spotted lanternfly – target of many projects funded by USDA’s Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program; photo by Holly Raguza of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
I am belatedly reporting on the forest-pest projects funded by annual grants under the Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program ( of the Plant Protection Act). As usual, APHIS funded projects totaling $62.975 million in FY24. In total, 353 projects were funded. These projects represented 70% of the 504 project proposals submitted (the total funding sought was $106 M).
APHIS reserved $11 million for responding to P&P emergencies. I applaud this choice since the agency’s annual appropriation provides only a completely inadequate $1 million (or less) to cover emergencies.
APHIS notes that since initiation of the Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program in 2009, it has funded more than 5,500 projects with a total of nearly $870 million.
In FY24 the program funded 30 more projects than the 322 projects funded in FY23. blog 320 The FY24 allocation provides more than $1 million more for goal area 1S — Enhance Plant Pest/Disease Survey (from $14.4 million to $15.7 million). This was balanced by small decreases for the other goal areas: enhancing mitigation capabilities received $13.6 million; inspections at domestic sites important in invasive species’ spread received $6.3 million; pest identification and detection received $5.3 million; and outreach and education received $4.1 million. Projects safeguarding nursery production and those improving pest and disease analysis each received about $2 million.
By my calculation – subject to error! – about $7.5 million went to projects clearly dealing with forest pests [12% of total funding]. This is a welcome increase from FY23 – when funding of such projects reached about $6.5 million (a little over 10%). blog 320 Funding for tree pest projects might be higher. Some $1.9 million is allocated to surveys of grapevines and orchards — hosts of the spotted lanternfly (SLF). However, it is not clear whether these projects are focused on detecting and managing SLF; they might have a much broader goal. If we do include these projects, the total for tree-killing pests rises to $9.4 million — nearly 15% of the total.
Over both FY23 and FY24, the majority of funds went to similar topics: survey and management of sudden oak death in nurseries; surveys for bark beetles, Asian defoliators, and forest pests generally; and outreach programs targetting the spotted lanternfly. In FY24, just under $100,000 paid for efforts to develop tools for rapid detection of laurel wilt link to DMF in avocados – that is, in a crop rather than the natural environment.
No projects addressing tree or forest pests were funded in seven states or territories: Guam, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Utah. This was three fewer states than in FY23. In neither year do I know whether these states submitted proposals in this category that ended up not being funded.
In FY24, spotted lanternfly is by far the pest addressed by the most projects. As noted above, I can’t be precise about the number because of the lack of information about the 23 projects that fund pest surveys of grapes and/or tree crops that are SLF hosts. Eleven projects named SLF specifically. A final project (not included in above) is one funding registration of Verticillium nonalfalfae as a biocontrol for Ailanthus altissima – an invasive tree that is the preferred host of SLF.
The District of Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma each had one tree pest project funded. In the cases of Kansas and Missouri, the single project was surveys for thousand cankers disease of walnut. Three other states — Iowa, Maryland, and Pennsylvania — also obtained funding to survey for TCD.
The single Oklahoma project concerned efforts to ensure that the sudden oak death pathogen(Phytopthora ramorum) is not present in nurseries. (An Oklahoma wholesaler was one of the hubs of this pathogen’s spread to 18 states in 2019). Eleven other states were also funded to survey their nurseries for P. ramorum: Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. P. ramorum is a “program pest” in 2024. That is, APHIS had designated it as a regulated pest for which the agency wished to fill knowledge gaps about its distribution. I note that last year APHIS published a risk assessment that downplayed the likelihood that P. ramorum would establish in the eastern states. Is APHIS seeking more information to test this conclusion?
In a separate case, Oregon received $76,000 to evaluating the threat to nurseries and forests arising from the presence in the state’s forests of two strains or lineages of P. ramorum that previously had not been extant in the environment of North America.
Another approximately 53 projects fund surveys for tree pests other than spotted lanternfly; these are often fairly general surveys, such as for woodborers or “Asian defoliators”. About ten projects fund management efforts – including evaluation of the efficacy of emerald ash borer biocontrol programs.
Last year I noted that two states – Mississippi and Nevada — had projects to survey the “palm commodity”. Hawai`i joined this group in FY24. The project descriptions don’t specify which pests are the targets. The South American palm weevil (Rhynchophorus palmarum) seems most probable; it is established in far southern California and neighboring Mexico. APHIS prepared a risk assessment on the species in 2012. link? In Hawa`ii, concern probably focuses on the coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros). link? There are other threats to palms, e.g., the red palm weevil (Rhynochophorus ferrugineus), link? and a deadly Fusarium wilt. link?
native palms in the desert at Anza-Borrego, California; photo by F.T. Campbell
California has native palms (Washingtonia filifera); southern states from Texas to at least South Carolina have native palmettos. Of course, many species of palms are important ornamental plants in these states, and dates are raised commercially.
Another “program pest” that I have blogged about in the past is box tree moth. link to blog 287 In FY24 five projects addressed this pest, including surveys and efforts to develop better control tools.
beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris) in Anza-Borrego, California; photo by F.T. Campbell
I am pleased by continued funding of projects trying to utilize biocontrol agents to protect two groups of cactus severely threatened by non-native insects: lepidoptera that attack flat-padded prickly pear cacti (Opuntia spp.) link to DMF and the mealybug that attacks columnar cacti of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. link to DMF
vulnerable cactus on St. John, US Virgin Islands; photo by F.T. Campbell
I applaud the decision to fund projects focused on determining the efficacy of biocontrol projects. As noted above, three projects are asking these questions in the case of the emerald ash borer. link to DMF Another project funds production, release, and efficacy evaluation of biocontrol agents targetting Brazilian peppertree in Florida & Texas.
I am also pleased that three projects assist Washington State in its efforts to eradicate the invasion by giant hornets from Asia. link to blogs & Hornet Herald – no detections in 2023 … A company in California also received funding to developing hornet detection tools.
Nineteen projects funded outreach efforts, including continued funding for the “Don’t Move Firewood” program. In addition to those focused on spotted lanternfly, such projects also included other firewood programs, Asian longhorned beetle awareness, and the nursery industry.
I note that while California received funding for 27 projects, none dealt with any of several deadly tree pests extant in the state – goldspotted oak borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, Mediterranean oak borer, and the palm weevils. Nor did Hawai`i obtain funding to address rapid ohia death. Did no one submit proposals to address any of the many issues impeding management of these killers?
South American palm weevil; photo by Allan Hopkins via Flickr
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
invasion of wild/black mustard Brassica nigra; photo by carlbegge via Flickr
A California state legislator has proposed a bill to expand state efforts to counter invasive species. Should we support it – and others like it in other states?
The bill is Assembly Bill 2827 introduced by Assembly Member (and former Majority Leader) Eloise Reyes of the 50th Assembly District. She represents urban parts of southwestern San Bernardino County, including the cities of Rialto, Colton, and Fontana.
According to media reports, Reyes was prompted to act by the current outbreak of exotic fruit flies, which as of some months ago resulted in detections in 15 California counties.
The bill is much broader than agricultural pests, however. It would find and declare that it is a primary goal of the state to prevent the introduction, and suppress the spread, of invasive species within its borders. I applaud the language of the “findings” section:
(a) Invasive species have the potential to cause extensive damage to California’s natural and working landscapes, native species, agriculture, the public, and economy.
(b) Invasive species can threaten native flora and fauna, disrupt ecosystems, damage critical infrastructure, and result in further loss of biodiversity.
Paragraph (c) cites rising threats associated with increased movement of goods, international travel, and climate change — all said to create conditions that may enhance the survival, reproduction, and spread of these invasive species, posing additional threats to the state.
(d) It is in the best interest of the state to adopt a proactive and coordinated approach to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species.
California sycamore attacked by invasive shot hole borer; photo by Beatriz Nobua-Behrmann
The bill calls for
The state agencies, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to develop and implement pertinent strategies to protect the state’s agriculture, environment, and natural resources.
The state to invest in research, outreach, and education programs to raise awareness and promote responsible practices among residents, industries, and visitors.
State agencies to coordinate efforts with federal, local, and tribal authorities.
However, the bill falls short when it comes to action. Having declared that countering bioinvasion is “a primary goal of the state”, and mandated the above efforts, the bill says only that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (which has responsibility for plant pests) is to allocate funds, if available, to implement and enforce this article. Under this provision, significant action is likely to depend on holding agencies accountable and providing increased funding.
removing coast live oak killed by goldspotted oak borer; photo by F.T. Campbell
Would this proposed legislation make a practical difference? I have often complained that CDFA has not taken action to protect the state’s wonderful flora. For example, CDFA does not regulate firewood to prevent movement of pests within the State. It has not regulated numerous invasive plants or several wood-boring insects. These include the goldspotted oak borer; the polyphagous and Kuroshio shothole borers; and the Mediterranean oak borer.
On the other hand, CDFA is quick to act against pests that might enter the state from elsewhere in the country, e.g., spongy moth (European or Asian), emerald ash borer and spotted lanternfly.
I hope Californians and the several non-governmental organizations focused on invasive species will lobby the legislature to adopt Assembly Bill 2827. I hope further that they will try to identify and secure a source of funds to support the mandated action by CDFA and other agencies responsible for managing the fauna, flora, and other taxa to which invasive species belong.
I applaud Ms. Reyes’ initiative. I hope legislators in other states will consider proposing similar bills.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Whitebark pine – a foundational & keystone species in high elevation mountains of the West; photo by Walter Siegmund
A British scientist has proposed a new way to conduct early pest detection surveillance that she thinks will better serve resource managers: prioritize ecosystems which would suffer the greatest alteration if a non-native plant pest decimated one or more plant species. She says scientists should focus on foundational species and maintaining habitat resilience.
Dr. Ruth J. Mitchell leads the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Group within the Ecological Sciences Department at the James Hutton Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. The Institute works on issues relevant to sustainable management of natural resources. I provide a full citation of her article at the end of the blog.
Dr. Mitchell’s focus is on protecting biological diversity. She worries that introduced plant pests can drive large-scale declines in native plant species. She mentions several examples, including chestnut blight and ash decline. Those declines, in turn, can cause a range of cascading effects on associated species that use the host plant for feeding, breeding and shelter, and on ecosystem functioning. To be prepared to counter this level of risk, managers of natural habitats need to know which habitats and plants are at greatest risk in order to prioritize surveillance of the most likely human actions and sites; and allocate resources to address the most damaging invasions.
Her proposal: prioritize host plant species or habitats which ecological theory indicates an invasion would have the greatest ecological impact. In other words, focus on “foundational species” — plant species that drive key ecosystem functions; or low (plant) diversity habitats — based on the assumption that diverse communities are more stable and resilient than less diverse communities.
Mitchell notes that ecological theory posits that if a foundation species is lost or declines, its disappearance will have a greater effect on the ecosystem than if non-foundation species are impacted. She believes that although there is no list of foundation species, scientific staff can develop appropriate lists for their site. For her study, she made the simplistic assumption that those species that occur at high abundance are most likely to be foundation species. Regarding the second, habitat-resilience criterion, Mitchell assumed that a pest which eliminates a plant species in a low-diversity habitat is likely to have a greater ecological impact on that habitat’s functioning than would extinction of a species in a high-diversity habitat, which is likely to have redundancies.
