Category: animal invaders

Interior’s Invasive Species Plan: Let’s Implement It!

Posted by Scott J. Cameron, former Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget , US Department of the Interior

locations in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park where ohia trees were infected by rapid ohia death pathogen in 2017

In 2019 Congress passed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. Among other things, it directed the Department of the Interior to “develop a strategic plan that will achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, a substantive annual net reduction of invasive species population or infested acreage on land or water managed by the Secretary.”  This provision triggered a year-long process of public involvement and inter-bureau coordination. The result was a plan published in January 2021.  It represents the first attempt by Interior at a Department-wide multi-taxa, multi-year approach to invasive species.  It has the potential to spur integration of invasive species work across the Department’s many bureaus and to focus each bureau’s efforts on a set of common goals, strategies, and performance metrics.

While Congress’ language is open-ended, any planning exercise is constrained by the most recent President’s budget and existing law.  It is up to those of us who are not, or at least no longer, executive branch employees to advocate for plans unbound by those constraints. 

In that spirit, I offer eight recommendations to improve invasive species management. Four are within existing authorities; four more are outside the current budgetary and statutory framework.  Many more ideas are without a doubt worth pursuing.

Opuntia (prickly pear) cactus – common plant in western National parks and on Bureau of Land Management lands; under threat by cactus moth

First, within existing funding and legal authorities, the Department has unfinished business that it can act on now.

  1. Secure approval of the package of categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — now awaiting approval by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Over many years agencies have documented how invasive species control improves, rather than harms, the environment.  Absent an applicable NEPA categorical exclusion approved by CEQ, though, each such action needs to run the time- and money-consuming gauntlet of NEPA compliance. In the meantime, the invasive plants germinate, the invasive animals reproduce, and what might have been a localized and inexpensive problem has expanded geographically and in terms of cost and complexity.  In the Fall of 2020 Interior submitted hundreds of pages of documentation on numerous practices proven to control invasive species without harming the environment.  Due to time and staffing constraints at CEQ, these categorical exclusions still await action.  Interior and CEQ should take prompt steps to finish them.
  • Allocate to the US Geological Survey at least $10 million of the roughly $90 million remaining available to the Secretary in CARES Act appropriations for research on invasive zoonotic diseases. These are diseases like COVID-19 and West Nile virus that can move from one species to another.  Many zoonotic diseases fit the definition of invasive species, since they are not native to the United States and endanger human health.  In the case of COVID-19 funding is available to the Secretary of the Interior, without need for further Congressional action, from funds appropriated by the CARES Act. The availability of these funds will expire at the end of September 2021, so Interior should provide this research funding to USGS as soon as possible. 
  • Join the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the Western Governors Association (WGA) and the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. These groups have established “a framework to allow the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and WGA to work collaboratively to accomplish mutual goals, further common interests, and effectively respond to the increasing suite of challenges facing western landscapes.”  This provides a forum to improve coordination between the States and the federal government on the management of invasive species, and Interior needs to be part of that team.
  • Interior should work with USDA to accelerate and intensify efforts to systematically improve coordination between the interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council and the interagency National Invasive Species Council.  Both Councils have member agencies that practice vegetation management using similar tools and techniques, although for different purposes. The two Councils should identify a select number of initiatives in FY21 where their efforts would benefit both wildland fire management and invasive plant management .
swamp bay trees in Everglades National Park killed by laurel wilt; photo by Tony Pernas

Four steps to implement the strategic plan outside the scope of current law and the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget. I offer the following:

  1. Improve implementation of the Lacey Act program to list injurious species.  There are both legislative and administrative elements to this proposal.  

In a federal District Court decision on May 19, 2015, on a lawsuit filed by the Association of Reptile Keepers, the Court undid the longstanding Fish and Wildlife Service policy that the Lacey Act allowed FWS to ban interstate transport of injurious species. On April 7, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s view. These rulings mean that FWS authority only applies to international commerce.  Unfortunately, the court’s interpretation of the law and legislative history are reasonable, so Congress needs to amend the law to make it clear that FWS is explicitly authorized to regulate interstate commerce in injurious species. The Department of the Interior should work with the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget to develop the necessary bill language and submit it to Congress.

At the same time, the FWS injurious species listing process is notoriously slow, even causing Congress to occasionally list species legislatively.  The fact that these legislative initiatives have sometimes been promoted by Members of Congress who normally  are opposed to more federal regulation signals just how awkward the current FWS process is. Thus there might well be strong bipartisan support to amend the Lacey Act on the interstate commerce matter. Acting on its own authority, FWS should procure an independent third party review of the injurious species listing process and ask the contractor to make suggestions for “business process reengineering” to improve and streamline current practices, along with evaluating whether higher funding or new technology is needed.

  • The Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget should develop legislative language to submit to Congress for the 2022 Water Resources Development Act, that explicitly authorizes an aquatic nuisance species program in the Bureau of Reclamation.  It could parallel the relatively new authority enjoyed by the Army Corps of Engineers and mandate increased coordination between the two water agencies.
  • Any climate change legislation pursued by Congress and the Administration should include provisions for addressing invasive species.  Climate change will make some North American habitats more suitable for foreign organisms, as cold-intolerant species might be able to survive in more northern latitudes in the U.S. than previously was the case. Second, the disruptive effect of climate change on North American ecosystem structure and trophic relationships at any latitude will make those ecosystems more vulnerable to invasion. Finally, the spread of invasive species may in and of itself exacerbate climate change, such as through the increased carbon dioxide emissions from rangeland wildfires aggravated by the dominance of invasive cheatgrass.
  • The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Natural Resources Committee should each hold oversight hearings on how best to help state and local governments detect and respond to new invasive species that are not within the statutory purview of USDA/APHIS.  This is a complex topic, important for both ecological and financial reasons. Over the years several attempts to address it have failed.  A thoughtful review by Congress and the Administration, which perhaps would lead to passage of new statutory authority and funding, is worth exploring.

The Author:

Scott Cameron recently left the federal government, where he had served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the U.S. Department of the Interior. In that capacity he oversaw Department-wide budget, invasive species, natural resource damage assessment and restoration, environmental compliance and numerous administrative functions of this $14 billion agency with 65,000 employees. Previously, Scott held other civil service job (e.g., at the White House Office of Management and Budget) & political appointments in the federal government, on the staff of the Governor of California, and on Congressional staffs. While not in government, Scott led formation of the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition.

CISP welcomes 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.

Further information on the plant pests mentioned in the photo captions can be obtained at www.dontmovefirewood.org; click the “invasive species” button.

Projection: Alien Species Introductions Will Keep Going Up! Especially Arthropods!

Japanese knotweed

In 2017 I blogged about a study by Hanno Seebens and 44 coauthors that showed that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and showed no sign of slowing down (a reference to the full article is at the end of this blog). Here’s a brief recap, followed by a 2020 update by Seebens and colleagues.

In 2017, Seebens et al. analyzed a database covering 45,813 first records of 16,926 alien species established in 282 distinct geographic regions. The year with the highest number of reported new detections was 1996 – 585, or an average of more than 1.5 sightings per day.

The authors found that the adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th Century had slowed introductions – but not sufficiently. Numbers of reported new introductions of fish and mammals had decreased since the early 1950s. However, first recorded introductions of vascular plant species remained high, and introductions of birds and reptiles also continued to rise, largely as pets in countries with strengthening economies.

For taxa introduced primarily accidentally on transport vectors or as contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates), they found a strong correlation between their spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest – existing biosecurity regimes had not slowed down the accumulation of these alien taxa.

As a consequence, the authors expected that the numbers of new alien species would continue to increase.

As you are aware, since 2015 I have posted 15 blogs about the continued detections of tree pests in wood packaging, which remains one of the major pathways despite the international regulation ISPM#15. I have found it harder to track insect and pathogen introductions on imported plants, but it surely continues apace.

2020 Study Projects Continuing Rise in Introductions, Especially Arthropods 

Hanno Seebens and a smaller set of coauthors (see full reference at the end of this blog) have now produced an estimate of probable introduction rates in the future.  They looked at taxon–continent combinations for seven major taxonomic groups and eight continents (excluding Antarctica).

They found an overall increase in established alien species between 2005 and 2050 of 36%.

