feral hogs in state wildlife area, Florida; photo by Craig Oneal via Flickr
Most invasive species detection and control programs suffer from inadequate funding. Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are the exception. True, feral hogs are widely considered among the most damaging of invasive species. They are conspicuous. And they cause damage to agricultural crops – thus energizing a politically powerful constituency. (The extent of that damage is open to question; see my discussion below.) Can we learn from the political success of this program to build support for countering other invasive species?
[Several forest pests are also listed as among the “100 worst” invasive species: Asian longhorned beetle, chestnut blight, gypsy or spongy moths, Dutch elm disease, Phytopthora cinnamomi. Many invasive plant species present in the United States are also listed. These bioinvaders have not elicited the same level of response.]
According to a US Department of Agriculture report (USDA 2018), feral hogs only recently spread throughout the United States. In 1982, they were thought to inhabit only a small percentage of counties in 17 states. As of 2018, they were recognized as present in ~ 43% of all counties in the country; those counties were in 38 states and three US territories. USDA APHIS lists the following impacts from feral hog activities: damage to crops (including tree seedlings), livestock pastures and feed supplies, other kinds of property, and natural resources. In addition, feral pigs might transmit disease to the human food supply and possibly to livestock, and occasionally threaten public safety. In response, APHIS proposed to develop a national response. The goal was to reduce the risks and damages and encourage better coordination among the states and with Canada and Mexico. Since environmental conditions and laws vary among states, APHIS provides resources and expertise while allowing operational flexibility. The early focus was on primarily northern states where eradication was considered viable. By 2019, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, and New York had been declared “pig free”.
The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program was officially established as by the 2018 Farm Bill. It was funded at $75 million over the five-year life of the 2018 Farm Bill – or ~$15 million per year. The program is implemented jointly by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. According to the website, USDA focused these efforts where feral swine pose the highest threat.
APHIS has published a report covering the initial 2014 – 2018 program. I expect they will shortly publish a report covering 2018- 2023. My quick review of the available but outdated report shows that nearly all the pig removal projects funded by the program aimed to protect property, particularly agriculture. Protection of natural resources benefited from far fewer projects. The states funding natural resource projects most generously were Washington (92% of projects!); Illinois (62%); Nevada (48%); Florida (47%); Idaho and Missouri (both at 44%); Wisconsin and New Hampshire (both at 41%); Ohio (35%); Utah (34%); and Arizona (32%). Some of the Western states have considerable land managed by federal agencies; this might explain their relative focus on natural resources. Pennsylvania allocated only 1% of its projects to protecting natural resources. West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands allocated none. I hope this tilt lessens in more recent years – although the program will clearly always be focused on agriculture.
There were no programs in five states: Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Note that the summary of the draft Senate Farm Bill says this program would be funded at $75 million per year in future. This would increase funding 15 fold. I think this is probably a mistake in writing the summary; that the total funding would continue to be $75 million over five years.
I also reviewed the annual report issued by the APHIS Wildlife Services program’s National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). The Center lists 17 publications by NWRC staff and cooperators dealing with various aspects of feral pig management [other than swine fever transmission]. Topics included feral pigs’ social structure; factors that influence reproductive rates; factors that influence efficacy of bait/trap programs; in-field methods to determine animal’s weight; and the extent to which hunters, farmers and the public accept various control techniques.
feral hog damage in a corn field; photo by Craig Hicks, USDA APHIS
Two of the studies – Didero et al. and VerCauteren et al. – aim to answer a fundamental economic question of feral hog management: how to determine the level of damage feral hogs cause to agricultural crops. Interestingly, authors of both studies conclude that existing data do not allow that determination. According to VerCauteren et al., understanding of wild pig damage is limited largely to one kind of damage — rooting – as it affects some natural resources (e.g., wetlands), some crops (e.g., grains, nuts, and beans), and some property (e.g., golf courses and cemeteries). They found few reports documenting damage from other behaviors or effects on pasture, livestock, sensitive species, public recreation spaces, and historical sites. Furthermore, they could not generalize the findings of even those studies that attempt to link the level of damage to pig population density. This is because these studies use many different metrics. They say that designing studies to capture the full scope of damage even in a local area will be complex because of the variety of resources at risk and of mechanisms by which damage might occur (e.g., rooting, consuming plants or animals, wallowing …). VerCauteren et al. suggest specific approaches that should be applied in future studies so that economic estimates will be consistent, shareable, and repeatable. I encourage you to read the articles to learn details of what is known about feral hog damage.
I rejoice that one set of NWRS studies focuses on Missouri. As I have blogged previously, Missouri has operated an aggressive program since the 1990s. I appreciate that APHIS is trying to learn how Missouri officials determined which approaches work best, and built support for the program among farmers, landowners, hunters, etc.
NWRC staff and cooperators also studied some other issues relating to invasive species impacts. One study sought to predict the level of suppression of brown treesnakes that must be achieved to protect birds that might be reintroduced on Guam. A second study sought to find out whether invasive coqui frogs can survive in the colder climates of high elevations in Hawai`i. There is concern that the frogs might compete with native birds for food.
SOURCES
Didero, N.M., K.H. Ernst, S.C. McKee, and S.A. Shwiff. 2023. A call and suggested criteria for standardizing economic estimates of wild pig damage. Crop Protection 165:106149. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106149
United States Department of Agriculture National Feral Swine Damage Management Program Five Year Report FY14 – FY18
United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services. 2024. Innovative Solutions to Human Wildlife Conflicts. National Wildlife Research Center Accomplishments, 2023.
VerCauteren, K.C., K.M. Pepin, S.M. Cook, S. McKee, A. Pagels, K.J. Kohen, I.A. Messer, M.P. Glow, N.P. Snow. 2024. What is known, unknown, and needed to be known about damage caused by wild pigs. Biol Invasions (2024) 26:1313–1325 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03263-z
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus); photo by Will Brown via Wikimedia; one of invasive animals deliberately introduced to Europe in the past
In February 2024 the European Parliament approved legislation outlawing “ecocide” and providing sanctions for environmental crimes. Member states now have two years to enshrine its provisions in national law.
The new rules update the list of environmental crimes adopted in 2008 and enhance the sanctions. The goal is to ensure more effective enforcement. Listed among the offenses are:
the import and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases,
the import of invasive species,
the illegal depletion of water resources, and
pollution caused by ships.
This action followed an in-depth analysis of the failures of the previous EU environmental directive, first adopted in 2008 (Directive 2008/99/EC). The review found that:
The Directive had little effect on the ground.
Over the 10 years since its adoption few environmental crime cases were successfully investigated and sentenced.
Sanction levels were too low to dissuade violations.
There had been little systematic cross-border cooperation.
EU Member states were not enforcing the Directive’s provisions. They had provided insufficient resources to the task. They had not developed the needed specialized knowledge and public awareness. They were not sharing information or coordinating either among individual governments’ several agencies or with neighboring countries.
The review found that poor data hampered attempts by both the EU body and national policy-makers to evaluate the Directive’s efficacy.
The new Directive attempts to address these weaknesses. To me, the most important change is that complying with a permit no longer frees a company or its leadership from criminal liability. These individuals now have a “duty of care”. According to Antonius Manders, Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), if new information shows that actions conducted under the permit are “causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop.” This action reverses the previous EU environmental crime directive – and most member state laws. Until now, environmental crime could be punished only if it is unlawful; as long as an enterprise was complying with a permit, its actions would not be considered unlawful. Michael Faure, a professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University, calls this change revolutionary.
Lorton Prison; via Flickr
Another step was to make corporate leadership personally liable to penalties, including imprisonment. If a company’s actions cause substantial environmental harm, the CEOs and board members can face prison sentences of up to eight years. If the environmental harm results in the death of any person, the penalty can be increased to ten years.
Financial penalties were also raised. Each Member state sets the fines within certain parameters. Fines may be based on either a proportion of annual worldwide turnover (3 to 5%) or set at a fixed fine (up to 40 million euros). Companies might also be obliged to reinstate the damaged environment or compensate for the damage caused.Companies might also lose their licenses or access to public funding, or even be forced to close.
Proponents of making ecocide the fifth international crime at the International Criminal Court argue that the updated directive effectively criminalizes “ecocide”— defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”
Individual member states also decide whether the directive will apply to offences committed outside EU borders by EU companies.
Some members of the European Parliament advocate for an even stronger stance: creation of a public prosecutor at the European Union level. They hope that the Council of Europe will incorporate this idea during its ongoing revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. To me, this seems unlikely since the current text of the Convention, adopted by the Council in 1998, has never been ratified so it has not come into force.
The Council of Europe covers a wider geographic area than the European Union – 46 member states compared to 27. Members of the Council of Europe which are not in the EU include the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania; several mini-states, e.g., Monaco and San Remo; and countries in arguably neighboring regions, e.g., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.
While I rejoice that invasive species are included in the new Directive, I confess that I am uncertain about the extent to which this inclusion will advance efforts to prevent spread. The species under consideration would apparently have to be identified by some European body as “invasive” and its importation restricted. As we know, many of the most damaging species are not recognized as invasive before their introduction to a naïve environment. On the other side, the requirement that companies recognize new information and halt damaging actions – even when complying with a permit! – provides for needed flexibility.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
‘i‘iwi (Drepanis coccinea) – formerly very common from low to high elevations; photo by James Petruzzii_U
The endangered honeycreepers (birds) of Hawaiian forests are receiving the attention they deserve – and desperately need. There is good news! Promising and significant efforts are under way, matched to a recent strategic plan. However, it is too early to know their results.
Nearly two and a half years ago, I blogged about efforts by a multi-agency consortium (“Birds, Not Mosquitoes” ). It was working to suppress populations of non-native mosquitoes, which vector two lethal diseases: avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) and avian pox virus (Avipoxvirus). A single bite from an infected mosquito is enough to weaken and kill birds of some species, e.g., the ‘i‘iwi.
