June 2023 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Countering Non-Compliant wood packaging – is new study the 1st step?

infested wood bearing ISPM#15 mark; photo by Oregon Department of Agriculture

SWPM has been recognized as a major pathway for introduction of tree-killing pests since the Asian longhorned beetle was detected in New York and Chicago in late 1990s. As of 2014, 58 new species of non-native wood- or bark-boring insects had been detected – many probably introduced via wood packaging [Leung et al. 2014]. Other examples include the emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle, and, possibly, the invasive shot hole borers.

In response to recognition of the pest risk associated with wood packaging, countries adopted ISPM#15. This process was reviewed in the two articles by Haack et al. and my recent blog. I provided the broader context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in my Fading Forests II report.

I have blogged often about the continuing poor compliance with wood packaging regulations, especially by China; and USDA APHIS’ insufficient efforts to fix the problems. The DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has tried much harder. See particularly my blog about Bob Haack’s re-evaluation of the pest approach risk in wood packaging. Given the high volumes of imports, pests infesting even a small proportion of incoming shipments can result in tens of thousands of pest-infested containers entering the U.S. or Canada each year. For an explanation of these calculations, see the “background” section of this blog.

Since 2010, CBP has discovered actionable pests in more than 700 shipments each year (pers. comm.). [APHIS reports half as many detections – 300 wood boring and bark beetles (Greenwood et al. citing APHIS report from 2021). Perhaps the difference arises from some of the actionable pests not being wood-borers, e.g., snails.] The persistence of pest presence has disappointed CBP staffers, because the agency has taken several actions intended to discourage violations. These include imposing fines and revoking the violators’ participation in the U.S. Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program. Greenwood et al. describe these consequences of non-compliance, as well as the expense of re-exporting the goods and associated wood packaging, as “significant”. Regardless of how significant they might be, so far these consequences have not reduced non-compliances substantially.

The fact is, countries cannot rely on the presence of the ISPM#15 mark or stamp to indicate that the wood packaging is pest-free. In both the United States and Europe, more than 90% of the SWPM found to be infested has born the ISPM#15 stamp (pers. comm.; Eyre et al. 2018). All the pest-infected shipments imported after 2006 discussed in the Haack et al. 2022 study were in wood packaging bearing the ISPM#15 mark. While many of the problems arise on shipments from Asia, findings occur sporadically with countries all across the globe- and notably, U.S. importers have also found serious problems with dunnage from Europe.

But that is the purpose of the standard!

Two outstanding questions that need answers

Continuing poor compliance with regulations by China. This is despite the fact that the U.S. and Canada have required treatment of wood packaging from China since December 1998 – nearly 24 years. Haack et al. found that the proportion of Chinese consignments with infested wood is five times greater than expected based on their proportion of the dataset. The rate of wood packaging from China that is infested has remained relatively steady: the Chinese infestation rate was 1.26% during 2003–2004, and ranged from 0.58 to 1.11% during the next three periods.

Why are the responsible agencies in the United States not taking more aggressive action to correct this long-standing problem? This is a matter of political will.

Despite the ISPM#15 mark being unreliable for more than a decade, countries have not carried out research to determine the root causes. Even now (i.e., Haack et al. 2022; Greenwood et al.) no one can say what proportion of these ISPM-marked but pest-infested pieces of wood results from the treatment not being effective in killing all pests; what proportion results from inadequate application of treatments that are per se effective; and what proportion from fraud (deliberate claims to have applied a treatment that was not done)?

Admittedly, answering these questions will not be easy. First, there is no independent test for whether treatments have been applied; the treatments do not alter the wood’s properties in measurable ways. Scientists need experiments to test the real-world efficacy of treatments in the specific contexts of solid wood packaging.

Second, each country is responsible for its own compliance. Countries differ in their capacity and political will to address this issue. However, success of ISPM#15 depends on determining the cause of continuing pest presence in wood marked as treated, and taking appropriate action to solve the underlying problem.

Greenwood et al. attempt to make progress toward carrying out this necessary task by describing the many steps in the wood packaging supply chain, associated opportunities for pests to infest the wood at each step, and actions exporters and importers can take to try to minimize the risk.