Mitchell asserts that these approaches to surveillance take account of an invasion’s impacts on broader associated species and ecosystem functions – on biodiversity broadly. These suggested methods have other advantages, too. They avoid the bias in existing lists of pests, which consist predominantly plants of commercial importance; and they don’t need to be updated frequently.
Mitchell identifies four ways to prioritize surveillance efforts based on the potential host rather than the potential pest. The surveillance monitoring might target:
(1) Plant genera known to host the pests (including pathogens) most likely to establish (Host-pest);
(2) Habitats harboring hosts for the greatest number of pests most likely to establish (Habitat-pest);
(3) Plants classed as foundation species (Foundation-species);
(4) Habitats with low plant species diversity and hence low resilience (Habitat-resilience).
Mitchell analyzed the damage that 91 pest species might cause to plant species which occur at 25% or higher cover in 12 broad habitat types in the United Kingdom. As a case study, she also looked at 22 vegetation communities within one of those habitat types (heathland). (See the article for a discussion of how she derived her list of 91 pests, their hosts, and the entity responsible for designating the habitat types.)
For both hosts and habitats, Mitchell compared results of two approaches: (a) assessment based on lists of known known pests; and (b) assessment based on potential ecological impact. Surveillance based on known risks i.e. lists of plant pests(i.e., the Hosts-pest and Habitat-pest methods) assumes that scientists have a complete list of pests, their risk of establishment, and their impacts. We know that is not the case. As an illustration, Mitchell’s review of the literature identified 142 insects or pathogens hosted by plant genera present on British moorlands that are not listed as pests by the appropriate British authority, the UK Plant Health Risk Register (PHRR).
To conduct a “Foundation-species” surveillance program, one must first identify foundational plant species. Mitchell defined those as species that constitute more than 75% cover in any plant community. (While this is admittedly an oversimplification, Mitchell says that the loss or severe decline of such abundant species will have a major impact on community composition.) One then prioritizes surveillance of these species – regardless of whether they are at risk from a known pest. This method emphasizes attention to potential impact to the habitat or plant community. Furthermore, this approach accommodates detection of the ‘known unknown’ pests.
To conduct a “Habitat-resilience” surveillance program, one must first identify the number of species in each habitat or vegetation community that occur at more than 25% cover. One then prioritizes surveillance of those habitats with the lowest average species diversity.
Differences in results
When basing the analysis on lists of known pests threatening all 12 habitat types, two genera stood out as at particular risk: Prunus and Solanum. Each consists of hosts supporting more than 20 of the 91 pests. Another 17 genera comprised hosts of six or more pests. Many of these genera include species that are important in ornamental horticulture or production forestry. Mitchell considers this a flaw. She points out that different genera ranked highest under this system when the focus narrowed to heathland communities. In heathlands, the genera comprising hosts of the most pests were Calluna, Erica, Festuca and Vaccinium.
American elm – a deserving priority for pest surveillance! Photo by F.T. Campbell
I note that from my perspective – concern about pests that kill native trees – several of the 17 genera included in the “known pests” analysis do raise alarm: Acer, Salix, Ulmus, Fraxinus, Pinus, Quercus, Betula, Viburnum, and Juniperus.
Mitchell then tested the results of focusing on habitat types where the highest number of pests were likely to become established. This method gave highest priority to woodlands – because plants in this habitat type can host 87 of the 91 pests. The second priority should be open habitats (defined as disturbed habitats, arable weed communities, weedy pastures, paths, verges, wasteland and urban habitats). Plants in the “open habitat” type can host 54 pests. (While Mitchell did not specify whether she excluded non-native plant species from her calculations, she does write generally about impacts on native flora – so I believe she did.)
Looking specifically at the 22 heathland vegetation communities, Mitchell identified four communities as able to host the greatest number of pests so deserving surveillance priority.
When she focused on “foundation species”, Mitchell found a range of plant species that occur at 75% or greater cover in each habitat. Again, the highest number (71 species) occur in woodlands; the lowest (11 species) grow in Calcicolous grasslands. In the 22 heathland plant communities, the number of plant species meeting this criterion numbered fewer than five in each. Two communities have no “foundation” species for surveillance since no vascular plant species that occur at 75% cover. In both the habitat and community cases, the surveillance priority of managers of each habitat type would concentrate on the species that fit this criterion for the appropriate biome.
Finally, Mitchell identified those habitats or communities with the lowest species richness / fewest species as being at greatest risk of unravelling if they lose one or more species to an introduced pest. The data indicated these to be the Salt Marsh and Swamps and tall-herb fens systems. At the other end of the spectrum, Mesotrophic grasslands and Woodlands have the lowest priority for surveillance because they are species-rich. Of course, communities within a habitat type vary greatly in their species richness and associated resilience. For example, the one heathland community which has only two species occurring at 25% or greater cover has a higher priority than the communities with more such species.
heath – Erica carnea ; photo by H. Zell
Mitchell asserts that prioritizing plant species or habitats for surveillance based on potential ecological impact rather than risk (known pests) provides a less biased process and allows for the detection of the known unknowns pests. The resulting set of priority surveillance targets differs significantly from the set developed by reliance on pest lists. For example, looking at heathland communities, the Host-pest and Foundation-species methodologies share only three of 24 host genera. The differences arise from the PHRR’s bias oflisting predominantly species relevant to agriculture, horticulture, or forestry. None of these genera is listed under the Foundation-species methodology.
Since trade in plants for planting is the main pathway of introduction of non-native pests, Mitchell concedes that plant species in natural habitats that are closely related to species of commercial importance might be more threatened than other species. However, such an approach takes no account of the potential for a pest to jump hosts.
Prioritization based on potential ecological impact rather than known risk has many advantages. The Foundation-species method prioritizes those plant species whose decline would have the greatest impact on wider biological diversity, ecosystem function and service delivery. That is, it incorporates consideration of the wider risks to the whole ecosystem rather than just the risk to a specific plant species. The Habitat-resilience method similarly takes account of the wider ecosystem level impacts, targeting those habitats or communities that might recover less quickly
On a practical level, these approach do not require surveyors (who might be citizen scientists or land manager) to identify specific pests. Instead, the surveyors report signs of unhealthy-looking plants to the relevant authorities, who then identify the cause.
These methods address a universal problem for plant health: the many pests that are previously unknown before their emergence in new regions and on naïve hosts. Mitchell briefly mentions scientists’ continue struggle to identify traits that can forecast potential pest impacts. [See my blogs re: studies by Mech, Schulz, Raffa]
redbay tree killed by laurel wilt disease – a pathogen unknown until it was introduced to southeastern U.S. Photo by F.T. Campbell
Mitchell suggests several ways to adapt these approaches to other countries or improve their targetting. First, scientists can link various pest/host databases (e.g., EPPO or CABI databases) to landcover or biome data and national or regional vegetation classification systems to make the system appropriate for their country or region. Incorporating attention to dirty equipment and movement of soil &/or plants is fitting at sites undergoing habitat restoration.
It is possible to refine the “foundation species” approach by applying a trait-based approach. She names two examples.
Finally, the Habitat-resilience method could be enhanced by integrating metrics of plant phylogenetic and functional diversity to the idea functional redundancy.
Mitchell stresses the need to unite efforts by many agencies and stakeholders within each country, as well as across political boundaries. She asserts that such collaborative efforts are more efficient / less costly, so lessening the restrictions imposed by resource limits. She also advocates reliance on citizen science and “passive surveillance” or chance observations by professionals agents, land-users and owners. These steps can facilitate large-scale surveillance that would otherwise be financially infeasible.
Mitchell highlights the difficulties imposed by the division of responsibilities. Usually the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) is responsible for early detection surveillance. The agency’s goal is to detect pests sufficiently early to facilitate eradication – or at least effective control. Its program is linked to regulatory requirements under the international plant health system. link to blogs & FF reports While the NPPO’s responsibilities include both cultivated and uncultivated (wild) plants, in many countries the NPPO prioritizes plants with commercial value. (This is certainly true in the United States – see my previous blogs & the Fading Forest reports – links provided below; and apparently the United Kingdom [Dr. Mitchell’s article] and Australia.) Protecting plant health in habitats is usually the task of conservation organizations. Mitchell calls for unifying these programs. CISP is advocating draft legislation that aims to fix this gap in the U.S. link to Welsh bill
What do you think? Is this approach as promising as Dr. Mitchell believes? Is it feasible?
I certainly concur that pest-based surveillance ignores the various categories of “unknown” pests and focus on commercially important species to the detriment of ecologically important ones. However, can such a system provide “early detection” of introduced pests? We have learned that insects and pathogens causing noticeable damage in natural environments have probably been present in a country or region for years – or decades. Perhaps these ecosystem-based criteria should be applied as guidance for selecting species to be monitored in “sentinel plant” programs. The plantings would be established in situations likely to receive pests early in their invasion process, e.g., warehouse districts (for pests in wood packaging) and ornamental nurseries that import growing stock.
Mitchell says the same issues pertain with regard to wildlife disease. See her article for sources.
SOURCE
Mitchell, R.J. 2024. A host-based approach for the prioritization of surveillance of plant pests and pathogens in wild flora and natural habitats in the UK. Biol Invasions (2024) 26:1125–1137 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03233-x
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
American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus); photo by Will Brown via Wikimedia; one of invasive animals deliberately introduced to Europe in the past
In February 2024 the European Parliament approved legislation outlawing “ecocide” and providing sanctions for environmental crimes. Member states now have two years to enshrine its provisions in national law.
The new rules update the list of environmental crimes adopted in 2008 and enhance the sanctions. The goal is to ensure more effective enforcement. Listed among the offenses are:
the import and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases,
the import of invasive species,
the illegal depletion of water resources, and
pollution caused by ships.
This action followed an in-depth analysis of the failures of the previous EU environmental directive, first adopted in 2008 (Directive 2008/99/EC). The review found that:
The Directive had little effect on the ground.
Over the 10 years since its adoption few environmental crime cases were successfully investigated and sentenced.
Sanction levels were too low to dissuade violations.
There had been little systematic cross-border cooperation.
EU Member states were not enforcing the Directive’s provisions. They had provided insufficient resources to the task. They had not developed the needed specialized knowledge and public awareness. They were not sharing information or coordinating either among individual governments’ several agencies or with neighboring countries.
The review found that poor data hampered attempts by both the EU body and national policy-makers to evaluate the Directive’s efficacy.
The new Directive attempts to address these weaknesses. To me, the most important change is that complying with a permit no longer frees a company or its leadership from criminal liability. These individuals now have a “duty of care”. According to Antonius Manders, Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), if new information shows that actions conducted under the permit are “causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop.” This action reverses the previous EU environmental crime directive – and most member state laws. Until now, environmental crime could be punished only if it is unlawful; as long as an enterprise was complying with a permit, its actions would not be considered unlawful. Michael Faure, a professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University, calls this change revolutionary.