The threats from these diseases – and their spread to higher elevations as mosquitoes respond to climate change – pile on top of – other forms of habitat loss and inroads by other invasive species. All of the 17 species of honeycreeper that have persisted until now are listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Four are in danger of extinction within as little as 1 – 2 years. These are ‘Akeke`e (Loxops caeruleirostris), ‘Akikiki (Oreomsytis bairdi)), Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill, (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), and `Akohekohe (Palmeria dolei).
Akikiki; photo by Carter Atkinson, USGS
All these bird species are endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago — found nowhere else on Earth. They are already remnants. Nearly 80 bird species have gone extinct since people first colonized the Hawaiian Islands 1,500 years ago. Eight of these extinctions were recognized in October 2021. Extinction of the final cohort would compromise the integrity of unique ecosystems as well as the Islands’ natural and cultural heritage.
I rejoice to report that the federal government has responded to the crisis. In late 2022 several Interior Department agencies adopted a multiagency Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds. The strategy specifies responsibilities for the key components of the program. These include: a) planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT); b) translocating birds to higher elevation sites on other Hawaiian islands; c) establishing captive populations of at-risk birds; and d) developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions. All these activities are being developed and conducted through intensive consultation with Native Hawaiians.
On August 8, 2023, the Secretary of Interior announced the allocation of $15,511,066 for conservation and recovery efforts for Hawaiian forest birds. About $14 million of the total was from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). The funds are being channelled primarily through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ($7.5 million) and the National Park Service (NPS) ($6 million). Other sources of funding are the “State of the Birds” Program (FWS – $963,786); the national-level competitive Natural Resource grants program (NPS – $450,000); and the Biological Threats Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS – $100,000).
What Is Under Way
I do worry continuing these efforts will be harder once their funding is subject to annual appropriations. However, they are a good start!
Steps have been taken on each of the four key component of the Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds:
a) Planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT – see below) to reduce the mosquito vector of avian malaria.
The Consortium has obtained all necessary state permits, regulatory approval of the approach by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and done required consultations under the Endangered Species Act.
The Department of the Interior has funded a public-private partnership between the National parks and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to develop, test, and carry out the first deployments of IIT. These occurred in May 2023 at high-elevation sites on the island of Maui. The next releases are planned for Kaua`i.
Consortium participants are carrying out the consultations and scientific preparations need to support the next deployment on the Big Island.
b) Translocating birds to higher elevation sites on the one island where they exist – Hawai`i.
Initial planning has begun to guide translocation of the endangered Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill) and Akohekohe to higher-elevation, mosquito-free, habitats on the Big Island.
c) Establishing captive populations of the most at-risk species
To facilitate captive breeding of the four most endangered species, the two existing aviaries in Hawai`i need to be expanded. Space must be provided for at least 80 more birds. A contract has been signed for construction of this new aviary space.
d) Developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions.
Lab capacity has been expanded to monitor the effectiveness of IIT, as well as for developing next-generation mosquito control tools.
those who decide funding work here … & they work for us!!!!
The Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT) explained
The incompatible insect technique has been used successfully elsewhere to combat mosquitoes that transmit human diseases. Many insect taxa – including mosquitoes – harbor a naturally-occurring bacteria (Wolbachia). This bacterium has more than one strain or type. When a male mosquito with one type of Wolbachia mates with a female mosquito bearing a different, incompatible type, resulting eggs do not hatch. The IIT project releases male mosquitoes that have an incompatible strain of the bacterium than do local females. (Male mosquitoes do not bite animals seeking a blood meal, so releasing them does not increase the threat to either birds or people.) Implementation requires repeat treatment of sites at a cost of more than $1 million per site per year. It is hoped that this cost will fall with more experience.
Funding for the Strategy’s Four Components
As I noted above, much of the funding for these efforts has come from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). Grants under this one-time statute are intended to cover project costs for perhaps five years. Other sources of funds are Congressional appropriations to Interior Department agencies under programs which presumably will continue to be funded in future years. These include the “State of the Birds” program; Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation, especially its §6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; and State Wildlife Grants administered by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. However, funding under these programs is never guaranteed and competition is fierce. I hope participants – and the rest of us! – can be effective in lobbying for future funds required to save Hawaii’s birds from extinction.
a) Deploying IIT
Over Fiscal Years 2017 – 2021 (ending September 2021), Interior Department agencies supported the IIT program by:
Providing $948,000 to the State of Hawai`i from “State of the Birds”, State Wildlife Grants, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) §6;
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided $545,000 plus staff time’
National Park Service provided $1.2 million for IIT preparations at Haleakala National Park and surrounding state and Nature Conservancy lands
U.S. Geological Survey provided about $7.05 million in research on Hawaiian forest birds, invasive mosquitoes, and avian malaria.
The State of Hawai’i allocated $503,000 and employee staff time.
In addition,
the National Fish and Wildlife Fund provided a total of $627,000 in grants to TNC and American Bird Conservancy for Wolbachia IIT.
TNC committed to supporting some of the initial costs to deploy Wolbachia IIT for the first site in Hawai`i through a contractor (see below)
American Bird Conservancy provided funding for coordination and public outreach.
In FY2022 (which ended in September 2022),
NPS provided $6 million for on-the-ground work on Maui, also development and initial production of Wolbachia IIT.
Interior Department Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to engage with Native communities’ members
b) Moving endangered birds to mosquito-free areas at high elevations on the Big Island
This is planned to begin by 2030. Interior committed unspecified funds to planning and consultation with Native Hawaiians.
c) Rearing captive birds
FWS supports operation of the two existing aviaries through two funding channels: $700,000 annually provided directly to the aviaries, plus another $500,000 per year through ESA §6through the State of Hawai`i. The San Diego Zoo – which operates the aviaries — provides $600,000 – $800,000 per year in the form of in-kind services, staffing, veterinarians, and administrative support. Interior’s Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to support to engagement with Native Hawaiian community members
d) Regarding exploration of “next-generation” mosquito control tools
The FWS provided $60,000 to a scientific laboratory to study precision-guided Sterile Insect Technique (pgSIT) tools to protect bird species threatened by avian malaria.
Funding for the portions of these programs dependent upon annual appropriations is uncertain. Current signs are promising: House and Senate bills to fund for the current year (Fiscal Year 2024) – which began in October 2023! – both support at least some aspects of the program. According to American Bird Conservancy, the Senate appropriations bill has allocated $2.5 million to parts of the program. According to the Committee report, the House appropriations bill allots $4.7 million to the State of the Birds program to respond to urgent needs of critically endangered birds. The report goes on to direct the FWS to “incorporate adaptation actions into new and revised recovery plans and recovery implementation strategies, such as with the mosquito vector of avian pox & malaria in the revised Hawaiian Forest Birds recovery plan. …” Per the report, the Appropriations Committee “continues to encourage the [NPS] to respond to the urgent landscape-scale needs of critically endangered forest birds with habitats in national parks.” The report then specifies species threatened by non-native mosquitoes carrying avian malaria and other pathogens. Finally, the report allocates $500,000 to the U.S. Geological Survey for research on the Hawaiian forest birds.
Meanwhile, the American Bird Conservancy is preparing to advocate for $20 million for FY25 through “State of the Birds” Activities and associated NPS and USGS programs. The details of this amount have not yet been laid out.
CISP will support this request and urges you to do so also. We will suggests ways to help when we know more.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
whitebark pine in Glacier National Park killed by white pine blister rust; National Park Service photo
As I noted in the accompanying blog, the U.S. Department of Interior has also weighed in on how to mitigate climate change as part of the Nation’s response to COP24 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Interior’s Nature-Based Solutions “Roadmap” (citation at the end of the blog) is 480 pages long! It includes lots of pictures and extensive lists of examples of various types of projects. The document reviews “nature-based” restoration techniques, the benefits they provide in various realms (ecosystem, economy, social values); and the challenges or barriers likely to be encountered. These analyses cover six types of ecosystems – coastal (further divided into five subgroups), forests, grasslands (two types), inland wetland habitats, riverine habitats (three subgroups), and built environments. The obvious emphasis on aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats reflects the Department’s responsibilities. The threat from invasive species is recognized in each case. Plus there are separate chapters discussing management/removal of invasive pests and pathogens, plants, and vertebrates in all types of ecosystems.
The document’s purpose is to provide Interior’s staff – and others who are interested – with reliable information on determining the conditions and goals under which “nature-based” strategies perform best, the benefits they are likely to provide, instructive examples, and additional resources. Much of the information is intended to help staff persuade skeptics that a “nature-based” approach can solve a climate-related problem, such as sea level rise, as well as, or better than, “grey” infrastructure. This includes discussion of: construction and maintenance costs, efficacy in solving a specific problem, and managing conflicts over land use. Also, it considers benefits to other realms, for example, protecting biodiversity and providing opportunities for recreation and mental and physical well-being.
I will focus on aspects dealing with forests. These occur in several chapters. Each chapter has a brief description of the climate and other services provided by that ecosystem type, followed by sections on ways forward (“Technical Approach”), factors affecting site suitability, tools and training resources, likely benefits and outcomes (economic and ecological), barriers and solutions, and examples of projects.
The forest chapter (Chapter 10) discusses forest conservation and restoration with an emphasis on improving forest health, including fuels management, reforestation, and addressing threats from native and non-native pests. One proposed solution is thinning. This measure is said to enhance tree health and promote invasive plants. The “Roadmap” does not recognize that experts consider thinning is helpful in managing native pests such as mountain pine beetle but not non-native pests.
I was startled to find another suggestion – to plant native tree species that are resistant to non-native pests to restore stands. The “Roadmap” refers readers to the National Park Service Resilient Forests Initiative for Region 1 [which reaches from Virginia to Maine]. The Initiative encourages collaboration among parks with similar issues; provides park-specific resource briefs for 39 parks in the Region; and offers management strategies for a host of problems. These include invasive species control, prescribed fire, deer management, silvicultural treatments, tree planting, and fencing. My confusion is that – as far as I know – there are no sources of trees resistant to the non-native pests plaguing forests of the Northeast, e.g., beech, butternut, chestnut, hemlocks, ash, and oaks.
test planting of pathogen-resistant whitebark pine seedlings in Glacier National Park; photo by Richard Sniezko
In the “Tools” section Chapter 10 lists forest restoration guides published by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the International Union of Forest Research Organizations. The “Examples” section includes a few thinning projects.
