Month: May 2024

Congress is considering the Farm Bill – help improve it!!!

Senator Peter Welch of Vermont

The House and Senate Agriculture committees are edging toward adopting the next Farm Bill, which   is a year past due. Farm bills set policy, funding levels, and more, for 5 years. Each covers a wide range of subjects, including crop subsidies and insurance; food stamps; rural development (including wifi access); forestry policy; and research.

As you might remember, CISP aims to improve USDA’s programs — not only to prevent introductions of non-native tree killing pests and pathogens but also to better respond to those that enter the US and become established. I summarize here what the Senate and House bills have in common and how they differ on these issues.

I understand that the minorities, that is, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, have not accepted all aspects of the majorities’ drafts. So let’s take the opportunity to ask for better bills.

Both the House and Senate bills would “simplify” the USDA Forest Service’s obligations to prepare environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I have not analyzed which bill weakens NEPA more.

The Senate Bill: The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024

The Senate bill addresses forest pest species in several places: Title II — Conservation, Title VII — Research, and Title VIII — Forestry. Here, I describe relevant sections, beginning with the section that partially addresses CISP’s proposal.  

Title VIII — Forestry. Section 8214 requires the USDA Secretary to establish a national policy to counter threats posed by invasive species to tree species and forest ecosystems and identify areas for interagency cooperation.

This mandate falls far short of what we sought in a previous bill (S. 1238). However, depending on the exact wording of the bill and accompanying report, perhaps we can succeed in building a stronger program.

It is most important to obtain funding for applied, directed research into resistance breeding strategies, “bulking up,” and planting seedlings that show promise. Please contact your senators and ask them to work with the sponsors – Peter Welch [D-VT], Maggie Hassan [D-NH], and Mike Braun [R-IN] – to try to incorporate more of S. 1238 in the final bill.

The Senate bill contains other provisions that might be helpful for invasive species management – although not part of what CISP and our partners asked for.

‘ōhi‘a trees killed by rapid ‘ōhi‘a death; photo by Richard sniezko, USFS

Title VIII — Forestry. In Section 8506, the Senate bill would require that the US Departments of Agriculture and Interior continue working with Hawai`i to address the pathogen that causes rapid ‘ōhi‘a death. The section authorizes $5 million for each of the coming five fiscal years to do this work. Unfortunately, authorization does not equal funding. Only the Senate and House Appropriations Committees can make this funding available. Hawai`i’s endemic ‘ōhi‘a trees certainly face a dire threat. CISP is already advocating for funding to support resistance breeding and other necessary work.

Title VIII — Forestry. Sections 8247 and 8248 support USDA Forest Service’s nursery and tree establishment programs. My hesitation in fully supporting these provisions is that I fear the urge to plant lots of trees in a hurry will divert attention for the need to learn how to propagate many of the hardwood tree species that have been decimated by non-native pests. However, I agree that the U.S. lacks sufficient nursery capacity to provide anything close to the number of seedlings sought. Perhaps this program can be adjusted to assist the “planting out” component of our request.

Title VII — Research. Section 7208 designates several high-priority research initiatives. On this list are spotted lanternfly, and “invasive species”.  A number of forest corporations have been urging Members of Congress to upgrade research on this broad category, which I believe might focus more on invasive plants than the insects and pathogens on which CISP focuses. How the two ideas are integrated will be very important.

Another high-priority initiative concerns the perceived crisis in failed white oak regeneration.

Title VII — Research.  Section 7213 mandates creation of four new Centers of Excellence at 1890 Institutions. These are historically Black universities that are also land-grant institutions]. These centers will focus on: 1) climate change, 2) forestry resilience and conservation; 3) food safety, bioprocessing, and value-added agriculture; and, 3) food and agricultural sciences and the social sciences.

Title II — Conservation. Section 2407 provides mandatory funding (which is not subject to annual appropriations) of $75 million per year to the national feral swine eradication/control program (run by USDA APHIS’ Wildlife Service Division). I discuss this program in a separate blog.

The Senate bill also mandates use of several conservation and other programs to address the causes and impacts of climate change. This requirement is directly countered by the House Agriculture Committee’s bill (see below).

The House Bill

Title VIII — Forestry. This section contains none of the provisions CISP’ sought to  USDA’s management of tree-killing non-native insects and diseases.

Instead, the House bill calls on the USFS to establish a comprehensive approach to addressing the demise of the giant sequoia trees.

Title VII — Research The House bill, like the Senate’s, lists the invasive species and white oak research initiatives as high priority. The House, unlike the Senate, does not include spotted lanternfly.