Lorton Prison; via Flickr
Another step was to make corporate leadership personally liable to penalties, including imprisonment. If a company’s actions cause substantial environmental harm, the CEOs and board members can face prison sentences of up to eight years. If the environmental harm results in the death of any person, the penalty can be increased to ten years.
Financial penalties were also raised. Each Member state sets the fines within certain parameters. Fines may be based on either a proportion of annual worldwide turnover (3 to 5%) or set at a fixed fine (up to 40 million euros). Companies might also be obliged to reinstate the damaged environment or compensate for the damage caused.Companies might also lose their licenses or access to public funding, or even be forced to close.
Proponents of making ecocide the fifth international crime at the International Criminal Court argue that the updated directive effectively criminalizes “ecocide”— defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”
Individual member states also decide whether the directive will apply to offences committed outside EU borders by EU companies.
Some members of the European Parliament advocate for an even stronger stance: creation of a public prosecutor at the European Union level. They hope that the Council of Europe will incorporate this idea during its ongoing revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. To me, this seems unlikely since the current text of the Convention, adopted by the Council in 1998, has never been ratified so it has not come into force.
The Council of Europe covers a wider geographic area than the European Union – 46 member states compared to 27. Members of the Council of Europe which are not in the EU include the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania; several mini-states, e.g., Monaco and San Remo; and countries in arguably neighboring regions, e.g., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.
While I rejoice that invasive species are included in the new Directive, I confess that I am uncertain about the extent to which this inclusion will advance efforts to prevent spread. The species under consideration would apparently have to be identified by some European body as “invasive” and its importation restricted. As we know, many of the most damaging species are not recognized as invasive before their introduction to a naïve environment. On the other side, the requirement that companies recognize new information and halt damaging actions – even when complying with a permit! – provides for needed flexibility.
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
container ship at Port of Savannah; photo by F.T. Campbell
Import Volumes in 2023
U.S. imports in 2023 fell about 13% from 2022 levels, returning to approximate pre-pandemic 2019 levels (Mongelluzzo 2024). The 2023 total was 24.2 million TEUs, (a united equal to twenty-foot container) compared to nearly 28 million TEUs in the previous two years (JoC.com February 2024). Imports from Asia in 2023 totalled 16.2 million TEUs. This was above the 2019 level (15.9 million TEUs) but below the more than 18.5 million TEUs in 2022 and 2021 (Mongelluzzo 2024).
This decline in imports from Asia reflected trends in the first months of 2023. This trend reversed sharply in October; during that month, containerized imports were 12.4% higher than in October 2022, even 1.1% higher than in pre-COVID October 2019 (Mongelluzzo, 2023). The upward trend continued through November: U.S. imports from Asia that month were 10.8% higher than the same month in 2022 (Journal of Commerce).
New Shipping Routes = More Possible Pests
chir pine (Pinus roxburghii) – a 5-needle pine native to the Himalaya in India; photo by Treesftf via Flickr
Proposed new shipping routes will expand the range of pests that can be introduced to eastern ports. For example, in November 2023, the Indian company Ocean Network Express announced plans to begin direct shipments from India to the Ports of New York-New Jersey, Savannah, Jacksonville, Charleston, and Norfolk. Expected cargo includes electronics, apparel, textiles, and foods. (Angell, 2023a) Have USDA authorities evaluated what pest species might be introduced from India?
Traders also expect rising trade volumes from South America in response to shifts in supply chains. Industries include textiles, pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, information technology, and agriculture.
The U.S. is importing more chilled produce from the west coast of South America to meet demand when these fruits are out-of-season in the U.S. The number of refrigerated containers rose to 395,572 TEUs (equivalents of twenty-foot containers). (Knowles. 2023) The Port of Savannah is actively courting these imports; it can now handle more than 3,000 refrigerated containers at one time and is expanding its capacity (Griffis 2023). Chile has a Mediterranean climate similar to that of California; Dr. Mark Hoddle reports several pests of avocado are found in neighboring Peru.
blueberries in Chile; Jardin Botanico Nacional, Chile via Flickr
Problems in the canals likely to push trade from Asia back to California ports
In an editorial published on January 25, 2024, The Washington Post reports that drought has caused water levels in the Panama Canal to fall below what is needed to operate the locks. In normal years, about 5% of global maritime trade passes through the canal. This includes nearly half the containers shipped from northeast Asia to the eastern United States. The reduction in numbers of ships moving through the Canal has affected supply chains in agriculture and energy. The situation is further complicated by wars in the Middle East hampering shipments through the Suez Canal.
The Post describes the Panamanian government’s efforts to buttress the canal, which is a major source of income. Droughts elsewhere are also impeding transport, e.g., the Amazon, Rhine, and Mississippi rivers. In the Post’s view, “threats to global growth will make it harder to … respond to poverty and hunger. … Ultimately, prevention, by arresting the emission of planet-warming greenhouse gases, is the only way to stop the list of looming climate-related threats to the global economy from getting even longer.”
Here, my focus is on what this means for volumes of ships and containers visiting ports in the eastern United States – and the associated risks of pest introductions.
Ambitious Plan for Eastern Ports
As I have pointed out in previous blogs [on the website home page, scroll below the “Archives” to “Categories”, click on “wood packaging”, especially this one], ports in eastern and Gulf Coast states have been eagerly conducting dredging operations and making other preparations to attract large container ships bringing goods from Asia. As of just a few months ago, several ports had ambitious plans. The Port of Virginia will reach a depth of 55 feet this year (Angell, 2023b). The Port of Charleston already has a 52-foot depth. Nevertheless, the port authority hopes to further deepen the channel so that it can quintuple its capacity over a decade — from 500,000 TEUs to 2.5 million TEUs (Anonymous, 2024). The Port of New York-New Jersey has approved $19 million to study deepening the ship channels from 50 to 55 feet. The Port Authority hopes to persuade Congress to share the costs (Angell, 2023b). None of the reporting mentions any consideration of the possible pest risk despite past disasters – e.g., introduction of the redbay ambrosia beetle to Savannah or Asian longhorned beetle to Charleston.
redbay mortality in Claxton, GA; photo by Scott Cameron
The proportion of total U.S. imports going to West Coast ports in 2023 was 53.6% (Mongelluzzo, 2023). Journal of Commerce’ long-time analyst Bill Mongelluzzo expects the effective closure of both the Suez (attacks on shipping) and Panama canals will push more imports from Asia to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These linked ports now handle 32% of all U.S. imports. Mongelluzzo expects the increased volume to create new congestion problems (Mongelluzzo 2024).
containers at Long Beach in early 2000s; photo courtesy of Port of Long Beach
SOURCES
Angell, M. 2023a. ONE readies Indian-U.S. East Cost service as part of 2024 network rollout. Journal of Commerce. November 27, 2023.
TACF back-crossed American-Chinese chestnut; photo by F.T. Campbell
I have advocated for considerably expanding efforts to breed trees resistant to non-native pests (including pathogens) for a decade. Again and again, I and others have pointed out the dire consequences for our forests if we Americans do not rise to the challenge.
In 2014, Scott Schlarbaum – coauthor of Fading Forests III – American Forests: What Choice Will We Make? warned that without restoration becoming an integral part of a strategy addressing non-native plant pests, American ecosystems are doomed to continuing transformation. Once established, a non-native pest is never eliminated, but its impact can be reduced through a combination of measures – as long as support is made available. Scott advised initiating a germplasm conservation strategy when invasion is imminent or once the pest is likely to become a resident pest. (See Chapter 6).
I have posted seven blogs since August 2021 describing the current status of various efforts and urging the U.S. Government and conservation organizations to step up. [To view these blogs, go to www.nivemnic.us, scroll below Archives to “Categories” and click on “resistance breeding.”
More, and Recent, Voices: Implications of Not Acting
More recently, several USDA Forest Service (USFS) experts, including Richard Sniezko, C. Dana Nelson, and Jennifer Koch, have published articles making the same point. These scientists note that many of the decimated species were formerly among the most common trees in our forests. Therefore, the cumulative effect of their disappearance on forest species composition and function is multiplied.
One blog, posted in 2022, is particularly pertinent. It summarizes a special issue of the journal Plants, People, Planet devoted to resistance breeding. The opening essay, by R.J.A. Buggs, concisely reviews six major reasons why so many believe that resistance breeding is a failed strategy.
Port-Orford cedar – one of the trees for which resistance breeding has been successful; photo courtesy of Richard Sniezko, USFS
Others say there have been successes – all through application of classic tree improvement measures, not “genetic engineering.” Pike, Koch and Nelson (2021) list as successes Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), the western five-needle pine species, koa (Acacia koa), and resistance to fusiform rust (Cronartium quercuum f. sp. fusiforme) in the commercially-important loblolly (Pinus taeda) and slash (P. elliottii) pines. They also cite encouraging progress by The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF) through backcross breeding of America and Asian chestnuts and a USFS/private foundation effort to expand the genetic base of American elms (Ulmus americana). I regret to say this, but some of these efforts seem to me to be still in experimental stages or — at best — early in widespread – ‘though still experimental — plantings.
Participants in a 2021 Purdue University workshop have again called for greatly expanding breeding. See the special issue of New Forests, Vol. 54 Issue 4. Once again, experts reiterate the urgency of acting, then outline the opportunities and challenges.
In one of the articles (Jacobs et al.) several people – including me! – note that several keystone tree species or genera in North America and Europe have been driven to functional extinction by non-native pests. By this we mean they are no longer sufficiently abundant and/or of adequate size to reproduce sexually or perform their ecological function. Examples include – on both continents – ashes (Fraxinus) and elms; and on North America – American chestnut (Castanea dentata), butternut (Juglans cinerea), and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis).If these threats are left unchecked, these at-risk tree species might develop truncated ranges, lose genetic diversity, and face becoming threatened, endangered, or extinct.
In another article, Nelson says the question that should be asked about applying genetic engineering (GE) techniques to tree breeding is whether we should let a species be reduced to a marginal role — or disappear — when GE provides a solution to saving and restoring the species. His case study is a detailed history of TACF’s development of a transgenic American chestnut (called “Darling 58”). He points out that decades of breeding efforts were based on the hope of developing blight resistance within the native gene pool or to obtain resistance from related species through hybridization. However, those efforts have not yet provided trees suitable for restoring the “king of the Appalachian forest” to native landscapes. Nelson wrote his description before TACF discovered flaws in the GE trees they had been working with and decided to pursue different GE “lines” (see below).
Barriers
The overall strategy is clear. Schlarbaum, Sniezko, and Dana Nelson all describe essentially the same steps, built on the same kinds of expertise and facilities.
Of course, each species will require years of input by a range of experts. These challenges are not trivial. However, the experts named above agree that the principal barrier is the absence of sustained, long-term commitment of resources and facilities. With sufficient resources, many of the scientific challenge can be overcome for at least some of the species at risk.