The study predicted that by the mid-21st Century, there will be distinct increases in alien species numbers, particularly for Europe, but also for Temperate Asia and North America, and for invertebrates in all regions. Europe ranked highest in absolute numbers of new alien species (~2,543; a 64% increase). Temperate Asia was projected to receive about 1,597 species (a 50% increase); North America about 1,484 (a 23% increase); South America about 1,391 (a 49% increase); and the Pacific Islands about 132. Only Australasia could expect a slower rise in introductions. The predicted trajectories of alien species numbers were surprisingly similar for mainland and island regions across taxonomic groups.

Invertebrates showed the highest relative increases. Rates of new detections of alien species were projected to accelerate for arthropods other than crustaceans worldwide, especially for North America (!). The study also projected higher relative increases for aquatic vascular plants and terrestrial insects

All drivers of introduction and invasion are predicted to intensify in the future. This is despite adoption of increasing numbers of countermeasures in recent decades. Most countries’ capacity to proactively counter the rising tide of invasive species is still poor. Furthermore, the principal drivers – intensification of trade and transport, land-use change, and access to new source pools – is expected to continue operating as now – “business as usual”.

spotted lanternfly Holly Ragusa, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

Current Status of “New” Detections

Seebens et al. (2020) relied on the Alien Species First Records Database for first detection records up to 2005. More than half (54%) of the first-detection records in the database are vascular plants. Arthropods other than crustaceans made up 28% of the total, birds 6%, fishes 4%, mammals 3%, molluscs 2%, and crustaceans 2%. The 2020 study confirmed the earlier finding that the observed first-record rates of mammals changed at around 1950 from an increasing to a decreasing trend. Finally, the total numbers of non-native species in the Database is much lower in aquatic habitats. (The authors do not discuss whether this reflects actual introductions or gaps in reporting.)

In the database, Europe recorded 38% of all first records, North America 16%, Australasia 15%, South America 9%, Temperate Asia 9%, Africa 6%, Pacific Islands 5% and Tropical Asia 2%.

A comparison to the immediate past (1960-2005) showed that the rates of emerging non-native species were projected to accelerate during 2005-2050, especially for arthropods. As I noted above, North America is predicted to have high increases in absolute numbers. Increases are also predicted for birds. Declines are predicted for mammals and fishes.  

Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology

Projected increases for Australasia were consistently lower than in the past.          

Caveats:

1) The authors assumed that past patterns of alien species accumulation will continue in the future. They did not attempt to predict efforts to strengthen biosecurity regulations and mitigation strategies.  

2) Projections were calculated in the absence of data on many underlying drivers for the historic periods and some taxonomic groups. However, observed trends of newly-detected alien species numbers during the 20th century were surprisingly stable despite distinct political and socio-economic changes.

Seebens and colleagues conclude that implementation of targeted biosecurity efforts can reduce the numbers of new alien species becoming established. However, a significant decrease in rates of alien species numbers on a large scale can only be achieved by a coordinated effort that crosses political borders.

SOURCES

Seebens et al.  2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide available (free access!) at https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14435

Seebens, H., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, C. Capinha, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, M. van Kleunen, I. Kühn, J.M. Jeschke, B. Lenzner, A.M. Liebhold, Z. Pattison, J. Perg, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, F. Essl. 2020. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology. 2020;00:1 -13 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15333

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

Asian giant hornet – US & Canada Differ – What are the Implications? – Updated!

Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology

Asian giant hornet (AGH) (Vespa mandarinia) is the world’s largest hornet, reaching sizes of 1.5 – 2 inches long. Its native range includes much of Asia. While media attention has focused on the hornet’s frightening size, the real threat is to honey bees (Apis spp.) and – especially – to the many important crops that bees pollinate.

Over the past year or so, several detections of the Asian giant hornet have been found in the Pacific Northwest – in British Columbia and Washington State. Four of the sites are within a few miles of each other. Two others are separated by miles of open water from the mainland sites. As of mid-October, 18 hornets had been detected in Washington State.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has partnered with the Washington Department of Agriculture to try to eradicate the hornet – which will not be easy! However, the Canadian Food Inspection Service (CFIA) has decided not to designate the hornet as a quarantine pest. This decision seems to threaten divergent approaches to the bioinvader. Fortunately, the Province of British Columbia is trying to eradicate its populations – so perhaps the diverging federal approaches will not result in facilitating the hornet’s establishment and spread.

Where the Hornet Is Known to Be

The first detected outbreak of the Asian giant hornet was in Nanaimo, British Columbia – on Vancouver Island. A single hornet was detected in August 2019. [A Canadian commenter said in March 2021 that this turned out to be a different species, V. soror.] A nest was detected in September and destroyed by local beekeepers and BC government officials. However, another hornet was found on the mainland – in White Rock, B.C. – in November 2019 [CFIA Decision Document]. In 2020, there have been several unconfirmed sightings in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island (van Westendorp, pers. comm.).

Meanwhile, beekeepers discovered two AGH outbreaks in Whatcom County, WA, on the U.S. side of the border. These discoveries were in December 2019 and May 2020. There were other, unconfirmed reports in both Washington and British Columbia. [USDA APHIS Environmental Assessment (EA)] Indeed, later in 2020, Washington reported a few more sightings — in the Birch Bay area, just south of Blaine and at a site about eight miles east of Blaine (van Westendorp, pers. comm.)

Three of the hornets found in spring 2020 were mated queens (Zhu et al. 2020), which means at least one colony successfully reproduced last year. One of the mated queens was the second detection in Whatcom County – in Custer, Washington. One article said that the locations of this spring’s queens meant either that the new queens travelled up to 35 kilometres (about 22 miles) before founding their nests or that they came from more than one colony. Either way, it probably means that giant hornets could spread faster than initially thought.

White Rock, BC and Blaine, Washington are a few miles apart on the Canada-U.S. border. Langley is 12 miles to the northeast of White Rock – in the Fraser Valley. Custer is 7 miles southeast of Blaine. Birch Bay is 5 miles south of Blaine. The most recent detection is 8 miles east of Blaine. So all these detections are in close proximity and might represent spread from a single introduction site – or maybe not!

Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley are on Vancouver Island, which is separated from the other locations by a significant distance and open water. The two island sites are about 30 miles apart. They surely represent one or more separate introductions.

One study found that a single hornet collected from Blaine, Washington differed genetically from  a single hornet collected at Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. This suggests separate introductions. However, too little is known about the hornet’s genetic variability across Asia to allow conclusions about possibly separate origins (van Westendorp, pers. comm.; Wilson et al. 2020).

Areas at Risk

The area at risk is potentially much broader than the Pacific Northwest. APHIS’ initial analyses, based on plant hardiness zones, indicated that the hornet could thrive in virtually all the lower 48 states. APHIS’s Environmental Assessment did not address vulnerable areas in Canada or – apparently – in Hawai`i.

Zhu et al. (2020) carried out an assessment of areas most at risk and the hornet’s potential rate of spread. They found that areas with warm to cool annual mean temperature, high precipitation, and high human activity were most likely to be suitable for the hornet. Areas meeting these criteria are found across western and eastern North America, Europe, northwestern and southeastern South America, central Africa, eastern Australia, and New Zealand. Most of central North America and California are less suitable.

Spread could be rapid in the Pacific Northwest: they predicted that the hornet could reach Oregon in 10 years, eastern Washington and British Columbia within 20 years. This prediction is based in part by experience with the invasive congener V. velutina in Europe; it has expanded by 78 km/year in France, 18 km/year in Italy.

Oregon is relying on beekeepers to detect the hornet, which they expect will arrive even earlier than 10 years from now. The Oregon Department of Agriculture has suffered severe budget cuts because of the Covid-19 crash in state tax collections, so the program is trying to save money. As of the beginning of October, none of the hundreds of citizen reports has been a Vespa of any species (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).

Pathways of Introduction

It is not known how the hornet reached North America. Reports from other countries indicate that they can hitchhike in shipments of empty plant containers, or in the straw in which the containers are packed. In addition, some Asian cultures regard the hornets as delicacies, so deliberate importation is possible. Both APHIS and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have intercepted such shipments (CFIA Decision document; USDA APHIS PPQ New Pest Response).

