November 2022 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

New Publication on Threats to World’s Forests – including Invasives

In a new paper, “Forest Resources of the World: Present Status and Future Prospects,” Singh et al. affirm the importance of forests for terrestrial biodiversity, provision of multiple ecosystem services, and supporting the economic well-being of approximately 1.6 billion people directly. This equals about a quarter of Earth’s population. The authors conclude that achieving global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including poverty reduction, food security, and mitigating and adapting to climate change — all depend on sustaining forests.

According to the 2020 Global Forest Resource Assessment, Earth’s forested area comprises ~4.06 billion hectares, or 31% of the total land surface.More than half (54%) of all global forest area is found in five countries: the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the United States, and China. Tropical forests constitute 45% of this total; boreal forests, 27%; temperate forests, 16%; and subtropical forests, 11%. An estimated 93% (3.75 billion ha) regenerate through natural processes; 7% (290 million ha) is planted forest.

The extent of global forest area has been declining for decades but the rate of loss slowed significantly between 1990 and 2020. This reflects decreased deforestation in some countries and an increase in forest area in others. The latter is due to both afforestation and also natural forest growth. However, conversion of tropical forests to agriculture continues apace. From 2010 to 2020, the net loss of forest area was highest in Africa (3.9 million ha) and South America (2.6 million ha). Increases in net forest area occurred in Asia, Oceania and Europe. The status of the top 10 countries or territories in global forest resources as of 2020 is given in Table 1.2 of the chapter. [News sources document that rapid deforestation continues in Brazil, at least.]

Several trends are concerning to those of us who value primary or undisturbed forests. First, the area of naturally regenerating forest has decreased, while the area of planted forest has expanded – but only by 123 million ha. In the last decade, the rate of increase in the area of planted forests has also slowed.

Second, total carbon stock in forests declined from 668 gigatons to 662 gt in 1990–2020. This is only 6%, but it is trending in the wrong direction. As we know, forest conservation counters climate change in two ways: conserved forests are a carbon sink, while degraded or destroyed forests are a significant source of atmospheric CO₂. In fact, forests are the 2^nd largest storehouses of carbon, after oceans. Global forests sequester about one-third of total CO₂ emission from the combustion of fossil fuels. Almost all forest carbon is found in living biomass (44%) and soil organic matter (45%).

Costa Rican rainforest; photo by eflon via Flickr

Third, primary forests are already severely reduced and continue to shrink. Primary forests are those composed of native species, and supporting relatively undisturbed ecological processes. They are irreplaceable for sustaining biological diversity. These forests are already severely reduced – they cover only ~ 1 billion ha. Since 1990, the extent of primary forest has decreased by 81 million ha. More than half are in Brazil, Canada, and Russia.

Singh et al. report that only about 10% of the world’s forests are set aside for biodiversity conservation. Again, trends are in the wrong direction. The rate of increase in the area of forest designated largely for biodiversity conservation has slowed. On the other hand, forest areas designated for other non-extractive purposes have increased: soil and water conservation, recreation, tourism, education, research, and the protection of cultural and spiritual sites.

Singh et al. are cheered by the fact that more than 2 billion hectares are under management with well-defined management plans. The extent of forests under management plans has increased by 233 million ha since 2000.

Singh et al. say that continuously increasing anthropogenic pressure is the main cause of deforestation and forest degradation in unmanaged forests. Citing projections that the world’s population will reach almost 10 billion by 2050, they say this growth will make reconciling the need for forest conservation with the basic requirements of humans for food, shelter, and fuel more difficult than ever.

I appreciate this honesty. Too many experts interviewed on the day that the global population was estimated at 8 billion made optimistic statements about the consequences. They mentioned Earth’s carrying capacity only in reference to First World people demanding excessive resources. There was minimal discussion of humanity’s carbon footprint and no reference to ever-increasing threats to biological diversity. Nor to the fact that people in developing countries want to raise their standards of living – which entails higher demand for resources, including energy. For an example, see The Washington Post editorial, here.

On the other hand, Ruby Mellen in the Post on 15 November mentioned that, according to the World Wildlife Fund, 75% of Earth’s ice-free land has been significantly altered by people, and two-thirds of mammal, fish, reptile, and amphibian species have become endangered in the last ~50 years. Unfortunately, the on-line version of the paper doesn’t have this specific article!

fires in Siberian forest in 2016; European Space Agency

Threats to Forests: Fire

Singh et al. rank fire as the most disastrous threat, affecting biodiversity and carbon sequestration potential. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, about 29% of the total geographical area in the world was affected by forest fires during 2001–2018; more than two-thirds of these fires occurred in Africa. U.S. media, however, focused on fires in the Amazon, temperate areas (U.S., Europe), and, sometimes, boreal forests or Australia. Singh et al. say that areas that are frequently affected by fire are prone to other types of disturbances like drought and outbreaks of insect pests.

tanoaks killed by *Phytophthora ramorum* in Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry

Threats to Forests: Diseases and Pests

I am glad that Singh et al. recognize the damage to forest productivity caused by disease and pest infestations. In doing so, they cite familiar sources – Clive Brasier, Peter Vitousek, Juliann Aukema, Gary Lovett, Sandy Liebhold, Kerry Britton, Bitty Roy, Hanno Seebens – regarding surges in pest attacks; the growing diversity of damaging pests; resulting changes in forest species composition and structure that impede ecosystem functions and productivity. Singh et al. follow these sources in calling for improved hygiene in nurseries, adoption of scientific silvicultural practices reducing physical damage to the vegetation, selection of genotypes that are resistant, and reinforcing national and international policies on quarantine and biosecurity measures to minimize pest impacts in the future. They also mention adoption of remote sensing technologies to detect the trees under stress and use of sentinel plantings. They list the 10 most important international agreements dealing with invasive species issues as the International Plant Protection Convention, Ramsar Convention, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Convention on Migratory Species, Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group, World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Global Invasive Species Program, and International Civil Aviation Organization, and Cartagena.

slash and burn agriculture in Bolivia; photo Neil Palmer

Threats to forests: Development Projects

Singh et al. consider development projects to be the third threat to forest conservation. Their roads, powerlines, and other linear developments cause habitat loss and fragment landscapes. In their view, environmental impact assessments and other similar requirements are not yet sufficient to safeguard sustainable use of forest resources.

Policy Responses

Singh et al. call for more inclusive forest management structures to respond to the threat climate change poses to forests, industries, and forest-dependent communities. They all for partnerships that bring together researchers from several disciplines with forest managers and local stakeholders. Geoffrey M. Williams and others (including me) advocate for similar conservation approaches. (See pre-print here.)

In this context, Singh et al. mention several reports, plans, and agreements aimed at global forest conservation. Participants in global fora have recognized the importance of forests in contributing to food security and sustainable development. Among agreements mentioned are the UN’s Strategic Plan for Forests 2030 and recommendations of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) published in 1994. The former tries to generate greater coherence, collaboration, and synergy across UN programs aimed at encouraging volunteer forest conservation by countries, international, regional, and local organizations, partners, and stakeholders. Unfortunately, they do not discuss the extent to which the 30-year old IISD recommendations have – or have not – been implemented.

They also describe Forest Landscape Restoration as an effective strategy to restore the functionality of forests.Again, the focus is on a collaborative approach aimed at integrating efforts by all forestry-related stakeholders, e.g., scientific and academic organizations, local communities, indigenous peoples, and private sectors, including forest-based enterprises and NGOs.

Also praised is rising attention to trees outside forest. This includes fostering use of trees in agroforestry systems ranging from home gardens to farm forestry systems, shelterbelts, and woodlots. This approach helps to sustain the livelihoods of rural communities and maintain a stable and secure food supply. Meanwhile, it reduces dependence on natural forests

Singh et al. say community forest management and decentralized governance have gained acceptance. They describe examples from Gambia and Rwanda. They concede that such decentralization has its own risks and challenges. For example, e the most marginalized sections of the community must be ensured adequate capacity for robust conflict resolution.

Singh et al. advocate that all nations seek to increase their forest cover; affluent countries that are hampered by physical and climatic conditions should aid poorer nations in increasing and upgrading their forest cover. They suggest “recognition” and encouragement of countries that maintain forest cover above 30% of territory.

See also about loss of floral diversity and blog about IUCN’s global forest assessment.

SOURCE

Singh, M., N.N. Shahina, S. Das, A. Arshad, S. Siril, D. Barman, U. Mog, P. Panwar, G. Shukla, and S. Chakravarty. 2022. Forest Resources of the World: Present Status and Future Prospects. In Panwar, P., G. Shukla, J.A. Bhat, S. Chakravarty. 2022. Editors. Land Degradation Neutrality: Achieving SDG 15 by Forest Management; ISBN 978-981-19-5477-1 ISBN 978-981-19-5478-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5478-8

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

www.fadingforests.org

A Forest without Big Trees — Which Animals Will be Decimated?

In an earlier blog about tree extinctions, I commented that less drastic impacts by pests can also be important. I mentioned specifically that clumps of beech root sprouts cannot duplicate the quantities of nuts and cavities provided by mature beech trees.

This thought prompted me to search for information about use of tree cavities by wildlife. The articles I have found are decades old and largely focus on implications for management of forests for timber. Timber production conflicts with a goal of ensuring the presence of large (“overmature”), trees, especially those with dead branches, and completely dead trees (“snags”). These articles were written too long ago to address the possible impacts of non-native insects and pathogens – although there is some discussion of widespread mortality of pines caused by the mountain pine beetle.

These sources make clear that species that make cavities are keystone species. Many other wildlife species depend on them — birds, bats and terrestrial animals – mammals and herps. Furthermore, these cavity-associated species require forests with significant numbers of large, old, declining trees. When non-native insects or pathogens kill those trees, there might be a short-term bonanza of dying trees – suitable for nesting and foraging; and wood-feeding insects to provide food. But afterwards – for decades or longer – there will probably be small-diameter trees, and different species. Can the cavity-dependent species find habitat or food under these circumstances?