So, what are the scientific challenges? First, scientists must assess whether the tree species contains sufficient genetic variation in resistance. This involves locating candidate resistant trees; developing and applying short-term assay(s) to screen hundreds or thousands of candidate trees; and determining the levels of resistance present. Second, scientists must develop resistant planting stock for use in restoration. This stage includes scaling up the screening protocol; selecting the resistant candidates or progeny to be used; breeding to increase resistance; establishing seed orchards or other methods to deliver large numbers of resistant stock for planting; and additional field trials to further validate and delineate resistance. Sniezko and Koch (2017) and Sniezko and Nelson (2022) discuss the challenges and describe successes.
facilities at Dorena Genetic Resource Center; photos courtesy of Richard Sniezko, USFS
Complicating the restoration phase is the fact that the resistant tree must be able to thrive and compete in an ecosystem that has changed greatly from that in which it formerly resided. Causes of these changes include repercussions from the absence of the tree species – and possibly associated species; the possible presence of other biotic stresses (pests); and climate change. This is discussed by Nelson (2022). See also my blog.
Successfully completing these steps requires a long-term commitment, which includes significant funding and strong supportive infrastructure. Schlarbaum pointed out that the public and politicians don’t understand the complexity of the restoration challenge and the resources required. He documented the shrinking tree improvement infrastructure as of 2014. At that time, funding for all USFS regional breeding programs was just $6 million. State and land grant university breeding programs were fragmented and seriously underfunded. Only 28 states still had some type of tree improvement activity – and some of these programs were only seed orchards, not active breeding and testing programs. Members of university-industrial cooperatives focus on a small number of commercial species – which are not the species threatened by non-native pests. I believe these resources have shrunk even farther in the decade since 2014.
A separate source of funds for resistance breeding is the Forest Health Protection program, which is under the Deputy Chief for State, Private, and Tribal Forestry rather than the Deputy Chief for Research and Development. While nation-wide data on seed or scion collection or screening to identify and evaluate genetic resistance are poorly reported, Coleman et al. indicate that the USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center screens unspecified “hundreds” of seed lots for resistance to pathogens annually. The Center also participates in seed, cone, and scion collections, especially of white pines vulnerable to white pine blister rust (WPBR). Supplemental Table S3 lists projects funded over the two decades analyzed by Coleman et al. (2011 – 2020). These included efforts to identify and evaluate possible genetic bases for resistance to, e.g., hemlock woolly adelgid, balsam woolly adelgid, laurel wilt, emerald ash borer, butternut canker, rapid ʻōhiʻa death; and gene conservation for eastern hemlock, ashes, chestnut, in addition to the five-needle pines. Currently, FHP allocates $1.2 million annually to support the group of activities called Genetic Conservation, Resistance and Restoration (R. Cooksey, pers. comm.).
American beech grafts to be tested for resistance to beech bark disease; at USFS center in Delaware, Ohio; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS
USFS scientists involved in these projects describe challenges arising from efforts to cobble together funding from these many sources to support coherent programs. Overall funding levels still fall short of the need, and failure to obtain funding for one component of a program stymies the entire endeavor.
However, some developments are encouraging. The number of private foundations devoted to tree breeding has increased in the last decade. The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF) and American Chestnut Cooperators Foundation (ACCF) have been joined by the White Pine Ecosystem Foundation, the Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative, Forest Restoration Alliance, ‘Ohi‘a Disease Resistance Program … These organizations raise awareness, coordinate efforts by multiple parties, and provide opportunities for individuals to contribute funds and volunteer work.
In Hawai`i, disease resistance programs with both koa (Dudley et al.) and ʻōhiʻa ((Metrosideros polymorpha) (Luiz et al.) are active. Work with ash species to find and develop resistance to emerald ash borer is under way but limited due to lack of funds.
Finally, we can persuade Congress to incorporate the provisions of two bills, H.R. 3174 and S. 1238, into the next Farm Bill. The bills would, inter alia, create two grant program. One would fund research addressing specific questions impeding the recovery of native tree species that have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native plant pests. The second would fund implementation of projects to restore these pest-decimated tree species to the forest.
Funded projects would be required to be part of a forest restoration strategy that incorporates a majority of the following components:
(1) Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material;
(2) Production of propagules of the target tree species in numbers sufficient for landscape-scale restoration;
(3) Preparation of planting sites in the target tree species’ former habitats;
Facilities needed to support successful breeding programs
Sniezko and Nelson identified these needs as follows:
(a) growing space (e.g., greenhouses);
(b) seed handling and cold storage capacity;
(c) inoculation infrastructure;
(d) field sites for testing;
(e) database capability for collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data;
(f) areas for seed orchard development;
(g) skilled personnel (tree breeders, data managers, technicians, administrative support personnel, and access to expertise in pathology and entomology).
There are very few facilities dedicated primarily to development of populations of trees with resistance to non-native pests; the most notable is the Dorena Genetic Resource Center. Even the existing programs require significant funding increases to accelerate current programs or expand to address additional species. Sniezko and Nelson stress further that a resistance breeding program has different objectives, magnitude and focus than most research projects. It is applied science, that is, an action-oriented effort that is solution-minded—countering the impact of a major disturbance caused by a pest (in our case, a non-native pest).
Schlarbaum provides a shorter but similar list of facilities needed:
production of propagules (seed or clones);
mass propagation in growing facilities, e.g., bare-root seedling nursery or greenhouses;
site preparation of former habitat and planting; and
post-planting maintenance.
Schlarbaum emphasized that each of these activities requires different skill sets, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure.
Genetic Engineering as a Specific Tool
There is considerable interest in the potential role of genetic engineering in pest resistance breeding. None of the successful programs world-wide has yet used genetic engineering (Sniezko and Koch 2017). While incorporating it into holistic breeding programs might result in greater efficiency for certain processes, it raises legal and social acceptability issues. Jacobs et al. discuss the type of education and outreach program needed to generate widespread public support this approach to tree species “rescues.” They call for USDA Forest Service to lead this education effort.
The focus of the 2021 workshop hosted by Purdue University was to explore the pros and cons of using biotechnology in restoring pest-threatened forest tree species. The special issue of New Forests contains several participants’ analyses.
The overall conclusions are that:
“Genetic engineering” – defined as “any technique that uses recombinant, synthesized, or amplified nucleic acids to modify a genome” – is only one type of biotechnology applicable to tree breeding. Other biotechnologies include tissue culture-based propagation, molecular-based genetic markers, gene cloning and sequencing, and genome mapping and sequencing.
These new technologies can increase the efficiency of more traditional breeding techniques, However, biotechnologies cannot substitute for holistic programs that incorporate all helpful methods. Careful consideration goes into selecting which techniques are appropriate for a particular host-pest system.
Each tree species has unique needs regarding seed or scion collection; seedling propagation in nurseries; site preparation and planting techniques; and management of regeneration after its re-introduction into forests. Scientists don’t yet understand these various needs of many threatened species.
In the eastern U.S., the tree-breeding infrastructure is based in the Southeast and focused on a few pine species grown commercially. The facilities do not match the greatest need. That is, many of the at-risk species are hardwoods native to the Northeast.
Current resources are inadequate to support the sustained, long-term commitment of resources and facilities necessary to be successful.
Dana Nelson addressed the role of genetic engineering (GE) in detail. He emphasized repeatedly that GE is not a short-cut to tree improvement. Incorporating a GE component does not avoid the other steps. It can, though, provide new possibilities to address problems. Nelson says the crucial, initial question is – can GE solve the specific forest conservation or management problem more effectively and efficiently than existing methods? There are some important subtleties to consider. First, success does not require achieving immunity (100% resistance); the level of resistance needs to be only sufficient to allow the tree species to survive, reproduce and co-evolve with the pest. Second, “efficiency” is an important consideration. We cannot afford delay because during those years or decades the wild tree loses genetic variability as more trees die. Also, changes in the environment continues to change, and the decimated tree species is not adapting.
If genetic engineering promises to contribute meaningfully, then the breeders must answer several follow-up questions before proceeding to develop a specific plan. Nelson also stresses that the planned activities must be integrated with an ongoing tree breeding program to ensure project success.
Nelson provides a lengthy description of the process of integrating genetic engineering into tree breeding programs.
GE in Chestnut Breeding – Setback
The most prominent breeding effort incorporating genetic engineering in the U.S. has been The American Chestnut Foundation’s (TACF) program to restore American chestnut (Castanea dentata). For decades, TACF has pursued development of trees resistant to the fungus which causes chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica). Over the past decade, hopes have centered on a genetically engineered line into which was inserted a gene from wheat (oxalate oxidase; OxO). The OxO gene detoxifies the oxalic acid produced by the chestnut blight fungus and thus prevents the cankers from killing the tree.
Years of tests have shown the gene to be effective and to cause no environmental harm. In 2023, when trees in outside test plots grew larger, scientists observed disappointing results. Trees’ blight tolerance varied greatly. Worse, resistant trees grew more slowly and exhibited lower overall fitness. [For a full discussion of the issues, visit TACF’s website] Prompted by these disappointments, scientists carried out further molecular analyses. They found that the OxO gene was on a different chromosome than expected.
TACF researchers now suspect that the trees’ variable performance stems primarily from the placement of the OxO gene and the fact that the gene is always “switched on”. That constant expression appears to result in high metabolic costs for the trees. Since all the genetic lines developed to date have this defect, TACF is no longer pursuing research efforts with any of the GE trees developed to date. The Foundation believes it would be irresponsible to continue efforts – by itself and by partners – focused on a genetic line that looks unable to compete successfully when introduced to the forest.
Instead, TACF has begun investigating other transgenic lines that use a “wound inducible” promoter that switches on the OxO gene only in cells where the plant is wounded. Researchers at both the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF) and the University of Georgia are working with a variety of inducible promoters. TACF is also testing whether inducible OxO expression can be “stacked”onto genes for blight resistance present in the backcross hybrids. Finally, TACF and Virginia Tech are also exploring whether resistance can be enhanced by insertion of genes from Chinese chestnut directly into American chestnut using methods similar to OxO insertion.
It will be years before we know if these approaches provide sufficient levels of resistance. TACF will undertake more extensive testing for efficacy through the tree’s full life cycle – in the lab, greenhouse, and field – before submitting a new GE organism to regulators for review. Meanwhile, it will continue rigorous testing for plant health and environmental risks and will strengthen the cooperative structure to facilitate sharing of intellectual property and provide full transparency.
The Darling GE line was the most important transgenic hybrid chestnut line TACF had invested in. So this is a major setback – and comes when regulatory approval seemed near.
Let’s keep this in perspective, however. As a colleague has said, based on his years of teaching science to middle school students, “There are no failures in science, just reductions in the unknown; Edison failed a thousand times before getting the light bulb right, etc….” The technology is ready when it is ready. In addition, he praised TACF for choosing to explain its decision frankly: “nothing builds credibility like early failures openly admitted.”
Meanwhile, TACF continues to make gains in blight resistance with its traditional American chestnut backcross hybrid breeding program. They have established a genetically diverse, reproducing population of thousands of trees representing hundreds of breeding lines. These trees are planted in TACF’s expansive network of germplasm conservation orchards and regional breeding and backcross orchards. They have substantially increased resistance to both the blight and Phytophthora cinnanomi in these populations. The future inclusion of transgenic and/or gene-edited trees will further increase those gains.