Title II — Conservation. As I noted above, the House bill explicitly rescinds all unobligated conservation funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. It reallocates these funds to the traditional conservation programs, e.g., the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention. The bill would use these funds to support “orphan” programs – naming specifically the national feral swine eradication/control program. The House bill provides $150 million – apparently across the five years covered by the Farm Bill, so $30 million per year.  Finally, the House allocates 60% of the hog management funds to APHIS, 40% to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

spotted lanternfly – target of at least 11 projects funded through APHIS’ the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program in FY24. Photo by Holly Raguza, Pennsylvania Department of Agriuculture

Title X —Horticulture, Marketing, and Regulatory Reform. The House’s summary says it is taking steps to protect plant health. It does this by increasing funding for the grant program under the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program – §7721 of the last (2018) Farm Bill. The increase would raise the amount of money available each year from the current level of $70 million to $90 million. These funds are mandatory; they are not subject to annual appropriations. Research, development, and outreach projects funded by this program have certainly added to our understanding of plant pests, hence to their effective management. However, they are usually short-term projects. Therefore they are not suitable for the long-term commitment required for resistance breeding programs. See here  and here.  

Title III — Trade. Here, the House bill exacerbates the current imbalance between trade promotion and phytosanitary protection. The bill doubles the authorized funding for USDA’s Market Access and Foreign Market Development programs. I concede that this measure probably does reflect a bipartisan consensus in the Congress to support robust programs for promoting agricultural exports.

Also under this Title, the House bill requires the USDA Secretary to conduct regular assessments to identify risks to critical infrastructure that supports food and agriculture sector. This might be helpful – although it is not clear that this assessment would include to threats to forest or urban trees not used commercially (e.g., for timber).

At a recent forum on biological control sponsored by the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), it was reported that participants noted several problems: insufficient funding, significant delays in refilling positions, inadequate research capacity, lack of brick-and-mortar infrastructure, and declining college enrollments in biocontrol-related studies. The NASF Forest Science Health Committee is developing a “Statement of Needs” document that NASF and others can use to lobby for funding to fill these gaps. I hope you will join them in doing so!

salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) attacked by biocontrol agent; photo by J.N. Stuart via Flickr

However, as I note above, empowering resistance breeding programs requires a long-term commitment, that is, a comprehensive alteration of policies and infrastructure – beyond annual appropriations.

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Feral pigs – 20 years of APHIS engagement

feral hogs in state wildlife area, Florida; photo by Craig Oneal via Flickr

Most invasive species detection and control programs suffer from inadequate funding. Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are the exception. True, feral hogs are widely considered among the most damaging of invasive species. They are conspicuous. And they cause damage to agricultural crops – thus energizing a politically powerful constituency. (The extent of that damage is open to question; see my discussion below.) Can we learn from the political success of this program to build support for countering other invasive species?

[Several forest pests are also listed as among the “100 worst” invasive species: Asian longhorned beetle, chestnut blight, gypsy or spongy moths, Dutch elm disease, Phytopthora cinnamomi. Many invasive plant species present in the United States are also listed. These bioinvaders have not elicited the same level of response.]

According to a US Department of Agriculture report (USDA 2018), feral hogs only recently spread throughout the United States. In 1982, they were thought to inhabit only a small percentage of counties in 17 states. As of 2018, they were recognized as present in ~ 43% of all counties in the country; those counties were in 38 states and three US territories. USDA APHIS lists the following impacts from feral hog activities: damage to crops (including tree seedlings), livestock pastures and feed supplies, other kinds of property, and natural resources. In addition, feral pigs might transmit disease to the human food supply and possibly to livestock, and occasionally threaten public safety. In response, APHIS proposed to develop a national response. The goal was to reduce the risks and damages and encourage better coordination among the states and with Canada and Mexico. Since environmental conditions and laws vary among states, APHIS provides resources and expertise while allowing operational flexibility. The early focus was on primarily northern states where eradication was considered viable. By 2019, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, and New York had been declared “pig free”.

The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program was officially established as by the 2018 Farm Bill. It was funded at $75 million over the five-year life of the 2018 Farm Bill – or ~$15 million per year. The program is implemented jointly by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. According to the website, USDA focused these efforts where feral swine pose the highest threat.

APHIS has published a report covering the initial 2014 – 2018 program. I expect they will shortly publish a report covering 2018- 2023. My quick review of the available but outdated report shows that nearly all the pig removal projects funded by the program aimed to protect property, particularly agriculture. Protection of natural resources benefited from far fewer projects. The states funding natural resource  projects most generously were Washington (92% of projects!); Illinois (62%); Nevada (48%); Florida (47%); Idaho and Missouri (both at 44%); Wisconsin and New Hampshire (both at 41%); Ohio (35%); Utah (34%); and Arizona (32%). Some of the Western states have considerable land managed by federal agencies; this might explain their relative focus on natural resources. Pennsylvania allocated only 1% of its projects to protecting natural resources. West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands allocated none. I hope this tilt lessens in more recent years – although the program will clearly always be focused on agriculture.

There were no programs in five states: Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Note that the summary of the draft Senate Farm Bill says this program would be funded at $75 million per year in future. This would increase funding 15 fold. I think this is probably a mistake in writing the summary; that the total funding would continue to be $75 million over five years.

