forest pests – Page 25 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

How should APHIS manage pathogens with Multiple Hosts?

large redbay tree on Jekyll Island, Georgia; afterwards killed by laurel wilt

North America and other continents have been invaded by a growing number of tree-killing organisms – primarily pathogens – that attack a wide range of hosts100 species or more. Examples include sudden oak death / Phytopthora ramorum**, laurel wilt**, and the Fusarium fungus transported by the polyphagous and Kushiro borers**. These pathogens are more difficult to manage because of the range of potential hosts. Furthermore, a single introduced species can threaten numerous host species across large areas.
This is not a new phenomenon. Root rot caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi reached North America in the late 18th or early 19th Century, where it eliminated chestnut and chinkapin from low-elevation sites. P. cinnamomi is found in countries around the world. In Australia, it is killing a wide range of trees and shrubs across several plant families that constitute important components of Australia’s flora, including Myrtaceae, Proteaceae, Epacridaceae and Papilionaceae. There have been significant ecological impacts to plant communities and dependent wildlife in southeast and southwest Australia (Carnegie et al. 2016).

Nevertheless, the apparent proliferation of tree-killing organisms with multiple vulnerable hosts is troubling. So is the rapidity with which these organisms have been spread to distant places.

The disease called variously guava, eucalyptus, or myrtle rust – caused by Puccinia psidii** – attacks plants in “only” one family – the Myrtaceae. Its host list now includes more than 450 species in 73 genera. More than 200 of these are native species in Australia – where more than 10% of the plant species are members of this family. At least some of these plants are highly vulnerable to the rust; more than half of the individuals of the small tree Rhodomyrtus psidioides surveyed in a recent study were dead less than four years after the pathogen was introduced (Carnegie et al. 2016). New Zealand also has large numbers of Myrtaceae.

Guava rust is believed to be native to South and Central America. It was introduced to the Caribbean and southern Florida by the first decades of the 20th Century. Recently, the pathogen began to move. A new strain arrived in Florida in the 1990s. The rust was detected in Hawai`i in 2005. There, it is killing the native endangered shrub Eugenia koolauensis and an invasive shrub Syzygium jambos. In the past decade, guava rust has also invaded Japan, China, Australia, South Africa and New Caledonia (Carnegie et al. 2016).

Laurel wilt** also attacks “only” one plant family, the Lauraceae. While the United States is home to a relatively small number of plants in this family, Central America is a center of endemism for the family. In the United States, concern has focused on the disease’s threat to the avocado industry. However, the pathogen’s principal wild host, redbay, is likely to be virtually eliminated from U.S. forests except as seedlings too small to be attacked. (One ray of hope: Professor Jason Smith at the University of Florida is making progress on breeding redbays resistant to the disease.) Given the large number of presumably vulnerable trees and shrubs in Mexico and Central America, the spread of laurel wilt into Texas is worrisome.

Other pathogens attack shrubs and trees across several families. I noted Phyotphthora cinnamomi above. Other Phytophthoras share this ability.

Phytophthora ramorum** has a host list exceeding 130 herbaceous, shrub, and tree species in families ranging from maples to rhododendrons, oaks to hemlocks. P. ramorum is established in coastal parts of California and southern Oregon; and in western United Kingdom and Ireland. Another Phytophthora, P. kernoviae,** has a similarly broad host range. It is also established in the United Kingdom.

Fusarium dieback is caused by the fungus Fusarium euwallacea, which is transported by two beetles in the Euwallacea genus, called the polyphagous** and Kushiro shot hole borers. The beetle is known to attack more than 300 species of trees, shrubs, and vines in more than 58 plant families; hosts include species of oaks, maples, sycamores, hollies, and willows.

These multi-host pathogens are extremely difficult to contain – or even to detect early in the invasion. Australia tried to contain Puccinia rust, but conceded failure after only a few months. USDA APHIS does not have containment programs for any of three pathogens described here – despite the danger they pose to trees and other native vegetation.