[By coincidence, the PBS program “Nature” broadcast an episode on woodpeckers on the 2^nd of November! The title is “The Hole Story”. ]

Cavities provide a variety of habitats for many species – including some not usually thought of as “forest” species. Among the 85 North American bird species identified by Scott et al. as associated with cavities are seven species of ducks, two vultures, three falcons, 12 owls, two swifts, six flycatchers, two swallows, purple martin, seven chickadees, three titmice, four nuthatches, brown creeper, five wrens, three bluebirds, and two warblers. They point out that the majority of these birds are insectivores. Woodpeckers are especially important predators of tree-killing bark beetles.

Goodburn and Lorimer found that more than 40 species of birds and mammals in hardwood forests of Wisconsin and Michigan use cavities in snags and dead portions of live trees for nest sites, dens, escape cover, and winter shelter. Bunnell reported that 67 vertebrate species commonly use cavities in the Pacific Northwest. Chepps et al., Daily et al., and Wiggins focus on specific species in the Rocky Mountains. (Full citations for all sources are at the end of the blog.)

While Scott et al. (published in 1977) do not address the impact of non-native pests, their profiles of individual bird species sometimes name specific types of trees favored. Several of these tree taxa have been decimated by such non-native pests, or face such attack in the near future. Thus, concern appears warranted for:

pileated woodpecker; photo by Jo Zimni via Flickr

birds nesting in American elm, including two that are quite large so they require large trees to accommodate their nests: common goldeneye (a duck) and pileated woodpecker (larger than a crow).
the pileated woodpecker also nests in ash and beech and here
the yellow-bellied sapsucker nests in butternut.

How many species depended on American chestnut, which – before the blight — grew to diameters up to 5 feet, heights of 70 to 100 feet, and had hollow centers (USDA 2022)?

In the West, some nesting tree species are under imminent threat from invasive shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, or sudden oak death. Detection of the emerald ash borer in Oregon portends a longer-term threat. Birds likely to feel these impacts include the acorn woodpecker, ash-throated flycatcher, and purple martin. The golden-fronted woodpecker is associated with oaks in parts of Texas where oak wilt is severely affecting live oaks.

ash-throated flycatcher; photo by Mick Thompson via Flickr

At the beginning of the 21^st Century – before widespread mortality caused by the emerald ash borer — densities of snags in the managed forests in the Lake States were apparently already insufficient to sustain population densities of cavity nesting birds. Pileated woodpeckers and chimney swifts both prefer snags greater than 50 cm dbh, which are significantly less abundant in harvested stands. For six of eight bird species studied, the number of breeding pairs was significantly higher in old-growth northern hardwood stands than in those under management (Goodburn and Lorimer).

Strong Primary Excavators are Keystone Species

Cavity nesters are commonly divided into:

1) primary excavators that excavate their own cavities. These are further divided into strong excavators – those species that forage by drilling, boring, or hammering into wood or soil; and weak excavators – those species that probe or glean bark, branches, and leaves to acquire prey.

2) secondary cavity users, that use holes made by primary cavity excavators (Bunnell).

Strong primary excavators tend to be large, e.g., most woodpeckers, sapsuckers, and the northern flicker. Weak excavators are mostly smaller species, such as chickadees and nuthatches; plus those woodpeckers that forage primarily by probing and gleaning, extracting seeds, or capturing insects in flight [e.g., acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)] (Bunnell).

Bunnell considers strong excavators to be keystone species because so many other cavity users depend on them. Their loss would seriously disrupt forest ecosystems. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, only nine of 22 avian primary excavators are strong excavators. Another 45 species are secondary cavity users. These include waterfowl, tree swallows, and some mammals such as flying squirrels. Some cavity nesters support an even wider group of species: in the Pacific Northwest, at least 23 bird species, six mammal species, and numerous arthropods (nine orders and 22 families) feed on sap and insects collected at holes drilled by sapsuckers (Bunnell). [I discuss sapsuckers’ ecosystem role in greater detail later.]

Tree Characteristics

There is general agreement that animals dependent on tree cavities “prefer” (actually, require) trees that are large – tall, of large circumference, and sturdy – while having decayed interiors.

Size:

As Bunnell notes, larger snags provide more room and tend to stand longer without breaking, so they provide greater opportunities for cavity use. They also tend to be taller, so they offer higher nest sites that provide better protection from ground-dwelling predators. While larger-diameter trees remain standing longer regardless of the cause of mortality, snags created by fire usually fall sooner than do other snags. Beetle-killed trees are more attractive to cavity nesters that tend to excavate nest sites in trees on which they have foraged.

In the upper Midwest, cavity trees were a scare resource, even in unmanaged forests. Mean diameters for live cavity trees were twice as large as the mean diameter of the live trees in stands under a management regime. Such larger-diameter snags were more numerous in old-growth than in managed stands, especially in mixed hemlock-hardwood stands (Goodburn and Lorimer).

The Importance of Decay

Excavating a cavity demands considerable energy, so birds seek sites where a fungal infection has softened the interior wood. The exterior wood must remain strong to prevent collapse of the nest. These rots take time to develop, so they appear more often in older, even dying, trees. Bunnell, Scott et al., Chepps et al., and Goodburn and Lorimer all emphasize the role of decay in providing suitable cavity sites. Chepps et al. compared the aspen trees used by four species of cavity-nesting birds in central Arizona. Not only were nest trees softer than neighboring trees; they were softer at the spot where the nests were excavated than at other heights. [Spring (1965) provides a fun discussion of different species’ adaptations to the energy demands of hard pecking and climbing vertical trunks.]