Chapter 16 advises on enhancing urban forests, which provide many benefits. The chapter stresses the importance of ensuring that projects’ budgets can support protecting trees from such risks as flooding, fire, pests, disease, “invasive species” (presumably other than insects or pathogens), and climate change. The authors note that urban trees are often more susceptible to pests because of their proximity to human activities that facilitate pests’ spread. However, there is no mention that such pests spread to nearby natural forests. They warn against planting a single tree species. An issue noted but not discussed in detail is the use of non-native species in urban forests, some of which have already become invasive.
Three chapters discuss invasive species per se — insects and pathogens (Chap. 26), plants (Chap 27), and vertebrates (Chap. 28) Each chapter summaries invasion stages and stresses the importance of preventing new introductions, detecting them early, and responding rapidly. Most of the text deals with managing established populations – with the emphasis on applying integrated pest management (IPM). Each raises caveats about biological control agents possibly attacking non-target organisms. Again, the authors emphasize the necessity of ensuring availability of adequate resources to carry out the program.
Chapter 26 addresses Invasive and Nuisance Insects and Pathogens. Examples listed include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, spongy moth, Dutch elm disease, sudden oak death, laurel wilt, white pine blister rust, chestnut blight and butternut canker. (All these invaders are profiled under the “invasive species” tab here). The examples also include several native pests, e.g., mountain pine beetle, southern pine beetle, and several pathogens, including Swiss needlecast. I am confused by a statement that priorities for management should be based on pests’ traits; my understanding of the science is that other factors are more important in determining a pest’s impact. See, for example, Lovett et al. 2006.This chapter reiterates the impractical advice to plant trees resistant to the damaging pest. I also wonder at the following statement:
“The process of detection and prevention will need to continue over time to prevent reintroductions or reinvasions of nuisance or invasive pests and pathogens. In some cases, long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread.” [p. 425] I believe long-term management will required in all cases!
The tools listed in the chapter include various DOI websites re: training and funding; the USDA website listing states’ plant diagnostic laboratories; a USDA IPM “road map”; The Nature Conservancy’s guidebook for assessing and managing invasive species in protected areas; the DOI Strategic Plan; and the University of Georgia’s Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health.
Chapter 27 discusses invasive and nuisance plants. It starts by noting that an estimated 5,000 non-native plant species are stablished in the US. While not all are invasive, there is still potential for these plants to spread and cause harm. The authors state that controlling such plants reduces fire risk and lowers demand for water in arid areas.
The authors say early management is crucial to eradicate or control invasive plant species. Because plant invasions cross property lines, agencies must form partnerships with other agencies and private landowners. Because invasive and nuisance plant species are so widespread, managers must set priorities. The “Roadmap” suggests focusing on sites at the highest risk, e.g., heavily trafficked areas. Continued effort will be necessary to prevent reinvasions or reintroductions. However, long-term management and containment can be incredibly costly and labor-intensive.
lesser celandine invade bottomlands of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
The “Roadmap” complains that many invasive and nuisance plant species are still offered for sale; in fact, that this is the primary pathway by which invasive plants enter the US, (While which we have known this for decades, it is encouraging to see a U.S. government report say: “Advocating for federal regulation and cohesive local policies for preventing invasive [plant] sales is essential to avoid disjointed state rulings.” – even if it does not specify which agencies should take the lead.
In the “Tools” section the chapter lists two USFS guides on managing invasive plants; two California Invasive Plant Council guides; the Interior Department’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan; EDDMapS (a University of Georgia site on which members of the public can report invasive species); and the TNC guidebook for Assessing and Managing Invasive Species in Protected Areas.
Chapter 28 addresses invasive & nuisance vertebrates (called “wildlife”). It notes that invasive animals are present in more than half of all US National parks. It briefly mentions the Lacey Act as providing legal power to curb the introduction and spread of these animals. It does not discuss strengths and weaknesses of this statute, both of which are substantial. This chapter repeats the odd wording from the pest and pathogen chapter – that in some cases long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread of invasive species. I find it doubtful that short-term actions will be effective in virtually all cases.
Tools listed include Interior guides on IPM, funding sources, and protecting aquatic systems along with the Department of Interior’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan. Other tools include the USDA guide on IPM, EDDMapS, and the TNC guidebook.
Forests were also mentioned in the discussion of assisted migration of coastal wetlands to avoid drowning by rising seas (Chapter 1). The text notes that forests upland from coastal wetlands might be killed – either as a result of waterlogging as sea levels rise or as deliberate action to make room for the new marsh. Mortality in either case will reduce carbon sequestration. The authors also note the probability that invasive plants – shrubs in the woods, Phragmites on the edge of the wetland — will be present and have to be controlled.
SOURCES
Lovett, G.M, C.D. Canham, M.A. Arthur, K.C. Weathers, R.D. Fitzhugh. 2006. Foret Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol 56 No. 5 May 2006.
Warnell, K., S. Mason, A. Siegle, M. Merritt, & L. Olander. 2023. Department of the Interior Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap. NI R 23-06. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/department-interior-nature-based-solutions-roadmap.
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
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has published an updated register of introduced species in the United States. The master list contains 14,700 records, of which 12,571 are unique scientific names. The database is divided into three sub-lists: Alaska, with 545 records; Hawai`i, with 5,628 records; and conterminous (lower 48) United States, with 8,527 records.
The project tracks all introduced (non-native) species that become established, because they might eventually become invasive. The list includes all taxa that are non-native everywhere in the locality (Alaska, Hawai`i, or 48 conterminous states) and established (reproducing) anywhere in that locality.
Each record has information on taxonomy, a vernacular name, establishment means (e.g., unintentionally, or assisted colonization), degree of establishment (established, invasive, or widespread invasive), hybrid status, pathway of introduction (if known), habitat (if known), whether a biocontrol species, dates of introduction (if known; currently 47% of the records), associated taxa (where applicable), native and introduced distributions (when known), and citations for the authoritative source(s) from which this information is drawn.
The 2022 version is more complete re: plant pathogens than earlier iterations; I thank the hard-working compilers for their efforts!
Hawai`i
wiliwili tree (Erythrina sandwicensis); photo by Forest and Kim Starr
Among the non-native species listed as being in Hawai`i are 3,603 Arthropods, including the following about which I have blogged:
eight species of mosquito in the Hawaiian islands, including the Culex and Aedes species that vector the diseases that have caused extinction of numerous endemic bird species on the Islands.
Also listed are 95 mollusk species and 20 earthworm species. I wonder who is studying the worms’ impacts? I doubt any is native to the Islands.
The Hawaiian list contains 1,557 non-native plant species. Families with largest representation are Poaceae (grass) – 223 species; Fabaceae (beans) – 156 species; and Asteraceae – 116 species. About a third of the plant species – 529 species – are designated as “widespread invaders”. This number is fifteen times higher than the numbers in lists maintained by either the Hawaiian Ecosystems At Risk project (106 species) [HEAR unfortunately had to shut down a decade ago due to lack of funds]; or Hawaiian Invasive Species Council (80 species). Furthermore, some of the species listed by HEAR and HISC are not yet widespread; the lists are intended to facilitate rapid responses to new detections. We always knew Hawai`i was being overrun by invasive species!
Among the 529 most “widespread invaders” are the following from the most introduced families:
Other families have fewer introduced species overall, but notable numbers of the most widespread invaders:
Euphorbiaceae – 8 spp. of Euphorbia
Cyperaceae – 6 spp. of Cyperus
Myrtaceae – Melaleuca quinquenervia, 2 Psidium, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa rose myrtle, 3 Syzygium [rose myrtle has been hard-hit by the introduced myrtle rust fungus]
Zingiberaceae – 3spp. Hedychium (ginger)
Anacardiaceae — Schinus molle (Peruvian peppertree); USGS considers congeneric S. terebinthifolia to be somewhat less widespread.
Plus many plant taxa familiar to those of us on the continent: English ivy, privet, castor bean, butterfly bush, Ipomoea vines … and in more limited regions, Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum.
Rhus sandwicensis; photo by Forest and Kim Starr
I learned something alarming from the species profiles posted on the HISC website: the Hawaiʻi Division of Forestry and Wildlife and Hawaiʻi Department of Agriculture are considering introduction of a species of thrips, Pseudophilothrips ichini, as a biocontrol agent targetting S. terebinthifolia. I learned in early 2019, when preparing comments on Florida’s proposed release of this thrips, that Pseudophilothrips ichini can reproduce in low numbers on several non-target plant species, including two native Hawaiian plants that play important roles in revegetating disturbed areas. These are Hawaiian sumac Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonea viscosa. The latter in particular is being propagated and outplanted in large numbers to restore upland and dryland native ecosystems. While the environmental assessment prepared by the USDA Animal and Plant Service says the thrips causes minimal damage to D. viscosa, I am concerned because of the plant species’ ecological importance. Of course, the two Schinus species are very damaging invasive species in Hawai`i … but I think introducing this thrips is too risky. [To obtain a copy of CISP’s comments, put a request in comments section. Be sure to include your email address in your comment; the section algorithm does not include email addresses (how inconvenient!).]
Continental (lower 48) states
Among the 8,500 species listed in the USGS Register for the 48 continental states are 4,369 animals, among them 3,800 arthropods; 3,999 plants; and just 89 fungi. Among the arthropods, there are 1,045 beetles and 308 lepidopterans. The beetles listed include 12 Agrilus (the genus which includes emerald ash borer and goldspotted oak borer.) It does not include the elm zig-zag sawfly USGS staff have not found any publications documenting its U.S. occurrences. Among the microbes are six Phytophthora (P. cinnamomi, P. lateralis, P. pseudocryptogea, P. quercina, P. ramorum, P. tentaculata). Profiles of several of these species are posted at www.dontmovefirewood.org; click on “invasive species”, then scroll using either Latin or common name.
elm zig-zag sawfly; photo by Gyorgy Czoka via Bugwood
Citation:
Simpson, Annie, Pam Fuller, Kevin Faccenda, Neal Evenhuis, Janis Matsunaga, and Matt Bowser, 2022, United States Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (US-RIIS) (ver. 2.0, November 2022): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KFFTOD
United States Register of Introduced and Invasive Species;US-RIIS ver. 2.0, 2022
If you would like to contribute to future versions of the US-RIIS, please email the project leaders at us-riis@usgs.gov.
