.000	$60.456	$70 million
Specialty Crops	$192.000	$196.553	$200 million
Pest Detection	$27.446	$27.733	$30 million
Methods Development	$20.686	$20.844	$25 million

APHIS’ “Tree & Wood Pests” account has traditionally supported eradication and control efforts targeting only three insects: the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), emerald ash borer (EAB), and gypsy moth. The program to eradicate the ALB has received about two-thirds of the funds — $40 million. There is encouraging progress in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Clearly, this program must be maintained until final success is achieved. Plus the program must now counter the Charleston, South Carolina, outbreak, where more than 4,000 infested trees have been detected in an area of 58 square miles. (See my blog here, which describes the difficult conditions arising from wetlands in South Carolina.)

APHIS has terminated its emerald ash borer regulatory program, which had previously been funded at about $7 million per year. (See my blog). APHIS has said it will now focus on production and release of biocontrol agents, although it has not indicated the funding level. It is probable that EAB will now spread more rapidly to the mountain and Pacific Coast states, threatening both riparian woodlands and urban forests.

APHIS’ “Specialty Crops” program funds APHIS’ regulation of nursery operations to prevent spread of the sudden oak death pathogen. APHIS must improve that program to avoid a repetition of the 2019 incident, in which plants infected by the SOD pathogen were shipped to 14 states.

This budget line also supports efforts to manage the spotted lanternfly, which has spread from Pennsylvania to seven other mid-Atlantic states.

The “Pest Detection” budget line supports the collaborative state –federal program that detects newly introduced pests. Successful eradication and containment programs depend on early detection.

The “Methods Development” program assists APHIS in developing detection and eradication tools essential for an effective response to new pests.

USDA Forest Service

USFS PROGRAM	FY20	FY21	FY 22 ask
FHP Coop Lands	$32 M	$30.747M	$51 million (to cover both program work & personnel costs)
FHP Federal lands	$19 M	$15.485M	$25 million (ditto)

Research & Develop	$305 million	$258.7 million; of which about $3.6 million allocated to invasive species	$320 million; seek report language specifying $5 million for invasive species

The Mission of the USDA Forest Service is “To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” To achieve this mission, the Forest Service needs adequate funding to address the difficult challenge of containing the spread of introduced pests, protecting host tree species from mortality caused by those pests, and restoring decimated tree species to the forest. Meeting this challenge requires gaining scientific understanding of the pest’s and host’s biology and what motivates people to avoid activities that facilitate pests’ spread (e.g., transporting firewood that might harbor wood-boring insects).

Given the hundreds of damaging non-native pests, the Forest Service must set priorities. One attempt to do so is “Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation). Priority species for forests on the continent are listed below. A separate study is under way for forests in Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia)
American chestnut (Castanea dentata)
Allegheny chinquapin (C. pumila)
Ozark chinquapin (C. pumila var. ozarkensis)
redbay (Persea borbonia)
Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
pumpkin ash (F. profunda)
Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana)
Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus)
butternut (Juglans cinerea)
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
white ash (Fraxinus americana)
black ash (F. nigra)
green ash (F. pennsylvanica).

These 15 priority species should be the focus of both comprehensive gene conservation programs and tree breeding and restoration programs. Unfortunately, USFS programs do not reflect this recommendation.

Forest Health and Management Programs (FHM)

Despite severe cuts (see above), FHM has continued its commitment to projects addressing Port-Orford-cedar root disease, threats to whitebark pine, and thousand cankers disease; plus it is support for managing “lingering” ash which appear to survive EAB attack. However, I am concerned about past reductions in programs targetting laurel wilt and sudden oak death. And as I noted above, several highly-damaging pests lack a “program” at all. I applaud establishment of an “emerging pest” line. However, competition will be fierce for the $500,000 – pitting the invasive shot hole borers in California against the coconut rhinoceros beetle and rapid ‘ōhi‘a death in Hawai`i, against beech leaf disease in Ohio to Massachusetts.

And where is federal leadership on managing continued spread of the emerald ash borer, now that the USDA APHIS has terminated its regulatory program?

USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research Program

Effective programs to prevent, suppress, and eradicate non-native pests depend on understanding of the pest-host relationship gained through research. In recent years, about 1.5% of the USFS Research budget has been allocated to the non-native pests listed above. Past reductions have hit programs targetting hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, sudden oak death, and the Sirex woodwasp. Programs targetting several other high-impact pests, including the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt have been funded at a steady rate. I could find no documentation of USDA Forest Service research into beech leaf disease, rapid ʻōhiʻa death, or other pests currently killing trees.

Members of Key Congressional Committees

Note that some Representatives or Senators are members of subcommittees that fund both APHIS and the USFS. It is especially important that they hear from their constituents!

APHIS is funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill. Members of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development:

Sanford Bishop Jr., Chairman GA
Chellie Pingree ME
Mark Pocan WI
Lauren Underwood IL
Barbara Lee CA
Betty McCollum MN
Debbie Wasserman Schultz FL
Henry Cuellar TX
Grace Meng NY
Jeff Fortenberry, Ranking Member NE
Robert Aderholt AL
Andy Harris MD
David Valadao CA
John Moolenaar MI
Dan Newhouse WA

Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development:

Tammy Baldwin, Chair WI
John Merkley OR
Dianne Feinstein CA
Jon Tester MT
Patrick Leahy VT
Brian Schatz HI
Martin Heinrich NM
Ranking Republican John Hoeven ND
Mitch McConnell KY
Susan Collins ME
Roy Blunt MO
Jerry Moran KS
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
Mike Braun IN

The USFS is funded through the Interior appropriations bill. Members of the House Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies: add states

Chellie Pingree, Chair ME
Betty McCollum MN
Derek Kilmer WA
Josh Harder CA
Susie Lee NV
Marcy Kaptur OH
Matt Cartwright PA
David Joyce, Ranking Member NC
Mike Simpson ID
Chris Stewart UT
Mark Amodei NV

Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies:

Jeff Merkley, chair OR
Dianne Feinstein CA
Patrick Leahy VT
Jack Reed RI
Jon Tester MT
Chris van Hollen MD
Martin Heinrich NM
Ranking Rep. Lisa Murkowski AK
Roy Blunt MO
Mitch McConnell KY
Shelly Moore Capito WV
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
Bill Hagerty TN
Marco Rubio FL

Posted by Faith Campbell