The Threat

The AGH typically feeds on a variety of terrestrial invertebrates including beetles, mantids, caterpillars, and spiders (EA). During the spring and summer, hornets attack their prey singly. However, in the Aautumn, hornet workers carry out mass attacks against other social Hymenoptera – including other species of Vespa, yellowjackets (Vespula spp.), various paper wasps (Polistes spp.), and honey bees (Apis spp.). Commercial honeybee colonies are typically lost when attacked en masse. They are especially vulnerable because they are more concentrated than wild bee colonies. [EA]

Commercial honeybee colonies pollinate a wide variety of crops, including tree fruits, cane fruits (berries), tree nuts, tomatoes, and even potatoes. Supplies of beef and milk might also be at risk because alfalfa hay is pollinated by bees. Of course, honey production would also be threatened. As USDA APHIS has stated, if the Asian giant hornet spreads it would become a new stress on top of the multiple existing causes of honeybee decline.

Also, there is a direct threat to people. The AGH has a painful sting that can result in anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, and other complications in susceptible people. Officials emphasize that most people will not be at risk of stings. However, beekeepers are – their usual Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is not adequate to ward off the hornet’s sting [APHIS EA & New Pest .

APHIS’ programmatic Environmental Assessment notes that the hornet might also pose a threat to vertebrates that nest in ground burrows and decayed trunks and roots near the ground. Burrows chosen by female hornets for nest construction can be surprisingly large, up to 60 cm (24 inches) in diameter. The EA notes that, in Washington State, badgers, marmots, ground squirrels, and other small mammals use dens or burrows. Among these, four pocket gophers and the American wolverine are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act in Washington State. [For a list, see the environmental assessment.] The EA does not discuss whether cavity-nesting birds might also be affected – although the hornets do prefer hollows near or at ground level. The authors of the EA expect vertebrates to abandon any burrows used by the hornet, so they would be displaced rather than harmed by pesticides applied by the program described below.  

APHIS program

APHIS and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) have begun an eradication program. I think eradication will be challenging because it will be very difficult both to find nests and to destroy them.

  • Hornets nest typically in forested areas or urban green spaces. There are lots of suitable places in the Pacific Northwest! These wooded areas are interspersed with farms, orchards, and settlements that will provide vulnerable insects as food sources.  
  • Nest destruction involves excavating a hole two meters by two meters. This digging must be in woodlands, often right next to trees.

The key to successful eradication is finding and destroying the nests before they produce reproductive females and males – in autumn. Nest detection will be carried out as follows [EA]:

  • Starting in April, the agencies bottle traps in trees near the 2019 detection points. The traps are baited with a solution of rice cooking wine and orange juice to attract the worker bees. (The rice wine is added to discourage honeybees from visiting the trap.)  Traps catches help define areas where nests are located.

WSDA successfully tracked radio-tagged workers to a nest in mid-October. That nest was in a tree hollow, not underground.

WSDA scientists think there were approximately 200 queens in that single nest. Two were vacuumed out during the initial extraction. Inside the nest they found 76 emergent queens and 108 capped cells with pupae that they believe were also queens. Three more queens were trapped in a bucket of water. This nest had approximately 776 cells; large nests can have up to 4,000.  WSDA believes there are other nests in the area; they continue to search.

APHIS’ original plan to use pesticides to kill hornets in the nest has been dropped. Washington plans now to use vacuum extraction followed by introduction of CO2 and excavation of the nest.  Washington has also not decided whether to deploy traps with the pesticide fipronil (S. Spichiger, pers. comm.)

WSDA has also asked members of the public to set out homemade hornet traps, and to report any suspicious sightings.

Canada Takes Opposite Tack

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announced in February 2020 (CFIA Decision Document) that it will not attempt to regulate the Asian giant hornet as a quarantine pest for Canada. Therefore, CFIA will place no restrictions on the import or movement of any commodities that may harbor the Asian giant hornet. CFIA will, however, require permits for deliberate importation of the hornets.

CFIA’s reasoning appears to focus on two factors:

  • The hornet is an indirect threat to plant health (since AGH attacks pollinators. CFIA has traditionally regulated quarantine pests based primarily on significant direct threats to plant health.
  • Under the international phytosanitary system, countries that designate an organism to be a quarantine pest must put in place the necessary measures to prevent its entry into the country, as well as officially control the pest when present. CFIA states that “High uncertainties about the pathways of entry puts into question the ability to manage this risk, and ultimately the ability and feasibility of regulating V. mandarinia as a quarantine pest.”

Neither APHIS nor CFIA has authority to regulate threats to human health.

Detection and Eradication Efforts in British Columbia  (information from van Westendorp, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture)

In 2020, British Columbia has focused on detection surveillance. Target areas include vicinity of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island; Fraser Valley from White Rock in the West to Langley/Aldergrove in the East (along the US border); and after several credible (but non-verified) sightings, the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island. Because of resource limits, the surveillance effort has sought to engage local governments, border agencies, First Nations, forestry & mining companies, farmers, and beekeepers.  The ministry also placed numerous bottle traps and encouraged 170 beekeepers in the Fraser Valley to install and monitor traps in their apiaries. 

So far, only one AGH specimen has been sighted or collected in the three British Columbia survey areas during 2020 – the single specimen at Langley detected in May. However, the several detections along the U.S. side of the border (see above on recent detections) has spurred BC officials to intensify survey efforts in the Fraser Valley (van Westendorp). A specimen was collected adjacent to the US border in mid-October just north of the multiple detections in the US, and South of the Langley detection last spring (S. Spicher, pers. comm.).

British Columbia will continue to monitor well into the fall season and resume our surveillance in 2021 and 2022 (van Westendorp).

Hornets are clearly able to be transported and introduced. Vespa ducalis was detected in Vancouver, BC in 2019 and in Texas in 2020. Vespa velutina has become established in Europe (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).

SOURCES

CFIA Decision document: Vespa mandarinia (Asian giant hornet) February 2020. https://www.inspection.gc.ca/plant-health/plant-pests-invasive-species/insects/asian-giant-hornet/decision-document/eng/1593718645505/1593718645899

USDA APHIS Asian Giant Hornet Control Program in Washington State Final Environmental Assessment—July 2020

USDA AHIS PPQ New Pest Response

van Westendorp, Paul. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, pers. comm.

Wilson, T.M., J. Takahashi, S-Erik Spichiger, I. Kim, and P. van Westendorp. 2020. First Reports of Vespa mandarinia (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in North America Represent Two Separate Maternal Lineages in WA State, US, and BC, Canada. Annals of the Entomological Society of America · October 2020

Zhu, G., J. Gutierrez Illan, C. Looney, and D.W. Crowder. 2020. Assessing the ecological niche and invasion potential of the Asian giant hornet. PNAS Latest Articles ECOLOGY

NPS Report Published in Journal – Has it Been Implemented? Can it Be?

invasive lake trout in Yellowstone National Park

The National Park Service has a legal mandate to manage lands and waters under its jurisdiction so as to “preserve unimpaired” their natural and cultural resources (NPS Organic Act 54 U.S.C. § 100101, et seq.) Invasive species undermine efforts to achieve that mission. In 2000, the NPS adopted a program to coordinate management of invasive plants. It’s not as effective as needed – see the strategic plan.  

However, only recently has NPS begun trying to prioritize and coordinate programs targetting the many animals and animal diseases which threaten Park resources. These organisms range from emerald ash borer and quagga mussels; to pythons, goats, and pigs; to diseases such as white nose syndrome of bats and avian malaria in Hawai`i.

In 2017, NPS released an internal study of the pervasive threat to Park resources posed by invasive animals and discussed steps to overcome barriers to more effective responses (Redford et al., 2017; full citation at end of this blog). The Chief of the Biological Resources Division initiated this report by asking a Science Panel to evaluate the extent of the invasive animal problem, assess management needs, review best practices, and assess potential models that could serve as a service-wide organizational framework. The report was to pay particular attention to innovative and creative approaches including, but not limited to, new genomic tools. I summarized the Panel’s  findings and conclusions in a blog when its report appeared in 2017.

Significantly, the Panel’s final report states that “a general record of failure to control invasive species across the system” was caused principally by a lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership.

This report has now appeared in the form of a peer-reviewed article in the journal Biological Invasions by Dayer et al. 2019 (full citation at end of this blog). Although nine of the ten authors are the same on both reports there are substantive differences in content. For example, the journal article reiterates the principal findings and conclusions of the Panel’s final report, but in less blunt language.

What’s Been Watered Down

The toning down is seen clearly in the statements some of the panel’s six key findings.

Finding #1

            The panel’s report says:  invasive animals pose a significant threat to the cultural and natural values and the infrastructure of U.S. national parks. To date, the NPS has not effectively addressed the threat they pose.