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
In an earlier blog about tree extinctions, I commented that less drastic impacts by pests can also be important. I mentioned specifically that clumps of beech root sprouts cannot duplicate the quantities of nuts and cavities provided by mature beech trees.
This thought prompted me to search for information about use of tree cavities by wildlife. The articles I have found are decades old and largely focus on implications for management of forests for timber. Timber production conflicts with a goal of ensuring the presence of large (“overmature”), trees, especially those with dead branches, and completely dead trees (“snags”). These articles were written too long ago to address the possible impacts of non-native insects and pathogens – although there is some discussion of widespread mortality of pines caused by the mountain pine beetle.
These sources make clear that species that make cavities are keystone species. Many other wildlife species depend on them — birds, bats and terrestrial animals – mammals and herps. Furthermore, these cavity-associated species require forests with significant numbers of large, old, declining trees. When non-native insects or pathogens kill those trees, there might be a short-term bonanza of dying trees – suitable for nesting and foraging; and wood-feeding insects to provide food. But afterwards – for decades or longer – there will probably be small-diameter trees, and different species. Can the cavity-dependent species find habitat or food under these circumstances?
[By coincidence, the PBS program “Nature” broadcast an episode on woodpeckers on the 2nd of November! The title is “The Hole Story”. ]
Cavities provide a variety of habitats for many species – including some not usually thought of as “forest” species. Among the 85 North American bird species identified by Scott et al. as associated with cavities are seven species of ducks, two vultures, three falcons, 12 owls, two swifts, six flycatchers, two swallows, purple martin, seven chickadees, three titmice, four nuthatches, brown creeper, five wrens, three bluebirds, and two warblers. They point out that the majority of these birds are insectivores. Woodpeckers are especially important predators of tree-killing bark beetles.
Goodburn and Lorimer found that more than 40 species of birds and mammals in hardwood forests of Wisconsin and Michigan use cavities in snags and dead portions of live trees for nest sites, dens, escape cover, and winter shelter. Bunnell reported that 67 vertebrate species commonly use cavities in the Pacific Northwest. Chepps et al., Daily et al., and Wiggins focus on specific species in the Rocky Mountains. (Full citations for all sources are at the end of the blog.)
While Scott et al. (published in 1977) do not address the impact of non-native pests, their profiles of individual bird species sometimes name specific types of trees favored. Several of these tree taxa have been decimated by such non-native pests, or face such attack in the near future. Thus, concern appears warranted for:
pileated woodpecker; photo by Jo Zimni via Flickr
birds nesting in American elm, including two that are quite large so they require large trees to accommodate their nests: common goldeneye (a duck) and pileated woodpecker (larger than a crow).
the pileated woodpecker also nests in ash and beech and here
How many species depended on American chestnut, which – before the blight — grew to diameters up to 5 feet, heights of 70 to 100 feet, and had hollow centers (USDA 2022)?
In the West, some nesting tree species are under imminent threat from invasive shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, or sudden oak death. Detection of the emerald ash borer in Oregon portends a longer-term threat. Birds likely to feel these impacts include the acorn woodpecker, ash-throated flycatcher, and purple martin. The golden-fronted woodpecker is associated with oaks in parts of Texas where oak wilt is severely affecting live oaks.
ash-throated flycatcher; photo by Mick Thompson via Flickr
At the beginning of the 21st Century – before widespread mortality caused by the emerald ash borer — densities of snags in the managed forests in the Lake States were apparently already insufficient to sustain population densities of cavity nesting birds. Pileated woodpeckers and chimney swifts both prefer snags greater than 50 cm dbh, which are significantly less abundant in harvested stands. For six of eight bird species studied, the number of breeding pairs was significantly higher in old-growth northern hardwood stands than in those under management (Goodburn and Lorimer).
Strong Primary Excavators are Keystone Species
Cavity nesters are commonly divided into:
1) primary excavators that excavate their own cavities. These are further divided into strong excavators – those species that forage by drilling, boring, or hammering into wood or soil; and weak excavators – those species that probe or glean bark, branches, and leaves to acquire prey.
2) secondary cavity users, that use holes made by primary cavity excavators (Bunnell).
Strong primary excavators tend to be large, e.g., most woodpeckers, sapsuckers, and the northern flicker. Weak excavators are mostly smaller species, such as chickadees and nuthatches; plus those woodpeckers that forage primarily by probing and gleaning, extracting seeds, or capturing insects in flight [e.g., acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)] (Bunnell).
Bunnell considers strong excavators to be keystone species because so many other cavity users depend on them. Their loss would seriously disrupt forest ecosystems. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, only nine of 22 avian primary excavators are strong excavators. Another 45 species are secondary cavity users. These include waterfowl, tree swallows, and some mammals such as flying squirrels. Some cavity nesters support an even wider group of species: in the Pacific Northwest, at least 23 bird species, six mammal species, and numerous arthropods (nine orders and 22 families) feed on sap and insects collected at holes drilled by sapsuckers (Bunnell). [I discuss sapsuckers’ ecosystem role in greater detail later.]
Tree Characteristics
There is general agreement that animals dependent on tree cavities “prefer” (actually, require) trees that are large – tall, of large circumference, and sturdy – while having decayed interiors.
Size:
As Bunnell notes, larger snags provide more room and tend to stand longer without breaking, so they provide greater opportunities for cavity use. They also tend to be taller, so they offer higher nest sites that provide better protection from ground-dwelling predators. While larger-diameter trees remain standing longer regardless of the cause of mortality, snags created by fire usually fall sooner than do other snags. Beetle-killed trees are more attractive to cavity nesters that tend to excavate nest sites in trees on which they have foraged.
In the upper Midwest, cavity trees were a scare resource, even in unmanaged forests. Mean diameters for live cavity trees were twice as large as the mean diameter of the live trees in stands under a management regime. Such larger-diameter snags were more numerous in old-growth than in managed stands, especially in mixed hemlock-hardwood stands (Goodburn and Lorimer).
The Importance of Decay
Excavating a cavity demands considerable energy, so birds seek sites where a fungal infection has softened the interior wood. The exterior wood must remain strong to prevent collapse of the nest. These rots take time to develop, so they appear more often in older, even dying, trees. Bunnell, Scott et al., Chepps et al., and Goodburn and Lorimer all emphasize the role of decay in providing suitable cavity sites. Chepps et al. compared the aspen trees used by four species of cavity-nesting birds in central Arizona. Not only were nest trees softer than neighboring trees; they were softer at the spot where the nests were excavated than at other heights. [Spring (1965) provides a fun discussion of different species’ adaptations to the energy demands of hard pecking and climbing vertical trunks.]
Live v. Dead Trees
However, the need for decay does not necessarily mean birds prefer dead trees. Goodburn and Lorimer found that in Wisconsin and Michigan, a large percentage of all cavities found were in live trees.
Bunnell found that strong excavators select trees with less visible signs of decay. Where possible, secondary users will also use live trees. However, intense competition often forces them to use dead trees.
Hardwoods v. Conifers
Bunnell states that deciduous trees more often contain internal rot surrounded by a sound outer shell than do conifers (at least this is true in the Pacific Northwest). He found that cavity nesters chose hardwoods for 80–95% of their nest sites even where hardwoods comprised only 5–15% of the available tree stems. He concluded that availability of living hardwoods had a significant influence on strong excavators in the West, although probably was less important in hardwood stands in the East.
Taxa Dependent on Other Types of Cavity
Some species depend on cavities created by forces other than bird excavations, such as decay or fire. These include most of the mammals, especially the larger ones e.g., American martens, fishers, porcupines, and black bears. These natural cavities are often uncommon. Vaux’s swifts nest and roost in hollow snags large enough that they can fly in a spiral formation to enter and leave (Bunnell).
little brown bat Myotis sp. photo by S.M. Bishop via Wikimedia Commons
Bats are a special case. Bats are unique among mammals of their size in having long lives, low reproductive rates, and relatively long periods of infant dependency. They also play a key ecological role as the major predators of nocturnal flying insects (van den Driesche 1999). Also many species are in perilous conservation status: half of the 16 bat species in British Columbia were listed as threatened or endangered as of 1998 (van den Driesche). This was before the deadly disease whitenose syndrome had been detected in North America.
Bats require larger trees. In the Pacific Northwest at least, that choice often means conifers (Bunnell). Roosts are difficult to find, so samples are small. A study on the west coast of Vancouver Island (van den Driessche), located only nine roosts despite searching during three summers. Five roosts were in large-diameter (old) western red cedar, with dead tops and extensive cracks.
Brown creepers and some amphibians and reptiles nest or seek cover under slabs of loose bark, which are typically found on dead or dying trees. The same large, mature and old-growth conifer trees also provide preferred foraging habitat, since there is a higher density of arthropod prey on their deeply furrowed bark. While Wiggins (2005) studied bird populations in the Rocky Mountains, he cited studies in the eastern United States, specifically in the Blue Ridge and Allegheny mountains, that have found similar results. Goodburn and Lorimer found that in National forests in Wisconsin and Michigan, only 15% of trees consisted of the necessary snags with loose bark plates. Suitable trees were most frequent old-growth hemlock-hardwood stands, and on larger-diameter snags. A high proportion of the snags with loose bark were yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis).