Industry groups sometimes fund efforts to protect their crops. Avocado growers have spurred research on both laurel wilt and the Fusarium fungus — threats to their crop. However, academic researchers working on the impacts of laurel wilt on native ecosystems must scramble for funds. This is exactly the kind of research that requires – and deserves – increased public funding.

What should be done? Phytosanitary agencies need to improve greatly programs aimed at preventing introduction of pathogens to naïve hosts in new geographies. For the U.S., APHIS has already advocated two important improvements:
1) Prohibiting temporarily plants suspected of transporting known damaging pathogens. This action is allowed under the NAPPRA (not authorized for importation pending pest risk assessment) program.
2) Requiring foreign suppliers of living plant imports to implement “hazard analysis and critical control point” programs to ensure that the plants are pest-free during production and transport. This approach is allowed under ISPM#36 and would be authorized under pending changes to APHIS’ “Q-37” regulation. [See Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 80 April 25, 2013]

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

Unfortunately, implementation of both of these programs has stalled. A list of plants proposed in May 2013 for NAPPRA restrictions has still not been finalized. Revisions to the Q-37 regulation proposed in April 2013 have also not been finalized.

USDA leadership should promptly implement these long-delayed improvements.
** indicates those pathogens and insect/pathogen complexes that are described briefly here

Source

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

Help promote new film about tree-killing pests!

A new film demonstrating the impact of non-native tree-killing insects and diseases will be shown on or around Arbor Day (April 20). You can help ensure that lots of people see the film!!! Contact the program manager at your local PBS channel to ask that the channel broadcast the film.

ash tree killed by EAB; Ann Arbor, MI; courtesy of Major Hefje

“Trees in Trouble: Saving America’s Urban Forests” focuses on emerald ash borer in Cincinnati. The film explores our connections to the trees and forests in our communities – and the threats to those trees. The film’s website links viewers to resources for taking action.

To see clips from the film and other resources go to this site.

The film was produced by Torrice Media. Featured experts and speakers include Prof. Dan Herms of Ohio State, Jenny Gulcik, a community forestry consultant, and Cincinnati Council member Wendell Young.
As we all know, killer pests threaten trees across the country, not just in southern Ohio! Such pests are usually introduced first in cities – not necessarily ports! – because that is where crates and pallets, imported ornamental plants, and other articles to which pests attach arrive. Furthermore, trees along streets and in yards and parks are often more vulnerable than forest trees to such introduced pests because they are often subject to other stresses such as soil compaction, air pollution, elevated temperatures, and salt exposure. Finally, city trees are often planted as multiple individuals of the same species; when a pest that attacks that species arrives, entire neighborhoods can lose their tree canopy – and the real values that canopy provides.
Because of the high value of urban trees, these pests’ greatest economic damage is in urban and suburban areas. The study by Julianne Aukema and others documented that municipalities spend more than $2 billion annually to remove trees killed by non-native pests. Homeowners spend $1 billion a year removing trees killed by non-native pests, and another $1.5 billion is lost in property values due to tree mortality.

Thus, it is vitally important that American city dwellers learn about the values that trees provide to them, the threat to those values from introduced pests, and what they can do to minimize this threat. “Trees in Trouble” is a tool to advance citizens’ understanding of these issues through a combination of broadcasts, compelling video presentations and active civic engagement efforts linked to the film.

goldspotted oak borer

Some people – less familiar with the issue than we are – do not immediately understand the relevance of Cincinnati’s story to other cities. We know that while the trees and killers differ across the country, the cost to the communities is the same: destruction of trees that provide shade and other important ecosystem services and create our sense of home. Plus, the ways these pests are introduced are the same – and so are the steps we can take to reduce this threat.

[The goldspotted oak borer illustrates the universality of this threat – trees in southern California are being killed, too!]
You can help overcome this roadblock!
If you would like to help promote the film to your local PBS station or to local viewers, contact Andrea Torrice at 513-751-7050 or here

If you would like to obtain a copy of the film to screen to your group, contact Andrea Torrice at the same phone number or website. (Andrea is Italian; her name is pronounced “to re chay”, with the accent on “re”.)
Source:
Aukema, J. E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S. J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. M. Liebhold, D. G. McCullough, and B. Von Holle. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States. Plos One 6.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Fed up by lack of action on invasive species? Let’s pressure the right targets!

