Category: animal diseases

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

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

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

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

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 The delay means some of the information is out of date.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Author:

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

CISP welcomes comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

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

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

invasive lake trout in Yellowstone National Park

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Been Watered Down

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

Finding #1

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

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

Finding #2

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

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

Finding #4

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

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

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

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

Where the Documents Agree – Sort of

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

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

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

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

What is Missing from the Journal Publication

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

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

Common Ground: Status of Invasive Animals in the Parks

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

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

Common Ground on Some Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

See also my earlier discussion of the new legislation here.

SOURCES

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

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

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

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

Collapse of Biodiversity – Causes and What We Can Do

frogs in California killed by chytrid fungus
photo by Rick Kyper, US Fish and Wildlife Service

I expect you have heard about the report issued on May 6 by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The executive summary is available here

Based on thousands of scientific studies, the report concludes that the biosphere, upon which humanity as a whole depends, is being altered to an unparalleled degree across all spatial scales. The trends of decline are accelerating. As many as 1 million species (75% of which are insects) are threatened with extinction, many within decades.

Humans dominate Earth: natural ecosystems have declined by 47% on average. Especially hard-hit are inland waters and freshwater ecosystems: only 13% of the wetland present in 1700 remained by 2000. Losses have continued rapidly since then.

The report lists the most important direct drivers of biodiversity decline – in descending order – as habitat loss due to changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasive species. The relative importance of each driver varies across regions.

If you have been paying attention, these conclusions are not “news”.

However, the report serves two valuable purposes. First, it provides a global overview, a compilation of all the data and trends. Second, the report ties the direct drivers to underlying causes which are in turn underpinned by societal values and behaviors. Specifically mentioned are production and consumption patterns, human population dynamics and trends, trade, technological innovations, and governance (decision making at all levels, from local to global).

The report goes to great lengths to demonstrate that biological diversity and associated ecosystem services are vital for human existence and good quality of life – especially for supporting humanity’s ability to choose alternative approaches in the face of an uncertain future. The report concludes that while more food, energy and materials than ever before are now being supplied to people, future supplies are undermined by the impact of this production and consumption on Nature’s ability to provide.   

The report also emphasizes that both the benefits and burdens associated with the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services are distributed and experienced inequitably among social groups, countries and regions. Furthermore, benefits provided to some people often come at the expense of other people, particularly the most vulnerable.  However, there are also synergies – e.g., sustainable agricultural practices enhance soil quality, thereby improving productivity and other ecosystem functions and services such as carbon sequestration and water quality regulation.

The report contains vast amounts of data on the recent explosion of human numbers and – especially – consumption – of agricultural production, fish harvests, forest products, bioenergy production … and on the associated declines in “regulating” and “non-material contributions” ecosystem services. In consequence, the report concludes, these recent gains in material contributions are often not sustainable.

While invasive species rank fifth as a causal agent of biodiversity decline globally, alien species have increased by 40% since 1980, associated with increased trade and human population dynamics and trends. The authors report that nearly 20% of Earth’s surface is at risk of bioinvasion. The rate of invasive species introduction seems higher than ever and shows no signs of slowing.

The report notes that the extinction threat is especially severe in areas of high endemism. Invasive species play a more important role as an extinction agent in many such areas, especially islands. However, some bioinvaders also have devastating effects on mainlands; the report cites the threat of the pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis to nearly 400 amphibian species worldwide.

The report also mentions that the combination of species extinctions and transport of species to new ecosystems is resulting in biological communities – both managed and unmanaged — becoming more similar to each other — biotic homogenization.

The report notes that human-induced changes are creating conditions for fast biological evolution of species in all taxonomic groups. The authors recommend adopting conservation strategies designed to influence evolutionary trajectories so as to protect vulnerable species and reduce the impact of unwanted species (e.g., weeds, pests or pathogens).

The report says conservation efforts have yielded positive outcomes – but they have not been sufficient to stem the direct and indirect drivers of environmental deterioration. Since 1970, nations have adopted six treaties aimed at protection of nature and the environmental, but few of the strategic objectives and goals adopted by the treaties’ parties are being realized. One objective that is on track to partial achievement is the Aichi Biological Diversity Target that calls for identification and prioritization of invasive species. 

