Asian giant hornet; photo by Yasunori Koide; Wikimedia commons
They’re still here … and perhaps more widespread than thought last year.What officials have learned is that colonies are often high up in trees, not in the ground, as expected based on behavior in Asia. This makes detection and control especially difficult.
In June a citizen found a dead Asian giant hornet (AGH) male in Snohomish County. This county in the Seattle metropolitan area is separated from Whatcom County (site of last year’s detections) by a third county, Skagit County. The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) responded by setting up traps in Snohomish and King counties, and urging citizens to be alert and report any hornet sightings.
Equally worrying, the dead wasp was determined by appearance and genetics to be unrelated to the colonies detected in 2019 and 2020 in Washington and British Columbia. Trapping in the areas found no additional specimens (S. Spichiger pers. comm.)
In July, WSDA designated the hornet genus Vespa as a quarantine pest; this action confirms WSDA authority to control access to nest sites.
nest eradication; WSDA photo
Nests Found and Destroyed
Starting in late summer, citizens began reporting sightings and officials succeeded in tracking hornets to their nests. However, it was not easy! Eradicating Asian giant hornets demands lots of resources and commitment. While all these nests were in Whatcom County – site of last year’s detections — it is clear that several colonies had been established. It seems to me highly unlikely that they have all been detected.
Detection of the first nest in 2021 came in August, following several visual detections of the hornets attacking nests of paper wasps. WSDA staff captured and tagged three hornets over a couple of days. They succeeded in tracking the third hornet when it reappeared a week later. The nest was destroyed (after removal of all hornets) on August 25th. This nest held nine layers of comb with 292 eggs, 422 larvae, and 563 prepuae. Nearly 200 adult hornets were killed. One queen was found. [Hornet Herald 21.07 Sept. 8 2021] The nest was at the base of a dead alder tree in rural Whatcom County, east of Blaine, just 400 metres south of the Canadian border.
The second and third nests were detected on September 8 and 10, 2021. In these cases, tagging and tracking the hornets was easier than in August. Nest eradication was not easy, however. Both nests were high inside dead alder trees, making access difficult. Both nests held multiple combs with hundreds of larvae, eggs, and pupae. Fortunately, only one queen was found in each. [Hornet Herald 21.08; October 5, 2021]
No detections have occurred since these.
WSDA also collected data on foraging behaviors of wasps in the third nest. Data include information on periods during the day when the wasps are active, and what materials they bring back to the nest – which includes wood pulp for nest comb construction and insect thoraces for feeding the pupae. [Hornet Herald 21.08; October 5, 2021]
It is encouraging that only one queen was found in each nest; in 2020, the single nest officials destroyed held 200 queens!
Trapping in British Columbia
Although British Columbia officials increased the number of traps in 2021, and urged citizens to also set out traps, no confirmed AGH finds were made in British Columbia until early November, when one was caught in a trap set for Japanese beetles. This hornet was on the border with Washington, so officials are trying to determine whether it came from one of the nests already discovered there.
There were a couple of unconfirmed sightings. On October 22 a single, aged specimen was found in a Japanese beetle trap about 1.2 km north of the first hornet nest extracted this year in Washington. The beetle trap had been serviced one month earlier. Canadian government entomologists are analyzing the DNA of this specimen to see if it was related to the Washington State nests.
At least one citizen said he had seen an Asian giant hornet in July, but officials said they could not investigate until they had either a picture or a specimen.
Asian giant hornet with radio tag developed by USDA APHIS scientists
Intriguing wrinkle
Mattila et al. (2021) describe an “impressive array of strategies” Asian honey bees use to protect nests from attacks by hornets in the genus Vespa, including a previously unknown use of auditory and perhaps chemical signals to warn nest mates. The authors suggest that this diverse alarm repertoire is similar to alarms issued by socially complex vertebrates such as primates and birds.
Giant hornet (Vespa soror) attacks trigger frenetic antipredator signalling in honeybee (Apis cerana) colonies. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8: 211215. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211215
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 tree-killing pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Sean Connery as Hotspur, Shakespeare Henry IV Part I (BBC, “Age of Kings”)
[Starlings – one of the agricultural pests that prompted adoption of the Lacey Act – were introduced to the U.S. because they were mentioned by Shakespeare: Hotspur says “Nay, I’ll have a starling shall be taught to speak nothing but ‘Mortimer,’ and give it him, to keep his anger still in motion.”]
