obvious risk of pest introduction! photo by F.T. Campbell
Because of the many damaging insects introduced in wood packaging, I often blog about numbers of shipping containers entering the country. [On the “nivemnic.us” website, scroll down below “archives” to “categories”, then click on “wood packaging” to see my previous blogs discussing this issue.]
The Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reports processing 36.6 million shipping containers holding imports in Fiscal Year 2023 – which ended in September 2023. These presumably included about 13 – 16 million containers arriving via ship from Asia, Europe, and other overseas trading partners. The remaining millions probably entering from Mexico and Canada via land transport. Together, Mexico and Canada provided 30% of U.S. imports in 2022.
It is difficult to pin down the actual number of containers entering the country. In contrast to the figure provided by CBP, Laura Robb of the Journal of Commerce reports that 25.6 million TEUs carrying imports entered the country in 2024. This figure apparently includes containers carried by all forms of transport. CBP counts containers by actual numbers, and about 90% of waterborne containers are actually 40 feet long, not the 20 feet measured by “TEU” (U.S. DoT). Halving the JOC number results in a total of about 13 million – well below that reported by CBP.
Overall volumes of imports carried by ship continue to rise. The monetary value of goods imported by the U.S. in maritime trade grew 15% from 2021 to 2022 (U.S. DoT). Robb reported that trade experts believe imports rose another 15% between 2023 and 2024. This rise is driven by retailers trying to protect themselves from a possible longshoremen’s strike (which might occur beginning 15 January), Trump’s threatened tariffs (he might act as early as 20 January); and the annual slowdown of production in Asia during Tet (which begins on 29 January). If import volumes meet expectations and continue through April, the series will outdo the previous (pandemic-era) record of 19 straight months when imports exceeded 2 million TEUs. What happens later in 2025 depends in part on whether the anticipated strike happens and/or actual levels of any new tariffs.
One concern about imports from Mexico and Canada is that some proportion of these goods actually originated in Asia or Europe, but were shipped through Mexican or Canadian ports. I have not found a source to clarify how many shipments fit this pattern. USDA APHIS used to blame forest pests introduced to the Great Lakes region on goods transported from the principal Canadian Atlantic port, St. John, Nova Scotia.
A useful publication for identifying where the pest-introduction risk is highest are the annual reports issued by U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In calendar year 2022, U.S. maritime ports handled just under 43% of U.S. international trade (measured by value). There are two caveats: the data include both imports and exports; and the most recent data are from 2021.
Two-thirds of America’s maritime cargo (imports and exports) is shipped in traditional containers. This includes most consumer goods. The top 25 container ports handled a total of 45.6 million TEU (U.S. DoT). Map 4-3 in the report shows these ports and the proportions that are imports and exports.
The highest-ranking Container Ports in 2021 are those we expect. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were numbers one and two. Together they received 10.7 million TEU. The third highest number of containers entered through the Port of New York & New Jersey. Nearly 5 million TEU entered there. The Port of Savannah ranked fourth. Savannah and nearby Charleston (ranked seventh) handled 4.2 million incoming TEUs in 2021.
Ranked above Charleston were the Port of Virginia and Houston. Each processed approximately 1.8 million containers filled with imports. Three West coast ports follow: Oakland, California and Tacoma and Seattle. Just over 1 million TEUs entered Oakland. The two Washington ports received a little over 1.5 million. Florida has four ports ranked in the “top 25”. In total, they processed 1.2 million TEU; most entered through PortMiami and Port Everglades. Baltimore, Philadelphia, Mobile, New Orleans, Wilmington, North Carolina and Wilmington, Delaware, South Jersey Port Corporation, and Boston all handled less than 500 imported containers in 2021. Domestic shipments from other U.S. states dominated containers processed through the ports of San Juan, Honolulu, and Alaska.
gantry crane in operation at the Port of Savannah; photo by F.T. Campbell
The top ports must have appropriate facilities needed to load / unload container vessels efficiently– that is, adequate numbers of gantry cranes, especially super post-Panamax cranes, which have the greatest capacity. The top 25 container ports of 2021 operated a total of 539 ship-to-shore gantry cranes in 2023, of which 322 (60%) are post-Panamax cranes. Ports are adding cranes – there were 29 more in 2023 than in 2021. The Port of Virginia appears to be striving for significant increases in tonnage; it has 28 Panamax cranes, more than Charleston and almost as many as Savannah (U.S. DoT).