On December 1, the House Oversight Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, held a hearing on invasive species. This hearing was apparently held at the request of the ranking Democrat, Brenda Lawrence of Michigan. Ms Lawrence is most concerned about aquatic invaders in the Great Lakes. Chairwoman Cynthia Lummis is from Wyoming, so her focus is on invasive plants on western rangelands.
Chair Lummis opened the hearing, but left promptly. Other subcommittee members who were present for varying lengths of time were Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Brenda Lawrence (D-MI), and Stacey Plasket (D-USVI) ; from full committee: Will Hurd (R-TX).

The witnesses were the newly appointed executive director of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), Jamie Reaser; the president of the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition (RRISC), Scott Cameron; Dr. George Beck of Colorado State University, representing the Healthy Habitats Coalition (HHC); and Dr. Alan Steinman, expert on aquatic invaders from Grand Valley State University in Michigan.
This hearing followed those in past years that had been stimulated by the HHC. Both HHC and Congressional members expressed great frustration that the federal government is not putting sufficient effort into stopping or reversing the spread of invasive plants on western rangelands.
The December hearing – like its predecessors – focused the criticism on NISC. I think this focus is misguided. NISC has no independent authority or power; it was created to coordinate agencies’ actions, not to substitute for them. Its staff lack sufficient rank to tell agencies what to do.
In § 4 of Executive Order 13112, NISC’s duties are listed as providing national leadership through (a) overseeing implementation of this order, seeing that Federal agencies’ activities are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective, …; (b) encouraging planning and action at local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels …; (c) developing recommendations for international cooperation …; (d) developing, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, guidance to Federal agencies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)…; (e) facilitating development of a coordinated network among Federal agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor IAS impacts …; (f) facilitating establishment of an … information-sharing system …; and (g) preparing a national Invasive Species Management Plan every two years.
NISC has fallen far short of these requirements. It has not succeeded in developing guidance on NEPA – at least in part because CEQ has not cooperated. Most glaringly, NISC has issued only two Management Plans over 15 years — the most recent in 2009. All Members at the hearing complained to Reaser about this failure. Members see the Plan as key to setting priorities and ensuring that funds are well-spent.

All Members seemed to think that NISC actually should carry out on-the-ground activities and direct agencies’ priorities. Some want NISC to overcome federal agencies’ alleged foot-dragging in helping local groups eager to attack local problems, or to pressure Native American tribes to cooperate.

While I share the critics’ frustration about federal agencies’ inaction, I believe the productive approach is to apply pressure on – and where deserved, support for – those who have the authority and power to act, but who often choose not to. These are:
• heads of agencies and departments, especially the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and their Under and Assistant secretaries;
• the President;
• budget staffs of these and other relevant agencies;
• the Office of Management and Budget;
• Members of the Congressional appropriations committees.

If these people think that dealing with invasive species is politically important, they will do so. If they don’t hear from their constituents about invasive species, they will focus on other issues.

At the hearing, Scott Cameron, of RRISC, said that what is missing is commitment at the Assistant/Under Secretary Level. Such a commitment would both drive coordination among agencies at headquarters and provide “cover” for regional staff trying to work together. He feels that a new Management Plan is useful but not sufficient. Scott made several recommendations intended to raise the political visibility of invasive species issues:
1) NISC submit annual work plan to Congress – he thought this would get political level attention in the departments;
2) NISC serve as forum to coordinate with regional governors’ associations;
3) NISC create national network of regional early detection/rapid response efforts;
4) NISC serve as forum for regional officials of land-managing agencies to coordinate and work together – this might succeed in getting attention of agency leadership and OMB;
5) NISC ensure coordination of priorities and approaches by member agencies at headquarters level; and
6) NISC evaluate best practices by other governments, propose their adoption by the United States.