Importance of foraging sites
As Bunnell points out, a bird must feed itself before it can nest. Foraging trees and snags are usually smaller than nesting trees. Furthermore, birds need many more foraging sites than nesting sites. The situation perhaps most pertinent to our usual focus on invasive pests concerns bird species’ response to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Red-breasted nuthatches and mountain chickadees increasing dramatically in apparent response to the beetle epidemic. When most of the conifers had been killed, and numbers of beetles diminished, numbers of these bird species also declined–despite the increased availability of conifer snags for nesting. Indeed, the birds continued to nest primarily in aspen during the epidemic.
Bunnell reiterates that snags of all sizes are needed; they provide perching, foraging, and hawking sites for bird species beyond cavity nesters as well as sustenance for bryophytes, insects, and terrestrial breeding salamanders. He says more than 200 studies reported harvesting of standing dead trees in beetle-killed forests had negative effects on bird, mammal, and fish species.
Other Dependencies – Food Sources
yellow-bellied flycather; photo by Dennis Church via Flickr
A few studies looked at the role of cavity-creating birds in providing food sources. The focus was on sapsuckers. They drill sapwells into trees’ phloem; sap flowing into these wells attracts many other species. In Michigan, Rissler determined that yellow-bellied sapsuckers’ sapwells attracted insects in seven orders and 20 families, especially Coleoptera, Diptera (other than Tephritidae), bald-faced hornets, and Lepidoptera. Daily et al. (1993) cites other studies showing that ruby throat and rufous hummingbirds have extended their breeding ranges by relying on these sapwells for nutrition in early spring before flowers open. [The “Nature” program covers this behavior.]
In a subalpine ecosystem in Colorado, Daily et al. found that red-naped sapsuckers support other species in two ways. First, they excavate nest cavities in fungus-infected aspens that are utilized by at least seven secondary cavity nesting bird species. When they feed, they drill sapwells that nourish more than 40 species – including hummingbirds, warblers, and chipmunks. Daily et al. called this a keystone species complex comprised of sapsuckers, willows, aspens, and a heartwood fungus. Disappearance of any element of the complex could cause an unanticipated unraveling of the community.
Goodburn and Lorimer looked at the availability of downed wood but did not discuss the implications of the presence of only small-diameter coarse woody debris.
Efforts to Accommodate Biodiversity Needs
Scott et al. reported in 1977 that the USDA Forest Service had required staff at regional and National Forest levels to develop snag retention policies. Twenty years later, Goodburn and Lorimer noted that Forest Service management guidelines for some Wisconsin and Michigan National forests since the early 1980s have called for the retention of all active cavity trees and 5-10 snags (larger than 30 cm dbh)/ha. However, as I noted above, they fear that these recommended snag retention levels might still be too limited to support cavity nesters. They found that two species that prefer snags greater than 50 cm dbh, pileated woodpeckers and chimney swifts, were significantly more abundant in old-growth than in selection stands. Furthermore, the number of breeding pairs of six species was at least 30% higher in old-growth northern hardwood than in selection stands and more than 85% higher in selection cuts than even-aged.
Goodburn and Lorimer cited others’ findings that removal of some live timber and snags in an Arizona ponderosa pine forest reduced cavity-nesting bird populations by 50%. Species affected were primarily violet-green swallows, pygmy nuthatches, and northern three-toed woodpeckers.
Female mountain bluebird by Jacob W. Frank. Original public domain image from Flickr
As I noted, none of these experts has addressed the impacts of wide-spread pest-caused tree mortality. If I may speculate, it seems likely that when the first wave of mortality sweeps through a forest, the result might be an expansion of both nesting opportunities (in dead or dying trees) and food availability for those that feed on wood borers. These would probably be more plentiful even in trees killed by pathogens or nematodes. Sapsuckers and those that depend on them might experience an immediate decline in sap sources. Over the longer term it seems likely that all cavity-dependent species will confront a much lower supply of large mature trees. I note that many deciduous/hardwood tree species are being affected by introduced pests.
Are there current studies in Michigan, where so many ash have died?
SOURCES
Bunnell, F.L. 2013. Sustaining Cavity-Using Species: Patterns of Cavity Use and Implications to Forest Management. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. ISRN Forestry. Volume 2013, Article ID 457698
Chepps, J., S. Lohr, and T.E. Martin. 1999. Does Tree Hardness Influence Nest-Tree Selection by Primary Cavity Nesters? The Auk 116(3):658-665, 1999
Daily, G.C., P.R. Ehrlich, and N.M. Haddad. 1993. Double keystone bird in a keystone species complex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 90, pp. 592-594, January 1993 Ecology
Goodburn, J.M. and C.G. Lorimer. 1998. Cavity trees and coarse woody debris in old-growth and managed northern hardwood forests in Wisconsin and Michigan. Can. For. Res. 28: 427.438 (1998)
Rissler, L.J., D.N. Karowe, F. Cuthbert, B. Scholtens. 1995. Wilson Bull., 107(4), 1995, pp. 746-752
Spring, L.W. 1965. Climbing and Pecking Adaptations in Some North American Woodpeckers.
United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Draft Enviromental Impact Statement. 2022. State University of New York College of Enviromental Science and Forestry Petition (19-309-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Blight-Tolerant Darling 58 c’nut (Castanea dentata)
van den Driessche, R., M. Mather, T. Chatwin. 1999. Habitat use by bats in temperate old-growth forests, Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia
Wiggins, D.A. (2005, January 27). Brown Creeper (Certhia americana): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf [date of access].
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
brown tree snake Boiga irregularis; via Wikimedia; one of the species on which the most money is spent on preventive efforts
In recent years a group of scientists have attempted to determine how much invasive species are costing worldwide. See Daigne et al. 2020 here.
Some of these scientists have now gone further in evaluating these data. Cuthbert et al. (2022) [full citation at end of blog] see management of steadily increasing numbers of invasive, alien species as a major societal challenge for the 21st Century. They undertook their study of invasive species-related costs and expenditures because rising numbers and impacts of bioinvasions are placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems and they expect this burden to continue to rise (citing Seebens et al., 2021; full citation at end of blog).
They relied on a database of economic costs (InvaCost; see “methods” section of Cuthbert et al.) It is the best there is but Cuthbert et al. note several gaps:
Only 83 countries reported management costs; of those, only 24 reported costs specifically associated with pre-invasion (prevention) efforts.
Data comparing regional costs do not incorporate consideration of varying purchasing power of the reporting countries’ currencies.
Data available are patchy so global management costs are probably substantially underestimated. For example, forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database, but constitute 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al., in prep.) .
Still, their findings fit widespread expectations.
These data point to a total cost associated with invasive species – including both realized damage and management costs – of about $1.5 trillion since 1960. North America and Oceania spent by far the greatest amount of all global money countering bioinvasions. North America spent 54% of the total expenditure of $95.3 billion; Oceania spent 30%. The remaining regions each spent less than $5 billion.
Cuthbert et al. set out to compare management expenditures to losses/damage; to compare management expenditures pre-invasion (prevention) to post-invasion (control); and to determine potential savings if management had been more timely.
Economic Data Show Global Efforts Could Be – But Aren’t — Cost-Effective
The authors conclude that countries are making insufficient investments in invasive species management — particularly preventive management. This failure is demonstrated by the fact thatreported management expenditures ($95.3 billion) are only 8% of total damage costs from invasions ($1.13 trillion). While both cost or losses and management expenditures have risen over time, even in recent decades, losses were more than ten times larger than reported management expenditures. This discrepancy was true across all regions except the Antarctic-Subantarctic. The discrepancy was especially noteworthy in Asia, where damages were 77-times higher than management expenditures.
Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of overall management spending goes to prevention. Of the $95.3 billion in total spending on management, only $2.8 billion – less than 3% – has been spent on pre-invasion management. Again, this pattern is true for all geographic regions except the Antarctic-Subantarctic. The divergence is greatest in Africa, where post-introduction control is funded at more than 1400 times preventive efforts. It is also significant for Asia and South America.
Even in North America – where preventative actions were most generously funded – post-introduction management is funded at 16 times that of prevention.
Cuthbert et al. worry particularly about the low level of funding for prevention in the Global South. They note that these conservation managers operate under severe budgetary constraints. At least some of the bioinvasion-caused losses suffered by resources under their stewardship could have been avoided if the invaders’ introduction and establishment had been successfully prevented.
While in the body of the article Cuthbert et al. seem uncertain about why funding for preventive actions is so low, in their conclusions they offer a convincing (to me) explanation. They note that people are intrinsically inclined to react when impact becomes apparent. It is therefore difficult to motivate proactive investment when impacts are seemingly absent in the short-term, incurred by other sectors, or in different regions, and when other demands on limited funds may seem more pressing. Plus efficient proactive management will prevent any impact, paradoxically undermining evidence of the value of this action!
Aedes aegypti mosquito; one of the species on which the most money is spent for post-introduction control; photo by James Gathany; via Flickr
Delay Costs Money
The reports contained in the InvaCost database indicate that management is delayed an average of 11 years after damage was first been reported. Cuthbert et al. estimate that these delays have caused an additional cost of about $1.2 trillion worldwide. Each $1 of management was estimated to reduce damage by $53.5 in this study. This finding, they argue, supports the value of timely invasive species management.
They point out that the Supplementary Materials contain many examples of bioinvasions that entail large and sustained late-stage expenditures that would have been avoided had management interventions begun earlier.
Although Cuthbert et al. are not as clear as I would wish, they seem to recognize also that stakeholders’ varying perceptions of whether an introduced species is causing a detrimental “impact” might also complicate reporting – not just whether any management action is taken
Cuthbert et al. are encouraged by two recent trends: growing investments in preventative actions and research, and shrinking delays in initiating management. However, these hopeful trends are unequal among the geographic regions.
Which Taxonomic Groups Get the Most Money?
About 42% of management costs ($39.9 billion) were spent on diverse or unspecified taxonomic groups. Of the costs that were taxonomically defined, 58% ($32.1 billion) was spent on invertebrates [see above re: forest pests]; 27% ($14.8 billion) on plants; 12% ($6.7 billion) on vertebrates; and 3% ($1.8 billion) on “other” taxa, i.e. fungi, chromists, and pathogens. For all of these defined taxonomic groups, post-invasion management dominated over pre-invasion management.