Again, as I discussed in the earlier blog, Haack et al. (2022) found several disturbing situations:

While the pest approach rate has fallen since U.S. implementation of ISPM#15, the extent of the decline has progressively decreased as time passes. The reduction during 2005–2006 was 61%; during 2007–2009, 47%; during 2010-2020 only 36%.
The 2010 – 2020 pest approach rate was calculated at 0.22%. This is more than double the rate based on 2009 data (0.1%, as stated in Haack et al. 2014). While we cannot directly compare these two data points (the two studies used different methods, as discussed in the blog), the bottom line is that the approach rate remains too high. Our forests continue to be exposed to the risk of introduction of highly damaging wood-boring pests. Furthermore, since the number of countries sending us infested wood packaging has increased, those potential pests include insects from a greater variety of countries (biomes).
The two most commonly intercepted families of wood borers are Cerambycidae and Scolytinae (Haack et al. 2022). These families include the Asian longhorned beetle, , redbay ambrosia beetle, and invasive shot hole borers. The 2009 amendment requiring debarking has not apparently resulted in substantial decreases in pest presence, although the proportion of pests that are true bark beetles has declined – from 100% of Scolytinae identified to genus or species detected before 2009 to only 23% in 2010–2020 period.

Michigan’s champion green ash killed by emerald ash borer

Haack et al. (2022) Recommendations

Haack et al. (2022) call for several improvements. Several pertain to how data are collected. Recording the number of infested pieces of wood instead of reporting only consignments would help clarify whether the numbers of insects reaching our borders has fallen, risen, or remained steady. Recording the presence of bark – and the size of any bark remnants – would help clarify whether pests are re-infesting treated wood.

They also note opportunities to improve ISPM#15 implementation and enforcement through training. However, compliance issues persist despite past educational efforts by APHIS and the IPPC.

The Wood Packaging Supply Chain Offers many Opportunities for Pests to Infest the Wood

Greenwood et al. describe each step in fabricating wood packaging material and the opportunities each step presents for unwanted organisms to enter that supply chain. They note that ensuring that these organisms are not then transported on wood packaging being used to carry goods requires that the pests be removed; rendered infertile, inactive, unable to complete development or reproduce; or killed.

The first step in fabricating wood packaging is to harvest trees. Those trees probably harbor various insects, fungi, nematodes, and other organisms that use trees as a resource — for food, shelter, or as a substrate for oviposition. Greenwood et al. mention that the multiplicity of organisms’ life histories pose different challenges for detection and management depending on size, type of tissue utilized, and other factors. The likelihood that a pest or pathogen will be present on or in tree tissues depends on several biotic and abiotic factors, including a species’ proclivity to experience periodic or episodic outbreaks; blow-down events (e.g., hurricanes, windstorms); and harvesting practices. Some of these factors can be controlled by people harvesting the wood.

One of the most frequent opportunities for pest infestation, escape, or cross-contamination is when the wood is stored in the environment. Such storage events happen after the tree is felled — at either the harvest site or processing facility; after the pallet or crate is built – either empty or after the goods have been packed; at the port of export before embarkation; at the importing port before inspection or onward transport; at distribution centers; at retailers; at “pallet graveyards” while awaiting repair or recycling. Retailers and customers have few resources for responsible handling of SWPM – and few incentives to be careful.

a “pallet graveyard”; photo by Adnan Prasad, then with Davey Tree

The risk is exacerbated if storage takes place near woodlands. photo from Savannah At ports and distribution centers, the presence of SWPM from many origins adds to the risk of cross-contamination. Enclosing the SWPM in containers does not completely eliminate the risk since organisms might enter through cracks or air vents. Greenwood et al. suggest management tactics to prevent or reduce pest interaction with the wood during these periods.

container storage near a treed area – Port of Savannah; photo by F.T. Campbell

One of the ISPM#15 requirements intended to minimize the pest risk is debarking the wood. This process removes most organisms that live in and just under the bark. However, debarked wood usually retains some patches of bark because trees are not perfectly round cylinders. Therefore ISPM#15 specifies that remaining bark must be less than 3 cm wide or, if the piece is longer than 3 cm, less than 50 cm² in area.

Greenwood et al. state that after debarking and treatments per ISPM#15, the risk that a pest will be present on the SWPM has been significantly reduced. However, other challenges appear as the newly-minted packaging is put into use – primarily through the possibility of contamination during storage – as described above. There are also risks associated with inadequate or insufficient treatment or fraud.

Once loaded onto a ship, containers and any SWPM, including dunnage, are very difficult to inspect. That means that the loading process presents that last opportunity for inspection and mitigation of contaminating pests. Greenwood et al. note that it is the shipper’s responsibility to ensure containers are “clean, free of cargo residues, noxious materials, plants, plant products and visible pests” before being loaded on the ship. However, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) provides only recommendations, not mandates. Australia has adopted more stringent requirements.