That might well be true – but I would not consider global efforts to manage invasive species to be a success story in any way. I have blogged often about studies showing that introductions continue unabated … and management of established bioinvaders only rarely results in measurable improvements.   [For example, see here and here.]

The report gives considerable attention to problems caused by some people’s simultaneous lack of access to material goods and bearing heavier burden from pollution and other negative results of biodiversity collapse. Extraction of living biomass (e.g. crops, fisheries) to meet the global demand is highest in developing countries whereas material consumption per capita is highest in developed countries. The report says that conservation of biodiversity must be closely linked to sustainable approaches to more equal economic development. The authors say both conservation and economic goals can be achieved – but this will require transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors.

One key transformation is changing people’s conception of a good life to downplay consumption and waste. Other attitudinal changes include emphasizing social norms promoting sustainability and personal responsibility for the environmental impacts of one’s consumption. Economic measures and goals need to address inequalities and integrate impacts currently considered to be “economic externalities”. The report also calls for inclusive forms of decision-making and promoting education about the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Economic instruments that promote damaging, unsustainable exploitation of biological resources (or their damage by pollution) include subsidies, financial transfers, subsidized credit, tax abatements, and commodity and industrial goods prices that hide environmental and social costs. These need to be changed.

Finally, limiting global warming to well below 2oC would have multiple co-benefits for protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services. Care must be exercised to ensure that large-scale land-based climate mitigation measures, e.g., allocating conservation lands to bioenergy crops, planting of monocultures, hydroelectric dams) do not themselves cause serious damage to biodiversity or other ecosystem services.

The threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services are most urgent in South America, Africa and parts of Asia. North America and Europe are expected to have low conversion to crops and continued reforestation.

Table SPM.1 lays out a long set of approaches to achieve sustainability and possible actions and pathways for achieving them. The list is not exhaustive, but rather illustrative, using examples from the report.

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

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

Density of invasive plants in South Africa

map available here

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

How well are programs working?

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

 

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

 

APHIS’ Strategic Plan – Focus on Deregulation & Trade Facilitation

APHIS’ headquarters building

USDA APHIS released its Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2019-2023 just after Thanksgiving. The report is 21 pages long. There is no evidence that any stakeholders were asked for input or review.

The Plan has a disappointing – but not surprising – emphasis on deregulation and “customer service”. A second – and more surprising weakness is the lack of attention to plant pests – even those of agriculture, much less natural resources. The emphasis is clearly on animal pests and diseases – including zoonotics.

APHIS’ mission is “To safeguard the health, welfare and value of American agricultural and natural resources.” To accomplish this mission, APHIS has set three goals:

  • Deliver efficient, effective, and responsive programs.
  • Safeguard American agriculture.
  • Facilitate safe U.S. agricultural exports.

Most references to protecting natural resources relate to finding more environmentally sensitive approaches for the program under which APHIS reduces human-wildlife conflicts (e.g., birds being struck by airplanes).

In the Plan, APHIS Administer Kevin Shea writes in his opening message that achieving APHIS’ difficult mission of protecting the health and value of America’s agriculture and natural resources cannot be accomplished by APHIS alone. Instead, the agency must work collaboratively with other government agencies and industry, and consult regularly with partners and stakeholders regarding programs’ effectiveness. Administer Shea also highlights the importance of “delivering our programs and services efficiently, effectively, with integrity, …” The agency promises to modernize information technology, data management, methods of communication with collaborators, exporters and importers, etc., in order to give good return on expenditure of taxpayer resources. APHIS also pledges to make decisions based on science. There are seven references to basing decisions on scientific data.

Fair enough. Such emphases were to be expected from Trump Administration and prefigured by USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue during his nomination hearing, e.g., facilitating exports, supporting better information technology.