Dr. Beck, of HHC, reiterated his constituency’s complaint that there has been little progress on invasive species problems despite three decades of effort. He blamed the lack of leadership by NISC – without saying how staff can “lead” the political appointees who head agencies! He called – again – for abolition of NISC and transfer of its $1 million budget to “on the ground” programs. Beck also decried inconsistencies in agencies’ budgets, lack of collaboration with states and local groups in setting priorities, and NEPA having become an excuse to avoid taking action.

HHC has promoted introduction of bills in both the House and Senate – H.R 1485 & S. 2240 – which would require:
• strategic planning;
• cooperation with states;
• categorical exclusion from NEPA review for efforts to protect high-priority sites;
• 5% annual reduction in weed species’ extent; and
• allocation of agencies’ invasive species funds according to the following formula: 75% for on-the-ground activity; 15% for combined research and outreach; 10% or less for administrative costs.

Of these recommendations, I think the proposed dropping of environment reviews of invasive species management programs – especially in “high priority” sites of high ecosystem values – would be a disaster. Management programs have environmental impacts, too; and some approaches cause more harm than good. For example, use of herbicides to eliminate knapweeds has sometimes resulted in takeover of the site by non-native annual grasses that are even more difficult to control.

Also, I think the proposed funding allocation is very unwise. Research and outreach often contribute enormously to control or containment of invasive species. I have been unable to get straight answers from the USDA Forest Service about how such an allocation would affect their programs – which are divided among three separate entities – Research, State and Private Forestry, and National Forest System.

HHC is very active in promoting its position – and those of us who think differently are not yet being heard in Congress.

I think there is room to work with members of the House Oversight Committee to focus more attention on the agencies’ political leadership – where it belongs and where pressure might have an effect. Rep. Lawrence seems interested in continuing efforts. Rep. Hurd of Texas asked about steps to prevent plant pest introductions (none of the witnesses knew about APHIS programs). Furthermore, a second Michigander, Rep. Dan Benisheck, and a Californian, Rep. Mike Thompson, co-chair the Invasive Species Caucus. Although none of them has yet expressed concern about tree-killing pests, given where they are from they might be persuaded to engage.

At present, the only Congressional champion for effective invasive species programs – especially as regards tree-killing pests – is Senator Leahy of Vermont. He has helped prevent further cuts in budgets for APHIS and USFS. We need more friends in Congress.

I urge you – and your friends! – to contact your Representatives and Senators to explain how invasive species are damaging important ecological and economic resources in your state. Ask them to work with their colleagues to support and improve federal programs aimed at preventing new introductions, containing species already introduced, and developing effective methods to reduce pests’ impacts and restore native forests.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership – implications for pests in forests

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

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

Fortunately, I think largely not.

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

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

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

• Article 7.10: Audits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Government Has Done

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

What More Can be Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

New IUCN report notes invasive species threat to World Heritage Sites – Including U.S. National Parks

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has just released a report, IUCN World Heritage Outlook 2014 (for press release, click here; for the full report, click here)
that names invasive species as the second most significant threat World Heritage sites with outstanding natural values. (Poaching is the greatest threat).

World Heritage sites have “outstanding universal values” – either natural or cultural. Natural sites are areas either of exceptional beauty or representative of major stages of Earth’s history, significant ongoing ecological processes, or significant habitats for biodiversity and threatened species.

The 2014 assessment examined 229 natural World Heritage sites and found that 104 are affected by invasive species. Unsurprisingly, island sites are especially heavily impacted. Two-thirds of the affected island sites (24 out of 36) are in the tropics.

The most widespread or common invaders are plants; they are named in 55 of the 104 affected sites. Invasive vertebrate animals affect at least 12 sites. These frequently include fish (mostly trout), cats, and rodents (especially rats).

The report calls for effective management strategies to protect the World Heritage sites. Such strategies include well-defined plans as well as strict bio-security measures, including limiting materials entering the site or the eradication of problem-causing species. Ideally, these actions involve local communities. Among the 104 natural World Heritage areas affected by invasive species, 87 have management projects addressing at least some invasive species or related issues.