Arrival at the importing country’s port presents the first opportunity for non-indigenous organisms to escape and the first domestic opportunity for the receiving country to inspect the shipment. While U.S. and Canadian customs agencies have authority to board ships before they dock to inspect them, Mexican agencies do not. The most extensive pre-docking requirements are aimed at preventing arrival of moths in the Lymantria genus from Asia.

dunnage in Houston; photo by S. Useman, CBP

Greenwood et al. note that dunnage presents unique risks. After it is removed from ships during the unloading process it is often stored at the port. As noted above, storage in the open allows pests to escape to nearby trees or to cross-contaminate other SWPM. Ports struggle to manage these piles. In 2016 the U.S. revised its regulations to allow for the more rapid destruction of illegally deposited dunnage via incineration at the port. Since 2008 Canada has considered all shipborne dunnage to be non-compliant – regardless of whether it bears the ISPM#15 stamp. In the largest Mexican ports, dunnage is fumigated and destroyed. However, the dunnage might be stored in the open for considerable periods before being destroyed.

Worse, it is often impossible to assign chain of custody information and responsibility for either disposition of non-compliant dunnage or penalties for non-compliance. Dunnage or blocking pieces might be added immediately before shipping by entities other than the owners or brokers for the commodities being shipped. I have already noted that it is nearly impossible to inspect dunnage in a ship’s hold.

Unfortunately, studies have not clarified the level of infestation of dunnage in comparison to other wood packaging types made from multiple pieces of milled wood, such as pallets or spools.

Greenwood et al. describe the different fates of pallets, dunnage, crates, spools, and other types of SWPM. Wood pallets are frequently recycled or remanufactured in the U.S., although there are no data on the proportion of the recovery market that is composed of pallets initially manufactured overseas. In the U.S., most repairs are done with components from reclaimed pallets so they probably conform to ISPM#15 repair guidelines. However, contamination could happen while the pallets are in storage awaiting reuse. As SWPM ages, different types of pests might be attracted.

SWPM deemed not suitable for reuse is either destroyed in controlled settings (i.e., solid waste facilities, wood processing facilities, or landfills), used in recycling or downcycling markets, or reclaimed. It might be chipped and sold as mulch, soil amendment, or animal bedding; or it might enter the commercial fiber market and be manufactured into other wood products (e.g., paper, chipboard, fuel pellets). These dispositions present very low pest risk, due to the final dimensions of the wood products being too small to sustain pest development in most cases. However, some microorganisms and very minute arthropods might persist even on chipped or shredded material. There is little data on the final disposition of SWPM globally.

Greenwood et al. reiterate that the presence of hitchhiking or contaminating pests does not imply failure of ISPM#15 treatments, which do not target such organisms. Such pests can also be present on non-wood packaging material such as plastic and metal. Countries vary in their concern about these hitchhiking pests, which include dry wood borers and brown marmorated stinkbug (Halyomorpha halys). Since these pests are not addressed by ISPM#15, countries can implement their own management strategies to counter contaminating pests on all SWPM, containers, and conveyances. Indeed, Pennsylvania regulates the movement of SWPM and other high risk articles to prevent the spread of the non-specific hitchhiking pest, spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula.

They also note that reuse, disposal, and recycling of packaging made from metal, plastic, or even paper requires very different processes and facilities than those used for wood.

Greenwood Recommendations

Greenwood et al. advocate additional research on several questions:

to test whether currently accepted ISPM#15 treatments are sufficiently effective within the newly proposed metrics found in Ormsby 2022.
to determine the risk profile and enforcement of dunnage, especially whether organisms in dunnage are more likely to survive treatment (dunnage pieces are often much larger than any component piece of a pallet or crate).
to develop new treatments – including to counter re-infestation later in the supply chain. Scientists will probably have to replace Probit9 as a standard because it is not practical to exposing tens of thousands of wood-infesting insects to the new treatment. This is also discussed in Ormsby 2022.
to develop ways to test whether treatments have been applied – needed to verify whether fraud has occurred.
social and economic motivations around compliance

Most of these studies will require international cooperation.

Other steps are also need. As U.S. importers of break-bulk cargo have found out, procuring apparently compliant SWPM does not protect them from legal, financial, and logistical consequences if that SWPM turns out to be non-compliant or otherwise infested with live actionable pests. Some importers have begun exploring options toward additional private inspection at the exporting port, beyond solely requiring the use of ISPM#15 compliant materials. Greenwood et al. suggest the possibility of third-party certification. They also supported calls for officials to release of information about which foreign facilities have a history of selling SWPM subsequently found to be non-compliant. This information would empower importers to procure pest-free SWPM – thus harnessing market incentives to improve compliance.

Managing all this + pest risks? Photo by Port Authority of Long Beach

Greenwood et al. say that reducing external contamination on conveyances – ships, airplanes, trucks, and trains – is challenging. It would require the cooperation of multiple entities who manage yards, equipment, and facilities. Improved management must make sense to people who have severe constraints on time, staffing, space, and safety protocols. Persuading them to act will probably depend on improved information (research) on the cost effectiveness of various strategies and real-world incidence of contamination in different storage scenarios (beyond Lymantria complex), plus development of new surveillance tools.