            Dayer et al. says: the ubiquitous presence of invasive animals in parks undermines the NPS mission.

Finding #2

            The panel’s report says: managing invasive animals will require action starting at the highest levels, engaging all levels of NPS management, and will require changes in NPS culture and capacity.

            Dayer et al. says: coordinated action is required to meet the challenge.

Finding #4

            The panel’s report states: effective management of invasive animals will require stakeholder engagement, education, and behavior change.

            Dayer et al. says: public engagement, cooperation and support is [sic] critical.

Wording of the other three “key findings” was also changed, but these changes are less substantive.

Drayer et al. also avoid the word “failure” in describing the current status of NPS” efforts to manage invasive animal species. Instead, these authors conclude that the invasive species threat “is of sufficient magnitude and urgency that it would be appropriate for the NPS to formally declare invasive animals as a service-wide priority.”

Where the Documents Agree – Sort of

Both the Panel’s report and Dayer et al. state that invasive animal threats are under-prioritized and under-funded. They say that addressing this challenge must begin at the highest levels within the NPS, engage all levels of management, and will require investments from the NPS leadership.  Even within individual parks, they acknowledge that staffs struggle to communicate the importance of invasive animal control efforts to their park leadership, especially given competition with other concerns that appear to be more urgent. And they admit that parks also lack staff capacity in both numbers and expertise.

Also, both the Panel’s report and Dayer et al. urge the NPS to acknowledge formally that invasive animals represent a crisis on par with each of the three major crises that drove Service-wide change in the past: over-abundance of ungulates due to predator control; Yellowstone fire crisis (which led to new wildfire awareness in the country); and recognition of the importance of climate change.

The Panel suggested ways to update NPS’ culture and capacity: providing incentives for staff to (1) address long-term threats (not just “urgent” ones) and (2) put time and effort into coordinating with potential partners, including other park units, agencies at all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, private landowners, and economic entities. Dayer et al. mention these barriers but does not directly mention changing incentives as one way to overcome them.

Both the Panel’s report and Dayer et al. suggest integrating invasive animal threats and management into long-range planning goals for natural and cultural landscapes and day-to-day operations of parks and relevant technical programs (e.g., Biological Resources Division, Water Resources Division, and Inventory and Monitoring Division).

What is Missing from the Journal Publication

The Panel’s final report noted the need for increased funding. It said that such funding would need to be both consistent and sufficiently flexible to allow parks to respond to time-sensitive management issues. It proposes several approaches. These include incorporating some invasive species control programs (e.g., for weeds and wood borers) into infrastructure maintenance budgets; adopting invasive species as fundraising challenges for non-governmental partners (e.g., “Friends of Park” and the National Park Foundation); and adopting invasive species as a priority threat. Dayer et al. do not discuss funding issues.

The final internal report envisioned the NPS becoming a leader on the invasive species issue by 1) testing emerging best management practices, and 2) educating visitors on the serious threat that invasive species pose to parks’ biodiversity. As part of this process, the authors suggest that the NPS also take the lead in countering invasive species denialism.  Dayer et al. do not mention the issue of invasive species deniers.

Common Ground: Status of Invasive Animals in the Parks

The Panel’s report and Dayer et al. describe the current situation similarly:

  • More than half of the National parks that responded to the internal survey (245 of the 326 parks) reported problems associated with one or more invasive animal species.
  • The total number of species recorded was 331. This is considered to be an underestimate since  staffs often lack the ability to thoroughly survey their parks – especially for invertebrates.
  • Invasive species threats to Parks’ resources have been recognized for nearly 100 years. The original report notes that 155 parks reported the presence of one or more exotic vertebrate species in 1977. At that time, exotic animals were the fourth most commonly reported source of threats. In 1991, parks identified 200 unfunded projects to address exotic species, costing almost $30 million.
  • Only a small percentage of non-native animal invasions are under active management. Dayer et al. stated that 23% have management plans at the park unit level, and only 11% are reported as being ‘‘under control”.
  • Individual parks have effective programs targetting specific bioinvaders (examples are described in Redford et al;  a brief summary of these efforts is provided in my previous blog.    

Common Ground on Some Solutions

The report and Dayer et al. promote the same steps to improve invasive animal management across the Service. Both note that the NPS is adopting formal decision support tactics to update and strengthen natural resource management across the board. More specific steps include

  • establishing a coordination mechanism that enables ongoing and timely information sharing.
  • mainstreaming invasive species issue across the NPS branches or creating a cross-cutting IAS initiative among the Biological Resources Division, Water Resources Division, Inventory and Monitoring Division, Climate Change Response Program, and the regional offices.

While both documents call on the NPS to develop and test emerging technologies, the Panel’s final  report is more detailed, providing, in Table 5, a list of several areas of special interest, including remotely triggered traps, species-specific toxicants, toxicant delivery systems, drones, environmental DNA, and sterile-male releases. Dayer et al. mention eDNA and metabarcoding for ED/RR, biocontrol, and gene drives to control invasive pathogens. (Neither document discusses possible concerns regarding use of CRISPR and other gene-altering technologies, other than to say there would be public concerns that would need to be addressed.)

Both documents note the necessity of working with resource managers beyond park boundaries to detect and manage species before they arrive in parks. They note that developing and operationalizing such partnerships requires time and resources. Furthermore, invasive species prevention, eradication, and containment programs can be effective only with public support. They suggest strengthening NPS’ highly regarded public outreach and interpretation program to build such support, including through the use of citizen scientists.

The Panel’s final report said that the NPS should recognize that the condition of the ecosystem is the objective of efforts.  Its authors recognized that achieving this goal might require reconsidering how ecosystem management is organized within NPS so interacting stressors (e.g.,  fire) and management levers (e.g., pest eradication/suppression, prescribed fire) would be addressed. For this, the NPS would need to create a focused capacity to address the pressing issue of invasive animals in such a way that fosters integrated resource management within parks, focusing on fundamental values of ecosystem states, and not eradication targets. Dayer et al. called for the same changes without specifically labelling “condition of the ecosystem” as the goal.

Publication of Dayer et al. prompted me to find out what progress the NPS has made in responding to the “key findings” in the Panel’s final report (neither publication calls them “recommendations”). 

The National Park Service has acted on the recommendation to appoint an “invasive animal coordinator” within the Biological Resources Division. That person is Jennifer Sieracki. However, I wonder whether a person located in BRD is of sufficient stature to influence agency policy across all divisions. It is not clear whether there is active coordination with the national-level invasive plant coordinator.

Dr. Sieriaki responded to my query by noting the following new efforts 1) to improve outreach to partners and the public, and 2) to expand formal and informal partnerships with local, state, federal and tribal entities and local communities near parks.

  • NPS should soon finalize two formal partnerships with other agencies and organizations for outreach and management of invasive animal species.
  • NPS is working with researchers at the US Geological Survey to expand an existing modeling tool for identifying potential suitable habitat for invasive plant species to include invasive insects. This will help staff focus on the most likely locations for introductions and thus assist with early detection and control.
  • NPS has created a Community of Practice so NPS employees can seek each other’s advice on addressing invasive animal issues. A workshop of regional invasive species coordinators is planned for the coming months to guide direction of the service-wide program and identify other top priorities. (Seriacki pers. comm.)

I also wonder whether the NPS can achieve the top-level coordination and outreach to the public called for by both reports while complying with the terms of Public Law 116-9 – the John N. Dingle Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, which was enacted a year ago. Title VII, Section 10(i)  of this law limits spending to carry out invasive species program management and oversight to 10% of appropriated funds. Less than 15% may be spent on investigations (research), development activities, and outreach and public awareness efforts (Section 10(h)). The law does allow spending for investigations regarding methods for early detection and rapid response, prevention, control, or management; as well as inspections and interception or confiscation of invasive species to prevent in-park introductions.

For more information, see my previous criticism of NPS failure to address invasive species issues here.

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.

See also my earlier discussion of the new legislation here.