Another Approach
Meantime, the American Chestnut Cooperators Foundation (ACCF), which breeds from persistent pure American chestnut, now has some trees that are nearly 50 years old. The program has bred five generations of pure American chestnuts that show durable blight resistance. Many trees are 60 feet tall or higher; they produce nuts. Vice President Jenny Abla (pers. comm.) reports that they show excellent canker response (swollen and superficial). The picture shows one of their most notable stands, which is in the Jefferson National Forest. Dr. Sniezko is exploring whether this program shows sufficient promise to justify increased support from the USFS.
ACCF chestnut trees; photo courtesy of Jenna Abla
Improving Coordination – will funds follow?
In July 2023, representatives from essentially all the forest tree resistance breeding programs in the U.S. met at Dorena Genetic Resource Center in Oregon to discuss their current successes and how to fast-track all programs. This is the first such meeting since 1982 (Richard Sniezko, pers. comm.). I encourage us all to study the report when it emerges and encourage USFS leadership to support the more unified enterprise.
Status of Efforts to Conserve Other Tree Species
The special issue of New Forests (Vol. 54 Issue 4) included several articles exploring the specifics of breeding elms, ashes, and ʻōhiʻa. These describe difficult challenges … and scientists determined to make progress on overcoming them.
“survival” American elm at Longwood Gardens; photo by F.T. Campbell
Elms (Ulmus spp.) (see article by Martin et al.)
Let’s not forget that elms were keystone species in Europe and North America until attacked by two epidemics of “Dutch” elm disease during the 20th Century. While hybrid elms are available for urban plantings, many consider them not appropriate for planting in natural forests because these genotypes are not native.
Martin et al. describe a bewildering conglomeration of complexities and possibilities arising from biotic and abiotic factors. Initiation and especially intensity of the disease in a particular tree depend on
the species or strain of the tree, vectoring beetle, and pathogen;
timing of the attack; and
adequacy of water supplies at that time.
Possible targets for manipulation include the pathogen, its beetle vector, and the tree’s response — either in its bark or xylem. Martin et al. suggest that a combination of resistance to the pathogen within the xylem, resistance to beetles’ feeding wounds, and lowering tree clues that attract the beetles could considerably enhance longer-term overall resistance in the field.
However, verifying which approaches produce the best result will be complicated by the trees’ sensitivity to environmental factors such as season and water supply. Apparent resistance might actually be tied to, for example, low water supplies during the spring when the attack occurred.
Restoration strategies, including resistance to pests, must accommodate the diverse ecological conditions in the species’ large range, the rapid evolution of the Ophiostoma pathogens; and other pests and pathogens that attack elms. Nor do scientists know appropriate planting strategies.
Martin et al. believe Dutch elm disease is unlikely to be spread by movement of living elm plants, although other pests could be (and have been).
ash trees to be tested for resistance to emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS
Ashes (Fraxinus spp.)
While a USFS team led by Jennifer Koch link are conducting much of the on-the-ground efforts to breed ash trees resistant to the emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus plannipennis), Stanley et al. note that scientists cannot simply cross most North American ash species with the Asian ash, F. mandshurica, because the two groups are sexually incompatible. Scientists have instead focused on trying to enhance the resistance to EAB that is apparently present in a small proportion of ash trees, called “lingering ash.” Scientists funded by USDA Forest Service have already devoted over 14 years to finding such lingering ash to be tested for resistance.
Testing these trees is not simple (see Stanley et al.). But scientists are overcoming some of the obstacles. They have shown that the capability of a few green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (less than 1%) to defend themselves from EAB attack is genetic. Genes determine the relative abundance of specific metabolites manufactured by the tree; high levels kill more beetle larvae. These trees’ tolerance is not immunity but it might be sufficient to allow the tree to survive and grow. The level of metabolites synthesized by succeeding generations of the tree can probably also be enhanced by breeding.
To restore ash it is necessary to propagate large numbers of clones and to root the resulting embryos. This has been challenging. Merkle et al. describe five years of efforts to develop techniques that allow in vitro propagation to speed up selection and breeding. These techniques will facilitate establishment of numerous groups of propagules with the genetic differences needed to accommodate the large geographic range of several ash trees. For example, the green ash range covers more than half the continental U.S. plus multiple Canadian provinces.
ʻōhiʻa on lava field, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
‘Ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha)
‘Ohi‘a is the most widespread tree species on the Hawaiian Islands. It provides vitally important habitat for conservation of countless taxa of endemic birds, insects, and plants. It is also of great cultural importance for Native Hawaiians.
Luiz et al. review the tree species’ importance, the many threats to native Hawaiian forests, and a coalition’s efforts to counter the most recent – and alarming – threat, rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD).
Rapid ʻōhiʻa death is caused by two introduced species of in the genus Ceratocystis. C. lukuohia colonizes the tree’s sapwood and kills the tree quickly. This disease is present on two islands, Hawai`i and Kaua‘i. It has the potential to devastate ‘ohi‘a forests across the state. The other pathogen, C. huliohia, invades the phloem, cambium, and outer xylem, resulting in a well-defined area of necrotic tissue and slower mortality. This disease is on Hawai`i and Kaua‘i, plus Maui and O‘ahu. The two pathogens have different origins. C. lukuohia belongs to a genetic line that is based in Latin America, C. huliohia to a genetic line based in Asia and Australia.
Conservationists formed a coalition and developed a strategy to guide the process of identifying and developing disease resistance in M. polymorpha and, if possible, other Metrosideros species on the Islands. Luiz et al. describe the coalition’s many activities. The challenges are familiar ones:
obtaining sufficient facilities to screen large numbers of seedlings;
developing techniques for inoculation, propagation, and speeding up growth of seedlings;
improving techniques for detecting individual infected and healthy trees across difficult terrain;
testing trees native to all parts of the tree’s range, which is not large in area, but covers a great variety of elevations and climates); and
needing to develop trees resistant to both C. lukuohia and C. huliohia.
Luiz et al. reiterate the necessity to manage all threats to healthy ʻōhiʻa stands, for example, by
curtailing human spead of infected wood, using both quarantines and supportive public education;
testing repellants to reduce beetle attack.
reducing injuries to trees by fencing forests and removing feral ungulates. link to website?
SOURCES
Buggs, R.J.A. 2020. Changing perceptions of tree resistance research. Plants, People, Planet. 2020;2:2–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10089
Coleman, T.W., A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17
Dudley, N.; Jones, T.; Gerber, K.; Ross-Davis, A.L.; Sniezko, R.A.; Cannon, P.; Dobbs, J. 2020. Establishment of a Genetically Diverse, Disease-Resistant Acacia koa A. Gray Seed Orchard in Kokee, Kauai: Early Growth, Form, and Survival. Forests 2020, 11, 1276 https://doi.org/10.3390/f11121276
Jacobs, D.F., R. Kasten Dumroese, A.N. Brennan, F.T. Campbell, A.O. Conrad, J.A. Delborne, et al. 2023. Reintroduction of at-risk forest tree species using biotech depends on regulatory policy, informed
by science and with public support. New Forests (2023) 54:587–604
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-023-09980-y
Luiz, B.C., C.P. Giardina, L.M. Keith, D.F. Jacobs, R.A. Sniezko, M.A. Hughes, J.B. Friday, P. Cannon, R. Hauff, K. Francisco, M.M. Chau, N. Dudley, A. Yeh, G. Asner, R.E. Martin, R. Perroy, B.J. Tucker, A. Evangelista, V. Fernandez, C. Martins-Keli.iho.omalu, K. Santos, R. Ohara. 2023. A framework for establishing a rapid ‘Ohi‘a death resistance program. New Forests https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-021-09896-5
Martín, J.A., J. Domínguez, A. Solla, C.M. Brasier, J.F. Webber, A. Santini, C. Martínez-Arias, L. Bernier, L. Gil1. 2023. Complexities underlying the breeding and deployment of Dutch elm disease resistant elms. New Forests https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-021-09865-y
Merkle, S.A., J.L. Koch, A.R. Tull, J.E. Dassow, D.W. Carey, B.F. Barnes, M.W.M. Richins, P.M. Montello, K.R. Eidle, L.T. House, D.A. Herms and K.J.K. Gandhi. 2023. Application of somatic embryogenesis for development of emerald ash borer-resistant white ash and green ash varietals. New Forests https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-022-09903-2
Nelson, C.D. 2023. Tree breeding, a necessary complement to genetic engineering. New Forests
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-022-09931-z
Pike, C.C., J. Koch, C.D. Nelson. 2021. Breeding for Resistance to Tree Pests: Successes, Challenges, and a Guide to the Future. Journal of Forestry, Volume 119, Issue 1, January 2021, Pages 96–105, https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa049
Sniezko, R.A., J. Koch, J-J. Liu and J. Romero-Severson. 2023. Will Genomic Info Facilitate Forest Tree Breeding for Disease and Pest Resistance? Forests 2023, 14, 2382.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122382
Sniezko, R.A. and C.D. Nelson. 2022. Chapter 10, Resistance breeding against tree pathogens. In Asiegbu and Kovalchuk, editors. Forest Microbiology Volume 2: Forest Tree Health; 1st Edition. Elsevier
Stanley, R.K., Carey, D.W., Mason, M.E., Doran, A., Wolf, J., Otoo, K.O., Poland, T.M., Koch, J.L., Jones, A.D. and Romero-Severson, J. 2023. Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) infestation bioassays and metabolic profiles of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) provide evidence for an induced host defensive response to larval infestation. Front. For. Glob. Change 6:1166421. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2023.1166421
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
Gettysburg battlefield; now under attack by emerald ash borer (see below)
Kathryn Miller and colleagues (full citation at end of blog) have published a study that examined the status and trends of forest regeneration in 39 National parks from Virginia to Maine. Four-fifths of the forest plots in the study are classified as mature or late successional – so at first glance the forests look healthy. However, the researchers made an alarming finding: in 27 of 39 parks, forest regeneration is failing – either imminently or probably. Acadia National Park is an exception; it is the only park in the study experiencing healthy regeneration. They warn that without intense, sustained – and expensive! – intervention, these forests are likely to be converted to other types of ecosystems. [I blogged recently about findings regarding regeneration in eastern forests: here and here and here and here.
The forests’ understories have too few seedlings and – especially – saplings to maintain themselves. Worse, in many cases the seedlings and saplings are not the same species as the mature trees that form the canopy. The saplings are shorter species that never reach the canopy. That is, species like pawpaw (Asimina triloba), American holly (Ilex opaca), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) are regenerating, rather than the oaks (Quercus spp.), hickories (Carya spp.), maples (Acer spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.) that constitute the canopies of mature forests in these parks.
Miller and colleagues call these “regeneration mismatches.” Inabout half of the parks, these native canopy tree species make up less than half of current saplings and seedlings. This situation suggests the forests’ species composition will shift substantially, thereby undermining resilience in the face of other challenges, such as invasive plants and pests and climate change.