Live v. Dead Trees

However, the need for decay does not necessarily mean birds prefer dead trees. Goodburn and Lorimer found that in Wisconsin and Michigan, a large percentage of all cavities found were in live trees.

Bunnell found that strong excavators select trees with less visible signs of decay. Where possible, secondary users will also use live trees. However, intense competition often forces them to use dead trees.

Hardwoods v. Conifers

Bunnell states that deciduous trees more often contain internal rot surrounded by a sound outer shell than do conifers (at least this is true in the Pacific Northwest). He found that cavity nesters chose hardwoods for 80–95% of their nest sites even where hardwoods comprised only 5–15% of the available tree stems. He concluded that availability of living hardwoods had a significant influence on strong excavators in the West, although probably was less important in hardwood stands in the East.

Taxa Dependent on Other Types of Cavity

Some species depend on cavities created by forces other than bird excavations, such as decay or fire. These include most of the mammals, especially the larger ones e.g., American martens, fishers, porcupines, and black bears. These natural cavities are often uncommon. Vaux’s swifts nest and roost in hollow snags large enough that they can fly in a spiral formation to enter and leave (Bunnell).

little brown bat *Myotis* sp. photo by S.M. Bishop via Wikimedia Commons

Bats are a special case. Bats are unique among mammals of their size in having long lives, low reproductive rates, and relatively long periods of infant dependency. They also play a key ecological role as the major predators of nocturnal flying insects (van den Driesche 1999). Also many species are in perilous conservation status: half of the 16 bat species in British Columbia were listed as threatened or endangered as of 1998 (van den Driesche). This was before the deadly disease whitenose syndrome had been detected in North America.

Bats require larger trees. In the Pacific Northwest at least, that choice often means conifers (Bunnell). Roosts are difficult to find, so samples are small. A study on the west coast of Vancouver Island (van den Driessche), located only nine roosts despite searching during three summers. Five roosts were in large-diameter (old) western red cedar, with dead tops and extensive cracks.

Brown creepers and some amphibians and reptiles nest or seek cover under slabs of loose bark, which are typically found on dead or dying trees. The same large, mature and old-growth conifer trees also provide preferred foraging habitat, since there is a higher density of arthropod prey on their deeply furrowed bark. While Wiggins (2005) studied bird populations in the Rocky Mountains, he cited studies in the eastern United States, specifically in the Blue Ridge and Allegheny mountains, that have found similar results. Goodburn and Lorimer found that in National forests in Wisconsin and Michigan, only 15% of trees consisted of the necessary snags with loose bark plates. Suitable trees were most frequent old-growth hemlock-hardwood stands, and on larger-diameter snags. A high proportion of the snags with loose bark were yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis).

Importance of foraging sites

As Bunnell points out, a bird must feed itself before it can nest. Foraging trees and snags are usually smaller than nesting trees. Furthermore, birds need many more foraging sites than nesting sites. The situation perhaps most pertinent to our usual focus on invasive pests concerns bird species’ response to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Red-breasted nuthatches and mountain chickadees increasing dramatically in apparent response to the beetle epidemic. When most of the conifers had been killed, and numbers of beetles diminished, numbers of these bird species also declined–despite the increased availability of conifer snags for nesting. Indeed, the birds continued to nest primarily in aspen during the epidemic.

Bunnell reiterates that snags of all sizes are needed; they provide perching, foraging, and hawking sites for bird species beyond cavity nesters as well as sustenance for bryophytes, insects, and terrestrial breeding salamanders. He says more than 200 studies reported harvesting of standing dead trees in beetle-killed forests had negative effects on bird, mammal, and fish species.

Other Dependencies – Food Sources

yellow-bellied flycather; photo by Dennis Church via Flickr

A few studies looked at the role of cavity-creating birds in providing food sources. The focus was on sapsuckers. They drill sapwells into trees’ phloem; sap flowing into these wells attracts many other species. In Michigan, Rissler determined that yellow-bellied sapsuckers’ sapwells attracted insects in seven orders and 20 families, especially Coleoptera, Diptera (other than Tephritidae), bald-faced hornets, and Lepidoptera. Daily et al. (1993) cites other studies showing that ruby throat and rufous hummingbirds have extended their breeding ranges by relying on these sapwells for nutrition in early spring before flowers open. [The “Nature” program covers this behavior.]

In a subalpine ecosystem in Colorado, Daily et al. found that red-naped sapsuckers support other species in two ways. First, they excavate nest cavities in fungus-infected aspens that are utilized by at least seven secondary cavity nesting bird species. When they feed, they drill sapwells that nourish more than 40 species – including hummingbirds, warblers, and chipmunks. Daily et al. called this a keystone species complex comprised of sapsuckers, willows, aspens, and a heartwood fungus. Disappearance of any element of the complex could cause an unanticipated unraveling of the community.