SOURCES

Dayer, A.A., K.H. Redford, K.J. Campbell, C.R. Dickman, R.S. Epanchin-Niell, E.D. Grosholz, D.E. Hallac, E.F. Leslie, L.A. Richardson, M.W. Schwartz. 2019. The unaddressed threat of invasive animals in U.S. National Parks.  Biol Invasions

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02128-0

Redford, K.H., K. Campbell, A. Dayer, C. Dickman, R. Epanchin-Niell, T. Grosholz, D. Hallac, L. Richardson, M. Schwartz. 2017. Invasive animals in U. S. National Parks: By a science panel. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/BRD/NRR—2017/1564. NPS, Fort Collins, Colorado. Commissioned by the NPS Chief of Biological Resources Division. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/594922

Jennifer Sieracki, Invasive Animal Coordinator, Biological Resources Division, National Park Service

Feral Hogs: Report Warns, “Spreading Fast, Act Early”

feral hogs in Missouri; photo by Missouri Department of Conservation

A new report by several experts confirms fears that the feral pig threat is widespread and re-emphasizes the value of taking action early. (I have blogged several times about efforts to manage damaged caused by feral hogs – see here and here.  

Lewis et al. (full reference at end of blog) used two national-scale data sets to estimate historical, current, and future potential population size of wild pigs in the U.S. from 1982 to 2016.

They found that both wild pig distribution and abundance have nearly tripled over this period (from ~2.4 to 6.9 million). If no effective action is taken and pigs spread to all available habitat, the U.S. wild pig population could reach ~21.4 million at some unspecified future date. This would represent a 210% increase above the 2016 population; or a 784% increase above the 1982 population.

The authors cite successful control of wild pigs in Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, and Nebraska as evidence of the value of early detection and rapid response.

Lewis et al. provide brief summaries of economic and ecological damage caused by feral hogs. They damage a wide range of ecological communities, especially riparian areas, grasslands, and deciduous forests. Biological diversity is hurt through habitat destruction, direct predation, and competition for resources. In addition, wild pigs can host a suite of viruses, bacteria, and parasites, many of which can be transmitted to other wildlife, humans, and livestock.

The report notes that much of the recent spread of pigs has been caused by widespread and illegal releases of wild animals for sport hunting. Other contributing factors are land-use patterns, because hogs do well in agricultural areas. Warmer winter temperatures and increased forest mast production are also to blame – both related to climate-change

Wild pigs can persist in a range of environments, including cold northern climates, arid regions, and mixed forests. That is, all regions of the continental U.S. The vast majority of states – especially in the West, North, and East – could see major expansions in wild pig populations if animals are allowed to become established over currently unoccupied habitat.

While states that have had large established wild pig populations – e.g., Texas, California, and Florida – will not see major expansions, damage is already severe and widespread. Texas alone has an estimated 2.5 million feral hogs!

Preventing the alarming expansion of feral hog populations outlined above, Lewis et al. call for adoption and implementation of proactive management. The priority is to quickly identify and eradicate populations that invade unoccupied habitat. This applies particularly to those states which currently have low populations of feral hogs.

The same approach can be applied within states. Officials can use one data set to identify areas where wild pigs are currently absent and the predicted population density data to designate priority areas to counter spread. Such efforts should include public education and outreach, regulatory enforcement, and surveillance.

Lewis et al. note that implementation of the proposed strategy will require a coordinated effort among federal, state, and local governments and the public. They call especially for state regulations classifying feral hogs as an invasive and harmful species supported by action to halt pig translocation for the purposes of recreational sport hunting.

The authors promised that the findings of the study would be applied by the National Feral Swine Damage Management Program, which is led by USDA APHIS. One of the “tactics” to achieve Objective 2.4 in the APHIS Strategic Plan for 2019-2023 says the agency will “expand feral swine damage management for agricultural, livestock, property, ecological and human health and safety purposes.”  Still, states will find it challenging to take any actions opposed by hunters.

At the end of June 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a $75 million program called the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program (FSCP). (This works out to about $15 million per year.) The program is a joint effort by the  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. It was established by the 2018 Farm Bill. Additional information is available at the program webpage.  

The webpage describes how to apply for funding for projects lasting up to three years. The pilot projects will consist broadly of three coordinated components: 1) feral swine removal by APHIS; 2) restoration efforts supported by NRCS; and 3) assistance to producers for feral swine control provided through partnership agreements with non-federal partners. 


The initial funding will target specific locations in the South that have experienced recent increases in wild pigs (shown on the map below). The goal is to reduce the numbers of pigs (and associated damage) in those identified localized areas of the South. These “pilot” areas have been identified by the USDA Secretary as under threat from feral swine. The first round of projects – 20 projects – are targetted at a few counties in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. APHIS has determined these states and California have highest feral swine populations. 

The new program builds on successes in recent years. Funding of APHIS’ feral hog program at about $20 million per year has helped several states become “pig free”. Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey and New York are currently monitoring (using eDNA and scat dogs) to make sure that the pigs are truly gone.

   

SOURCE

Lewis, J.S., J.L. Corn, J.J. Mayer, T.R. Jordan, M.L. Farnsworth, C.L. Burdett, K.C. VerCauteren, S.J. Sweeney, R.S. Miller. 2019. Historical, current, and potential population size estimates of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in the United States. Biological Invasions, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 2373-2384.

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.

Timely reminder: Don’t Move Invasive Species!

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has teamed up with the North American Invasive Species Management Association and The Nature Conservancy to sponsor the first-ever national PlayCleanGo Awareness Week beginning Saturday – June 1-8. The program’s goal is to help outdoor enthusiasts understand how they can help stop the spread of invasive plants and pests—while still enjoying the great outdoors.

APHIS’ announcement suggests some helpful steps people going outdoors can take:   

  • Before moving from one location to another, clean your shoes with a brush to remove any soil, plants or seeds that might be trapped in your treads. This action will help prevent your accidentally spreading damaging microscopic organisms or invasive weeds to new areas.  
tanoaks killed by Phytophtora ramorum (sudden oak death) Big Sur, California
  • Avoid giving hitchhiking pests a free ride in your firewood by purchasing your firewood where you plan to burn it or taking only heat-treated firewood with you. Careless movement of wood can spread tree-killing beetles and other pests that can harm our forests. 
tangle of dead ash in Michigan killed by emerald ash borer
photo by Ned Siegert, USDA Forest Service
  • If you are driving, remove any visible pests, plants, soil, or egg masses from your vehicle, RV or camper. It only takes a few minutes to stop tree-killing insects and other potentially harmful plant pests from traveling with you to your next destination.  
spotted lanternfly
photo by Holly Raguza, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

  The website hprovides educational materials as well as such tools for interaction as pledges and hashtags!

Help spread the word while doing your part.

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.

Progress in Combatting Invasives – with Caveats

Missouri Makes Progress in Eradicating Feral Hogs – Despite Sabotage

Feral hogs have expanded their range in the U.S. from 17 to 38 states over the past 30 years. Their populations grow rapidly because feral hogs can breed any time of the year and produce two litters of one to seven piglets every 12 to 15 months. [See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019]

hog “sounder” in a trap in Missouri
Missouri Department of Conservation

Missouri’s program is increasingly successful: the numbers of hogs removed has risen from 5,358 in 2016, to 6,561 in 2017, to 9.365 in 2018. [See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019] I have previously praised Missouri’s scientifically-based program to eradicate feral hogs – here and here (Missouri has extensive material on feral hogs posted here)  

According to the Missouri Department of Conservation’s feral hog elimination team leader, Mark McLain, said “This strategic approach is important because if we leave even a few feral hogs behind in an area, they can reproduce quickly and put us back where we started.”

According to McLain, hunting is not an effective method for eliminating feral hog populations. “For over 20 years, unregulated hunting of feral hogs was allowed in Missouri, during which time our feral hog population expanded from a few counties to over 30 counties,” he said.

In 2017, MDC, the Corps of Engineers, and the LAD Foundation established regulations against feral hog hunting on lands owned and managed by these three organizations. Other agencies have passed regulations similar to MDC’s to eliminate hog hunting on land they own.

However, illegal releases of feral hogs continue. The February 2019 press release (referenced below) describes several examples of the problems such releases cause. McLain said that those who release feral hogs face hefty fines. Hunting, especially with dogs, pushes the hogs onto neighboring property, which causes problems for neighbors. The hogs travel back and forth between the properties, escaping and causing more damage. Trapping with no hunting interference is the best method to eliminate them.

MDC advises landowners to seek help from the Department and USDA APHIS. These agencies providetechnical advice and training; conduct on-site visits; and loan equipment.

Are feral hog programs in other states using the same methods? Are they as successful?

SOURCES

Missouri Department of Conservation. More than 9,300 Feral Hogs Eliminated from Missouri in 2018. Press Release. January 25, 2019.

Missouri Department of Conservation. Interference with feral hog trapping sites costs trappers time, taxpayers money. Press Release. February 21, 2019.