In many of these National parks, Miller and colleagues found abundant ash regeneration. For example, ash (Fraxinus spp.) constitute more than half of all seedlings in four parks (Johnstown Flood and Friendship Hill in Pennsylvania; Catoctin Mountain in Maryland; Manassas Battlefield in Virginia). Miller and colleagues consigned ash species to the “subcanopy class” because the emerald ash borer (EAB) has caused such high mortality of mature trees. They think regard it unlikely that current and future seedlings will ever reach full size. The devastating impact is most starkly illustrated in Gettysburg National Battlefield Park. Consistent deer management since 1996 has been rewarded: the Park ranks at the top for regeneration among the 39 parks. However, more than half of the seedlings and a quarter of the saplings are ashes. EAB has shifted the Park’s otherwise secure regeneration status into probable failure.
When regeneration fails: too many deer
Throughout the study region, the overwhelming reason regeneration fails is browsing by overabundant deer. The level of deer browse is considered “acceptable” in only four parks. Deer suppress the number of seedlings and saplings. They also skew species composition of native subcanopy species toward those less palatable. Miller and colleagues found that canopy tree density and cover and past human land use had minimal impacts on seedling and sapling numbers or species composition.
Overabundant deer also promote invasion and spread of non-native plants, which are the second most important factor impeding regeneration. Together, invasive plants and non-native earthworms are ecosystem engineers that negatively impact soil and cause cascades of biotic and abiotic impacts throughout forest ecosystems.
Many of the parks experiencing the most severe impacts of chronic deer browse also have the highest invasions by non-native plants. A natural process of regeneration occurs when the death or collapse of mature trees create gaps in the forest canopy. Where deer and invasive shrubs overlap, this process is often hijacked. Instead of nearby native tree species accelerating their growth toward the canopy, thickets of invasive shrubs crowd the space.
For this reason, Miller and colleagues recommend that park management prioritize treating invasive plants in canopy gaps of disturbed stands to avoid forest loss. They recommend deliberate creation of canopy gaps to promote resilience only for parks, or stands within parks, that have low deer and invasive plant abundance or the capacity to intensively manage invasive plants in gaps.
In most parks, non-native tree species are rare, less than 2% of total regeneration. In seven parks, though, non-native trees exceed ten percent of seedlings and/or saplings. In three parks, saplings of non-native trees are increasing. These are primarily tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Norway maple (Acer platanoides). In Saratoga National Historical Park, seedlings of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) are increasing.
Beech regeneration in Prince William Forest Park
Role of other pests
Miller and colleagues express fear that beech bark disease andbeech leaf disease might have effects similar to those of EAB, leading to a greater “regeneration debt” in parks where American beech (Fagus grandifolia) is the dominant regeneration component. They cite specifically Prince William Forest Park in northern Virginia, [25 mi2]Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia, [2.7mi2] and Saratoga National Historical Park. [5.3 mi2] The authors also suggest that thickets of beech root sprouts formed in response to BBD can suppress regeneration of other native canopy species and so might need to be managed.
Miller and colleagues mention hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), but provide very little information. They report that Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park in New Hampshire (the home and studio of sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens) is at particular risk because of growth of both beech and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). I know that Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area [109m2] has experienced major losses of mature hemlocks. [Shenandoah National Park has also, but it was not included in the study.]
Hemlock Ravine, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area; photo by Nicholas T via Flickr
Miller and colleagues report that Acadia National Park is seeing recovery of red spruce (Picea rubens) from a major fire in 1947 and possibly also from acid rain. They do not mention the longer-term threat from the brown spruce longhorned beetle. Their focus is on forest dynamics largely unaffected by deer.
In the same way, the authors make no mention of the absence of dogwood trees, presumably because they had been eliminated by dogwood anthracnose decades ago. Nor do they mention vascular streak dieback of redbud; the causal agent still uncertain. [See Annie Self’s presentation to National Plant Board, August 2023.]
dead ash tree in Shenandoah National Park
One omission is large enough that it might affect the study’s findings. At mi2Shenandoah is the largest National Park in the region. It was not included in the study because the Park’s forest monitoring process is not compatible with those in other NPS units. All the other parks – including Acadia (562 mi) – are much smaller, protecting historic sites like Civil War battlefields.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Miller and colleagues recommend that deer management be initiated in parks classified as at imminent or probable regeneration failure, if such programs are not already under way. They warn that effective deer management requires sustained commitment. Studies of deer exclosures show that full forest recovery from chronic deer overabundance can take as long as 40–70 years.
The authors also recommend actions to open the subcanopy to facilitate growth of saplings belonging to desired species. They caution that deer predation must be controlled. Furthermore, either invasive plant cover must be low, or management must ensure that that the park has sufficient resources to sustain an invasive plant control program – especially if invasive plants are combined with abundant deer.
Parks experiencing compositional mismatches and that are dominated by oak–hickory forest types might also benefit from prescribed burning. Again, deer browse pressure must be minimized. In addition, regeneration of oaks and hickories must already be present.
In park forests dominated by species vulnerable to lethal pests, e.g., beech-, ash-, or hemlock-dominated forest stands, Miller and colleagues recommend considering planting alternative native canopy species and protecting those plantings from deer. Park managers should also consider thinning beech thickets formed after beech bark disease kills canopy trees.
Media coverage
The Washington, D.C., public radio station, WAMU, reported on this research on the air (broadcast December 20) and on its website. It is written by Jacob Fenston, with great photographs by Tyrone Turner. The story emphasized the link between deer and invasive plants – since regeneration in eastern deciduous forest happens by saplings taking advantage of gaps formed when mature trees die. The story quotes DC-area people on their efforts to contain vines. The Natural Resource Manager at Catoctin Mountain Park [8 mi2] describes that park’s longstanding deer control program. The story also mentions impacts of EAB and threat of BLD.
News – Funding for these parks to counter the threats!
Lead author Kathryn Miller has informed me that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act has provided the 39 parks involved in this study over $10 million to improve forest resilience largely through reduction of invasive plants and overabundant deer.
Of course, invasive species threats to National parks are not limited to the Northeast – nor are they new. I have raised this problem from the beginning. To see these blogs, on the “nivemnic” website, scroll down below the archives to the “categories”, then click on “national parks”.
SOURCE
Miller, K.M., S.J. Perles, J.P. Schmit, E.R. Matthews, M.R. Marshall. 2023. Overabundant deer and invasive plants drive widespread regeneration debt in eastern United States national parks. Ecological Applications. 2023;33:e2837. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/r/eap Open Access
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
hardwood regeneration in northern Virginia forest; photo F.T. Campbell
I have posted several blogs recently about tree species’ regeneration. One blog found poor regeneration of many species throughout forests of the eastern United States. Regeneration is particularly poor in the Great Lakes region, western New York and Pennsylvania, along the Mid-Atlantic and New England coasts, and the coastal plain from southern South Carolina to eastern Texas.
A second blog focused on forest succession in New Hampshire. These findings, by Ducey et al., explicitly recognized the impact of non-native tree-killing insects and pathogens. A third article (Payne and Peet, 2023; full citation at the end of this blog) reports similar findings in North Carolina – and explicitly says that the same conditions are found in forests across the eastern United States.
The locations of neither in-depth study – New Hampshire or North Carolina – include those identified by Potter and Riitters (2022) as suffering particularly poor regeneration.
Payne and Peet find that forest succession in the Piedmont region of North Carolina is not proceeding as expected, based on earlier studies conducted in the same region. The differences are apparent at both the canopy and understory levels. Especially notable is the low recruitment of oaks (Quercus species) and hickories (Carya species) – the genera which previous studies indicated would be the climax taxa. One explanation is the disappearance since early in the 20th Century of fire as a driver of disturbance.
The understory communities are also novel, due largely to invasive species: dramatic loss of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) killed by the non-native pathogen dogwood anthracnose (Discula destructiva), plus overcrowding of the shrub level by invasive plant species. Other drivers are probably suppression of growth of woody species caused by excessive deer herbivory, and overall accelerated shifts in successional trajectory due to hurricane damage.
flowering dogwood autumn display; F.T. Campbell
Forests in eastern North America in the 21st Century face several drivers of change that are either novel or greatly heightened. In addition to the disappearance of chronic fire, these are frequency and timing of hurricanes, feeding by herbivore populations, and introduction of non-native tree-killing pests and plants. Payne and Peet say scientists and managers need to consider these additional drivers – and their interactions! – when anticipating successional change.
Like Ducey et al. in New Hampshire, Payne and Peet used 80 years of data from 33 permanent plots established and 55 years of data from another 3 plots. Twenty-eight of the plots are transitioning from loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) to hardwood dominance; eight plots have been mixed-age hardwood stands since before the study plots were established.
In the North Carolina piedmont, the composition of canopy trees in plots evolving from pine compared to hardwood stands continue to be different 90–120 years after succession began. Canopy trees in upland and bottomland hardwood stands also differ. These differences reflect the relative species in the forest at the initiation of succession dynamics. Hurricanes – especially Hurricane Fran in 1996 – apparently accelerated succession in some plots by toppling the oldest pines. Despite the persistent differences, the species compositions of both canopy and subcanopy layers are trending toward increasing similarity.
deer-damaged red maple; photo by Eli Sagor via Flickr
The impact of deer browsing is complicated. Deer populations in the study area quadrupled after measurement began in 1980. Deer herbivory suppressed growth of all plant species when their stems were thin (3 – 10 cm DBH). However, after 1996 rapid growth of plants in openings caused by Hurricane Fran’s passage began to reverse the effects of deer browsing. Also, while deer browsing decreases regeneration, growth, and abundance of oak and hickory seedlings and saplings, it also decreases the abundance of other tree species that have – nevertheless – increased in abundance, e.g., red maple (A. rubrum) and black cherry(Prunus serotina).
Payne and Peet found that soil attributes (wetness, texture, organic matter and chemical components), as well as topographic position were minor factors in determining succession trajectories. Increased light availabilitydue to the new or exacerbated drivers of change (thinning of understory vegetation by disease and deer herbivory and opening of the canopy by hurricanes) overcame the influence of nutrients. At most, aunique soil condition might constraining the impacts of these disturbances. Furthermore, these soil-related conditions and other environmental variables change through time — and as a result so does the vegetation. Specifically, the conditions that once supported establishment of oaks and hickories apparently differ today. Payne and Peet conclude that other drivers might be continuing to impact these species’ maturation.
A partial exception is soil nitrogen, through its influence on mycorrhizal patterns. I review mycorrhizal patterns in the discussion of individual tree species, below.
How are Individual Tree Species Responding?
Oaks and hickories are not expanding as expected – either as canopy-sized trees or as seedlings / saplings in the understory. Payne and Peet agree that century-long suppression of low-intensity ground fires is probably the most significant factor in this compositional shift. This decline has been exacerbated by selective logging and deer herbivory. Hickories have established more widely, possibly because young stems have greater shade tolerance. Only plots located on sandy and acidic soils and plots with the greatest hurricane damage have moderate recruitment of oaks and hickories. Oaks and hickories on the poor soils might be aided by the types of ectomycorrhizal fungi that survive in acidic soils with relatively low nitrogen levels. In addition, these soils’ lower water retention probably impedes competition by more mesic, faster-growing, shade-tolerant species. However, even oaks and hickories that have established as seedlings or saplings only rarely progress to canopy dominance. Payne and Peet conclude that oaks might have lost competitive advantage in many of the undisturbed stands.