I also reviewed the annual report issued by the APHIS Wildlife Services program’s National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). The Center lists 17 publications by NWRC staff and cooperators dealing with various aspects of feral pig management [other than swine fever transmission]. Topics included feral pigs’ social structure; factors that influence reproductive rates; factors that influence efficacy of bait/trap programs; in-field methods to determine animal’s weight; and the extent to which hunters, farmers and the public accept various control techniques.

feral hog damage in a corn field; photo by Craig Hicks, USDA APHIS

Two of the studies – Didero et al. and VerCauteren et al. – aim to answer a fundamental economic question of feral hog management: how to determine the level of damage feral hogs cause to agricultural crops. Interestingly, authors of both studies conclude that existing data do not allow that determination. According to VerCauteren et al., understanding of wild pig damage is limited largely to one kind of damage — rooting – as it affects some natural resources (e.g., wetlands), some crops (e.g., grains, nuts, and beans), and some property (e.g., golf courses and cemeteries). They found few reports documenting damage from other behaviors or effects on pasture, livestock, sensitive species, public recreation spaces, and historical sites. Furthermore, they could not generalize the findings of even those studies that attempt to link the level of damage to pig population density. This is because these studies use many different metrics. They say that designing studies to capture the full scope of damage even in a local area will be complex because of the variety of resources at risk and of mechanisms by which damage might occur (e.g., rooting, consuming plants or animals, wallowing …). VerCauteren et al. suggest specific approaches that should be applied in future studies so that economic estimates will be consistent, shareable, and repeatable. I encourage you to read the articles to learn details of what is known about feral hog damage.  

I rejoice that one set of NWRS studies focuses on Missouri.  As I have blogged previously, Missouri has operated an aggressive program since the 1990s. I appreciate that APHIS is trying to learn how Missouri officials determined which approaches work best, and built support for the program among farmers, landowners, hunters, etc.

NWRC staff and cooperators also studied some other issues relating to invasive species impacts.  One study sought to predict the level of suppression of brown treesnakes that must be achieved to protect birds that might be reintroduced on Guam. A second study sought to find out whether invasive coqui frogs can survive in the colder climates of high elevations in Hawai`i. There is concern that the frogs might compete with native birds for food.  

SOURCES

Didero, N.M., K.H. Ernst, S.C. McKee, and S.A. Shwiff. 2023. A call and suggested criteria for standardizing economic estimates of wild pig damage. Crop Protection 165:106149. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106149

United States Department of Agriculture National Feral Swine Damage Management Program Five Year Report FY14 – FY18

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services. 2024. Innovative Solutions to Human Wildlife Conflicts. National Wildlife Research Center Accomplishments, 2023.

VerCauteren, K.C., K.M. Pepin, S.M. Cook, S. McKee, A. Pagels, K.J. Kohen, I.A. Messer, M.P. Glow,  N.P. Snow. 2024. What is known, unknown, and needed to be known about damage caused by wild pigs. Biol Invasions (2024) 26:1313–1325          https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03263-z

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

or

www.fadingforests.org

Disappearing Floristic Diversity – Should Some of the Attention to Extinctions be Refocused on Invasive Plants?

Sakhalin knotweed (Fallopia (Reynoutria) sachalinensis) – an invasive plant widespread in Europe; photo by Katrin Schneider [korina.info] via Wikimedia

There is growing evidence that invasive plants – as distinct from invasive species of animals, microbes, etc. – play a significant role in causing the loss of floristic uniqueness at the local or regional level. I provide full citations of all sources at the end of this blog.

Less Diversity. More Similarity

Several studies show that plant invasions have a bigger impact than extinction in the homogenization of Earth’s flora. A major driver is sheer numbers. Daru et al. point out that 10,138 plant species have become naturalized to a region outside their native ranges while only 1,065 species have gone extinct. Even under a scenario in which all species currently included in IUCN Red List as “threatened” become extinct, non-native plant species naturalizations are by far the stronger contributor to biotic reorganization.

Winter et al. report that in Europe since AD 1500, plant invasions have greatly exceeded extinctions, resulting in increased taxonomic diversity (i.e., species richness) on the Continent but increased taxonomic and phylogenetic similarity among European regions. In other words, floras of individual European countries became phylogenetically and taxonomically impoverished. This situation is likely to worsen in the future because introductions continue.

Winter et al. conclude, more broadly, that a focus on species richness can be misleading because it does not capture the important effects of taxonomic or phylogenetic distinctiveness.

Yang et al. (2021) considered the situation globally. They divided most of Earth’s ice-free land surface into 658 regions. They found that introduction of non-native plants has increased the taxonomic similarity between any two of these regions in 90.7% of the time. Introductions increased phylogenetic similarity in 77.2% of those pairs. Australasia illustrates the situation. The region has a large proportion of endemic species, reflecting its unique evolutionary history and exhibiting high floristic diversity. However, the region has also received large numbers of non-native plants from other regions. The result is that the Australasian flora has lost much of its original uniqueness.

rubbervine (Cryptostegia madagascariensis) – one of the worst invasive plants in Australia; photo by Tatters via Flickr

Introduced plant species rarely cause outright extinction of members of the native flora of the receiving ecosystem – at least at the scale of a continent. Winter et al. found that in Europe, extinction usually occurs to plant species with small numbers that are limited to localized habitats. Often, however, the same species continue to thrive elsewhere on the continent. The “losing” country finds its flora becoming more similar to that of other European countries. It loses some uniqueness because it lost one or more components of its flora. However, for Europe as a whole, there is no loss. The homogenization of the “losing” country’s flora is exacerbated by the fact that more than half of plant species listed as invading a particular European country are from other European regions. Winter et al. say a similar pattern has been found in North America.