Greenwood et al. suggest that conducting a HACCP assessment of the supply chain could help identify how a systems approach might better mitigate pest risks of SWPM. They think systems approaches might be especially promising for reducing risks of contaminating organisms. NAPPO recently adopted a standard for designing and implementing systems approaches for wood commodities.

Finally, I remind you of my recommendations for immediate policy actions to hold foreign suppliers responsible for non-compliant wood packaging:

U.S. and Canada should refuse to accept wood packaging from foreign suppliers that have a record of repeated violations – whatever the apparent cause of the non-compliance. They should institute severe penalties to deter foreign suppliers from taking devious steps to escape being associated with their violation record.
I also support the suggestion (above) that phytosanitary agencies inform importers on which foreign treatment facilities have a record of poor compliance or suspected fraud – so the importers can avoid purchasing SWPM from them.
U.S. and Canada should encourage importers to switch to materials that won’t transport wood-borers. Cardboard and manufactured wood packaging (e.g. oriented strand board and compressed wood block) are wood fiber products that have near zero risk of wood-borer infestation. Plastic is also one such material. I note that Earth is drowning under discarded plastic.

APHIS and CFIA have the authority to take these action under the “emergency action” provision (Sec. 5.7) of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (WTO SPS Agreement). (For a discussion of the SPS Agreement, go to Fading Forests II, here.)

Longer-term Actions

APHIS and CFIA should exercise their right to set a higher “level of protection” to minimize introductions of pest that threaten our forests (described inter alia here.) They should prepare a risk assessment to justify adopting more restrictive regulations that would prohibit use of packaging made from solid wood – at least from the countries with records of high levels of non-compliance.

The studies needed to determine the cause of the continuing issue of the wood treatment mark’s unreliability, and appropriate actions to fix the problem, should be conducted with other countries. Appropriate entities would be the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and International Forest Quarantine Research Group (IFQRG). However, if attempting such collaboration causes delays, APHIS and CFIA should begin unilaterally.

Meanwhile, what can we do?

Urge Congress to conduct oversight on APHIS’ failure to protect America’s natural resources from continuing introductions of nonnative insects and diseases. Note that the Mediterranean oak borer has apparently been introduced several times in recent years – despite ISPM#15.
Raise the issue with local, state, and federal candidates for office;
Urge Congress to include provisions of H.R. 3174 / S. 1238 in the 2023 Farm Bill;
Ask any associations of which you are a member to join in communicating these concerns to Congressional representatives and senators. These include:
- if you work for a federal or state agency – raise to leadership; they can act directly or through National Plant Board, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of State Foresters, National Governors Association, National Association of Counties …
- scientific membership societies – e.g., Society of American Foresters, Entomological Society of America, Phytopathological Society;
- individual conservation organizations, either with state chapters or at the national level;
- woodland owners’ organizations, e.g., National Woodland Owners Association, National Alliance of Forest Owners, and their state chapters
- urban tree advocates
- International Forest Quarantine Research Group
Write letters to the editors of your local newspaper or TV news station.

SOURCES

Eyre, D., R. Macarthur, R.A. Haack, Y. Lu, and H. Krehan. 2018. Variation in Inspection Efficacy by Member States of Wood Packaging Material Entering the European Union. Journal of Economic Entomology, XX(X), 2018, 1–9 doi: 10.1093/jee/tox357

Greenwood, L.F., D.R. Coyle, M.E. Guerrero, G. Hernández, C.J. K. MacQuarrie, O. Trejo, M.K. Noseworthy. 2023. Exploring pest mitigation research and management associated with the global wood packaging supply chain: What and where are the weak links? Biol Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03058-8

Haack, R.A., K.O. Britton, E.G. Brockerhoff, J.F. Cavey, L.J. Garrett, et al. 2014. Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on Reducing Wood Borer Infestation Rates in Wood Packaging Material Entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096611

Haack R.A., J.A. Hardin, B.P. Caton and T.R. Petrice. 2022. Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117

Leung, B., M.R. Springborn, J.A. Turner, and E.G. Brockerhoff. 2014. Pathway-level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. Front Ecol Environ. 2014. doi:10.1890/130311

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

Introduced pests linked (again) to introduced plants; Prevention needs to recognize this nexus

I have blogged many times about the risk of pest introductions on imports of live plants [= “plants for planting” in USDA’s terms]. Last October I reviewed 14-year old data indicating that nearly 70% of 455 damaging tree pests introduced to the continental U.S. had probably been introduced via plant imports. These included 95% of sap feeding and 89% of foliage feeding insects and about half of the pathogens. The approach rate of pests on imported plants was apparently 12% (Liebhold et al. 2012) — more than 100 times higher than the 0.1% approach rate found by Haack et al. (2014) for wood packaging.