However, the Plan refers to “customer service” or “customer experience” 34 times. An additional seven references are made to reducing regulatory burdens. The Plan also speaks of the need to “protect the health, welfare, and value of American agriculture and natural resources. … at a reasonable cost. … Easing regulatory burdens makes it easier to create jobs and promote economic growth.” (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps the recent proposal to deregulate the emerald ash borer is driven in part by the emphasis on minimizing costs to regulated industries and seeking alternative approaches? (Although the deregulation has been under discussion for several years, predating the Trump Administration.)

from APHIS PPQ website

The imbalance in attention to animal versus plant pests and disease is striking. Each of the 14 goals is supported by a number of specific tactics. There are a total of 100 “tactics” under the two goals most directly relevant to preventing or managing pest introductions. These goals are: “Protecting America’s agriculture” and “Promoting U.S. agricultural exports.” Of the 100 tactics, only ten are clearly related to plant pests; 19 are pretty clearly activities that apply to both plant and animal pests and diseases; and five are unclear as to whether they include plant pests as well as animal diseases. Thus, only a third of the tactics apply!

[In making this calculation, I did not include 43 tactics listed under the first goal (“Deliver efficient, effective, and responsive programs”) or three objectives under the goal of “Protecting American agriculture” that apply explicitly to wildlife management, regulating genetically engineered organisms, or ensuring humane treatment of animals.]

Specific examples of such lack of balance include the six examples illustrating the declaration (on p. 4) that “Pest and disease events are more frequent, more complex, and less predictable.” Five of the examples are animal diseases, the sixth is the insect-vectored human disease caused by the Zika virus.

In discussing its efforts to balance its safeguarding efforts against increasing requests for market access by international trading partners, APHIS mentions some activities pertinent to plant as well as animal pest management, e.g., examining disease and pest risks and inserting mitigation strategies into international agreements and interstate movement protocols. However, the only specific action it mentions is helping countries to build capacity to implement the Global Health Security Agenda.

The only reference to forest pests is under one of the 24 tactics associated with Goal 2. Safeguard American agriculture, Objective 2.1: Prevent damaging plant and animal pests and diseases from entering and spreading in the United States to promote plant and animal health. This tactic calls for strengthening the North American perimeter against pest threats from outside the region to prevent introduction of agricultural, forest, and other invasive pests.

Why are Plant Pests slighted?

Perhaps plant-related efforts were left out because they are less “sexy”? Or because they are more distantly linked to human health? The Plan does state that “The tactics in this plan represent only a portion of APHIS activities and by no means embody all the important work APHIS does to fulfill its mission.”

Who knows what was left out?

How will adoption of this strategy affect future efforts to address tree-killing insects and pathogens – both those already present in the country and those yet to be introduced?

Might PPQ Fill in the Gaps?

In 2014 APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine issued its own strategic plan. This supplementary plan made frequent mentions of safeguarding natural resources. Indeed, the third of the plan’s seven goals stated:                              

Goal 3: Protect forests, urban landscapes, rangelands and other natural resources, as well as private working lands from harmful pests and diseases

Several “tactics” under each goal also directly applied to protecting natural resources. I list them below:

1) Prevent the entry and spread of ag pests and diseases.

  • Coordinate with Canada to implement an effective multi-national system that reduces the threat of tree pests arriving from Asia and other parts of the world (e.g. AGM).

3: Protect forests, urban landscapes, rangelands and other natural resources, as well as private working lands from harmful pests and diseases

  • Maintain EAB regulatory framework to focus on the leading edge of infestations while minimizing impacts on regulated businesses in quarantined areas.
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of biocontrol releases in states and combining both regulatory & outreach activities to address the risks of moving logs, firewood, and nursery stock.
  • Examine detection technologies and partnering with states to determine and apply the most effective strategies to survey & eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle
  • Partnering with federal and state agencies to enact measures such as a public outreach campaign to mitigate the movement of forest pests through firewood.
  1. Ensure the safe trade of ag products, creating export opportunities for U.S. producers
  • play a leadership role in revising ISPM#15
  1. Protect the health of U.S. agricultural resources, including addressing zoonotic disease issues and incidences, by implementing surveillance, preparedness and response, and control programs
  • Strengthen partnerships with Tribal Nations to develop a robust surveillance and early detection system for detecting and reporting invasive species.
  • Work with all stakeholders to coordinate all-hazards agriculture and natural resources response support.
  • Develop science-based programs in collaboration with industry and academia to jointly identify practices that will mitigate pest damage. E.G., SANC program http://sanc.nationalplantboard.org/ [a Systems Approach to Nursery Certification] implemented jointly with the National Plant Board and nursery industry