The picture is more complex for small isolated ecosystems. Carvallo and Castro (2017), writing about isolated volcanic islands in the southeastern Pacific Ocean, introduction of large numbers of non-native plant species has not caused extinction of native plant species. It has, however, resulted in the homogenization of the islands’ floras.

These authors worry that this reduction in phylogenetic diversity could have detrimental impacts for ecosystem function and ecosystem services.  (Interestingly, at the level of order or family rather than species or genus, the combined effects of species introductions and extinctions did not change the islands’ taxonomic diversity. They don’t explicitly say whether that fact might mitigate effects on ecosystem function.)  

What is the situation in Hawai`i? The Islands are the “capital” of both extinction and invasion. I know the Hawaiian flora has very high levels of endemism and of endangerment. In addition, naturalized non-native plant taxa constitute up to 54% of the archipelago’s flora (Potter et al. 2023). However, it is probably extremely difficult to distinguish the impacts of introduced plants separate from the impacts of the many non-native animals, e.g., feral hogs. 

Extinction by Introduction

It has been reported that invasive species have caused the extinction of at least seven species of plants on the Cape of Good Hope and endangered another 14% (Houreld 2024). Unfortunately, the report doesn’t specify whether the non-native species are plants or animals. Either way, this is a tragedy. I remind you that the Cape Floral Kingdom is Earth’s smallest Plant Kingdom in geographic size (78,555 km2), and extremely important in uniqueness. According to the article in The Washington Post, two-thirds of the 20,400 plant species growing in South Africa are endemic – found nowhere else on Earth.

Nearly a decade ago, Downey and Richardson objected to measuring the impact of introduced plant species by considering only total extinction of native plant species. They complain that this approach fails to recognize that plants experience a long decline before reaching extinction. They divide this decline into six “thresholds”. Downey and Richardson say there is abundant evidence of invasive plants driving native plants along this extinction trajectory. For example, increases in non-native plant cover or density that result in decreased native plant species diversity or richness equates, under their hierarchy, to the native species crossing from the first to second threshold. They note there are also examples of species causing “extinction debts”. That is, the extinction occurs long after the invader is introduced and initiates a native species’ decline. They call for conservationists to intervene earlier in that trajectory.

The Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was recently published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.  This report notes that there are at least 1,061 invasive plants on Earth. In terrestrial systems, invasive plants are the taxonomic group most frequently reported as having negative impacts, especially in cultivated areas, plus temperate and boreal forests. As I have noted above, non-native plant taxa constitute a particularly high proportion of the flora on islands. The assessment found that the number of non-native plants exceeds the total number of native plants on more than one quarter of the Earth’s islands. However, this report does not distinguish the number of species endangered by plant invasions from the number of species endangered by invasive species of all taxonomic groups.

Tiburon mariposa lily (Calochortus tiburnensis) – a federally Threatened species in California; photo by T.J Gehring via Flickr

None of the experts denies the impact of extinction on biodiversity. Extinction represents the loss of phylogenetically and taxonomically unique organisms. This loss is exacerbated if some taxonomic groups are at disproportionately higher risk of extinction. Introduced non-native species compensate for these losses only to a point (Daru et al.). In Europe, Winter et al. found that extinctions usually befall specialized endemic or rare species, often from species-poor families. On the other hand, successful invaders are often ecological generalists with large ranges, often belonging to species-rich families. This results in the pronounced decrease of phylogenetic and taxonomic ß-diversity within and between regions to which the rare species are unique.  

All these experts agree that species declines — short of extinction — have severe impacts on ecosystem functions, and even evolution.

Yang et al. emphasize that the rapid and accelerating loss of regional biotic uniqueness changes biotic interactions and species assemblages, with probable impairment of key ecosystem functions. Daru et al. stress that biotic homogenization— declining ß-diversity—reduces trait and phylogenetic differences between regions. Conceding that the consequences of this global biotic reorganization on ecosystems are poorly understood, Daru et al. cite increasing evidence that biotic heterogeneity provides insurance for the maintenance of ecosystem functioning in a time of rapid global change. They assert that declining ß-diversity is a more characteristic feature of the Anthropocene than species loss.

Winter et al. also state that the phylogenetic structure of a species assemblage represents the evolutionary history of its members and reflects the diversity of genetic and thus morphologic, physiologic, and behavioral characteristics. High phylogenetic diversity might enable rapid adaptation to changing environmental conditions.

According to Daru et al., the loss of 14 billion years of evolutionary history has affected some regions particularly. The most disturbed biotas include those of California and Florida; Mesoamerica; the Amazon; the Himalaya-Hengduan region; Southeast Asia; and Southwest Australia. These are regions that experienced spectacular taxonomic radiation over time, and now have both high levels of threat and also species invasion.  