Another important port component is efficient facilities to load containers onto rail cars or trucks for transfer to land-based warehouses and retailers. Ports have more than one terminal; for example, the Port of Long Beach has six, New York/New Jersey has five. Nationwide, 70% of container terminals have on-dock facilities to transfer containers directly onto rail cars. All but three of the 33 terminals located at Long Beach. Los Angeles, New York, Savannah, Charleston, Houston 2/2, Seattle, and Tacoma have on-dock transfer equipment.
The U.S. DoT reports also inform us about the top 25 ports that handle other categories of cargo: overall tonnage, dry and liquid bulk cargo, break bulk cargo, and roll-on-roll-off cargo. Visit the report to view these data.
SOURCES
Robb, L. 2024. U.S. import “surge” to persist into spring amid continued frontloading: retailers. Journal of Commerce Daily Newswire December 10, 2024
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Annual Report 2024 Port Performance Freight Statistics January 2024 https://www.bts.gov/explore-topics-and-geography/modes/maritime-and-inland-waterways/2024-port-performance-freight
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
BLD symptoms; photo by Matt Borden, Bartlett Tree Experts
As beech leaf disease (BLD) is detected in an ever-expanding number of counties from Michigan to Maine south to Virginia, scientists are trying to clarify how the causal nematode — Litylenchus crenatae ssp. mccannii (Lcm) – spreads. One focus is on local spread from tree to tree. Mankanwal Goraya and colleagues set up an experiment in Stone Valley Forest, a recreation and research site managed by Penn State in Huntington County, Pennsylvania. BLD is present – although I have not been able to determine for how many years. [The full citation to Goraya et al. is provided at the end of this blog.]
Goraya et al. (2024) set up four stands, each bearing three funnels, at varying distances from naturally BLD-infected American beech (Fagus grandifolia) trees. Two stands were at 3.51 m from symptomatic trees of starkly different sizes: one of the trees had a dbh of 50 cm, the other of only 5.6 cm. A third close-up stand was set up at 2.20 m from another large tree, having a dbh of 46 cm. The fourth stand was set up at a significantly longer distance, 11.74 m from a symptomatic beech tree; this tree was also small, with a dbh of 5 cm. This arrangement allowed the scientists to detect influences of both distance from the source of infection and relative canopy size of the source tree. They consider dbh to be an adequate substitute for canopy size. There was apparently no other effort to determine or vary the height of “source” trees, although I think that might influence speed of the wind flowing through the canopy.
Goraya et al. also tested whether it is possible to detect the presence of Lcm in association with other invertebrates that live in beech forests. To do this, they counted numbers of nematodes in frass from six species of caterpillars that had been feeding on leaves of infected trees, and in two spider webs spun in the branches of symptomatic trees. They also determined whether these nematodes were alive (active) or inactive – presumably dead.
The study makes clear that Lcm’s life cycle and impact are not as surprising as initially thought. Several species in the family Anguinidae – to which Lcm belongs – are considered significant pests. These nematodes can parasitize aerial parts of the plants (leaves, stems, inflorescences and seeds), causing swellings and galls. Furthermore, they are migratory; they can move across the surface of host tissues using water films. Once they have penetrated the host tissues, they can induce host cell hyperplasia and hypertrophy, resulting in leaf or bulb deformities, shorter internodes, and neoplastic tissues. Furthermore, heavy rainfall and wind are known to play significant roles in the dissemination of plant-infecting nematodes. In their desiccated state on infected seeds, some species of this family can survive passage through animals’ gastrointestinal digestive tract (e.g., domestic livestock, insects, & birds).
A crucial factor is that Lcm can reach densities of thousands of nematodes per leaf by late summer or early fall, increasing the likelihood of their exposure to facilitating environmental conditions at the time they migrate from leaves to buds. And once established within the bud tissues, the nematodes feed on bud scales and newly forming leaves to develop & increase their pop #s. They also use the bud as protection from adverse environmental conditions.
Goraya and colleagues collected samples every other day from September 9 to November 23, 2023 – the period when Lcm migrate from highly infected leaves to newly forming buds. [I note that it in the mid-Atlantic – where Lcm is spreading – we had an extensive drought in autumn 2024 – more than 30 days without any rain from early October into November. I hope scientists are monitoring BLD spread sufficient closely to see whether this drought affected dispersal.]
Nematodes dispersal linked to weather
Goraya and colleagues collected 324 samples from the funnels. Eighty-two percent (n =266) of the samples had nematodes; up to 92% were identified as Lcm. Non-Lcm nematodes were distributed across different genera, mostly classified as free-living nematodes. While several hundred nematodes were found in the funnels on most days, numbers peaked noticeably on some days in September and October. A startling 2,452 nematodes were recovered from a single funnel in October. Depending on the sample, up to 67% of Lcm recovered from the funnels were active.