First, those analyses focus almost exclusively on insects (MacLachlan et al. 2022 focused on a single insect order, the Hemiptera!), despite the many pathogens probably introduced by the plant trade in recent decades. Examples I cited included several Phytophthoras, rapid ohia death, beech leaf disease, and boxwood blight. There have been repeated detections of the Ralstonia solanacearum Race 3 biovar 2.

SOD- infected rhododendrons; photo by Jennifer Parke, Oregon State University

Second, most studies analyzing the pest risk associated with plant imports use port inspection data – which are not reliable indicators of the pest approach rate – as explained by Liebhold et al. 2012 and Haack et al. 2014 (as it pertains to wood packaging).

Third, many of the studies are based on data from a decade or longer in the past. This means the studies do not address whether APHIS’ recent changes in its approach – including adoption of NAPPRA – have resulted in reduced introductions.

A complication is that, since insects are difficult to detect, those associated with the high volumes of plants imported in recent years might not be detected for years or decades after their introduction.

I have called for APHIS to update the Liebhold et al. 2012 study to determine the approach rate for all types of organisms that threaten North American tree species. Any such study should include trees on Hawai`i, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other U.S possessions and territories. These islands are nearly always excluded from analyses of imported pests. I concede that there are probably scientific and data-management challenges but these islands are immensely important from a biodiversity point of view, and they are parts of the United States!

eastern hemlocks killed by hemlock woolly adelgid; Linville Gorge; photo by Steven Norman, USFS

MacLachlan et al. (2022) estimated that new establishments – of insects in the order Hemiptera – per unit of additional plant imports have shrunk substantially. They attribute this decline to a combination of increased imports and the presence of a growing number of insect species introduced in the past. They found that introductions to the Asian Palearctic and Neotropic regions have been reduced by depletion of species pools. Other factors are thought to explain the substantial decline in establishment likelihood for the other regions. However, lag times in detecting insect introductions complicate this assessment.

However, despite that significant decrease in risk per unit of imports, MacLachlan et al. (2022) found that the number of establishments has remained relatively constant over the past century because of substantial increases in overall import levels and diversification of the origins of imports across regions, which exposed the U.S. to new source species pools.

MacLachlan et al. (2022) suggested that APHIS should target biosecurity resources to the specific commodity-country pairs associated with a higher relative risk of introducing additional insect species.

Recent studies are taking a welcome new stance: looking at links between introductions of non-native plant and insect species. I first raised this approach a year ago. Studies by teams led by Doug Tallany and Sara Lalk [Lalk et al.; articles by Tallamy] agree that:

Non-native plants – some of which are invasive – are altering ecosystems across broad swaths of North America and the impacts are insufficiently understood.
The invasive plant problem will get worse because non-native species continue to be imported, planted … and to invade.
Plant-insect interactions are the foundation of food webs – they transfer energy captured by plants through photosynthesis to other trophic levels, plus play a major role as pollinators. Consequently, changes to a region’s flora will have repercussions throughout ecosystems.

Dr. Tallamy studies the response of herbivorous insects to non-native woody plants – not just invasive plants, but also non-native plants deliberately planted as crops or ornamentals, or in forestry. Introduced plants have completely transformed the composition of plant communities in both natural and human-dominated ecosystems world-wide. The impacts can be significant: Burghardt et al. found that 75% of North American lepidopteran species and 93% of specialist species were found exclusively on native plant species.

monarch butterfly on milkweed; photograph by Jim Hudgins, USFWS

Lalk and colleagues studied the relationships between individual species of invasive woody plants and the full range of arthropod feeding guilds – pollinators, herbivores, twig and stem borers, leaf litter and soil organisms. They decry the absence of data on the complex interactions between invasive woody plants and arthropod communities at a time when invasive shrubs and trees are so widespread and causing considerable ecological damage. (See the blog for their specific research recommendations.)

Nor is the impact of non-native plants on insect fauna limited to North America. Outhwaite et al. found that the combination of climate warming and intensive agriculture is associated with reductions of almost 50% in the abundance and 27% in the number of species within insect assemblages relative to levels in less-disturbed habitats with lower rates of historical climate warming. These patterns were particularly clear in the tropics (perhaps partially because of the longer history of intensive agriculture in temperate zones). They found that high availability of nearby natural habitat (that is, native plants) can mitigate these reductions — but only in low-intensity agricultural systems.