Goodburn and Lorimer looked at the availability of downed wood but did not discuss the implications of the presence of only small-diameter coarse woody debris.

Efforts to Accommodate Biodiversity Needs

Scott et al. reported in 1977 that the USDA Forest Service had required staff at regional and National Forest levels to develop snag retention policies. Twenty years later, Goodburn and Lorimer noted that Forest Service management guidelines for some Wisconsin and Michigan National forests since the early 1980s have called for the retention of all active cavity trees and 5-10 snags (larger than 30 cm dbh)/ha. However, as I noted above, they fear that these recommended snag retention levels might still be too limited to support cavity nesters. They found that two species that prefer snags greater than 50 cm dbh, pileated woodpeckers and chimney swifts, were significantly more abundant in old-growth than in selection stands. Furthermore, the number of breeding pairs of six species was at least 30% higher in old-growth northern hardwood than in selection stands and more than 85% higher in selection cuts than even-aged.

Goodburn and Lorimer cited others’ findings that removal of some live timber and snags in an Arizona ponderosa pine forest reduced cavity-nesting bird populations by 50%. Species affected were primarily violet-green swallows, pygmy nuthatches, and northern three-toed woodpeckers.

Female mountain bluebird by Jacob W. Frank. Original public domain image from Flickr

As I noted, none of these experts has addressed the impacts of wide-spread pest-caused tree mortality. If I may speculate, it seems likely that when the first wave of mortality sweeps through a forest, the result might be an expansion of both nesting opportunities (in dead or dying trees) and food availability for those that feed on wood borers. These would probably be more plentiful even in trees killed by pathogens or nematodes. Sapsuckers and those that depend on them might experience an immediate decline in sap sources. Over the longer term it seems likely that all cavity-dependent species will confront a much lower supply of large mature trees. I note that many deciduous/hardwood tree species are being affected by introduced pests.

Are there current studies in Michigan, where so many ash have died?

SOURCES

Bunnell, F.L. 2013. Sustaining Cavity-Using Species: Patterns of Cavity Use and Implications to Forest Management. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. ISRN Forestry. Volume 2013, Article ID 457698

Chepps, J., S. Lohr, and T.E. Martin. 1999. Does Tree Hardness Influence Nest-Tree Selection by Primary Cavity Nesters? The Auk 116(3):658-665, 1999

Daily, G.C., P.R. Ehrlich, and N.M. Haddad. 1993. Double keystone bird in a keystone species complex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 90, pp. 592-594, January 1993 Ecology

Goodburn, J.M. and C.G. Lorimer. 1998. Cavity trees and coarse woody debris in old-growth and managed northern hardwood forests in Wisconsin and Michigan. Can. For. Res. 28: 427.438 (1998)

Rissler, L.J., D.N. Karowe, F. Cuthbert, B. Scholtens. 1995. Wilson Bull., 107(4), 1995, pp. 746-752

Spring, L.W. 1965. Climbing and Pecking Adaptations in Some North American Woodpeckers.

Scott, V.E., K.E. Evans, D.R. Patton, C.P. Stone. 1977. Cavity-Nesting Birds of North American Forests. Agriculture Handbook 511 USDA Forest Service. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49172/49172-h/49172-h.htm

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Draft Enviromental Impact Statement. 2022. State University of New York College of Enviromental Science and Forestry Petition (19-309-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Blight-Tolerant Darling 58 c’nut (Castanea dentata)

van den Driessche, R., M. Mather, T. Chatwin. 1999. Habitat use by bats in temperate old-growth forests, Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia

Wiggins, D.A. (2005, January 27). Brown Creeper (Certhia americana): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf [date of access].

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Australia Builds Capacity to Address Forest Pests

Australian Eucalypts; photo by John Turnbull via Flickr

I congratulate Australian scientists for bringing about substantial improvements of their country’s biosecurity program for forest pests. While it is too early to know how effective the changes will be in preventing new introductions, they are promising. What can we Americans learn from the Australian efforts? [I have previously praised South Africa’s efforts – there is much to learn there, too.]

Australia has a reputation of being very active in managing the invasive species threat. However, until recently biosecurity programs targetting forest pests were minimal and ad hoc. Scientists spent 30 years trying to close those gaps (Carnegie et al. 2022). Their efforts included publishing several reports or publications (listed at the end of the blog) and an international webinar on myrtle rust. Scientists are hopeful that the new early detection program (described below) will greatly enhance forest protection. However, thorough pest risk assessments are still not routinely conducted for forest pests. (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022).

The native flora of Australia is unique. That uniqueness has provided protection because fewer of the non-native insects and pathogens familiar to us in the Northern Hemisphere have found suitable hosts (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Also – I would argue – the uniqueness of this flora imposes a special responsibility to protect it from threats that do arise.

Only 17% of Australia’s landmass is covered by forests. Australia is large, however; consequently, these forests cover 134 million hectares (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). This is the 7th largest forest estate in the world (Carnegie et al. 2022).