Dare we hope that PPQ adopts an updated strategic plan that fills in some of the gaps in the overall APHIS plan?

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

 

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

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

Ailanthus altissima

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

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

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

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

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

Data – by Region

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

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

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

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

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

Gaps, by Taxon

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

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

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

 Comparisons to Other Databases

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

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

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

Indicators of Non-Native Species Richness

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

UPDATE! New Report in the Works

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

The report and accompanying data tables are available here.

South African report

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

New science reveals that threats remain from Bd, the infamous frog and toad-killing pathogen

California red-legged frog

courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 

In my last blog, I addressed how the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has neglected to undertake the plan that it announced in early 2016 to finalize and improve its weak “interim” regulation aimed at preventing the salamander disease “Bsal” (Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) from infecting salamanders in the still-unexposed United States. While Canada, the European Union and the United Kingdom have all taken very strong measures this year to block salamander imports that are not “Bsal free,” our country is stuck on a much weaker approach that I described as “Swiss cheese”.

Further compounding my concern about FWS’s inaction is new science about Bsal’s older devastating cousin, “Bd” (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), the separate fungus epidemic that has extirpated huge numbers of frogs and toads worldwide, driving several species extinct. Within the last year, the FWS has secretly withdrawn its consideration of a formal petition to regulate Bd filed with the Secretary of the Interior (in charge of the FWS) by Defenders of Wildlife in 2009. The Petition set out a plan to block the ongoing risk to native frogs and toads that the Bd pathogen posed then – and still poses. See description and documents under “Chytrid Fungus – September 16, 2010” here. The petition requested the FWS to create a “Clean Trade” program for shipments of imports, keeping them out of the country unless accompanied by certification that they are “Bd free” – whether by quarantine, testing or other reliable certification approach.

The new key paper, published last month in Science, is a sweeping study that finally answers the two questions that bedevilled amphibian experts since Bd’s first identification back in the mid-1990s:  where did it come from and how was it spread around the world? O’Hanlon et al.’s study, “Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian declines,” here, [one must have an account to read the article] was extremely complex (there were 59 co-authors!). They discovered that Bd originated in salamanders in Asia, likely on the Korean Peninsula, and was spread via trade in live frogs and toads (pets, specialty foods and perhaps other uses). Genetic analysis of the numerous Bd strains showed there is still potential for more strains to mix, for new hybrids to emerge and for still more virulent outbreaks of the disease to occur. The article states: “… further sampling across this region is urgently needed because the substantial global trade in Asian amphibians presents a risk of seeding future outbreak lineages.” One lead co-author, Professor Matthew Fisher of Imperial College London, told the BBC:

​“Until the ongoing trade in infected amphibians is halted, we will continue to put our irreplaceable global amphibian biodiversity recklessly at risk.”

Also notable is University of Maryland Professor Karen Lips’ concise commentary on it here [one must have an account to read the article]. Dr. Lips links the lessons of Bd and Bsal, pointing out the obvious:  regulators need to learn the tragic lessons of Bd and take steps to keep out Bsal now – and not wait until after the fact of an outbreak.

Perhaps it was understandable before the O’Hanlon et al. paper that the FWS never responded to the Defenders of Wildlife Bd petition seeking trade restrictions because Bd was already so widespread within the United States then (unlike Bsal) and Bd’s origins and genetics were so confusing. It was not entirely clear that regulating further amphibian imports would have actually improved our level of Bd protection. But, O’Hanlon et al. changes that –– we now know enough to justify much stricter regulation to prevent more imports of Bd-infected frogs and toads and to block the potential for more virulent outbreaks here.