Florida Looks to Biocontrol to Makes Progress Against Some of its Worst Invasive Plants

Brazilian peppertree tangle
John Randall, The Nature Conservancy
www.bugwood.org

Until recently, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) was considered the worst invasive tree or shrub in Florida. It threatened to convert the everglades “sea of grass” into a thicket of exotic trees which could not support native wildlife. Thanks to the biocontrol agent Oxyops vitiosa, melaleuca is considered to be under maintenance control on public conservation land in the state. Still, melaleuca control demands about $2 million per year because of the huge area previously (and still) affected by the tree.

Now Florida is about to release biocontrol agents to attack Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). In Florida, Brazilian peppertree is found from Monroe County in the south to St. Johns, Levy, and Nassau counties in the north plus Franklin County in the Panhandle. An estimated 283,000 hectares of south and central Florida are invaded. The South Florida Water Management District alone is spending approximately $1.7 million per year (as of 2011) to control it.

Brazilian peppertree invades disturbed sites such as canal banks and fallow farmlands. Of greater concern to me are the many natural communities invaded – Brazilian peppertree infests more natural areas in Florida than any other invasive plant species. Invaded ecosystems include pinelands, hardwood hammocks, and critically important mangrove forests. The coastal mangroves are valued because of their high productivity, wildlife habitat, and shoreline protection and stabilization.

Brazilian peppertree infestation in the Everglades
Tony Pernas, USDI National Park Service
www.bugwood.org

Dense stands of Brazilian peppertree shade out and may kill food plants used by white-tailed deer – key prey for the endangered Florida panther. Other mammals and birds might be poisoned by toxic resins in the bark, leaves and fruits — although some birds feed extensively on the fruits – and thereby contribute to spread of the invasive plant.

Existing options for management of Brazilian peppertree, including chemical, mechanical, and physical control measures, have been used with some success against this weed. However, applying these strategies repeatedly to prevent regrowth is costly and labor intensive. Furthermore, such practices can be detrimental to native vegetation. For example, mangroves are particularly sensitive to both herbicides and the soil disturbances associated with mechanical control

After more than 20 years of searching, Florida hopes it has identified useful biocontrol agents. USDA APHIS is seeking public comment on the proposed release of two insect species, Calophya latiforceps  (a leaf galling psyllid) and Pseudophilothrips ichini (a thrips) as biological control agents targetting Brazilian pepper.

Much as I sympathize – Brazilian peppertree is a highly damaging invasive plant and there are no other effective control measures – I have questions. First, the psyllid is sedentary; dispersal would be by wind. Would this limit its efficacy?

More troubling is host specificity. The Environmental Assessment (available here) reveals that the thrips can reproduce in low numbers on several non-target plant species, including the Hawaiian sumac Rhus sandwicensis. True, the proposal is to release the biocontrol agents on the continent, not on Hawai`i. But insects have often been transported inadvertently to Hawai`i – and the islands’ plant species have often proved highly vulnerable to attack by non-native species (I confess that the most recent examples are pathogens, e.g., ‘ōhi‘a rust and rapid ‘ōhi‘a death.)

APHIS is accepting comments on the Environmental Assessment until March 29. Please consider providing your views. Again, the document is available here.

RESULTS

In June 2019, APHIS announced that it would issue permits for release of the two biocontrol agents on the continent – starting in Florida – without any restrictions. APHIS dismissed my concerns about the potential threat to native Hawaiian plants — Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa. See the agency’s responses in Appendix 7.

As regards the potential threat to the two Hawaiian species from the thrips Pseudophilothrips ichini APHIS chose to ignore my two greatest concerns:

1) that insects are introduced accidentally to Hawai`i frequently – so the threat from this thrips must be considered.

2)  if introduced to Hawai`i, P. ichini would have ample resources to maintain high population levels and so could put constant pressure on Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa even ‘though neither plant itself supports more than one generation of the thrips.

In response to my query as to who in Texas would be consulted re: possible release of the biocontrol agents in that state, APHIS replied the chief state plant regulatory official (head of plant pest issues in the state Department of Agriculture) and the APHIS representative in the state. No conservation authorities are designated. Nor would APHIS prepare a new environmental assessment – although the current one cites data almost exclusively for Florida.

One good response: in response to my concerns that the psyllid Calophya latiforceps is too sedentary to spread through the hundreds of thousands of acres invaded by Brazilian pepper, APHIS clarifies that a mass rearing and release program is under development.

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.

South African report: Rigorous, Honest, and a Model for U.S. and Others

Density of invasive plants in South Africa

map available here

 

Last month, in my blog about the US Geological Survey’s report on invasive species  I announced release of a report by South Africa on its invasive species management programs – available here.  Because this report is unusual in both its rigor and its honesty, I’m returning to it here. I think it is a model for our country and others.

The report provides the basics. That is, it analyzes pathways of introduction and spread; number, distribution and impact of individual species; species richness and abundance of alien species in defined areas; and the effectiveness of interventions. Of the 775 invasive species identified to date, 556, or about 72%, are listed under some national regulatory program. Terrestrial and freshwater plants number 574 species; terrestrial invertebrates number 107 species. A different set of 107 species, or about 14%, are considered by experts to be having major or severe impacts on biodiversity and/or human wellbeing. The highest numbers of alien species are in the savanna, grassland, Indian Ocean coastal belt, and fynbos biomes. South Africans are particularly focused on the reductions in surface water resulting from plant invasions. Much of the control effort is under the egis of the decades-old “Working for Water” program.

Also, the report has features that are all-too-rare in work of its kind. First is the authors’ focus on rigor – of data sources and interpretation of those data using standardized criteria. Second – and even more important – is their call for analyzing the efficacy of the components of invasive species program. They insist on the need to measure outcomes (that is, results), not just inputs (resources committed) and outputs (“acres treated”, etc.). Inputs are far easier to measure and are, unfortunately, the mainstay of how most U.S. efforts are tracked – if they are tracked at all.

As they note, measure of inputs and outputs are not useful because they provide no guidance on the purpose of the action or treatment or of its effectiveness in achieving that purpose.

(For earlier CISP advocacy of measuring outcomes, visit the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species and read the bullet points under “Recommendations for a Comprehensive National Response”.)

The report has been praised by international conservationists, including Piero Genovesi – chair of the IUCN’s Invasive Species Specialist Group. British ecologist Helen Roy says that, to her knowledge, it is “the first comprehensive synthesis of the state of invasive species by any country.”

 

How well are programs working?

The authors’ focus on rigor includes being scrupulously honest in their assessments of current program components. They note deficiencies and disappointments, even when the conclusions might be politically inconvenient. To be fair, all countries struggle to achieve success in managing bioinvasions. And South Africa is, in many ways, a developing country with a myriad of economic and social challenges.

So it is probably not surprising that, for most factors analyzed, the authors say data are insufficient to determine the program’s impact. Where data are adequate, they often show that programs fall short. For example, they conclude that control measures have been effective in reducing populations of established invasive species, usually plants, in some localized areas but not in others. While the situation would arguably have been worse had there been no control, current control efforts have not been effective in preventing the ongoing spread of IAS when viewed at a national scale. Only one of South Africa’s 72 international ports of entry has consistent inspection of incoming air passengers and cargo – and even those inspections are not carried out outside of regular working hours (e.g., nights and weekends).

The authors are even critical of the “Working for Water” program – which is the basis for most control efforts in South Africa and enjoys wide political support. WfW has two goals: providing employment and development opportunities to disadvantaged individuals in rural areas, and managing invasive alien plants. Despite substantial funding, the WfW program has supported control teams that have reached only 2% – 5% of the estimated extent of the most important invasive plants. Furthermore, programs structured to provide employment have not ensured use of the most efficient control strategies.

 

What’s needed in South Africa — and around the world

The authors conclude that South Africa needs new processes to monitor and report on bioinvasions in order to achieve evidence-based policy and management decisions. They call for (1) more research to determine and assess invasive species impacts; (2) better monitoring of the effectiveness of current control measures; and (3) the development of methods to look at the impact of bioinvasions and their management on society as a whole.

The authors say it is important for South Africa to improve its management of invasive species because their impacts are already large and are likely to increase significantly. They note that improving management efficiency will require difficult choices and trade-offs. They recommend a focus on priority pathways, species, and areas. They also stress return on investment.