Recognizing that plant diversity drives global patterns of insect invasion, Liebhold et al. (2023) compared various factors associated with numbers of invasive insect species in 44 land areas.They determined that the numbers of established non-native insect species are primarily driven by diversity of plants – both native and non-indigenous. Other factors, e.g., land area, latitude, climate, and insularity, strongly affect plant diversity; thus they influence insect diversity as a secondary impact. When I blogged about this study, I noted that the article appeared more than four years earlier, but has apparently had little influence on either policy formulation governing plant introductions or pest risk analysis applied to insects or pathogens that might be introduced. I suggested that we need a separate analysis of whether fungi, oomycetes, nematodes, and other pathogens show the same association with plant diversity in the receiving environment.

Studies of plant-insect relationships continue to be published. I welcome this!

Bonnamour et al. (2023) builds on the earlier studies. They also found that the presence of non-native plant species was a better predictor of insect invasions than such more widely discussed socioeconomic variables as trade volumes generally or even trade in plant products. However, detection of the associated insect invasions occurs years after detection of the plant invasions. Indeed, numbers of established non-native insect species corresponded more closely to plant introduction volumes in 1900 than current or recent import volumes.

Bonnamour et al. note that while the insect taxa that respond most directly to the non-native plant diversity are those that rely on those plants as hosts, pollinators, and plant visitors, over time those non-native herbaceous insects support introduced predators and parasites also.

Because of the “invasion debt” associated with that lag, Bonnamour et al. estimate that newly detected insect invasions will increase by 35% worldwide as a result of only recent plant introductions. They differentiate this “invasion debt” from “future invasions”, meaning the actual introduction of additional species resulting from future trade activities.

The model developed by Bonnamour et al. points to the highest numbers of newly introduced insect species occurring in areas with less capacity to deal with bioinvasions. Thus, the Afrotropics are anticipated to receive 869 new insect species, or a 10-fold increase over the number currently known to be established in the region. The Neotropics are projected to be invaded by 809 insect species, also a 10-fold increase. The Indomalayan region will probably detect 776 new insect species, a startling 20-fold increase. In reality, the “invasion debt” might not be quite this severe, since – as Bonnamour et al. note several times – the low numbers of introduced insects currently reported for these tropical regions probably partially reflect limited sampling. They note that already a high proportion of insect species intercepted by biosecurity services on imports arriving from Africa and South America are not yet recorded as established in the exporting regions.

Although both the European Palearctic and Australasia have already received many non-native insect species, their “invasion debt” is relatively high: 417 species for Europe, 317 species for Australasia.

The Neotropics are expected to be the greatest source of insect invasions in the future (904 exported species), followed by the European Palearctic (732 species).

Bonnamour et al. did not include non-native plant species used in agriculture, forestry, or ornamental horticulture. As noted above, these widespread deliberate plantings also affect insect fauna and higher trophic layers.

The greatest number of recorded insect introductions so far are in the Nearctic, Oceania (primarily Hawaii), Europe, and Australasia. While this imbalance is probably caused in part by the significantly limited sampling of non-native insect species in the Asian Palearctic and tropics, it is also true that these regions have received the majority of plant introductions through 1900. This factor has changed in the century since then; many non-native plant species have been recorded in the Afrotropics, Oceania, and Asia.

Eucalyptus plantation in Kwa-Zulu-Natal, South Africa; Kwa-Zulu-Natal Dept. of Transportation

Bonnamour et al. offer several potential explanations for the lag in detecting introduced insects compared to detecting introduced plants. First, it might be necessary for non-native host plants to reach a threshold of abundance before the associated insects are able to establish and spread. Second, reaching that threshold might require repeated introductions of the insect’s host plant species. Third, since only some of the imported plants are transporting insects, repeated imports of host plants might be necessary for the insect to achieve sufficient numbers to establish. Fourth, while their analysis included all non-native insect species, only some insect feeding guilds – herbivores and pollinators – are probably directly facilitated by introduced host plants. Fifth, plant species’ presence tends to be more quickly recorded than insects’ presence. Indeed, MacLaughlin et al. reported a median delay of 80 years between establishment and discovery of plant-feeding Hemiptera. This suggests that the actual time lag between plant and insect establishments might be shorter than the period discussed in Bonnamour et al.

Many insects from the European Palearctic have been introduced to the Nearctic; fewer insects have been introduced in the opposite direction. There is no consensus on the explanation. Thirty years ago Mattson et al. argued that there might be fewer niches for non-native insects in Europe due to the lower host plant diversity in this region caused by the Pleistocene/Holocene glaciations. On the other hand, more plant species from the European Palearctic to the Nearctic than the opposite.

Bonnamour et al. call for further research on:

1) time lags at the scale of individual insect species with their host plants.

2) effects of non-native plants used in agriculture, forestry, or ornamental horticulture.