Australia’s forests are dominated by eucalypts (Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora). These cover 101 million ha; or 75% of the forest). Acacia (11 million ha; 8%); and Melaleuca (6 million ha) are also significant. The forest also includes one million ha of plantations dominated by Pinus species native to North America (Carnegie et al. 2022). A wide range of native and exotic genera have been planted as amenity trees in urban and peri-urban areas, including pines, sycamores, poplars, oaks, and elms (Carnegie et al. 2022). These urban trees are highly valued for their ecosystem services as well as social, cultural, and property values (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Of course, these exotic trees can support establishment and spread of the forest pest species familiar to us in the Northern Hemisphere. On the positive side, they can also be used as sentinel plantings for early detection of non-native species (Carnegie et al. 2022 and Nahrung and Carnegie 2020).

Despite Australia’s geographic isolation, its unique native flora, and what is widely considered to be one of the world’s most robust biosecurity system, at least 260 non-native arthropods and pathogens of forests have established in Australia since 1885 (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). [(This number is about half the number of non-native forest insects and pathogens that have established in the United States over a period just 25 years longer (Aukema et al. 2010).] As I noted, forest scientists have cited these introductions as a reason to strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system specifically as it applies to forest pests.

What steps have been taken to address this onslaught? For which pests? With what impacts? What gaps have been identified?

Which Pests?

Nahrung and Carnegie (2020) compiled the first comprehensive database of tree and forest pests established in Australia. The 260 species of non-native forest insect pests and pathogens comprise 143 arthropods, 117 pathogens. Nineteen of them (17 insects and 2 fungal species) had been detected before 1900. These species have accumulated at an overall rate of 1.9 species per year; the rate of accumulation after 1955 is slightly higher than during the earlier period, but it has not grown at the exponential rate of import volumes.

While over the entire period insects and pathogens were detected at an almost equal rate (insects at 1.1/year; pathogens at 0.9/year), this disguises an interesting disparity: half of the arthropods were detected before 1940; half of the pathogens after 1960 (Nahrung and Carnegie (2020). By 2022, Nahrung and Carnegie (2022) said that, on average, one new forest insect is introduced each year. Some of these recently detected organisms have probably been established for years. More robust surveillance has just detected them recently. I have blogged often about an apparent explosion of pathogens being transported globally in recent decades.

In a more recent article (Nahrung and Carnegie, 2022), gave 135 as the number of non-native forest insect pests. The authors don’t explain why this differs from the 143 arthropods listed before.

damage to pine plantations caused by *Sirex noctilio*; photo courtesy of Helen Nahrung

Eighty-seven percent of the established alien arthropods are associated with non-native hosts (e.g., Pinus, Platanus, Populus, Quercus, Ulmus) (Carnegie et al. 2022). Some of these have escaped eradication attempts and caused financial impact to commercial plantations (e.g., sirex wood wasp, Sirex noctilio) and amenity forests (e.g., elm leaf beetle, Xanthogaleruca luteola) (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019).

About 40% of the alien arthropods were largely cosmopolitan at the time of their introduction in Australia (Carnegie et al. 2022). Only six insects and six fungal species are not recorded as invasive elsewhere (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Of the species not yet established, 91% of interceptions from 2003 to- 2016 were known to be invasive elsewhere. There is strong evidence of the bridgehead effect: 95% of interceptions of three species were from their invaded range (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022). These included most of the insects detected in shipments from North America, Europe and New Zealand. These ubiquitous “superinvaders” have been circulating in trade for decades and continue to be intercepted at Australia’s borders. This situation suggests that higher interception rates of these species reflect their invasion success rather than predict it (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021).

I find it alarming that most species detected in shipments from Africa, South America, and New Zealand were of species not even recorded as established in those regions (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021; Nahrung and Carnegie 2022).

*Arhopalus ferus*, a Eurasian pine insect often detected in wood from New Zealand; photo by Jon Sullivan – in New Zealand; via Flickr

Half of the alien forest pests established in Australia are highly polyphagous. This includes 73% of Asian-origin pests but only 15% of those from Europe (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021). Nahrung and Carnegie (2022) confirm that polyphagous species are more likely to be detected during border inspections.

PATHWAYS

As in North America and Europe, introductions of Hemiptera are overwhelmingly (98%) associated with fresh plant material (e.g. nursery stock, fruit, foliage). Coleoptera introductions are predominantly (64%) associated with wood (e.g. packaging, timber, furniture, and artefacts). Both pathways are subject to strict regulations by Australia (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021).

Eradication of High-Priority Pests

Eight-five percent of all new detections were not considered high-priority risks. Of the four that were, two had not previously been recognized as threats (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). One high-priority pest – expected to pose a severe threat to at least some of Australia’s endemic plant species – is myrtle rust, Austropuccinia psidii. Despite this designation, when the rust appeared in Australia in 2010, the response was confused and ended in an early decision that eradication was impossible. Myrtle rust has now spread along the continent’s east coast, with localized distribution in Victoria, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and – in 2022, Western Australia. `

*Melaleuca quinquenervia* forest; photo by Doug Beckers via Wikimedia

There have been significant impacts to native plant communities. Several reviews of the emergency response criticized the haste with which the initial decision was made to end eradication (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). (A review of these impacts is here; unfortunately, it is behind a paywall.)