 

I don’t know how this report has been received in South Africa. I hope government officials, media observers, landowners, political parties, and other stakeholders appreciate the honesty and expertise involved. I hope they take the analyses and recommendations seriously and act on them.

(Preparation of the report was was overseen by a team of editors and contributing authors employed by the South African National Biological Diversity Institute (SANBI) and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology at (C.I.B). Drafts were widely circulated to contributing authors and other stakeholders for comments. An independent review editor will be appointed to assess the review process and recommend any ways to strengthen the process for future reports.)

 

Meanwhile, how do we Americans apply the same rigor to analyzing our own efforts?

 

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.

 

 

Report Lists Non-Native Species in the U.S.

Ailanthus altissima

Several scientists at the United States Geological Service (USGS) have published a report and accompanying datasets that attempts to provide a publicly accessible and comprehensive list of non-native species established in United States.

Led by Annie Simpson and Meghan C. Eyler, a team of six scientists worked six years (2013–2018). They reviewed 1,166 authoritative sources to develop a list of 11,344 unique names – most of them binomials (genus and species), a few genera, plus some viruses.

This was a Herculean effort that produced very valuable products. We are all in their dept!

Simpson and Eyler point out that knowing which species are non-native to a region is a first step to managing invasive species. Lists compiled in the past were developed to serve a variety of purposes, including watch lists for preventing invasions, inventory and monitoring lists for research and modeling, regulatory lists for species control, and non-regulatory lists for raising awareness. As a result, they are not comprehensive.

Among the sources these authors consulted in preparing the list were peer-reviewed journal articles, books, brochures, circulars, databases, environmental assessments, technical reports, graduate theses, and websites.

Data – by Region

The report also notes which non-native species were established in each of three regions: the “lower 48” states, Alaska, and Hawai`i. Not surprisingly, more than half the non-native taxa are established in the vast area (nearly 7.9 million km2) comprising the “lower 48” states – 6,675 taxa. Almost half of the total number of non-native taxa have established in the tiny geographic region (only 28,311 km2) of Hawai`i – 5,848 taxa.  One-tenth as many non-native taxa – 598 – are reported as established in Alaska (1.7 million km2).

This report includes taxa that are not native to any part of the specific region, but established (naturalized) somewhere in the region. An “established” species must have at least one population that is  successfully reproducing or breeding in natural systems. The list includes domesticated animals and plants introduced for crops or horticulture when the taxon has escaped cultivation or captivity and become established in the wild. Species listed range from feral hogs (Sus scrofa) to plum pox virus and citrus canker to ohia rust (Puccinia psidii).

Of the total 11,344 taxa, 157 are established in all three regions. These included 125 vascular plants (especially grasses and asters); 13 arthropods, 11 mammals; 6 birds; 3 mollusks; 1 bryozoan. One of the ubiquitous plant species is tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). I find it entirely appropriate that the cover photo shows this tree – the photo was taken 8 miles from my home in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Nearly three-quarters (71.4%) of the non-native species in Alaska are plant species. More than half (59.7%) of the non-native species in the “lower 48” region are also plants. Nearly all the remainder of the non-native species in both regions are some kind of animal. Fungi constitute only 1.8% of the non-native species in the “lower 48” region; all the rest of the groups (Bacteria, Chromista, Protozoa, Virus) constitute less than 1% of the non-native species recorded in either region.

By contrast, in Hawai`i, animals make up 69.7% of the listed non-native species; most are invertebrates. Plants constitute 29.8% of the Hawaiian list.

Gaps, by Taxon

The authors recognize that invertebrates and microbes are under-represented because species are still being discovered; non-charismatic and difficult-to-identify species tend to be overlooked; and the species composition of any nation in this era of globalization is constantly subject to change.

I have noted some gaps among the pathogens: the absence of some of the Phytophthora that have been detected infecting shrubs and herbaceous plants in California,  e.g., Phytophthora cambivora, siskiyouensis, tentaculata;  and the “rapid ohia death” pathogens, Ceratocystis huliohia and C. lukuohia. Dr. Simpson is aware of these gaps and is soliciting sources to help add these organisms – especially the various Phytophthora species – to the next version of the list.

Simpson and Eyler note that the relative geographic distribution of the list at its current state seems to reinforce three well established premises: that tropical island systems are particularly vulnerable; that higher latitudes host fewer but are not invulnerable; and that species diversity in general decreases with increasing latitude.

 Comparisons to Other Databases

After standardizing the names in the list by comparing them to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), Simpson and Eyler also reviewed the USGS BISON database, which has more than 381 million occurrence records for native and non-native species in the U.S. and Canada, covering 427,123 different taxa. (The BISON database contains significantly more species occurrences for the U.S. than the largest invasive species database, EDDMapS, which contained 4.4 million species occurrences as of June 2018.) Simpson and Eyler had to evaluate which of these taxa met their definition of non-native, since most species occurrence records in the USGS BISON are not labeled as non-native in the original records.

Comparing the BISON and non-native lists, Simpson and Eyler found that the BISON list contained a larger number of occurrence records for non-native taxa: a total of 13,450,515.However, the BISON list does not provide complete coverage of non-native species: it includes records for 77% of list of non-native species Simpson and Eyler found in Alaska, 75% of the “lower 48” sublist, but only 37% of the Hawaiian sublist.

Simpson and Eyler state their intention to continue updating the list of non-native species, they welcome contributions to it from area experts, and they urge integration of new occurrence data into invasive species database such as EDDMapS.

Indicators of Non-Native Species Richness

Figure 3 in the report (above) maps the number of non-native taxa in BISON at the county level. Figure 4 displays the proportion of non-native to native species in BISON. Higher percentages are generally evident in coastal areas and other regional hotspots. For example, the proportion in Hawaiian counties is greater than 33%. Additional data are needed to perform a more in-depth analysis of non-native species richness and abundance.

UPDATE! New Report in the Works

In June 2021, USGS announced that it was updating its Comprehensive List of Non-Native Species Established in 3 Major Regions of the U.S. so that the document more closely aligns with the parameters of the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species. The new USGS dataset is to be called the US Register of Introduced and Invasive Species. The list in the current draft includes 15,364 records. About 500 of these records are in Alaska, 6,000 in Hawai`i, and 8,700 in the conterminous 48 States.

One of the lead authors, Annie Simpson, contacted invasive species experts seeking feedback and suggested additions – based on authoritative resources such as peer reviewed journal articles, pest alerts, databases, books, and technical bulletins. She sought input by 25 July, 2021.

The published version of this dataset will be made freely available on USGS’ ScienceBase (https://www.sciencebase.gov), and all reviewers will be acknowledged in the dataset’s abstract.

SOURCE

Simpson, A., and Eyler, M.C., 2018, First comprehensive list of non-native species established in three major regions of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1156, 15 p.

The report and accompanying data tables are available here.

South African report

In an unrelated but similar development, South Africa has issued a report on its invasive species — 2017 The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa. The report analyzes pathways of introduction and spread; number, distribution and impact of individual species; species richness and abundance of alien species in defined areas; and the effectiveness of interventions. The report notes that 775 invasive species have been identified to date, of which 556 are listed under some national regulatory program. Terrestrial and freshwater plants number 574 species; terrestrial invertebrates number 107 species. (This total does not include the polyphagous shot hole borer, which was detected too recently.) 107 species are considered by experts to be having either major or severe impacts on biodiversity and/or human wellbeing. Alien species richness is highest in the savanna, grassland, Indian Ocean coastal belt and fynbos biomes, lower in the more arid Karoo and desert biomes. South Africans are particularly focused on the reductions in surface water resulting from plant invasions. The decades-old “Working for Water” program has two goals: providing employment and development opportunities to disadvantaged individuals in rural areas, and managing invasive alien plants.

The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa is available here.

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.

National Park Service Experts Urge Improvements to Invasive Species Efforts

 

cats – reported to be the most widespread invasive animal in National parks

In two recent evaluations and resulting reports, National Park Service experts admit the agency has fallen short on managing the invasive species threat and suggest ways to improve. One report – that on invasive animals (see below) identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership.

They’re not alone: I have previously criticized the NPS here and here

 

Invasive Animals

The bolder of the two reports addresses invasive animals – “Invasive Animals in U.S. National Parks – By a Science Panel” https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/594922 commissioned by the NPS Chief of Biological Resources Division. The report was released in December 2017.

The report is blunt – which I welcome.