When considering the invaded habitats, 69% of overall management spending was on terrestrial species ($66.1 billion); 7% on semi-aquatic species ($6.7 billion); 2% on aquatic species ($2.0 billion); the remainder was “diverse/unspecified”. For pre-invasion management (prevention programs), terrestrial species were still highest ($840.4 million). However, a relatively large share of investments was allocated to aquatic invaders ($624.2 million).
Considering costs attributed to individual species, the top 10 targetted for preventive efforts were four insects, three mammals, two reptiles, and one alga. Top expenditures for post-invasion investments went to eight insects [including Asian longhorned beetle], one mammal, and one bird.
Asian longhorned beetle
Just two of the costliest species were in both categories: insects red imported fire ant(Solenopsis invicta) and Mediterranean fruitfly (Ceratitis capitate). None of the species with the highest pre-invasion investment was among the top 10 costliest invaders in terms of damages. However, note the lack of data on fungi, chromists, and pathogens. (I wrote about this problem in an earlier blog.)
Discussion and Recommendations
Cuthbert et al. conclude that damage costs and post-invasion spending are probably growing substantially faster than pre-invasion investment. Therefore, they call for a stronger commitment to enhancing biosecurity and for more reliance on regional efforts rather than ones by individual countries. Their examples of opportunities come from Europe.
Drawing parallels to climate action, the authors also call for greater emphasis on during decision-making to act collectively and proactively to solve a growing global and inter-generational problem.
Cuthbert et al. focus many of their recommendations on improving reporting. One point I found particularly interesting: given the uneven and rapidly changing nature of invasive species data, they think it likely that future invasions could involve a new suite of geographic origins, pathways or vectors, taxonomic groups, and habitats. These could require different management approaches than those in use today.
As regards data and reporting, Cuthbert et al. recommend:
1) reducing bias in cost data by increasing funding for reporting of underreported taxa and regions;
2) addressing ambiguities in data by adopting a harmonized framework for reporting expenditures. For example, agriculture and public health officials refer to “pest species” without differentiating introduced from native species. (An earlier blog also discussed the challenge arising from these fields’ different purposes and cultures.)
3) urging colleagues to try harder to collect and integrate cost information, especially across sectors;
4) urging countries to report separately costs and expenditures associated with different categories, i.e., prevention separately from post-invasion management; damage separately from management efforts; and.
5) creating a formal repository for information about the efficacy of management expenditures.
While the InvaCost database is incomplete (a result of poor accounting by the countries, not lack of effort by the compilers!), analysis of these data points to some obvious ways to improve global efforts to contain bioinvasion. I hope countries will adjust their efforts based on these findings.
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. 2021. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Glob Change Biol. 2021;27:970-982.
Williams, G.M., M.D. Ginzel, Z. Ma, D.C. Adams, F.T. Campbell, G.M. Lovett, M. Belén Pildain, K.F. Raffa, K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Santini, R.A. Sniezko, M.J. Wingfield, and P. Bonello 2022. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. submitted
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
Sean Connery as Hotspur, Shakespeare Henry IV Part I (BBC, “Age of Kings”)
[Starlings – one of the agricultural pests that prompted adoption of the Lacey Act – were introduced to the U.S. because they were mentioned by Shakespeare: Hotspur says “Nay, I’ll have a starling shall be taught to speak nothing but ‘Mortimer,’ and give it him, to keep his anger still in motion.”]
Americans are increasingly aware of the damage caused by invasive species. The law that ostensibly protects our environment from most potentially invasive animals is the Lacey Act – more specifically, the “injurious wildlife” sections of the law, now known as 18 U.S.C. 42 or title 18.
When it was adopted 120 years ago, the Lacey Act was not intended to protect the environment from the full range of possible animal bioinvaders. While Congress amended it several times in the first 60 years of its existence, the law still has many gaps that impede its usefulness for that purpose.
Rep. John F. Lacey via Wikimedia Commons
When first adopted in 1900, the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act prohibited importation only of wild mammals and birds that posed a threat to agriculture and horticulture. The statute was quite broad in that it prohibited importation of any wild bird or mammal without a permit; there was no requirement that a species be designated as “injurious” to be regulated. The Act was then administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [For a detailed discussion of the Lacey Act’s changing provisions, see Jewell 2020; full reference at the end of this blog.]
In 1960 the Act was amended to expand the list of taxa eligible for designation as “injurious” to include fishes, mollusks, crustaceans, reptiles, and amphibians. Congress also expanded the justifications for listing a species as injurious. It added harm to people, to forestry, or to wildlife or US wildlife resources to the law’s original concerns for agriculture and horticulture. This second change brought the purposes of the Lacey Act closer to the mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – which had assumed responsibility for implementing the Act in 1939.
Unfortunately, Congress simultaneously took other action that greatly weakened USFWS’ ability to use the Act to protect the environment from introduced animals. First, it dropped the requirement that the Secretary approve, with a permit, any importation of a wild bird or mammal.
Second, the 1960 amendment clouded the originally clear prohibition of movement of listed species across state lines. The new language prohibits “any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States …”
For the next 57 years, the USFWS and Congress sometimes interpreted that language as continuing to prohibit transport between the states within the continental United States. However, this situation could not last. In 2017, acting in a case that had challenged the 2012 listing of several nonnative constrictor snakes as “injurious,” the D.C. Circuit court found that the plain language of §18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) does not prohibit the transportation of injurious wildlife between states within the continental United States. So now, transportation of injurious wildlife among the continental states is not prohibited by the statute in most circumstances.
Burmese python; photo by R. Cammauf, Everglades National Park via Flickr
The Law’s Strengths
Some aspects of the law have been strengths. Since the term “injurious” has never been defined, the USFWS has been able to use its discretion to list species that are not necessarily invasive themselves but that might cause harm in some other way. For example, the salmon family and 20 genera of salamanders have been listed because they are vectors of harmful wildlife pathogens.
In addition, USFWS has listed entire genera or families of organisms – as long as each species within the taxon has been shown to possess the “injurious” trait(s). This flexibility has probably helped listings aimed at precluding importers from switching from the species that initially raised concerns to related species.
The Law’s Inherent Weaknesses
1) Legal shortfalls
Due to the confusion created by the 1960 amendment, the USFWS now lacks authority to prohibit interstate transport of species listed as “injurious”. This gap undermines the law’s efficacy in controlling spread of listed species once they are established within the U.S.
Also, the law does not prohibit other human actions that pertain to the presence and spread of species listed as “injurious,” e.g., sale, possession, or intra-state transport. Addressing these other aspects of invasive species policy was left to other players, such as states or resource managers.
2) Funding shortfall
Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress has ever provided specific funding for implementation of the Lacey Act. Only one USFWS staffer has the job of listing species under the Act. This situation might change now, since the American Rescue Plan Act adopted in spring 2021 does provide funding over the next five years for listing species that can vector pathogens harmful to people.
Staff’s Evaluation of Its Implementation of the Lacey Act
Since USFWS took over implementation of the Lacey Act in 1939, 36 taxonomic groups have been added to the “injurious wildlife” list. Seven of these listings comprise multiple species – either as genera or families.
Two mammals have been listed since the late 1960s – brushtail possum in 2002 and raccoon dog in 1983. Recent listings have strongly focused on aquatic organisms. This is because the staff is housed in the Fish and Aquatic Conservation program and their expertise is in these species.
silver carp; photo by University of Illinois
Listing activity appeared to be building in the second decade of the 21st Century, with multi-species listings of fish, snakes, and salamanders between 2012 and 2016. However, there has been only one listing action since 2016 – and that was by an act of Congress (listing of the quagga mussel).
In two peer reviewed papers, the USFWS’ Jewell and Fuller provide a history of the Lacey Act’s injurious wildlife title and analyze the effects of listing of 307 species (those listed since 1952). They conclude that 98% of the species listings were “effective” because the listed species either had not been introduced subsequent to listing [288 species; 94% of the total number of listed species] or had not spread to additional states [12 species, 4% of the total]. Another way to calculate the latter figure is to say that 63% of all established species have remained within the state(s) where they were established at the time of listing. Only three species have been spread to additional states by human actions. In these cases, Jewell and Fuller considered the Lacey Act measures to be “ineffective”. For further details on the Jewell and Fuller evaluations of listing efficacy, see their article – full citation given at the end of this blog.
Jewell and Fuller do not evaluate the impacts of animal species introduced to the U.S. after 1960 that have never been listed under the Lacey Act, or speculate about whether listing those species might have minimized the risk of their introduction.
Jewell and Fuller consider listing of species not yet established in the U.S. to be most effective for two reasons. First, listing minimizes the probability that the species will be imported intentionally or unintentionally. Second, listing provides states with risk analyses and other information on which to rely in adopting their own restrictions, including possible prohibitions on sale or possession.
Jewell and Fuller also argue that even in the absence of legal authority to regulate interstate transport of listed species among the continental states, it is still worthwhile to list species that are already established in the U.S. They give six reasons. I summarize those reasons (placing them in my order, not Jewell and Fuller’s):
1) Listing can protect the islands of Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean and Pacific territories. All are extremely vulnerable to invasive species.
2) If a species shares the traits of injuriousness with other species, particularly those in the same genus or family, then including the already-invasive species demonstrates why the related species should also be listed.
3) Many imported animals carry parasites and pathogens harmful to native species, and stopping the continued importation can reduce those threats that cause disease.
4) Prohibiting further importation of the invasive species can prevent individuals from being introduced to new areas where the species would not otherwise have arrived and can reduce propagule pressure that could introduce hardier individuals.
5) Listing can provide states and other jurisdictions with the technical information they need to pursue additional restrictions not federally authorized under 18 U.S.C. 42, such as transport into a state, possession, and sale.
6) Listing reduces propagule pressure and might enhance the efficacy of any eradication or control measures.
How to Improve the Lacey Act
1) Amend the Lacey Act to restore authority to regulate interstate movement of listed species – including among the continental states and emergency listing authority. Also establish a more streamlined listing process.