A second newly introduced species has been recognized as a significant threat, but only after its introduction to offshore islands. This is Erythina gall wasp Quadrastichus erythrinae (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). DMF Although Australia is home to at least one native species in the Erythrina genus, E. vespertilio,, the gall wasp is not included on the environmental pest watch list.

Four of the recently detected species were considered to be high impact. Therefore eradication was attempted. Unfortunately, these attempts failed in three cases. The single success involved a pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus hunanesis. See Nahrung and Carnegie (2021) for a discussion of the reasons. This means three species recognized as high-impact pests have established in Australia over 15 years (Nahrung and Carnegie (2021). In fact, Australia’s record of successful forest pest eradications is only half the global average (Carnegie and Nahrung (2019).

Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) conclude that improving early detection strategies is key to increasing the likelihood of eradication. They discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various strategies. Non-officials (citizen scientists) reported 59% of the 260 forest pests detected (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). Few alien pests have been detected by official surveillance (Carnegie et al 2022). However, managing citizen scientists’ reports involves a significant workload. Futhermore, surveillance by industry, while appreciated, is likely to detect only established species (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019).

Interception Frequency Is Not an Indicator of Likelihood of Establishment

Nahrung & Carnegie (2021) document that taxonomic groups already established in Australia are rarely detected at the border. Furthermore, only two species were intercepted before they were discovered to be established in Australia.

Indeed, 76% of species established in Australia were either never or rarely intercepted at the border. While more Hemiptera species are established in Australia, significantly more species of Coleoptera are intercepted at the border. Among beetles, the most-intercepted family is Bostrichid borers (powderpost beetles). Over the period 2003 – 2016, Bostrichid beetles made up 82% of interceptions in wood packaging and 44% in wood products (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022). This beetle family is not considered a quarantine concern by either Australian or American phytosanitary officials. I believe USDA APHIS does not even bother recording detections of powderpost beetles. Nahrung and Carnegie (2021) think the high proportion of Bostrichids might be partially explained by intense inspection of baggage, mail, and personal effects. While Australia actively instructs travelers not to bring in fruits and vegetables because of the pest risk, there are fewer warnings about risks associated with wood products.

Nahrung & Carnegie (2021) concluded that interception frequencies did not provide a good overall indicator of likelihood of risk of contemporaneous establishment.

Do Programs Focus on the Right Species?

Although Hemiptera comprise about a third of recent detections and establishments, and four of eight established species are causing medium-to-high impact, no Hemiptera are currently listed as high priority forestry pests by Australian phytosanitary agencies (Nahrung & Carnegie (2021). On the other hand, Lepidoptera make up about a third of the high-priority species, yet only two have established in Australia over 130 years. Similarly, Cerambycidae are the most frequently intercepted forest pests and several are listed as high risk. But only three forest-related species have established (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). (Note discussion of Bostrichidae above.).

Unlike the transcontinental exchanges under way in the Northern Hemisphere, none of the established beetles is from Asia; all are native to Europe. This is especially striking since interceptions from Asia-Pacific areas account for more than half of all interceptions Nahrung and Carnegie (2021).

Interestingly, 32 Australian Lepidopteran and eight Cerambycid species are considered pests in New Zealand. However, no forest pests native to New Zealand have established in Australia despite high levels of trade, geographic proximity, and the high number of shared exotic tree forest species (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020).

STRUCTURE OF PROGRAM

The structure of Australia’s plant biosecurity system is described in detail in Carnegie et al. (2022). These authors call the program “comprehensive” but to me it looks highly fragmented. The federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR,[recently renamed the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, or DAFF) is responsible for pre-border (e.g., off-shore compliance) and border (e.g., import inspection) activities. The seven state governments, along with DAFF, are responsible for surveillance within the country, management of pest incursions, and regulation of pests. Once an alien pest has become established, its management becomes the responsibility of the land manager. In Australia, then, biosecurity is considered to be a responsibility shared between governments, industry and individuals.

Even this fragmented approach was developed more recently than one might expect given Australia’s reputation for having a stringent biosecurity system. Perhaps this reflects the earlier worldwide neglect of the Plant Kingdom? Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) describe recent improvements. Until the year 2000, Australia’s response to the detection of exotic plant pests was primarily case-by-case. In that year Plant Health Australia (PHA) was incorporated. Its purpose was to facilitate preparedness and response arrangements between governments and industry for plant pests. In 2005, the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD) was created. It is a legally-binding agreement between the federal, state, and territorial governments and plant industry bodies. As of 2022, 38 were engaged. It sets up a process to implement management and funding of agreed responses to the detection of exotic plant pests – including cost-sharing and owner reimbursement. A national response plan (PLANTPLAN) provides management guidelines and outlines procedures, roles and responsibilities for all parties. A national committee (Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests (CCEPP) works with surveys to determine invaded areas (delimitation surveys) and other data to determine whether eradicating the pest is technically feasible and has higher economic benefits than costs..