According to the report, future invasive species management will be even more challenging, especially because of climate change. Climate change, itself, could become the biggest threat to natural sites in future.

dead sweetbay in Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida

The United States has 21 World Heritage sites. Nine were chosen for their outstanding natural values. These include the following National parks: Everglades, Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Hawaii Volcanoes, Redwood, Yellowstone, and Yosemite National parks; and – jointly with Canada – Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek and Waterton-Glacier National parks.

Several of these natural wonders are well known to be threatened by invasive species – including some tree-killing insects and pathogens.

Everglades National Park. In Everglades, pythons have decimated populations of small to medium native mammals. Lionfish are killing vast numbers of fish in the shallow bay. Numerous invasive plants, especially Australian pine, Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and old world climbing ferns transform the natural sawgrass prairie and mangroves. Some, e.g., Melaleuca, are under control thanks to persistent effort over decades.

Laurel wilt has almost eliminated swamp bay trees from the hammocks. Bromeliad weevil has killed many bromeliads in 12 genera (of the 16 present in Florida).

Tillandsia utriculata bromeliad in Florida

Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The outstanding biological diversity of the forested Great Smoky Mountains National Park has been severely undermined by chestnut blight, hemlock woolly adelgid, balsam woolly adelgid; and is now under attack by more recent invaders, including beech bark disease, emerald ash borer, and thousand cankers disease of walnut. Descriptions of all these pests are available here. At ground level, feral hogs damage plants, soil-dwelling invertebrates and small vertebrates, even birds. Rainbow trout compete with native trout in the streams. More than 380 non-native plants compete with the native species. The Park’s website features another invader, the Asian jumping worm (Amynthas agrestis), which has been introduced through bait.

The Great Smoky Mountains are the center of biological diversity for salamanders which are likely soon to face danger from the “Bsal” pathogen – unless the Fish and Wildlife Service acts to restrict imports of salamanders by the pet trade. See how CISP tries to counter this threat.

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. As I wrote in my blog of October 7, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park is fighting feral hogs, goats, and a plethora of invasive plants (the Park’s flora contains nearly twice as many exotic flowering plants as native species). The Park’s birds are threatened by two non-native diseases, avian pox and avian malaria. As noted in the earlier blog, Hawaii Volcanoes has also been invaded by koa wilt and `ohi`a rust; and is about to be invaded by `ohi`a wilt.

Web-based information from several parks in the western part of the continent focuses on the threat from invasive plants: Grand Canyon, Olympic, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. Redwoods National Park notes the damage caused by sudden oak death to its principal hardwood species, tanoak. Yellowstone National Park has a website describing its whitebark pine forests and mentioning that up to 30% of the taller whitebark pines have been attacked by white pine blister rust; I could find little information about the disease’s impact on the Park’s limber pines, which are also susceptible.

Yosemite National Park has a website with a table listing 16 non-native insects and pathogens that could threaten trees in the park. White pine blister rust is already present in the Park’s sugar pines. I am pleased to see that the website features goldspotted oak borer and the risk of pest introduction via firewood. I just wish Yosemite actually prohibited visitors from bringing firewood into the Park! And carefully restricted commercial suppliers! I addressed Yosemite’s failure to protect itself in my blog of 10 August.

The National Parks Conservation Association is the principal NGO that advocates for protection of the National parks. It issued a report in 2008 that found invasive species were a limited concern in 90% of the parks evaluated, a widespread or chronic concern in 38%. In Hawaii Volcanoes specifically, the natural resources were ranked in “poor” condition due primarily to non-native plants and animals.

Many individual parks have “Friends” groups ….

I ask these groups to help the National parks counter invasive species. To be effective, they need to go beyond the many volunteer “weed pulls” and outreach programs educating park visitors who might transport invasive species (for example, boaters and fishermen who can spread New Zealand mudsnails, rock snot, and invasive mussels; and campers who carry firewood that can transport pests). I ask them to also lobby for policies that would prevent invasions and for increase funding for the parks’ resource management programs (the programs that tackle invasive species). I suggest specifically that supporters of National parks advocate for improvements in programs run by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies, more than any other, determine whether prevention succeeds or fails.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Hawaii’s unique forests now threatened by insects and pathogens – APHIS & State should act

We have known since Darwin that oceanic islands can be cradles of speciation & endemism. Hawai`i exemplifies the phenomenon. Ninety-eight percent of native flowering plants are endemic (Cox). The density of native insect species in Hawai`i is higher than on mainland North America (Yamanaka).