More mesophytic hardwoods, especially red maple(Acer rubrum), are becoming more numerous and larger – a trend seen throughout forests of the eastern United States. Damage from Hurricane Fran apparently accelerated this trend. However, red maple growth is significantly inhibited by competition from thicket-forming shrubs, especially in bottomland plots. The invasive non-native species thorny olive or oleasterElaeagnus pungensincreased dramatically following Hurricane Fran in 1996. The situation is likely to worsen: two other invasive species, Amur honeysuckle Lonicera maackii and privet Ligustrum japonicum were first detected in the Duke Forest plots in the 2013 survey.
[In New Hampshire, Ducey et al. detected an unexpected levelling off of red maple increases and decline in sugar maple (Acer saccharum); they were unable to determine a cause.]
beech-dominated understory in northern Virginia; F.T. Campbell
Another mesophytic hardwood – American beech(Fagus grandifolia) – has become very abundant in bottomland hardwood stands, especially in small-stem size classes in the understory. Beech prefers sandy soils and its ectomycorrhizal associations are apparently more tolerant of more acidic soils.
Payne and Peet mention – briefly and vaguely – uncertainty about the future of beech. The reference cited discusses the impact of beech bark disease (BBD) in the northeast. Range maps indicate that BBD is well established in the southern Appalachians along the North Carolina/Tennessee border; it has apparently not spread as far east as the study area. There is no mention of beech leaf disease (BLD), which is the primary threat to seedlings and saplings. BLD is currently known to be in northern Virginia. It is unknown whether the disease has any climatic or other barrier that would prevent its moving farther south.
Another bottomland indicator taxon that is also increasing in abundance is ash (Fraxinus species). Along with sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and black cherry Prunus serotina, ash density and basal area increased dramatically in plots heavily damaged by Hurricane Fran. Payne and Peet expect most ash trees to be killed by emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) by 2022. The beetle was detected in the study area in 2015.
ash killed by EAB on Potomac lowlands; F.T. Campbell
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)was one of the most abundant understory species throughout the study area until the late 1980s. The species has declined by more than 80% since then due to the non-native disease dogwood anthracnose (Discula destructiva). No other species has experienced as precipitous a decline. There is now almost no regeneration in most upland sites.
A second species almost eradicated from the study area by a non-native pathogen is American elm (Ulmus americana). Its basal area in 2013 was 5% of peak levels in the 1950s. Most of this loss occurred by the 1960s, shortly after arrived of Dutch elm disease (DED) in North Carolina. A congeneric species, slippery elm U. alata, is reported to beabundant; it is somewhat resistant to DED. There is no mention of the zig-zag sawfly (Aproceros leucopoda) which has been detected in North Carolina, a few counties away from the study area. The foliage-feeding insect’s long-term impact on elm species is not yet understood.
Payne and Peet note that the study area has twice experienced loss of important components due to specialist non-native pathogens: elms and dogwoods. A third similar event looms: ash [The article does not discuss prospects for biological control.] A fourth is less certain: beech. [This numbering assumes that American chestnut and eastern hemlock were not significant components of forests in the study area.] In their view, these events demonstrate the drastic impacts such non-native organisms can have, especially when the host species is highly abundant or otherwise dominant in a specific community. The resulting shifts in community dynamics and modifications to light and water availability due to such losses, can be dramatic and long-lasting, even resulting in novel successional trajectories.
Members of the 23rd Civil Engineer Squadron/23rd Wing chainsaw a tree lying across a street in the NCO housing area- damage to piedmont North Carolina by Hurricane Fran. Photo courtesy of U.S. National Archives.
Payne and Peet also emphasize the impact of large, episodic disturbances (in their case, hurricanes). These can have widespread and long-lasting impacts on plant community dynamics. Hurricanes’ frequency, intensity, and timing relative to successional stage are key in determining their impacts on successional trajectories. E.g., strong storms that felled the even-aged pine canopy accelerated succession toward more mixed hardwoods. These changes affect biomass, diversity, competitive dynamics, and invasion by invasive plant species, especially in sites with advantageous soil conditions.
Scientists must also evaluate interactions (both reinforcing and antagonistic) between these drivers. For example, in this study deer herbivory and damage from episodic storms had opposite effects on the density of stems in the understory and therefore the future dynamics of forested stands. Hurricane aftereffects frequently accelerated existing or developing trends resulting from various other drivers (e.g., loss of dogwood to anthracnose disease). [While Ducey et al. also detected lasting impacts from hurricane damage in New Hampshire, these effects did not include changes in tree species composition.] Broader regional and global drivers of change, especially those associated with climate change and nitrogen deposition, interact with these many indicators in novel ways based on their own local loadings.
The Nature Conservancy focuses on fire
The Nature Conservancy magazine for Winter 2023 carries an article describing the organization’s experimental efforts to promote oak succession in the Piedmont forests of North Carolina. Greg Cooper, TNC’s forest ecologist in North Carolina, describes retaining dominance by oaks and hickories – rather than maples and poplars – as vital to protecting the region’s faunal diversity and minimizing impacts from climate change. He says this is because oaks use a quarter of the water of maples and poplars.
Cooper links oaks’ failure to reproduce on fire suppression. TNC kills midstory maples and poplars through hack and squirt methods. This allows more light to penetrate the forest and foster oak seedling recruitment. Then they apply controlled fire. “We currently have 700 acres of [controlled-] burn plots, some of which have been burned twice, some of which have been burned once, [and already] we’re getting more light and an immediate flush of herbaceous diversity. We’re getting a lot more berry species, more wildflowers.” TNC is monitoring plots that have been burned, with and without the pre-burn herbicide treatments, and those that have not been burned. They hope to have results in five to ten years that will indicate whether they are achieving the desired improvement in oak regeneration. If so, they also hope is that in future prescribed burns will be sufficient.
Cooper adds that through the Fire Learning Network and a 23-person fire crew they carry out similar work not just on TNC properties, but also federal and state properties.
SOURCES
Ducey, M.J, O.L., Yamasaki, M. Belair, E.P., Leak, W.B. 2023. Eight decades of compositional change in a managed northern hardwood landscape. Forest Ecosystems 10 (2023) 100121
Payne, C.J. and R.K. Peet. 2023. Revisiting the model system for forest succession: Eighty years of resampling Piedmont forests reveals need for an improved suite of indicators of successional change. Ecological Indicators 154 (2023) 110679
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
Wood packaging – crates, pallets, spools for wire, etc. — has been recognized as a major pathway for introduction of tree-killing pests since the Asian longhorned beetle was detected in New York and Chicago in the late 1990s. As of 2021, 65 new species of non-native wood- or bark-boring Scolytinae had been detected in the United States (Rabaglia; full citation at end of the blog).
As I have often reported [To see my 40+ earlier blogs about wood packaging material, scroll down below archives to “Categories,” click on “wood packaging”.], the international phytosanitary community adopted the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) #15. The goal of ISPM#15 is to “significantly reduce” [not eliminate] the risk of pests associated with solid wood used for constructing packaging (e.g., crates, pallets), from being introduced to other countries through international trade.
I recently reviewed the first 20+ years of implementation of ISPM#15 including two analyses by Robert Haack and colleagues in a blog in December 2022. I have also provided the broader context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in my Fading Forests II report.
I last blogged about U.S. import volumes in June. My silence since reflected the significant decline in U.S. imports from Asia. This reduction had reduced the likelihood that a new tree-killing pest would be introduced from that region – or that an already-established pest would be introduced to a U.S. region that had escaped it so far.
However, U.S. imports from Asia have suddenly grown! In October 2023, containerized imports from Asia were 12.4% higher than a year ago – and 6% higher than in September. According to the Journal of Commerce (full citation at end of blog), U.S. retailers anticipate consumers will purchase lots of gifts for the upcoming Christmas season.
The U.S. imported 1.57 million TEU from Asia in October. This volume exceeded even the pre-COVID levels. How great is the associated risk of a pest introduction? To calculate that, I apply the following:
most U.S. imports arrive in 40-foot-long containers, so divide TEU by 2 = 785,000
a decade-old estimate that 75% of containers in maritime shipments contain wood packaging (Meissner et al.) = 588,750 containers with wood packaging (I suspect it is more).
the estimate by Haack et al. 2014 that 0.1% (1/10th of 1 percent) of consignments (which usually means a single container) harbor tree-killing pests;
the estimate by Haack et al. 2022 that 0.22% of consignments harbor tree-killing pests.
inspecting a pallet; CBP photo
The result of these calculations is an estimate of 648 containers (using the 2009 global estimate), or 1,727 containers (using the 2022 global estimate), or 5,730 containers (using the 2010-2020 estimate for China specifically) entering the country in one month harbored tree-killing pests. Since West Coast ports received 54% of those containers, the estimated number of containers transporting pests that enter California, Washington, or Oregon ranged from 349 to 3,042. The rest are scattered among the dozens of ports on the East and Gulf coasts.
With drought limiting container ship transits through the Panama Canal (Szakonyi 2023), the threat to East and Gulf coast ports might not rise commensurately.
Because of the low levels of imports in previous months, U.S. imports from Asia remain significantly below levels in previous years: 16.6% lower for the January – September period compared to 2022.
The 2022 analysis found that the rate of wood packaging from China that is infested has remained relatively steady since 2003: 1.26% during 2003–2004, and ranged from 0.58 to 1.11% during the next three time periods analyzed. Packaging from China made up 4.6% of all shipments inspected, but 22% of the 180 consignments with infested wood packaging. Thus the proportion of Chinese consignments with infested wood is five times greater than would be expected based on their proportion of imports. Note the great impact of this high infestation rate on the number of containers transporting tree-killing pests to the U.S. in the paragraph above: more than 8,000 containers compared to about 2,000.
I remind you that the U.S. and Canada have required treatment of wood packaging from China since December 1998. Why are the responsible agencies in the United States not taking action to correct this problem? [which has persisted for 2 decades]
The fact is – as I have argued numerous times — a pallet or crate bearing the ISPM#15 mark has not proved to be a reliable indicator as to whether the wood is pest-free. (This might be because the wood had not been treated, or if it was, the treatment failed). All the pests detected in the Haack et al. studies (after 2006) were in wood packaging bearing the ISPM#15 mark. As noted in my past blogs [click on the “wood packaging” category to bring up blogs about wood packaging and enforcement], Customs and Border Protection also report that nearly all the wood packaging in which that they detected insect pests bore the ISPM#15 mark.
According to Angell in November (full citation at end of blog), U.S. imports from India to the east coast fell by 15% in the first 10 months of 2023 compared to last year – to a total of 623,356 TEUs. This might change in the future: a shipper has promised to start weekly arrivals from India beginning in May 2024. the company plans calls at New York-New Jersey, Savannah, Jacksonville, Charleston, and Norfolk. The ships will call, en route, at ports in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Spain. What pests might be hitching a ride on these shipments?