Carvallo and Castro, focused on the Pacific islands, call for integrating the two parallel channels of conservation that currently operate separately: those focused on reversing plant extinctions and those focused on reducing invasions. They call for a biogeographical approach that addresses all causes of phylogenetic homogenization.

Tetragonia tetragonoides – the most widespread invasive plant on these Pacific islands; photo by Jake Osborn via Flickr

I believe all these experts, in all their papers, have made the case for such integration world-wide.

Invasive plants’ impact on non-plant species

While I have focused here – and in most of my blogs more broadly — on impacts on wild, native plant communities, it is clear that alterations to floristic communities influence other taxonomic groups. A couple of years ago I summarized findings by Douglas Tallamy and colleagues on what happens to insects – and their predators – when a landscape is dominated by introduced plant species.

In short, domination by non-native plants – whether invasive or just widely planted – suppresses the numbers and diversity of native lepidopteran caterpillars. One study cited in the blog found that 75% of all lepidopteran species were found exclusively on native plant species. Non-native plants in the same genus as native plants often support a similar but depauperate subset of the native lepidopteran community. Tallamy and colleagues conclude that a reduction in the abundance and diversity of insect herbivores will probably cause a concomitant reduction in the insect predators and parasitoids of those herbivores – although few studies have measured this impact beyond spiders, which are generalists. Tallamy focuses on birds.

In the same blog I reviewed publications by Lalk and colleagues, which examined interactions between invasive woody plants and arthropod communities more broadly. They decried the insufficient data about most of these interactions.

A few weeks ago I saw a report of an unexpected impact of invasive plants: roots of beach naupaka [beach cabbage or sea lettuce] (Scaevola sericea) are penetrating sea turtle nests so aggressively that they kill the unhatched turtles. Apparently this is happening at several sites in the Caribbean, where the plant is not native (Houreld 2024). I could find no scientific reports of this phenomenon. One reference noted that a related species (S. taccada) can form large, dense stands that might prevent adult sea turtles’ access to nesting areas (Swensen et al. 2024).

Sources:

Daru, B.H., T.J. Davies, C.G. Willis, E.K. Meineke, A. Ronk, M. Zobel, M. Pärtel,  A. Antonelli,  and C.C. Davis. 2021. Widespread homogenization of plant communities in the Anthropocene. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS (2021) 12:6983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27186-8 

www.nature.com/naturecommunications

Downey, P.O. and D.M. Richardson. 2016. Alien plant invasions and native plant extinctions: a six-threshold framework. AoB Plants, 2016; 8: plw047 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plw047; open access, available at http://aobpla.oxfordjournals.org/

Houreld, K. 2024. “Parched Cape Town copes with climate change by cutting down trade.”. The Washington Post. February 29, 2024.

Potter, K.M., C.Giardina, R.F. Hughes, S. Cordell, O. Kuegler, A. Koch, and E. Yuen. 2023. How invaded are Hawaiian forests? Non-native understory tree dominance signals potential canopy replacement.  Landsc Ecol https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01662-6

Swensen, S.M., A. Morales Gomez, C. Piasecki-Masters, N. Chime, A.R. Wine, N. Cortes Rodriguez, J. Conklin, and P.J. Melcher. 2024. Minimal impacts of invasive Scaevola taccada on Scaevola plumieri via pollinator competition in Puerto Rico. Front. Plant Sci. 2024; 15: 1281797.

Yang, Q., P. Weigelt, T.S. Fristoe, Z. Zhang, H. Kreft, A. Stein, H. Seebens, W. Dawson, F. Essl, C. König, B. Lenzner, J. Pergl, R. Pouteau, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, A.L. Ebel, N. Fuentes, E.L.H. Giehl, J. Kartesz, P. Krestov, T. Kukk, M. Nishino, A. Kupriyanov, J.L. Villaseñor, J.J. Wieringa, A. Zeddam, E. Zykova. and M. van Kleunen. 2021. The global loss of floristic uniqueness. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS (2021) 12:7290.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27603-y

Winter, M., O. Schweiger, S. Klotz, W. Nentwig, P. Andriopoulos, M. Arianoutsou, C. Basnou, P. Delipetrou, V. Didz.iulis, M. Hejdah, P.E. Hulme, P.W. Lambdon, J. Pergl, P. Pys.ek, D.B. Roy, and I. Kuhn. 2009. Plant extinctions and intros lead to phylogenetic and taxonomic homogenization of the European flora  PNAS Vol 106 # 51 December 2009

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Too Many Deer; Too Few Forest Seedlings & Wildflowers

white flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum); via PICRYL One of the “charismatic wildflowers” mentioned by Blossey and colleagues

Bernd Blossey, Darragh Hare, and Don Waller have published a plea that America’s federal government take the lead in formulating a new national program on managing deer. Otherwise, they fear that deer populations will not be reduced to ecologically sustainable levels. I find their argument convincing and well-sourced. I agree that Americans need to figure out how to address this threat. (The full citation is at the end of this blog).