Americans are increasingly aware of the damage caused by invasive species. The law that ostensibly protects our environment from most potentially invasive animals is the Lacey Act – more specifically, the “injurious wildlife” sections of the law, now known as 18 U.S.C. 42 or title 18.
When it was adopted 120 years ago, the Lacey Act was not intended to protect the environment from the full range of possible animal bioinvaders. While Congress amended it several times in the first 60 years of its existence, the law still has many gaps that impede its usefulness for that purpose.
Rep. John F. Lacey via Wikimedia Commons
When first adopted in 1900, the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act prohibited importation only of wild mammals and birds that posed a threat to agriculture and horticulture. The statute was quite broad in that it prohibited importation of any wild bird or mammal without a permit; there was no requirement that a species be designated as “injurious” to be regulated. The Act was then administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [For a detailed discussion of the Lacey Act’s changing provisions, see Jewell 2020; full reference at the end of this blog.]
In 1960 the Act was amended to expand the list of taxa eligible for designation as “injurious” to include fishes, mollusks, crustaceans, reptiles, and amphibians. Congress also expanded the justifications for listing a species as injurious. It added harm to people, to forestry, or to wildlife or US wildlife resources to the law’s original concerns for agriculture and horticulture. This second change brought the purposes of the Lacey Act closer to the mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – which had assumed responsibility for implementing the Act in 1939.
Unfortunately, Congress simultaneously took other action that greatly weakened USFWS’ ability to use the Act to protect the environment from introduced animals. First, it dropped the requirement that the Secretary approve, with a permit, any importation of a wild bird or mammal.
Second, the 1960 amendment clouded the originally clear prohibition of movement of listed species across state lines. The new language prohibits “any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States …”
For the next 57 years, the USFWS and Congress sometimes interpreted that language as continuing to prohibit transport between the states within the continental United States. However, this situation could not last. In 2017, acting in a case that had challenged the 2012 listing of several nonnative constrictor snakes as “injurious,” the D.C. Circuit court found that the plain language of §18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) does not prohibit the transportation of injurious wildlife between states within the continental United States. So now, transportation of injurious wildlife among the continental states is not prohibited by the statute in most circumstances.
Burmese python; photo by R. Cammauf, Everglades National Park via Flickr
The Law’s Strengths
Some aspects of the law have been strengths. Since the term “injurious” has never been defined, the USFWS has been able to use its discretion to list species that are not necessarily invasive themselves but that might cause harm in some other way. For example, the salmon family and 20 genera of salamanders have been listed because they are vectors of harmful wildlife pathogens.
In addition, USFWS has listed entire genera or families of organisms – as long as each species within the taxon has been shown to possess the “injurious” trait(s). This flexibility has probably helped listings aimed at precluding importers from switching from the species that initially raised concerns to related species.
The Law’s Inherent Weaknesses
1) Legal shortfalls
Due to the confusion created by the 1960 amendment, the USFWS now lacks authority to prohibit interstate transport of species listed as “injurious”. This gap undermines the law’s efficacy in controlling spread of listed species once they are established within the U.S.
Also, the law does not prohibit other human actions that pertain to the presence and spread of species listed as “injurious,” e.g., sale, possession, or intra-state transport. Addressing these other aspects of invasive species policy was left to other players, such as states or resource managers.
2) Funding shortfall
Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress has ever provided specific funding for implementation of the Lacey Act. Only one USFWS staffer has the job of listing species under the Act. This situation might change now, since the American Rescue Plan Act adopted in spring 2021 does provide funding over the next five years for listing species that can vector pathogens harmful to people.
Staff’s Evaluation of Its Implementation of the Lacey Act
Since USFWS took over implementation of the Lacey Act in 1939, 36 taxonomic groups have been added to the “injurious wildlife” list. Seven of these listings comprise multiple species – either as genera or families.