3) whether time lags between plant and insect invasions vary among taxonomic groups, feeding guilds, or among regions.

4) effect of non-native plant abundance, rather than just species richness, on non-native insect establishment.

Recommendations

Writers about interactions of non-native plant species and insect introductions make a common plea: limit the introduction and spread of non-native plants in order to prevent future invasions of both plants and insects. Bonnamour et al. suggest including the risk of insect introductions in plant invasion risk screening tools. Earlier, the Tallamy and Lalk teams called for ending widespread planting of non-native plants.

Will policy-makers accept this advice?

I believe that these same interaction of plant host and “pest” introductions presumably applies to pathogens, too. I reiterate my frequent complaint that regulators have not responded to two or more decades of criticism of the failures of the international phytosanitary system re: insect and pathogen introductions via the international nursery trade. Examples include Brasier 2008; Liebhold el. al. 2012; Santini et al. 2013; Roy et al. 2014; Eschen et al. 2015; Jung et al. 2015; Meurisse et al. 2019; O’Hanlon et al. 2021.

As I have said earlier, I appreciate that some scientists are trying to reduce scientific uncertainty about the invasive potential of pathogens native to regions other than North America; I refer here to Jiri Hulcr (see Li et al.), Mech, and Schultz. Many more such studies are needed, addressing potential impacts on a wider variety of North American host trees and shrubs.

The late (& very much lamented!) Gary Lovett of the Cary Institute had advocated halting imports of plants that are congenerics of important North American tree species, in order to minimize the risk that pests that damage those genera will be introduced.

In January I suggested that at the global level we need:

National agricultural agencies, stakeholders, FAO & International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) should consider amending the IPPC requirement that scientists identify a disease’s causal agents before regulating it. Experience shows that this policy virtually guarantees that pathogens will continue to enter, establish, & damage natural and agricultural environments.
National governments & FAO / IPPC should fund greatly expanded research to identify microbes resident in regions that are important sources of origin for traded plants, vulnerability of hosts in importing countries, and new technologies for detecting pathogens (e.g., molecular tools, volatile organic compounds [VOCs]).
Researchers & agencies should expand international “sentinel plants” networks; incorporate data from forestry plantations, urban plantings, etc. of non-native trees.
NPPOs should adopt regulations that apply the “systems approach” or HACCP programs outlined in ISPM#36. I had discussed these approaches in my Fading Forests III report – link at end of this blog.)

I suggested further that Americans need to

Evaluate the efficacy of current regulations – that is, implementing NAPPRA & Q-37 revision. This evaluation should be based on AQIM data, not port interception data. It should include arthropods, fungal pathogens, oomycetes, bacteria, viruses, nematodes. It should include threats to U.S. tropical islands (Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) which are centers of plant endemism.
Apply existing programs (e.g., NAPPRA, Clean Stock Network, post-entry quarantine) to strictly regulate trade in plant taxa most likely to transport pests that threaten our native plants; e.g., plants belonging to genera shared between North American trees & plants on other continents.
Recognize that plant nurseries are incubators for microbial growth, hybridization, and evolution; require nurseries to adopt sanitary operation procedures regardless of whether they sell in inter-state or intra-state commerce

SOURCES

Bonnamour, A., R.E. Blake, A.M. Liebhold, H.F. Nahrung, A. Roques, R.M. Turner, T. Yamanaka, and C. Bertelsmeier. 2023. Historical plant intros predict current insect invasions. PNAS 2023 Vol. 120 No. 24 e2221826120 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2221826120

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, C. Philips, and K. J. Shropshire. 2010. Non-native plants reduce abundance, richness, and host specialization in lepidopteran communities. Ecosphere 1(5):art11. doi:10.1890/ES10-00032.

Lalk, S. J. Hartshorn, and D.R. Coyle. 2021. IAS Woody Plants and Their Effects on Arthropods in the US: Challenges and Opportunities. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 114(2), 2021, 192–205 doi: 10.1093/aesa/saaa054

Li, Y., C. Bateman, J. Skelton, B. Wang, A. Black, Y-T. Huang, A. Gonzalez, M.A. Jusino, Z.J. Nolen, S. Freeman, Z. Mendel, C-Y. Chen, H-F. Li, M. Kolařík, M. Knížek, J-H. Park, W. Sittichaya, T-H.