2) Strengthen implementation of the law by providing a specific, adequate appropriation to hire additional staff. Utilize the enhanced resources to assess species proactively using risk assessment tools.
It is not yet clear whether the Biden Administration will initiate a more active listing process, especially beyond the zoonotic disease vectors that are the subject of the American Rescue Plan Act.
Note: The “injurious wildlife” section of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, or title 18) is separate from another part of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378) that is has always been more widely known. This provision regulates wildlife trafficking across State lines. It was later broadened to include plants and trafficking of wildlife and plants from foreign countries.
SOURCES
Jewell S.D. (2020) A century of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act: a history. Management of Biological Invasions. Volume 11, Issue 3: 356–371, https://doi.org/10. 3391/mbi.2020.11.3.01 https://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2020/3/MBI_2020_Jewell.pdf
Alternative view – that Lacey Act implementation has failed to protect the U.S. – presented by the following authors:
Fowler, A.J., D.M. Lodge and J. Hsia. 2007. Failure of the Lacey Act to protect US ecosystems against animal invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
Springborn, M. C.M. Romagosa and R.P. Keller. 2011. The value of nonindigenous species risk assessment in international trade. Ecological Economics
Jenkins, P.T. 2012. Invasive animals and wildlife pathogens in the United States: the economic case for more risk assessments and regulation. Biological Invasions
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.
large Kaua’i thrush; specimen photographed by Huub Veldhuizen van Zanten / Naturalis Biodiversity Center; via Wikimedia commons
I usually blog about tree pests but the bioinvasion disasters in Hawai`i and Guam also attract my attention. I have blogged in the past about insect or pathogen threats to Hawaiʻi’s ‘ōhi‘a trees and other native plants of Hawaiʻi and Guam.
Some of the most difficult and tragic of the invasive species threats in Hawaiʻi are avian diseases vectored by introduced mosquitos. Avian pox and especially avian malaria have already caused extinction of numerous bird species, and continue to threaten many of the remaining endemic species.
I regret that it takes extinction to bring overdue attention to the threats to Hawaiian birds. The USFWS has proposed to remove eight species of Hawaiian birds and one from Guam from the list of endangered species because they are extinct.
Distressing as is the current determination of extinctions, it is just the tip of iceberg. Since people colonized the Hawaiian Islands 1,500 years ago, 71 bird species have become extinct, 48 before the arrival of Europeans and 23 since Captain James Cook’s arrival in 1778. Historically, more than 50 different honeycreepers lived in Hawaiʻi; today, only 17 species remain. Eight of these have been federally listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. A ninth bird species – a flycatcher – also has been listed. Another honeycreeper, i`iwi (Drepanis (Vestiaria) coccinea) is listed as threatened on Kauaʻi. As noted, the USFWS now says eight of these species (six honeycreepers, an ʻĀkepa, and one thrush) are actually extinct.
FWS will accept comments received or postmarked on or before November 29, 2021. To have an impact, comments must be substantive, not just a statement of support or opposition. The USFWS action includes 14 other species, among them the ivory-billed woodpecker, Bachman’s warbler, a bat, fish, and freshwater mussels.
Maui nakupu’u specimen photographed by Huub Veldhuizen van Zanten / Naturalis Biodiversity Center; via Wikimedia Commons
In describing the threats to the Pacific Island birds, the USFWS proposal focuses on non-native diseases, specifically avian pox and avian malaria. USFWS also mentions introduced vertebrates – especially predators such as cats, rats, and mongoose; and invasive plants. Because it does not deal with those bird species that continue to exist, the notice does not mention prospective threats. For example, constant vigilance is needed against possible introduction (from Guam) of the brown tree snake. Also needed is a strategy to counter rapid ‘ōhi‘a death, which threatens widespread mortality of the ‘ōhi‘a lehua tree (Metrosideros polymorpha).
I`iwi feeding on ohi’a in Hakalau Forest NWR, Hawai’i; photo by Daniel J. Lebbin, American Bird Conservancy
The USFWS proposal describes significant efforts over the past 50 years to restore bird species, including implementation of two recovery plans and numerous surveys trying to find remnant populations. However, none of these projects could counter the effects of the mosquito-vectored pox virus (Avipoxvirus) and avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum). The primary vector, Culex quinquefasciatus, was introduced to the islands in 1826. It has already reached the 6000 feet elevation level. Two other mosquitoes, Aedes albopictus and A. aegypti, may also spread avian pox. The former has been present in Hawai`i since 1896. The Aedes mosquitoes are – so far – at elevations of ~4,000 feet. However, they are expected to spread higher as the climate warms. The Hawaiian honeycreepers (subfamily Drepanidinae) are highly susceptible to these diseases. As a result, many of these bird species have disappeared from areas below ~ 4,500 feet (1,372 meters) over the last century.
One result of climate change is that mosquitoes are now able to penetrate even higher, up to 6000 feet. Only the islands of Hawai`i (the Big Island) and Maui have forests above this higher elevation.
The descriptions of the eight species purported to be extinct demonstrates the impact of many threats, but especially the diseases. Of the eight species, four are found on the island of Kauaʻi. Three were listed as endangered in 1967, when the U.S.’ first endangered species law came into force. The fourth was listed just a few years later, in 1970. The highest elevation on Kauaiʻ is 5,100 feet.
Kauaʻi ʻakialoa (Akialoa stejnegeri) listed (as Hemignathus stejnegeri) in 1967, about the time of the last confirmed observations. The species used to be widespread on Kauaʻi and occupied all forest types above 656 feet (200 meters).
Kauaʻi nukupuʻu (Hemignathus hanapepe) listed as endangered in 1967. At the time of listing, only two individuals had been reported during the 20th Century. The original extent of its geographic range is unknown.
Kauaʻi ‘o‘o (Moho braccatus) listed as endangered in 1967. At the time of listing, the population size was estimated at 36 individuals. The last plausible record was a vocal response to a recording in 1987. Its last known habitat was the dense ‘ōhi‘a lehua forest in the valleys of Alakaʻi Wilderness Preserve. It reportedly fed on various invertebrates and the fruits and nectar from ‘ōhi‘a lehua, lobelia, and other flowering plants. The original extent of its geographic range is unknown.
Large Kauaʻi thrush (Myadestes myadestinus) listed as endangered in 1970. At the time of listing, the population size was estimated at 337 individuals. The last unconfirmed and confirmed sightings occurred in the late 1980s.
Three of the putatively extinct species are found on the island of Maui. Maui’s highest point, Haleakalā, reaches 10,000 feet. Two of these species were listed in 1970. The third was discovered in 1973! This demonstrates how difficult it is to survey dense forests on steep, highly uneven volcanic slopes – especially when the substrate is a’a lava!
Maui ʻĀkepa (Loxops coccineus ochraceus) listed (as Loxops ochraceus) in 1970. At the time of listing, its population was estimated at 230 individuals. The Maui ʻĀkepa preys on various insects and drinks the nectar of ‘ōhi‘a lehua flowers and uses the tree for nesting. The original extent of the geographical range is unknown, but thought probably to include Molokai and Lānaʻi. By the late 19th century all reports were from mid- to high-elevation forests; possibly the birds had already succumbed to the mosquito-vectored diseases. However, even recent surveys have been at too low intensity to definitively demonstrate that the species is extinct.
Maui Nukupuʻu (Hemignathus lucidus affinis) listed (as Hemignathus affinis) in 1970. It probably formerly inhabited Molokai. Even in the late 19th century observers noted the restricted distribution and low population density of Maui nukupuʻu. The species was rediscovered in 1967 in the upper reaches of Kīpahulu Valley in Haleakalā National Park, East Maui. The last confirmed sighting was in 1996, from the nearby Hanawī Natural Area Reserve
Po‘ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) listed as endangered in 1975, two years after its discovery. At the time of listing, its population was estimated at 140. Fossil evidence indicated it once had a much broader geographic and habitat range. It foraged on tree branches, preferring several native shrubs and trees, including ‘ōhi‘a lehua. Attempts were made to breed the species in captivity in the early 2000s, but these failed. The last two birds known to exist were last seen in December 2003 and January 2004.
Kipahulu Valley on Maui; photo by Kim and Forrest Starr
The eighth species is from Molokai, which has no elevation higher than 4900 feet.
Molokai Creeper (Paroeomyza flammea) listed in 1970. At the time of listing, the Molokai creeper was considered extremely rare. It gleaned insects from vegetation and bark in wet ‘ōhi‘a lehua, forests. Molokai creeper was common in 1907, but by the 1930s, it was considered in danger of extinction. It was last detected in 1963.
Time is running out for Hawaiʻi’s native birds. In 2016 the USFWS listed yet another Hawaiian honeycreeper, the formerly ubiquitous ʻiʻiwi. (Drepanis (Vestiaria) coccinea), as threatened on Kauaʻi. Conservationists recognize the need to combat the mosquitoes.
While I mourn the recent extinction of several Hawaiian forest birds, I celebrate the decision by Hawaiian-based conservation entities to adopt innovative strategies to counter the invasive species threat.
An Innovative and Bold Initiative
The delisting proposal mentions a hopeful development: creation of a multi-agency consortium called “Birds, Not Mosquitoes”. Participating agencies include the Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawaiʻi Department of Health, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Hawaiʻi, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, American Bird Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy of Hawaiʻi, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species, Island Conservation, and Pacific Rim Conservation. Also involved are the Kauaʻi Forest Bird Recovery Project, Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project, University of Kentucky, and Michigan State University.
Culex quinquefasciatus PIXNIO
The partnership is exploring methods to suppress the mosquito populations. The current focus is on using a common, naturally-occurring bacteria as a “mosquito birth control”. Many insects, including some mosquitoes, carry a naturally-occurring bacterium, Wolbachia. If male and female mosquitoes of the same species carry different, “incompatible” strains of Wolbachia, the eggs wonʻt hatch. The Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT) currently under consideration would intentionally infect male mosquitoes with a specific strain of Wolbachia. These males would then be released to mate with the wild females – and produce infertile eggs. Male mosquitoes donʻt bite humans or birds; the female needs the blood meal to produce eggs.