Two mammals have been listed since the late 1960s – brushtail possum in 2002 and raccoon dog in 1983. Recent listings have strongly focused on aquatic organisms. This is because the staff is housed in the Fish and Aquatic Conservation program and their expertise is in these species.
silver carp; photo by University of Illinois
Listing activity appeared to be building in the second decade of the 21st Century, with multi-species listings of fish, snakes, and salamanders between 2012 and 2016. However, there has been only one listing action since 2016 – and that was by an act of Congress (listing of the quagga mussel).
In two peer reviewed papers, the USFWS’ Jewell and Fuller provide a history of the Lacey Act’s injurious wildlife title and analyze the effects of listing of 307 species (those listed since 1952). They conclude that 98% of the species listings were “effective” because the listed species either had not been introduced subsequent to listing [288 species; 94% of the total number of listed species] or had not spread to additional states [12 species, 4% of the total]. Another way to calculate the latter figure is to say that 63% of all established species have remained within the state(s) where they were established at the time of listing. Only three species have been spread to additional states by human actions. In these cases, Jewell and Fuller considered the Lacey Act measures to be “ineffective”. For further details on the Jewell and Fuller evaluations of listing efficacy, see their article – full citation given at the end of this blog.
Jewell and Fuller do not evaluate the impacts of animal species introduced to the U.S. after 1960 that have never been listed under the Lacey Act, or speculate about whether listing those species might have minimized the risk of their introduction.
Jewell and Fuller consider listing of species not yet established in the U.S. to be most effective for two reasons. First, listing minimizes the probability that the species will be imported intentionally or unintentionally. Second, listing provides states with risk analyses and other information on which to rely in adopting their own restrictions, including possible prohibitions on sale or possession.
Jewell and Fuller also argue that even in the absence of legal authority to regulate interstate transport of listed species among the continental states, it is still worthwhile to list species that are already established in the U.S. They give six reasons. I summarize those reasons (placing them in my order, not Jewell and Fuller’s):
1) Listing can protect the islands of Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean and Pacific territories. All are extremely vulnerable to invasive species.
2) If a species shares the traits of injuriousness with other species, particularly those in the same genus or family, then including the already-invasive species demonstrates why the related species should also be listed.
3) Many imported animals carry parasites and pathogens harmful to native species, and stopping the continued importation can reduce those threats that cause disease.
4) Prohibiting further importation of the invasive species can prevent individuals from being introduced to new areas where the species would not otherwise have arrived and can reduce propagule pressure that could introduce hardier individuals.
5) Listing can provide states and other jurisdictions with the technical information they need to pursue additional restrictions not federally authorized under 18 U.S.C. 42, such as transport into a state, possession, and sale.
6) Listing reduces propagule pressure and might enhance the efficacy of any eradication or control measures.
How to Improve the Lacey Act
1) Amend the Lacey Act to restore authority to regulate interstate movement of listed species – including among the continental states and emergency listing authority. Also establish a more streamlined listing process.
2) Strengthen implementation of the law by providing a specific, adequate appropriation to hire additional staff. Utilize the enhanced resources to assess species proactively using risk assessment tools.
It is not yet clear whether the Biden Administration will initiate a more active listing process, especially beyond the zoonotic disease vectors that are the subject of the American Rescue Plan Act.
Note: The “injurious wildlife” section of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, or title 18) is separate from another part of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378) that is has always been more widely known. This provision regulates wildlife trafficking across State lines. It was later broadened to include plants and trafficking of wildlife and plants from foreign countries.
SOURCES
Jewell S.D. (2020) A century of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act: a history. Management of Biological Invasions. Volume 11, Issue 3: 356–371, https://doi.org/10. 3391/mbi.2020.11.3.01 https://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2020/3/MBI_2020_Jewell.pdf
Alternative view – that Lacey Act implementation has failed to protect the U.S. – presented by the following authors:
Fowler, A.J., D.M. Lodge and J. Hsia. 2007. Failure of the Lacey Act to protect US ecosystems against animal invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
Springborn, M. C.M. Romagosa and R.P. Keller. 2011. The value of nonindigenous species risk assessment in international trade. Ecological Economics
Jenkins, P.T. 2012. Invasive animals and wildlife pathogens in the United States: the economic case for more risk assessments and regulation. Biological Invasions
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