 

Key Message

The NPS’ mission of preserving America’s natural and cultural resources unimpaired for future generations is “under a deep and immediate threat as a consequence of invasive animal species, yet the National Park Service does not have a comprehensive understanding of the costs and impacts of invasive animals or a coordinated strategy for their management.”  The result: “The consequence is a general record of failure to control invasive species across the system.”

The report says there are opportunities for the NPS to take a lead in addressing the threat – including to help counter invasive species denialism. It suggests ways to provide the needed capacity and to change the agency culture that hampers efforts to realize this ambition.

 

Current Picture

More than half of all National Park units reporting to the report’s authors (245 out of 326 parks) reported the presence of invasive animals – ranging from freshwater mussels to feral cats. In the process of compiling the report, the authors received reports of 1,409 invasive animal populations – comprising 331 species — probably an underestimate. Only a small percentage can be considered under some form of management. The most widely reported species:

Domestic cat                69 parks

Common starling         66 parks

Common pigeon          47 parks

House sparrow             40 parks

Red imported fire ant   40 parks

Feral hog                      39 parks

Rainbow trout              36 parks (often introduced deliberately)

 

The report mentions several tree-killing insects or pathogens among the damaging animal invaders in National parks: emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, and rapid ohia death (a pathogen). (Background on all three is here.)

 

This new report acknowledges management efforts. They reviewed 80 NPS projects in the pipeline from 2000 through 2023. Most projects target a limited number of species: feral hogs, cats, and horses/burros; fire ants; hemlock woolly adelgid; and emerald ash borer.

EAB-killed ash tree in Shenandoah NP  (F.T. Campbell)

Eradication has reportedly been attempted for 21 invasive animal populations; 17 of those populations remained under some control efforts (e.g., monitoring to detect any re-invasion) in 2016. Nine of the eradicated populations were in the Pacific West region – especially Channel Islands National Park. Another eight were in the Southeast. Three other regions — Intermountain, Northeast, and National Capital regions — each reported one invasive animal population eradicated and under control. Another 150 invasive animal populations were reportedly “controlled”.

 

What’s the Problem?

The report’s authors note numerous (and well-known) difficulties in managing invasive animals. These include difficulty detecting invaders at early stages of invasion; paucity of effective management tools; and social constraints such as perceived benefits associated with some (e.g., trout and other sport fishes) and ethical and humane objections to killing vertebrates.

However, the report identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership. Constraints that hamper park managers’ efforts within the agency include Service-wide coordination, lack of capacity, park culture, “social license” (i.e., public approval), and cross-boundary coordination.

The authors suggest that to correct these deficiencies, the Service should formally acknowledge that invasive animals represent a crisis on par with each of the three major crises that drove Service-wide change in the past:

1) over-abundance of ungulates due to predator control (leading to the “Leopold Report” in the 1960s);

2) Yellowstone fire crisis (which led to new wildfire awareness in the country); and

3) recognition of the importance of climate change (which resulted in the report “Leopold Revisited: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks”).

To achieve true success in such a major undertaking, all levels of NPS management must be engaged. Further NPS’ current culture and capacity must be changed. The report suggests providing incentives for (1) efforts to address long-term threats (not just “urgent” ones) and (2) putting time and effort into coordinating with potential partners, including other park units, agencies at all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, private landowners, and economic entities.

An additional step to realizing a comprehensive invasive animal program would be to integrate invasive animal threats and management into long-range planning goals for natural and cultural landscapes and day-to-day operations of parks and relevant technical programs (e.g., Biological Resources Division, Water Resources Division, and Inventory and Monitoring Division).

The report notes the need for increased funding. Such funding would need a flexible timeline (unlike existing Service-wide funding for more general purposes), allowing parks to be responsive to time-sensitive management issues. It would also have to be available consistently over the long term – since eradication can take a long time. Several approaches are proposed, including incorporating some invasive species control programs (e.g., weeds, wood borers) into infrastructure maintenance budgets; adopting invasive species as fundraising challenges for “Friends of Park” and the National Park Foundation; and adopting invasive species as a priority threat.

The authors would like NPS to become a leader on the invasive species issue – specifically by testing emerging best management practices and by better educating visitors on the ecological values of parks and the serious threat that invasive species pose to the their biodiversity. The authors suggest that the NPS also take the lead in countering invasive species denialism.

While officially-approved deliberate introductions of non-native species are probably unlikely to continue, the report expects that the numbers of invasive animals and species in national parks will increase due to continuing spread of invaders from neighboring areas. Therefore, NPS’ current piecemeal approach needs to be replaced with a much stronger, strategic approach in which parks engage in collaboration with conservation partners on adjacent lands or waters and across the greater landscape.

 

Invasive Plants

The NPS launched a coordinated effort targetting invasive plants years ago — in 2000. The most obvious component of which was the Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMTs). The broader program was officially named the Invasive Plant Program (IPP) only in 2014. The IPP provides leadership to individual parks, regions, and the park system on invasive plant management, restoration, and landscape level protection. The IPP released its strategic plan in December 2016. (Ok! More than a year ago. I am tardy.)

Despite the large size of the program – 15 EMPTs across the country – and the clear and recognized threat that invasive plants pose to NPS values, I got the impression that the program struggles to gain  support from the Service. In that way, the situation is similar to the challenges to efforts on animal invasives described above.

   removing Miconia to protect Haleakala National Park

The Strategic Plan identifies goals and actions to optimize the program’s effectiveness, while increasing program and park capacity and leveraging human and fiscal resources with state, federal, and private entities.

The plan articulates a mission, a vision, five broad goals, and actions for the next 10 years. It’s intended to guide annual planning and major projects, as well as to identify and help prioritize funding needs and initiatives.

The overall vision is for the Invasive Plant Program to guide park service efforts to enhance landscape level stewardship of resources by applying “technically sound, holistic, collaborative, adaptive, and innovative approaches.” The hope is that other NPS units will increasingly rely on the IPP’s expertise in implementing their programs and building partnerships.

The strategic plan lays out five broad goals, each supplemented by a list of detailed activities. Priority actions have been identified for the first 5 years (2017-2021) with the expectation that actions will be re-prioritized during annual reviews. These five goals are:

  1. Develop program standards

Clarify and standardize administrative and operational roles and tasks. Improve data management and train colleagues in those standards. Incorporate science-informed procedures to support park management of invasive plants.

Interestingly, the Plan calls for IPP staff to quantify the invasive plant threat and effort needed to manage it and then to communicate the gap between effort needed and resources available to decision makers.

2. Promote the Invasive Plant Program by highlighting the services it provides and the significance of the invasive plant issue both internally and with stakeholders. Assure that IPP efforts parallel those in the Department of Interior Action Plan for invasive species.

  1. Build capacity of individual parks and the Service to prevent the arrival of invasive plants and manage infestations that are already present

Enhance resource and information sharing and field-based training. Find ways to encourage parks to continue managing the invaders after the EMPT completes the initial eradication. Also find ways to increase the EPMT Program’s efficiency. Possibly develop an NPS pesticide applicators’ certification course (the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense already have one).

Increase partnerships to deal with actions that are outside parks’ control. Specifically, participate in regional and state invasive plant councils, and collaborate with a full range of external partners to identify successful techniques, conduct control and restoration campaigns, improve and implement efficient plant management across park boundaries, and recruit and manage youth and volunteers.

  1. Promote holistic and integrated invasive plant management

Work with other NPS programs and parks (across all divisions) to establish resource stewardship and landscape preservation / restoration goals. Integrate integrated pest management strategies in management actions. Continue close collaboration with Climate Change Response Program (if it still exists!). Identify research needs and get the research done.

  1. Collaborate on invasive plant management

Foster and encourage internal and external collaboration and coordination to leverage available resources, expertise, and knowledge.

Identify parks, NPS programs, partner agencies, organizations, and related initiatives with similar objectives to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Coordinate with NPS monitoring programs (although the invasive animal study authors thought the monitoring program is not structured to serve invasive species needs). Partner with BLM and US Fish and Wildlife Service and non-federal partners to cooperatively manage invasive plants on the landscape. Coordinate compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act.

 

Each IPP unit is expected to develop an annual work plan that aligns with an annual financial plan. Priorities will be reviewed annually. Each IPP unit will also submit an annual accomplishment report. IPP might develop a tracking system to be applied to each assigned action.

Plus the IPP strategic plan will be reviewed annually and actions will be re-prioritized as needed. The annual status reports will be made available to stakeholders and partners on the Web.

 

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.