First, Blossey and colleagues describe the damage caused by overabundant deer:

  • severe declines in populations of many native forest herbs and shrubs, probably including disappearing wildflowers;
  • their replacement by non-native species that are less palatable;
  • poor regeneration of many canopy hardwood species;
  • decreased forest resilience, lowering  forests’ ability to adapt to stressors, especially climate change;
  • decreased ability of forests to deliver benefits that are of increasing value to many people;
  • increased prevalence of wildlife and human diseases associated with the spread and size of  growing tick populations; and
  • people – and deer — killed vehicle accidents on roads.

The widespread impacts of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in forests of the East are well-documented (see my previous blogs for a few examples; scroll below the “Archives” to find “Categories”). Blossey and colleagues note examples of similar impacts in the West, attributed to elk (Cervus elaphus) and black-tailed and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).

The authors review the decimation of deer populations in earlier centuries and the efforts of state wildlife agencies to rebuild their populations during the 20th Century. The problem, in their view, is that federal and — especially — state wildlife agencies have retained their traditional focus on managing wildlife for recreational hunters. However, recreational hunters make up a small and shrinking proportion of all Americans. Many more people now engage in “non-consumptive” enjoyment of wildlife.

lack of regeneration in Rock Creek Park, Washington D.C.; photo by Sam Sheline, NatureServe, via Flickr

State agencies’ narrow focus might partly arise from fragmented authorities. Agencies other than wildlife departments are responsible for addressing some repercussions of overabundant deer. These include threats to human health, loss of agricultural crops.

For several reasons, Blossey and colleagues call for federal leadership.  They think that only a national strategy can address, in a holistic way, the interrelated deer, human health, forest, and biodiversity crises. The strategy’s goal should be to protect species that are in decline because of over-browsing by deer and to avoid further declines in environmental and human health.

The authors reason that states are tied to traditional constituencies. Also, they have difficulty acting across jurisdictional boundaries. Second, few state wildlife agencies have authority to protect plant and invertebrate species. Yet these are the taxa most directly affected by overabundant deer. Blossey and colleagues point out that, of the ~1,300 species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, 942 are plants and 287 are invertebrates.

They point out that deer also suffer the effects of overpopulation. Chronic wasting disease is spreading. It causes a slow, agonizing death of affected animals. Another 2.1 million deer are killed each year in vehicle crashes. [According to the World Animal Foundation, the current number of deer killed in traffic crashes is 1.8 million — 300,000 fewer.) Again, these deaths are often gruesome. Finally, the principal population “control” now is death by starvation in winter. This, too, is cruel. 

Blossey and colleagues say that return of large predators, even where feasible, will not result in sufficient reduction in deer populations. Nor will encouragement of greater hunting pressure on does.

They note that the federal government owns nearly 30% of the United States’ terrestrial surface area. Management is divided among many agencies – National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, Department of Defense, and many smaller agencies.  Management approaches vary. However, it would be possible to bring them into agreement – although, in some cases, this would require new legislation.

Another issue requires resolution:  federal agencies’ authority to manage wildlife on federal land.. The states have repeatedly claimed constitutional and legal authority to manage (vertebrate) wildlife on the federal lands within their borders. This assertion was countered years ago by Nie et al. (2017):

‘Federal land management agencies have an obligation, not just the discretion, to manage and conserve fish and wildlife on federal lands. … [M]ost states have not addressed the conservation obligations inherent in trust management; rather, states wish to use the notion of sovereign ownership as … a source of unilateral power but not of public responsibility. Furthermore, the states’ trust responsibilities for wildlife are subordinate to the federal government’s statutory and trust obligations over federal lands and their integral resources.’

Blossey and colleagues assert that managing wildlife (typically defined as mammals, birds, and fish) is much broader than establishing hunting seasons or methods. Furthermore, the concept of “public trust resources” means resources should be managed for all citizens, not just the fewer than 10% of US residents who hunt. A growing proportion of society expects this management to support healthy and diverse environments.

The authors stress that reducing deer overpopulations is necessary to meet numerous policy goals. These include fulfilling obligations under international treaties related to climate change, invasive species, and threatened species; restoring and conserving the nation’s forests to provide habitat; and adopting “nature-based” climate adaptations, such as carbon sequestration. They express the hope that recent presidential mandates to better quantify and value natural assets will increase awareness of the harm caused by deer overpopulation. Their proposed national strategy would develop goals and metrics to match specific environmental and human health outcomes.

Of course, management of deer must extend beyond federal property lines. This will require cooperation among states, Tribes, and private landowners.

The paper proposes the North American Waterfowl Management Plan as a model. Under this scheme the US Fish and Wildlife Service works with states, tribal governments, Mexico, and Canada to ensure accurate information on waterfowl populations a to calculate harvest levels. States implement their assigned quotas through their own regulations. Waterfowl hunters purchase Duck Stamps to fund the monitoring efforts. This program has worked well for most species covered by the program. Waterfowl are one of the few bird groups that have not declined dramatically.