In short, FWS action on that 2009 Defenders of Wildlife petition is called for now. (Disclaimer: I wrote and filed that petition when I was Director of International Conservation at Defenders.) However, in a remarkably unfortunate use of its administrative powers, the FWS internally determined in March of 2017 to just altogether stop considering it. Rather than communicating back to Defenders that it is granting or denying its petition the FWS now states that it has “Withdrawn” consideration of any regulatory action, here.

This move by FWS plainly is part of the Trump Administration’s broad de-regulatory agenda.  But, the FWS made no decision other than to put it on hold and Defenders of Wildlife did not withdraw it, so as a legal matter the nine-year old Petition is still pending. The FWS can and should take it up again and grant it. But, Defenders likely will have to push hard in order for that to happen.

The scientific community working on both Bd and Bsal has produced authoritative, painstaking studies on which the FWS and others can rely in regulating. And the community has made clear calls to stop the ongoing trade in many scores of species of amphibians around the world with no quarantines or health certificates, which is “business as usual” now. If the amphibian trade continues in the future it needs to be Clean Trade or we will suffer further consequences. It is up to us in the conservation community to convert the scientists’ calls into regulatory reality.

Posted by Peter Jenkins

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.

 

The United States is Being Left in the Dust on Amphibian Disease Prevention

 

 

For a short time, the U.S. was the world leader in regulating to prevent introduction of a foreign amphibian disease that has caused a deadly epidemic in Northern Europe – and could cause the same outbreaks here. Unfortunately, we have since surrendered our leadership. But, we still can and must act. Here is the story as I have seen it unfold (having begun my advocacy on this particular threat in late 2014).

The fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (“Bsal”) is carried on the skin of a large number of salamander species; it was first described in 2014. To help prevent Bsal from arriving and killing native salamanders, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published its “Interim Rule” in January of 2016 to list 201 salamander species as “injurious wildlife” under the Lacey Act (available here; the list of blocked species is here). The FWS had determined that Bsal caused major die-offs of salamanders in Europe and posed an imminent threat to our U.S. native populations. The fungus, which had very likely been carried from Asia to Europe via the pet trade, is not known to exist in the U.S., which is a very fortunate thing because we are the global “hotspot” for salamander diversity. An array of beautiful and popular species are found across the nation, especially in the Appalachian and south-eastern States and the Pacific Coast States.

That 2016 regulation was an important advance fought for by many amphibian conservation advocates and experts. We were proud that ours was the first government to take proactive steps. Unfortunately, the FWS regulation’s focus on just 201 salamander species — out of more than 650 named species worldwide — meant that the regulation was not protective enough to reliably keep Bsal out (as scientists had stressed to the FWS back in 2015). However, we took hope from the fact that it was an “Interim” regulation responding to the urgency of this new risk and the agency had repeatedly announced it intended to revise it into a Final Rule, which process could toughen it up.  However, two and a half years have gone by with no action.

In the fall of 2017 the new Bsal science was showing even greater risk than was understood before. This was gathered into a comprehensive Scientists’ Statement of Reasons for a Class-wide Moratorium of Amphibians in USA Import Trade to Prevent Entry of Bsal, signed by 12 leading amphibian health experts (available here). Further driving home the need for toughening the Interim Rule, in February of 2018 a crucial paper came out, the Yuan et al. salamander study, Widespread occurrence of an emerging fungal pathogen in heavily traded Chinese urodelan species. (Conserv Lett. 2018;e12436). Reviewing Table 1 therein reveals that​ of ​​8 species that tested positive for Bsal infection in China​, when​ compared to the 201 species regulated under the FWS Interim Rule​, ​at least 3 species were ​positive for ​the infection that are ​​not prohibited from import: Andrius davidianus, Pachytriton wuguanfui and Paramesotriton aurantius.