This method has been successfully used around the globe to reduce populations of mosquitoes that carry human diseases such as dengue fever and malaria. Because of the conservation crisis, the “Birds, Not Mosquitoes” program is seeking permits to moves the project forward as quickly as possible while also ensuring full compliance with all state and federal requirements. Small trial releases would need to happen first to validate success in the field, with larger landscape-scale releases to follow.
Research in Hawaiʻi that is not part of the multi-agency “Birds not Mosquitoes” project is exploring genetic techniques to control mosquitoes. Any such strategy must meet careful safety standards and be registered with federal agencies and within Hawai‘i before use. Because any genetic technique to control mosquitoes is assumed to be more than a decade away and could face considerable public opposition, it likely would not be available in time to prevent additional extinctions of Hawaiʻi’s endemic forest birds.
The “Birds, Not Mosquitoes program” is a multi-year effort to develop the tool, establish the best approach for deploying the tool, and then sustain the effort to keep invasive mosquito populations suppressed. Success can save at least 12 bird species in Hawai`i from extinction, and benefit many more. Funding needs over the next five years are:
* FY2022 – $3 Million
* FY2023 – $5 Million
* FY2024 – 2026 – $7 Million per year
Please contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to support funding for this effort in the Interior Appropriations bills for the coming years.
SOURCE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of 23 Extinct Species From the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants ACTION: Proposed rule. 50 CFR Part 17 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 187 / Thursday, September 30, 2021
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
In February the USFS published a lengthy analysis of invasive species: Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector (Poland et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog). More than 100 people contributed to the book; I helped write the chapters on legislation and regulations and international cooperation. The book is available for download at no cost here.
Chapters address impacts in terrestrial and aquatic systems; impacts on ecosystem processes; impacts on various sectors of the economy and cultural resources; interactions with climate change and other disturbances; management strategies for species and landscapes; tools for inventory and management. Each chapter evaluates the current status of knowledge about the topic and suggests research needs. There are also summaries of the invasive species situation in eight regions.
Miconia – one of many invasive plants damaging ecosystems in Hawai`i
I greatly appreciate the effort. Authors first met in 2015, and most chapters were essentially written in 2016. The long delay in its appearance came largely from negotiations with the publisher. The delay means some of the information is out of date. I am particularly aware that several experts – e.g., Potter, Guo, and Fei – have published about forest pests since the Aukema source cited. I wonder whether inclusion of their findings might change some of the conclusions about the proportion of introduced pests that cause noticeable impacts.
Since the report’s publication in February I have struggled with how to describe and evaluate this book. What is its purpose? Who is its audience? The Executive Summary says the report is a sector-wide scientific assessment of the current state of invasive species science and research in the U.S.
However, the Introduction states a somewhat different purpose. It says the report documents invasive species impacts that affect ecosystem processes and a wide range of economic sectors. This would imply an intention to enhance efforts to counter such effects– not just to shape research but also to change management. Indeed, the Conclusion of the Executive Summary (pp. xvi-xvii) is titled “An Imperative for Action”.
Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture
I am not the author to evaluate how effectively the book sets out research agendas. Regarding its usefulness in prompting policy-makers to do more, I regretfully conclude that it falls short.
Getting the balance right between an issue’s status and what needs to be done is difficult, perhaps impossible. I appreciate that the report makes clear how complex bioinvasion and ecosystem management and restoration are. Its length and density highlight the difficulty of making progress. This daunting complexity might well discourage agency leadership from prioritizing invasive species management.
On the other hand, summary sections sometimes oversimplify or bury important subtleties and caveats. The question of whether some key questions can ever be resolved by science is hinted at – but in detailed sections that few will read. The same is true regarding the restrictions imposed by funding shortfalls.
The Report Would Have Benefitted from Another Round of Editing
Editing this tome was a Herculean task. I feel like a curmudgeon suggesting that the editors do more! Nevertheless, I think the report would have been improved by the effort. One more round of editing – perhaps involving a wider range of authors – could have pulled together the most vital points to make them more accessible to policymakers. It could also have tightened the ecosystem-based descriptions of impacts, which are currently overwhelmed by too much information.
A precis for policymakers
A precis focused on information pertinent to policymakers (which the current Executive Summary does not) should contain the statement that the continued absence of a comprehensive investigation of invasive species’ impacts hampers research, management, and policy (mentioned only in §16.5, on p. 332). It should note situations in which insufficient funding is blocking recommended action. I note three examples: programs aimed at breeding trees resistant to non-native pests (resource issues discussed only in §§8.3.1 and 8.3.2, p. 195); sustaining “rapid response” programs (§6.4.3, p. 125); costs of ecosystem restoration, especially for landscape-level restoration (§16.4). I am sure there are additional under-funded activities that should be included!
cross-bred ash seedlings being tested for vulnerability to EAB; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch
Other important information that should be highlighted in such a precis includes the statement that many ecosystems have already reached a point where healthy functions are in a more tenuous balance due to invasive species (p. 51). Effective carbon storage and maintaining sustainable nutrient and water balance are at risk. Second, costs and losses caused by invasive forest pests generally fall disproportionately on a few economic sectors and households. They cannot be equated to governmental expenditures alone (p. 305). Third, even a brief estimate of overall numbers of invasive species appears only in §7.4. Information about individual species is scattered because it is used as example of particular topic (e.g., impacts on forest or grassland ecosystems, or on ecosystem services, or on cultural values).
Ecosystem Impacts Overwhelmed
As noted above, the report laments the absence of a comprehensive investigation of invasive species’ impacts. Perhaps the editors intended this report to partially fill this gap. To be fair, I have long wished for a “crown to root zone” description of invasive species’ impacts at a site or in a biome. Concise descriptions of individual invasive species and their impacts are not provided by this report, but they can be found elsewhere. (The regional summaries partially address the problem of too much information – but they do not provide perspective on organisms that have invaded more than one region, e.g., emerald ash borer or white pine blister rust.) Another round of editing might have resulted in a more focused presentation that would be more easily applied by policymakers.
Welcome Straightforward Discussion of Conceptual Difficulties
I applaud the report’s openness about some important overarching concepts that science cannot yet formulate. If supportable theories could be conceived, they would assist in the development of policies:
Despite decades of effort, scientists have not established a clear paradigm to explain an ecosystem’s susceptibility to invasion (p. 85). Invasibility is complex: it results from a dynamic interplay between ecosystem condition and ecological properties of the potential invader, especially local propagule pressure.
Scientists cannot predict how climate warming will change distributions of invasive species [see Chapter 4] and alter pathways. This inability hampers efforts to develop effective prevention, control, and restoration strategies (p. xi). Climate change and invasive species need to be studied together as interactive drivers of global environmental change with evolutionary consequences.
The Report’s Recommendations
Policy-oriented recommendations are scattered throughout the report. I note here some I find particularly important:
Measures of progress should be based on the degree to which people, cultures, and natural resources are protected from the harmful effects of invasive species.
Managers should assess the efficacy of all prevention, control, and management activities and their effect upon the environment. Such an evaluation should be based on a clear statement of the goals of the policy or action. [I wish the report explicitly recognized that both setting goals and measuring efficacy are difficult when contemplating action against a new invader that is new to science or when the impacts are poorly understood. Early detection / rapid response efforts are already undermined by an insistence on gathering information on possible impacts before acting; that delay can doom prospects for success.]
Risk assessment should both better incorporate uncertainty and evaluate the interactions among multiple taxa. Risk assessment tools should be used to evaluate and prioritize management efforts and strategies beyond prevention and early detection/rapid response.
Economic analyses aimed at exploring tradeoffs need better tools for measuring returns on invasive species management investments (§16.5).
Actions that might be understood as “restoration” aim at a range of goals along the gradient between being restored to a known historic state and being rehabilitated to a defined desired state. The report stresses building ecosystem resilience to create resistance to future invasions, but I am skeptical that this will work re: forest insects and disease pathogens.
Propagule pressure is a key determinant of invasion success. Devising methods to reduce propagule pressure is the most promising to approach to prevent future invasions (p. 115). This includes investing in quarantine capacity building in other countries can contribute significantly to preventing new invasions to the US.
Resource managers need additional studies of how invasive species spread through domestic trade, and how policies may differ between foreign and domestic sources of risk.
I appreciate the report’s attention to such often-ignored aspects as non-native earthworms and soil chemistry. I also praise the report’s emphasis on social aspects of bioinvasion and the essential role of engaging the public. However, I think the authors could have made greater use of surveys conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy’s Don’t Move Firewood program.
Lost Opportunities
I am glad that the report makes reference to the “rule of 25” rather than “rule of 10s”. I would have appreciated a discussion of this topic, which is a current issue in bioinvasion theory. As noted at the beginning of this blog, the long time between when the report was written and when it was published might have hampered such a discussion
Also, I wish the report had explored how scientists and managers should deal with the “black swan” problem of infrequent introductions that have extremely high impacts. The report addresses this issue only through long discussions of data gaps, and ways to improve models of introduction and spread.
I wish the section on the Northwest Region included a discussion of why an area with so many characteristics favoring bioinvasion has so few damaging forest pests. Admittedly, those present are highly damaging: white pine blister rust, sudden oak death, Port-Orford cedar root disease, balsam woolly adelgid, and larch casebearer. The report also notes the constant threat that Asian and European gypsy moths will be introduced. (The Entomological Society of America has decided to coin a new common name for these insects; they currently to be called by the Latin binomial Lymatria dispar).
And I wish the section on the Southeast and Caribbean discussed introduced forest pests on the Caribbean islands. I suspect this reflects a dearth of research effort rather than the biological situation. I indulge my disagreement with the conclusion that introduced tree species have “enriched” the islands’ flora.
SOURCE
Poland, T.M., P. Patel-Weynand, D.M Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M Lopez, editors. 2021. Invasive species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector. Springer
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