Reducing deer populations will probably require lethal control. Studies indicate that at least 60% of does must be removed from a population to reduce herd sizes over time. Other means have been attempted at regional or larger landscape levels, such as sterilization, fertility control. These methods have failed even when paired with recreational hunting. Lethal approaches will probably distress many people. However, Blossey, Hare, and Waller believe the program would be supported if it is understood to be undertaken with the goal of improving the health of both humans and also the environment.

In the end, Blossey, Hare, and Waller say they are not willing to leave the killing to cars, disease, and starvation. They emphasize our moral responsibility to protect humans and the many other species that rely on diverse ecosystems. Our policies and choices created the problem, so we must try to correct it.

SOURCES

Blossey. B., D. Hare, and D.M. Waller, 2024. Where have all the flowers gone? A call for federal leadership in deer management in the US. Front. Conserv. Sci. 5:1382132. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2024.1382132

Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt and S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands: Debunking State Supremacy. Environmental Law, Vol. 47, no. 4 (2017).

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Forest Regeneration Again … Deer!

photo by Eli Sagor via Flickr

I have recently recent blogged several times about threats to regeneration of eastern forests. Most of the underlying studies stress the role of deer browsing as a major driver of suppression of native plant species and proliferation of non-native ones. Most studies discussed at a recent Northern Hardwood research forum (USDA, FS 2023b Proceedings) found that deer browsing overwhelms other disturbances, such as fire and canopy gaps that typically promote seedling diversity. Miller et al. also stressed the importance of the deer-invasive plant complex in interrupting regeneration in National parks. Reed et al. found that, on the Allegheny Plateau of western Pennsylvania, high deer densities at the time stands formed reduced tree species diversity, density, and basal area – changes that were still detectable decades later.

On the other hand, Hovena et al. found that at their study sites in Ohio, interaction between non-native shrubs and soil wetness overshadowed even the impact of deer herbivory on the species richness and abundance of seedlings.

Unlike the others, Ducey et al. don’t mention deer as a factor in their analysis of regeneration in a forest in the northern half of New Hampshire. They focus on the minimal impact of silvicultural management. Its effect is secondary to overall forest development as the forest ages. Is it possible that overabundant deer are not a factor in the Bartlett Experimental forest.

American elm (Ulmus americana); photo by F.T. Campbell

Some of the studies acknowledge the impacts of non-native insects and pathogens. The most thorough discussion is in Payne and Peet. They note that specialist pathogens have caused the loss of important tree species, specifically elms and dogwoods plus the impending widespread mortality of ash. Such mortality is resulting in drastic and long-lasting shifts in community dynamics.

Ducey et al. anticipate pest-driven reversals of increases over the decades of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Also, they expect that white ash (Fraxinus americana), which has a minor presence, will disappear.

Miller et al. also stressed the importance of emerald ash borer-induced suppression of ash regeneration in some National parks . The authors also noted the threat to beech trees from beech leaf disease in other parks. Hovena et al. state that the interaction between non-native shrubs and soil wetness was more influential than ash mortality in shaping woody seedling communities.

Reed et al. considered the role of non-native earthworm biomass on plant species’ growth.

But too many of the studies, in my view, make no mention of the probably significant role of non-native insects and pathogens.

It is perhaps understandable that they don’t address emerging pests that either have not yet or have barely reached their study sites. For example, Hovena et al. and Yacucci et al. [see below] noted growth of one native shrub, Lindera benzoin, in the face of the challenges presented by deer and invading plants. Neither acknowledges the approach of laurel wilt disease, which has not yet become established in Ohio (it has been detected on the Kentucky-Indiana border). Similarly, neither mentions beech leaf disease, although some of the plots studied by Hovena et al. are just east of Cleveland – where BLD was first detected. The location of the Yacucci et al. study is less than 50 miles away. The North Carolina forests studied by Payne and Peet are apparently too far east to be affected by beech bark disease and beech leaf disease is not yet established nearby.

Less understandable is the failure to mention loss of elms – which were abundant in riparian areas until killed off by Dutch elm disease – which was first detected in Cleveland!); or to discuss the impact of dogwood anthracnose. Their focus on the deciduous forest might explain why they don’t mention hemlock woolly adelgid – which is just now invading the area discussed by Reed et al. I suppose the demise of American chestnut was so many decades ago that it is truly irrelevant to current forest dynamics.

A new study raises anew these questions about whether inattention to the role of non-native pests has skewed past studies’ results. Yacucci et al. compared regeneration in a military installation (Camp Garfield), to the results in the surrounding second-growth forest. This choice allowed them to overcome one drawback of other studies: using deer exclosures that are small and of short durations. The military facility covers 88 km2. Inside it, deer populations have been controlled for 67 years at a density of 6.6 – 7.5 deer/km2. Outside, deer have been overabundant for decades. Populations have grown to densities estimated (but not measured) to be at least 30 deer/km2 – more than four times as high.