SOURCES
Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff EG, Cavey JF, Garrett LJ, et al. 2014. Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096611
Haack RA, Hardin JA, Caton BP and Petrice TR. 2022. Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117
Meissner, H., A. Lemay, C. Bertone, K. Schwartzburg, L. Ferguson, L. Newton. 2009. Evaluation of pathways for exotic plant pest movement into and within the greater Caribbean Region.
Angell, M. 2023. ONE readies India-US East Coast service as part of 2024 network rollout. Journal of Commerce. November 27, 2023
Rabaglia, R. 2021. The increasing number of non-native bark and ambrosia beetles in North America. International Union of Forest Research Organizations. Prague, Czech Republic. September 2021
Szakonyi, M. 2023. Carriers Weigh Options as Panama Canal restrictions become fact of life. Journal of Commerce. November 21, 2023. (Access limited to subscribers, unfortunately)
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
affects of mountan pine beetle on lodgepole pine in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado photo from Wikimedia; one of pests addressed by USFS FHP
Several USFS scientists have published an assessment of the agency’s program to enhance forest health across the country: the Forest Health (FHP) program. [see Coleman et al., full citation at end of this blog.] The program assists cooperators (including other federal agencies) to prevent, suppress, and eradicate insect and pathogen outbreaks affecting trees, regardless of land ownership.
Each year, I advocate for adequate funding for the FHP program — which comes from annual Congressional appropriations. Funding has remained static at about $100 million per year. I interpret the article as providing support for my call for increased appropriations. First, it reports that the number of projects and extent of area treated have declined from 2011 to 2020. This is because static funding levels are stretched increasingly thin as costs to implement the same activities rise. Second, the program does not address many damaging forest pests already in the country. The result is growth of established threats to forest health. Finally, new insects and pathogens continue to be introduced. Protecting forest health necessitates tackling these new pests – and that requires money and staff.
Coleman et al. analyzed data from the decade 2011- 2020 to determine the most frequently used project types, integrated pest management (IPM) strategies and tactics, dominant forest pests and associated hosts managed, and most comprehensive forest IPM programs in practice. While there is a wide range of possible projects, most of those funded consist of some form of treatment (more below). The databases relied on do not include funding through the National Forest System aimed at improving forest health through such management activities as stand thinning treatments and prescribed fire. Nor are all pest management activities recorded in the centralized databases. I regret especially the fact that “genetic control” (= resistance breeding) are left out.
Port-Orford cedar seedlings in trial for resistance to Phytophthora lateralis at Dorena center; photo courtesy of Richard Sniezko, USFS
Summary of Findings
The data are sorted in various categories, depending on whether one wishes to focus on the type of organism being managed or the management approach. All presentations make evident a dramatic imbalance in the projects funded. Again and again, spongy moth (Lymantria dispar dispar), southern pine beetle (SPB, Dendroctonus frontalis), and several bark beetles attacking conifers in the West (in particular mountain pine beetle, [MPB] Dendroctonus ponderosae) dominate, as measured by both funding and area treated.
oak trees in Shenandoah National Park killed by spongy moth; photo by F.T. Campbell
The bulk of the funding went to the above species, plus hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA; Adelges tsugae); emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis), oak wilt (caused by Bretziella fagacearum), and white pine blister rust (WPBR, Cronartium ribicola).
95% of the projects focused on only four taxa: oaks, Quercus spp. [spongy moth suppression and eradication]; loblolly and ponderosa pines [bark beetle prevention and suppression]; and eastern hemlock [HWA suppression].
Projects seeking to suppress an existing pest outbreak covered 87% of the total treatment area. However, 98% of the treated area was linked to only 20 taxa; again, spongy moth dominated.
Projects seeking to prevent introduction or spread of a pest constituted only 30% of all projects and covered only 11% of the total treatment area.
Eradication and restoration projects each equaled less than 5% of total projects and treatment areas.
Native forest pests were targetted by 79% of projects; non-native pests by 21%. However, non-native pests accounted for 84% of the total treatment area (again, the spongy moth).
While 67% of projects took place on USFS lands (focused on MPB and SPB), 89% of the total treatment area was on lands managed by others (state or other federal agencies, or private landowners). Again, the size of the non-USFS area treated was driven primarily by the spongy moth Slow the Spread program.
Insect pests received nearly all of the funding: 70% of funding targetted phloem-feeding insects, especially SPB and MPB; 10% targetted foliage feeders, especially spongy moth; 6% targetted sap feeders. 4% tackled rusts (e.g., WPBR); just 2% addressed wood borers (e.g., Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer).
The ranking by size of area treated differs. In this case, 82% of areas treated face damage by foliage feeders (e.g., spongy moth); 15% of the treated areas are threatened by phloem feeders (e.g., MPB); only 1.4% of the area is damaged by sap feeders (e.g., HWA); 0.6% is threatened by rust; and 0.2% by wood borers.
Re: control strategies, 32% of projects relied on silvicultural strategies; 22% used semiochemical strategies; 21% exploited other chemical controls; and 18% used physical/mechanical control methods.
Coleman et al. regretted that few programs incorporated microbial/biopesticide control strategies; these were applied on only 10% of total treated area. Again, the vast majority of such projects were aerial applications of spongy moth controls, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) and nucleopolyhedrosis viruses (NPV) (Gypchek). Coleman et al. called for more research to support this approach efforts to overcome other obstacles (see below).
Coleman et al. also called for better record-keeping to enable analysis of genetic control/ resistance breeding projects, treatment efficacy, and survey and technical assistance activities.
History
The article provides a brief summary of the history of the Forest Service’ pest management efforts. Before the 1960s, the USFS relied on labor-intensive physical control tactics, classical biocontrol, and widespread chemical applications. Examples include application of pesticides to suppress or eradicate spongy moth; decades of Ribes removal to curtail spread of white pine blister rust; salvage logging and chemical controls to counter phloem feeders / bark beetles in the South and West. These strategies were increasingly replaced by pest-specific management tactics during the 1970s.
Over the decade studied (2011-2020), tree defoliation attributed to various pests (including pathogens) affected an estimated 0.7% of the 333 million ha of U.S. forest land annually. Mortality attributed to pests impacted an estimated 0.8% of that forest annually. See Table 1. Two-thirds of the area affected by tree mortality is attributed to phloem feeders; a distant second agent is wood borers. These data are incomplete because many insects, diseases, and parasitic higher plants are not tracked by aerial surveys.
As I noted above, these data do not include projects that screen tree species to identify and evaluate genetic resistance to a pest; or efforts to collect cones, seed, and scion. I consider these gene conservation and resistance programs to be some of the most important pest-response efforts. I have blogged about the USFS’ Dorena Genetic Resource Center’ efforts to breed five-needle pines, Port-Orford cedar, and ash. link
41% of silvicultural control treatments targetted phloem feeders; 48% addressed cankers and rusts together. Restoration planting was done in response to invasions by ALB, EAB, and WPBR, as well as native bark beetles and mistletoes.
effort to eradicate SOD in southern Oregon; partially funded by USFS FHP. Photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Forestry
Physical/mechanical control projects were most widely applied in the Rocky Mountains in response particularly to diseases: vascular wilts, rusts, and cankers, including WPBR. This type of project was also used to deal with non-native diseases in other parts of the country, e.g., oak wilt, sudden oak death (SOD), Port-Orford cedar root rot, and rapid ʻōhiʻa death. Sanitation treatments (i.e., removal of infected/infested trees) was used for native mistletoes and root rots, and some non-native insects, e.g., EAB and coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros). Pruning is a control strategy for WPBR. Trenching is applied solely to suppress oak wilt.
Chemical controls were limited to small areas. These projects targetted seed/cone/flower fruit feeders, foliage and shoot diseases, sap feeders [e.g., balsam woolly adelgid (BWA), HWA], wood borers (e.g., EAB) and phloem feeders (e.g., Dutch elm disease; DMF oak wilt vectors). Cover sprays have been used against goldspotted oak borer (GSOB); and many native insects. Fungicides are rarely used; some is applied against the oak wilt pathogen in areas inaccessible by heavy equipment.
treating hemlock trees in Conestee Falls, NC; photo courtesy of North Carolina Hemlock Restoration Initiative
Classical biocontrol projects funded by the program targetted almost exclusively HWA. Some 4.3 million predators have been released since the early 1990s; 820,057 in just the past 10 years.
Gene conservation and breeding projects were directed primary at commercially important hosts, e.g., loblolly Pinus taeda and slash pine P. elliottii; and several non-native pests, including chestnut blight, EAB, HWA, and WPBR.
Survey and technical assistance (i.e., indirectly funded activities) conducted by federal, state, and tribal personnel contributed to education/outreach, evaluating effectiveness, identification, monitoring, and record keeping strategies.
As should be evident from the data presented here, suppression treatments dominated by number of projects and treatment area. The poster child project is the national spongy moth Slow the Spread program. The authors say this program is the most advanced forest IPM program in the world. It has successfully slowed spongy moth’s rate of spread by more than 80% for more than 20 years.
A second widely-used subset of suppression programs consists of physical / mechanical control. This is often the principal suppression strategy in high-visitation sites (e.g., administration sites, campgrounds, picnic areas, and recreation areas). Sanitation harvests are one of the few viable management techniques for suppressing or slowing the spread of recently introduced non-native pests. Nevertheless, the largest number of suppression projects and use of sanitation treatments focused on a native pest, mountain pine beetle, at the height of its outbreak in early 2010s.
Silvicultural control, specifically tree thinning, represents the predominant forest pest prevention tactic, especially on lands managed by the USFS. Two programs dominate: the Southern Pine Beetle Prevention Program and the Western Bark Beetle Initiative. Again, Coleman et al. assess these treatments as very successful. Forest thinning treatments also address other management concerns, i.e., reduce threat of catastrophic wildfires and reduce adverse effects of climate change.
Chemical control tactics are applied to suppress most forest insect feeding guilds in high-value sites and seed orchards. Soil or tree injections of systemic pesticides are used to protect ash and hemlock trees. Topical sprays have been applied to protect whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) from mountain pine beetle. Whitebark pine was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in December 2022.
dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake NP; photo by F.T. Campbell
Soil or tree injections target two non-native insects, EAB and HWA.
Genetic control via resistance breeding represents the primary strategy to combat several non-native diseases. (More options are typically available for insects than diseases.) Coleman et al. focus on the extensive effort to protect many of the five-needle pines from WPBR. As I have described in earlier blogs, the Dorena Genetic Resource Center in Oregon has engaged on numerous other species, too.
Coleman et al. describe pest-management associated monitoring efforts as consisting largely of coordinated annual aerial detection surveys, detection trapping, stream-baiting ofPhytophthora ramorum, and ground surveys to address site-specific issues.
Coleman et al. call for improvement of record-keeping / databases to encompass all pests, management actions, and ownerships. They also advocate for additional decision-making tools, development of microbial/biopesticides, genetic research and breeding, and biocontrol strategies for several pest groups.
They consider the southern pine beetle and spongy moth programs to be models of comprehensive IPM programs that could be adapted to additional forest health threats. They note, however, that development and implementation of these programs require significant time, financial commitments, and collaborations from various supporting agencies. Not all programs enjoy such resources.
SOURCE
Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17
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