We have known since Elton or earlier that oceanic islands are highly vulnerable to bioinvasion because their unique species did not evolve defenses against predation, herbivory, competition, or diseases; or the ability to adapt to changed soil chemistry or increased fire frequency.

Chapter 8 of the Office of Technology Assessment study of harmful invasive species states:

“Hawaii has a unique indigenous biota, the result of its remote location, topography, and climate. Many of its species, however, are already lost, and at least one-half of the wild species in Hawaii today are non-indigenous. New species have played a significant role in the extinction of indigenous species in the past and continue to do so. Hawaii, the Nation, and the world would lose something valuable as the indigenous fauna and flora decline.”

I apologize for not addressing the disasters wreaked on Hawai’i’s fauna and non-arboreal flora by invasive mammals and birds, plants, and such animal diseases as avian malaria and avian pox. For more on these topics, see the other sources listed below and the websites maintained by the Hawai`i Invasive Species Council and Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Cox notes that alien species span all trophic groups and threaten the complete replacement of the native terrestrial biota.

Outside of land clearing for ranches and other uses, much of the damage to Hawaii’s native forest trees has been caused by introduced mammals – especially pigs and goats; and invasive plants. Few of the enormous number of non-native insects that have established in Hawai`i appear to have attacked native trees. More than 2,600 non-native insects have been introduced; their number equals three-quarters of the NIS insects established in North America, yet Hawai`i constitutes less than 0.01% of the area of North America. The ratio of non-native to native insect species is higher for Hawai`i than for the other geographic areas studied by Yamanaka and colleagues (mainland North America, “mainland” Japan, and two offshore Japanese islands) (Yamanaka).

More than 13% of the non-native insects (=~350) in Hawai`i were introduced intentionally for biological control of agricultural pests and non-native plants (Yamanaka). Cox, Elton, and the Office of Technology Assessment discuss briefly the sometimes damaging effects of these deliberate introductions.

I am aware of only one NIS insect that has seriously threatened a native tree species: the Erythrina gall wasp, which killed many native wiliwili trees as well as lots of introduced coral trees planted in towns and as windbreaks. Biocontrol agents have helped prevent continuing damage from the gall wasp.

Disease pathogens have so far proved greater threats to Hawaiian native trees than introduced insects. Koa wilt is killing koa, especially at lower elevations. It is not certain whether the pathogenic Fusarium fungus is introduced or native; it has been found on all four major islands. Koa is second only to `ohi`a (see below) in abundance in mid to upper elevation Hawaiian forests. It is extremely important ecologically and culturally (koa was the tree from which large, ocean-going canoes were made). Koa also has a wood valued for a range of uses.

`Ohi`a lehua is the most widespread tree on the Islands, dominating approximately 80% of Hawai`i’s remaining native forest (about 965,000 acres, 1500 square miles). These forests are home to Hawai`i’s one native mammal (Hawaiian hoary bat) and 30 species of forest birds (Loope and LaRosa). One threat to `ohi`a comes from `ohi`a or eucalyptus rust. Detected in April 2005, it had spread to all the major islands by August. Fortunately, the strain of `ohi`a rust established in Hawai`i is not very virulent on `ohi`a, but it has killed many plants of an endangered native shrub, Eugenia koolauensis and in Australia it has killed many plants in the Myrtaceae family. Hawaiian conservationists worry that a different, more virulent, strain might be introduced on plants or cut foliage shipped to the Islands from either foreign sources or the U.S. mainland.