These authors established 21 experimental gaps in the low-deer-density area and 20 gaps outside the installation where deer densities are high. Some of the gaps in both low- and high-deer-density environs were located on wetter, seasonally flooded soils, some on drier sites. None of the forest sites had experience fire in recent decades.

Their findings support the importance of deer browsing as driver of changes to forest regeneration.

northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin); photo by R.A. Nonemacher via Wikimedia

They found that at low deer densities, gaps develop a vigorous and diverse native sapling layer, including oaks. Total stem density of red and pin oaks was 13 times higher in these gaps than in gaps in high-deer-density locations. Oak saplings were growing into the subcanopy – that is, above deer browse heights. Saplings of other species – i.e., tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, and ash (Fraxinus spp.) were also flourishing. Also present were dogwood (Cornus florida) and two native shrubs — Lindera benzoin and Rubus allegheniensis. One non-native shrub, buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), also thrived at low deer densities. Other non-native plant species were far fewer; their cover was 80% lower. Overall, abundance, richness, and diversity of native herbaceous and woody species were 37–65% higher at the low-deer-density study sites. On average tree species were more than twice as tall as in high-deer-density plots.

In high-deer-density plots, non-native species were six times more abundant while native species richness was 39% lower. Diversity was 27% lower. Most native tree species were short in stature and in low abundance. The one exception was black cherry (Prunus serotina), which deer avoid feeding on. The cherry was 95% more abundant in these high-deer-density plots.

There were several surprising results. In most cases, neither years since gap formation nor habitat type (wet vs. dry) had a significant impact on plant diversity, richness, or abundance. The exception was that non-native plant species were more abundant in older gaps where deer densities were high. Yacucci et al. warn that this phenomenon is a potential threat to biodiversity since high deer density is now the norm across eastern forests.

The authors also note that fire has probably never been a factor in these forests, which are primarily beech-maple forests. Certainly there have been no fires over the past 70 years, either inside or outside the military installation.

Yacucci et al. did not discuss past or possible future impacts of non-native insects or pathogens. They did not mention emerald ash borer or dogwood anthracnose – both of which had been present in Ohio for at least two decades when they completed their study. Although they said their study forest was a beech-maple forest, they did not discuss whether beech are present and – if so – the impact of beech bark disease or beech leaf disease. Both of these are spreading in Ohio. The latter was originally detected in 2012 near Cleveland, just 50 miles from the location of Camp Garfield (between Youngstown and Cleveland, Ohio). As noted above, they also did they mention that Lindera benzoin is susceptible to laurel wilt disease.

beech seedlings in Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

Proposed solutions to deer over-browsing

Given the combined threat from widespread deer overpopulation and invasions by non-native plants, Yacucci et al. propose enlisting those military posts that regularly cull deer into efforts to conserve and regenerate native plants. Otherwise, they say, the prognosis for regeneration is poor.

Bernd Blossey and colleagues propose a more sweeping solution: implementation of a national policy to reduce deer populations on all land ownerships. They point out that overabundant deer:

  • disrupt the plant communities of affected forests – from spring ephemerals to tree regeneration;
  • promote disease in wildlife and people; and
  • lead to miserable deaths of deer on our highways, through winter starvation, and disease.

They call for federal leadership of coordinated deer-reduction programs. I discuss their proposal in detail in a separate blog.

SOURCES

Ducey, M.J, O.L. Fraser, M. Yamasaki, E.P. Belair, W.B. Leak. 2023. Eight decades of compositional change in a managed northern hardwood landscape. Forest Ecosystems 10 (2023) 100121

Hovena, B.M., K.S. Knight, V.E. Peters, and D.L Gorchov. 2022. Woody seedling community responses to deer herbivory, intro shrubs, and ash mortality depend on canopy competition and site wetness. Forest Ecology and Management. 523 (2022) 120488

Payne, C.J. and R.K. Peet. 2023. Revisiting the model system for forest succession: Eighty years of resampling Piedmont forests reveals need for an improved suite of indicators of successional change. Ecological Indicators 154 (2023) 110679

Miller, K.M., S.J. Perles, J.P. Schmit, E.R. Matthews, and M.R. Marshall. 2023. Overabundant deer and invasive plants drive widespread regeneration debt in eastern United States national parks. Ecological Applications. 2023;33:e2837. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/r/eap  Open Access

Reed, S.P., D.R. Bronson, J.A. Forrester, L.M. Prudent, A.M. Yang, A.M. Yantes, P.B. Reich, and L.E. Frelich. 2023. Linked disturbance in the temperate forest: Earthworms, deer, and canopy gaps. Ecology. 2023;104:e4040. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/r/ecy

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2023a. Proceedings of the First Biennial Northern Hardwood Conference 2021: Bridging Science and Management for the Future. Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-P-211 May 2023

Yacucci, A.C., W.P. Carson, J.C. Martineau, C.D. Burns, B.P. Riley, A.A. Royo, T.P. Diggins, I.J. Renne. 2023. Native tree species prosper while exotics falter during gap-phase regeneration, but only where deer densities are near historical levels New Forests https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-023-10022-w

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

or

www.fadingforests.org