To reiterate: the Interim Rule allows unregulated Bsal-infected species from China to be imported. Further, we know the list of native U.S. species regulated under the list of 201 species is underprotective. Knowledgeable scientists say that Bsal can infect and harm at least 5 additional native species beyond those the FWS listed, while many more unlisted species can act as carriers of the pathogen. (That research likely will be published over the course of this and next year.)  In short, the 2016 Interim Rule now looks like Swiss cheese.

Meanwhile, we have given up our Bsal leadership position to Canada, the European Union and the United Kingdom. After first adopting a 1-year import moratorium, Canada now (effective May 12, 2018) prohibits imports of all species of the order Caudata (salamanders, newts and mudpuppies) except via a special permit (available here).  Taking a different approach, at the end of February the European Union recommended a sweeping “Clean Trade” program relying on pre-shipment certifications, applicable to both imports into the EU and trade between member nations (available here).  The EU animal health authorities recommended that members allow no commercial salamander shipments without risk mitigations, such as detailed quarantines and testing of shipments.

Just recently the United Kingdom followed the EU recommendation and adopted a strict health certificate and quarantine approach for salamander and newt imports targeted to prevent Bsal (available here). It involves three, alternative, detailed quarantine options, while allowing importers to propose a different quarantine approach if it is based on peer-reviewed published science.

To make matters look worse for the U.S. by comparison, this Administration has for no clear reason disengaged from the previously-announced FWS plan to finalize the underprotective Interim Rule. There was a public comment period that ended in March of 2016. Because of that now two-year old closed comment period, the FWS officials in charge just this past April flatly refused to meet with a group of salamander experts to discuss the implications of the new science mentioned above. Then, we found out that the FWS actually officially has delayed finalizing the Interim Bsal Rule indefinitely; the agency now classifies it as a “Long-term Action” with no planned date for completion. (Per White House, Office of Management and Budget, Unified Regulatory Agenda, here).

This administrative slow-down is remarkably unfortunate. Rather than reflecting the new realities and proposing a state-of-the-science “Clean Trade” approach like the EU and UK, or mandating a permit for all salamander imports like Canada, or at least adding the other known unlisted Bsal-carrying and Bsal-vulnerable species to the list of 201 prohibited species adopted back in 2016, the FWS now appears content to expose the country to the risk of this devastating wildlife epidemic via unregulated imports.

It would be one thing if there was some overwhelming economic value to salamander imports, but that is not so. Salamander imports make up a tiny part of the pet trade – their total dollar value is paltry compared to other imported animals. Neither the organized pet industry nor anyone else is actively trying to block progressive protections. Indeed, the pet industry will itself benefit greatly from not having Bsal here infecting its own commercial pet supply. And the industry will benefit from not being blamed if or when released pet salamanders spread Bsal into the wild, which is an all-too-likely scenario based on past species and pathogen incursions.

As called for in the 2017 Scientists’ Statement mentioned above, in order to protect our priceless North American salamander fauna we need a “class-wide ban” – at least. This can and should still allow for appropriate exceptions under FWS permits for education, research, display and other important uses as are already provided for under the Lacey Act.

If you would like to get involved in the informal “Bsal Discussion Group” that is engaged in advocacy to improve the FWS regulation, please contact me at: jenkinsbiopolicy@gmail.com.

 

//////////////////////////

PART II, coming soon, will delve into the new science about the “old” emerging amphibian epidemic, Bd, which has devastated frogs and toads across the planet.

 

Posted by Peter Jenkins

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.

 

National Park Service Experts Urge Improvements to Invasive Species Efforts

 

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

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

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

 

Invasive Animals

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

The report is blunt – which I welcome.

 

Key Message

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

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

 

Current Picture

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

Domestic cat                69 parks

Common starling         66 parks

Common pigeon          47 parks

House sparrow             40 parks

Red imported fire ant   40 parks

Feral hog                      39 parks

Rainbow trout              36 parks (often introduced deliberately)

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

What’s the Problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Invasive Plants

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

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

   removing Miconia to protect Haleakala National Park

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

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

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

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

  1. Develop program standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Promote holistic and integrated invasive plant management

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

  1. Collaborate on invasive plant management

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

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

 

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

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

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.