*Austropuccinia psidii* on *Melaleuca quinquenervia*; photo by John Tann via Flickr

Even after creation of EPPRD in 2005, studies revealed significant gaps in Australia’s post-border forest biosecurity systems regarding forest pests (Carnegie et al. 2022; Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). These studies – and the disappointing response to the arrival of myrtle rust – led to development of the National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy (NFBSS) – published in 2018; accompanied by an Implementation Plan. A National Forest Biosecurity Coordinator was appointed.

The forest sector is funding a significant proportion of the proposed activities for the next five years; extension is probable. Drs. Carnegie and Nahrung are pleased that the national surveillance program has been established. It includes specific surveillance at high-risk sites and training of stakeholders who can be additional eyes on the ground. The Australian Forest Products Association has appointed a biosecurity manager (pers. comm.)

This mechanism is expected to ensure that current and future needs of the plant biosecurity system can be mutually agreed on, issues identified, and solutions found. Plant Health Australia’s independence and impartiality allow the company to put the interests of the plant biosecurity system first. It also supports a longer-term perspective (Carnegie et al. (2022). Leading natural resource management organizations are also engaged (Carnegie, pers. comm.).

Presumably the forest surveillance strategy (NFBSS) structure is intended to address the following problems (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019):

Alien forest pests are monitored offshore and at the border, but post-border surveillance is less structured and poorly resourced. Australia still lacks a surveillance strategy for environmental pests.
Several plant industries have developed their own biosecurity programs, co-funded by the government. These include the National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy (NFBSS).

Some pilot projects targetting high risk sites were initiated in the early 2000s. By 2019, only one surveillance program remained — trapping for Asian spongy (gypsy) moth.

The states of Victoria and New South Wales have set up sentinel site programs. Victoria’s uses local council tree databases. It is apparently focused on urban trees and is primarily pest-specific – e.g., Dutch elm disease. The New South Wales program monitors more than 1,500 sentinel trees and traps insects near ports. This program is funded by a single forest grower through 2022.

Dr. Carnegie states: “With the start of the national forest biosecurity surveillance program in December 2022, the issues and gaps identified by Carnegie et al. 2022 are starting to be addressed. The program will conduct biosecurity surveillance specifically for forest pests and pathogens and be integrated with national and state biosecurity activities. While biosecurity in Australia is still agri-centric, a concerted and sustained effort from technical experts from the forest industry is changing this. And finally, the new Biosecurity Levy should ensure sustained funding for biosecurity surveillance.”

There is a separate National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement (NEBRA), adopted in 2012. It is intended to provide guidelines for responding, cost-sharing arrangements, etc. when the alien pest threatens predominantly the environment or public amenity assets (Carnegie et al. (2022). However, when the polyphagous shot hole borer was detected, the system didn’t work as might have been expected. While PSHB had previously been identified as an environmental priority pest, specifically to Acacia, the decision whether to engage was made under auspices of the the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD) rather than the environmental agreement (NEBRA). As a result, stakeholders focused on environmental, amenity and indigenous concerns had no formal representation in decision-making processes; instead, industries that had assessed the species as a low priority (e.g., avocado and plantation forestry) did (Nahrung, pers.comm.).

Additional Issues Needing Attention

Some needs are not addressed by the National Forest Pest Strategic Plan (Carnegie et al. 2022) (Nahrung, pers. comm.):

1) The long-term strategic investment from the commercial forestry sector and government needed to maintain surveillance and diagnostic expertise;

2) Studies to assess social acceptance of response and eradication activities such as tree removal;

3) Studies to improve pest risk prioritization and assessment methods; and

4) Resolving the biosecurity responsibilities for pests of timber that has been cut and used in construction.

In 2019, Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) called for developing more effective methods of detection, especially of Hemiptera and pathogens. They also promoted national standardization of data collection. Finally, they advocated inclusion of technical experts from state governments, research organizations and industry in developing and implementing responses to pest incursions. They note that surveillance and management programs must be prepared to expect and respond to the unexpected since 85% of the pests detected over the last 20 years—and 75% of subsequently mid-to high-impact species established—were not on high-priority pest list. See Nahrung and Carnegie 2022 for a thorough discussion of the usefulness and weaknesses of predictive pest listing.

SOURCES

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

Carnegie A.J. and H.F. Nahrung. 2019. Post-Border Forest Biosecurity in AU: Response to Recent Exotic Detections, Current Surveillance and Ongoing Needs. Forests 2019, 10, 336; doi:10.3390/f10040336 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests

Carnegie A.J., F. Tovar, S. Collins, S.A. Lawson, and H.F. Nahrung. 2022. A Coordinated, Risk-Based, National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Program for AU Forests. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:756885. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.756885

Nahrung H.F. and A.J. Carnegie. 2020. NIS Forest Insects and Pathogens in Australia: Establishmebt, Spread, and Impact. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:37. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00037 March 2020 | Volume 3 | Article 37

Nahrung, H.F. and A.J. Carnegie. 2021. Border interceps of forest insects estab in AU: intercepted invaders travel early and often. NeoBiota 64: 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.64.60424

Nahrung, H.F. & A.J. Carnegie. 2022. Predicting Forest Pest Threats in Australia: Are Risk Lists Worth the Paper they’re Written on? Global Biosecurity, 2022; 4(1).

Posted by Faith Campbell