A new, apparently more damaging, pathogen was detected in 2010. This new disease is caused by two newly discovered species of the fungal genus Ceratocystis — Ceratocystis lukuohia and C. huliohia. By October 2015 the disease has killed 50% of the `ohi`a trees in several scattered locations totaling 6,000 acres on the southeast lowlands of Hawai`i (the “Big Island”). Tree mortality was nearing the boundary of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Hawaii Volcanoes pioneered methods for controlling invasive pigs and plants that threatened to destroy the Park’s forests. Through 40 years of sustained effort, Hawaii Volcanoes has brought those threats under control. Now the Park faces loss of its invaluable `ohi`a forest to this pathogen – which will be infinitely harder to keep out of the Park. (For updates on “rapid ohia death” visit the write-up here.)

The Hawai`i Department of Agriculture has adopted an emergency regulation aimed at preventing transport of infected wood or tree parts from the Big Island to other islands.

Although tree-killing insects and pathogens have so far not been as damaging in Hawai`i as might be expected, the Islands are highly vulnerable due to the large volumes of cargo and people from around the globe which land on the Islands and the few tree species native there. The Erythrina gall wasp has island-hopped from the east coast of Africa to Hawai`i and many islands in between. `Ohi`a rust is native to tropical America and probably reached the islands on cut stems used in floral decorations. It is unknown where the Ceratocytis fimbriata strain evolved or how it reached Hawai`i.

USDA APHIS is responsible for preventing introduction of new plant pests to Hawai`i from non-U.S. jurisdictions (as well as from Guam). APHIS has traditionally paid little attention to plant pests that are thought likely to threaten “only” Hawai`i but not plant (agricultural) resources on the mainland.

Hawaiian authorities are responsible for preventing introductions from the Mainland – but they struggle with inadequate resources to address the huge volumes of incoming freight and they sometimes hesitate to act. (Hawai`i Department of Agriculture considered restricting shipments of foliage in the Myrtacea to minimize the risk of introduction of a new strain of `ohi`a rust, but in the end did not adopt such a measure.)

Hawai`i’s unique biota is an irreplaceable treasure. All Americans should act to prevent introduction additional introductions to the Islands.

SOURCES:
Cox, George W. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii Impacts on Natural Ecosystems 1999
Elton, Charles S. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants 1958; see especially Chapter 4: The Fate of Remote Islands
Loope, L. and LaRosa, A.M. `Ohi`a Rust (Eucalyptus Rust) (Puccinia psidii Winter) Risk Assessment for Hawai`i
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species In the United States. OTA-F-565; available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1993/9325.PDF

Yamanaka, T., N. Morimoto, G.M. Nishida, K. Kiritani, S. Moriya, A.M. Liebhold. 2015. Comparison of insect invasions in North America, Japan and their Islands. Biol Invasions DOI 10.1007/s10530-015-0935-y

Posted by Faith Campbell

Californians – regulate firewood! Protect your trees!

A new outbreak of the goldspotted oak borer raises again the question of why California does not outlaw the movement of untreated firewood.

goldspotted oak borer

This beetle – which has already killed more than 80,000 oak trees! – has been detected in the town of Green Valley, a small town in Los Angeles County north of the city, and inside the boundaries of the Los Padres National Forest. The first surveys found 27 coast live oak trees with symptoms of beetle attack.
The beetles in Green Valley are genetically identical to those in San Diego County – strongly indicating that the outbreak was started by people moving firewood out of the infested area.
As I noted in my blog dated July 15, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has so far refused to adopt regulations governing movement of firewood. While CDFA and other entities have sponsored billboards, flyers, and other outreach materials to educate people about the risk associated with firewood, the failure to ban firewood movement puts oaks throughout the state at risk.

areas of California in which oaks are at risk to GSOB (redder areas at greatest risk)

A second pest – the polyphagous shot hole borer and its associated Fusarium fungi – threatens a much wider range of trees. It is currently established in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties. It is known to attack Coast live oak, valley oak, Engelmann oak, California sycamore, big leaf maple and box elder, cottonwood, alder, and ash. This beetle, too, can be moved in firewood.
Californians should ask Governor Brown to adopt regulations restricting movement of untreated firewood. Act now! to protect your trees from goldspotted oak borer, polyphagous shot hole borer, and other non-native insects.
Posted by Faith Campbell

APHIS has a tough job – and deserves praise

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

Damage to red maple; photo by Michael Smith, USDA

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

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

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

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