Pham, S. Itoo, M. Torii, L. Gao, A.J. Johnson, M. Lur, J. Sun, Z. Zhang, D.C. Adams, J. Hulcr. 2022. Pre-invasion assessment of exotic bark beetle-vectored fungi to detect tree-killing pathogens. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/full/10.1094/PHYTO-01-21-0041-R

Liebhold, A.M., E.G. Brockerhoff, L.J. Garrett, J.L. Parke, and K.O. Britton. 2012. Live Plant Imports: the Major Pathway for Forest Insect and Pathogen Invasions of the US. www.frontiersinecology.org

Liebhold, A.M., T. Yamanaka, A. Roques, S. August, S.L. Chown, E.G. Brockerhoff & P. Pyšek. 2018. Plant diversity drives global patterns of insect invasions. Sci Rep 8, 12095 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30605-4

MacLachlan, M.J., A. M. Liebhold, T. Yamanaka, M. R. Springborn. 2022. Hidden patterns of insect establishment risk revealed from two centuries of alien species discoveries. Sci. Adv. 7, eabj1012 (2021).

Mattson, W. J., P. Niemela, I. Millers, and Y. Ingauazo. 1994. Immigrant phytophagous insects on woody plants in the United States and Canada: an annotated list. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-169, 27 pp.

Mech, A.M., K.A. Thomas, T.D. Marisco, D.A. Herms, C.R. Allen, M.P. Ayres, K.J.K. Gandhi, J. Gurevitch, N.P. Havill, R.A. Hufbauer, A.M. Liebhold, K.F. Raffa, A.N. Schulz, D.R. Uden, and P.C. Tobin. 2019. Evolutionary history predicts high-impact invasions by herbivorous insects. Ecol Evol. 2019 Nov; 9(21): 12216-12230.,

Outhwaite, C.L., P. McCann, and T. Newbold. 2022. Agriculture and climate change are shaping insect biodiversity worldwide. Nature 605 97-192 (2022) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04644-x

Richard, M., D.W. Tallamy and A.B. Mitchell. 2019. Intro plants reduce species interactions. Biol Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1876-z

Schulz, A.N., A.M. Mech, M.P. Ayres, K. J. K. Gandhi, N.P. Havill, D.A. Herms, A.M. Hoover, R.A. Hufbauer, A.M. Liebhold, T.D. Marsico, K.F. Raffa, P.C. Tobin, D.R. Uden, K.A. Thomas. 2021. Predicting non-native insect impact: focusing on the trees to see the forest. Biological Invasions.

Tallamy, D.W., D.L. Narango and A.B. Mitchell. 2020. Ecological Entomology (2020), DOI: 10.1111/een.12973 Do NIS plants contribute to insect declines? Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01202.x

Uden, D.R, A.M. Mech, N.P. Havill, A.N. Schulz, M.P. Ayres, D.A. Herms, A.M. Hoover, K.J. K. Gandhi, R.A. Hufbauer, A.M. Liebhold, T.D. M., K.F. Raffa, K.A. Thomas, P.C. Tobin, C.R. Allen. 2023. Phylogenetic risk assessment is robust for forecasting the impact of European insects on North American conifers. Ecological Applications. 2023; 33:e2761.

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Invasives in Italy & Croatia – what I saw

plane trees in Parco della Montagnola, Bologna, Italy

The CISP blog has had a pause while I travelled in Italy, Slovenia, and Croatia. My purpose was tourism … but I could not forget my interest in invasive species! Most prominent was that global traveller, Ailanthus altissima. I saw lots of the trees in both urban and rural settings. I am unclear about whether some other plant taxa are native v. non-native, e.g., ivy and several species of pines widespread along the Dinaric mountains. Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius was widespread along the Dalmatian coast – but it is native there so not a concern. (Should have been a warning that it would invade other areas with Mediterranean climates!) We were told that the city of Split is even named for the shrub – a shortened/corrupted version of the Greek name for the plant.

Regarding tree-killing pests, I was pleased to see lots of young olive trees along the Dalmatian coast – apparently the Xylella fastidiosa bacterial pathogen that is killing trees in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal is not yet a problem there.

I also saw many of the columnar cedars that I understand are under attack by fungi in the genus Seiridium in Italy. I also saw apparently healthy boxwoods at our hotel near Dubrovnik.

Some of the boxwoods growing in monastery cloisters in Dubrovnik looked as if they have been hit by box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis) — which is no surprising since the pest was detected in northern Croatia a decade ago.

Finally, I saw apparently healthy plane trees growing in parks in Bologna; apparently this region has not yet been invaded by the canker stain disease caused by North American fungus Ceratocystis platani. – reported to have caused high levels of mortality in Italy, France, and especially in Greece. (See photo at top of blog) [See Tsopelas, Santini, Wingfield and de Beer. 2017. Canker stain: a Lethal Disease Destroying Iconic Plane Trees. Plant Disease. 2017. 101:645-658. American Phytopathological Society]

I am concerned that the forests at Plitvice National Park are composed of European beech, which is vulnerable to beech leaf disease if it arrives there.

Posted by Faith Campbell