Analysis of the environmental (weather) variables found that increases in wind speed, humidity, and precipitation (rainfall) coincided with higher numbers of Lcm being recovered from the funnels. However, the effect of wind speed becomes less positive as precipitation increases or vice versa. Goraya et al. suggest a pronounced negative interaction between wind and rain. At low precipitation levels, increased wind speed might facilitate Lcm dispersal. As rainfall increases, higher wind speeds might carry the Lcm nematodes farther away. Support is seen in the fact that fewer nematodes were found in the funnels closer to the BLD-infected trees during these periods. Really heavy rain might push a significant preponderance of nematodes to the ground. The scientists point to a very complex interplay between weather patterns and Lcm population dynamics and dispersal.
BLD symptoms on beech tree in Fairfax County, Virginia – a dozen miles from known infestation; photo by F.T. Campbell
The model did not show any significant influence of maximum temperature on nematode numbers in autumn. Goraya et al. do not speculate on whether temperatures might play a role during summer, as distinct from cooler autumn periods.
Goraya et al.’s findings differ from those of previous studies. Earlier documentation of wind dispersal of nematodes concerned primarily free-living species. It was unexpected to find consistently much higher numbers of Lcm – especially because Lcm is a plant-parasitic nematode. Another surprise is the high proportion of nematodes that are active.
Goraya et al. conclude that because Lcm is actively migrating in large numbers during autumn months, it is primed to take advantage of favorable weather. This nematode will likely survive and thrive in the environmental conditions of beech forests in northeastern North America.
Considering the effect of distance, some findings fit expectations: significantly more Lcm were recovered from funnels placed near symptomatic “source” trees than from those farther away. However, this was not a simple relationship. For example, in two cases the scenarios seemed nearly alike: both “source” trees were large (dbh 46 or 50 cm) and symptoms were “medium-high” (more than half of leaves presenting dark-green interveinal bands). Distance of funnels from the “source” tree differed minimally: 2.2 m versus 3.51 m. Still, the number of nematodes retrieved from the two sets of funnels differed significantly: one set of funnels recovered the highest number of Lcm nematodes obtained during the entire experiment – 2,452; the second contained only up to 600 nematodes. The authors do not offer an explanation.
I am not surprised by the apparently strong correlation between numbers and proximity to the disease source (a symptomatic tree). Nor am I surprised that Lcm nematodes were also found in funnels 11 meters away. I do wonder, however, why they are certain that no source was closer. Detecting early stage infections is notoriously difficult.
beech with large canopy; photo by F.T. Campbell
Goraya et al. also evaluated the effect of size of the source tree. They used dbh a substitute for larger canopies. Trees with larger canopies can host more nematodes, so are likely to contribute more to dispersal events. Two sets of funnels were equidistant from separate “source” trees – 3.51 m. One tree was small – 5.6 cm dbh, 11% as large as the other tree (50 cm). They collected many fewer Lcm nematodes from the smaller tree – the maximum was only 132 compared to 600 (a decrease of 78%).
Still, small trees can apparently support spread of the nematode to a reasonable distance. The fourth set of funnels was set up more than three times farther away (11.74 m) from an infected tree of a similar size (dbh = 5 cm) but recovered almost the same number of Lcm nematodes (0 – 119).
I find it alarming that both small trees in this part of the experiment had low BLD symptoms – only a few leaves were banded. Yet they apparently are the source of Lcm spread. The alternative, as I noted above, is that other “source” trees were in the vicinity but were not detected, possibly because they did not yet display symptoms?
Goraya et al. conclude that “source” tree size directly impacts the number of recovered nematodes. In addition, wind plays a pivotal role in their local distribution. This suggests a complex dispersal pattern in which proximity to the source leads to higher numbers of nematodes but longer-distance spread is possible.
Tussock moth; photo by Jon Yuschock via Bugwood
Nematodes’ association with other organisms
Goraya et al. (2024) collected one each of six caterpillar species from BLD-symptomatic trees. The frass of one – the tussock moth caterpillar (Halysidota tessellaris) — contained 12 nematode specimens — 10 of them Lcm. Two of the Lcm were alive and active. Their presence indicates that Lcm can survive passage through the caterpillar’s gastrointestinal tract. The authors conclude that caterpillars feeding on symptomatic leaves might contribute to local dispersal of Lcm.
Hundreds of Lcm were recovered from the two spider webs collected from the branches of a BLD-infected beech tree. From one web, 255 nematodes were captured; 58 were active. In the second web there were only 34 Lcm, but one-third — 10 – were active.
Goraya et al. (2024) hypothesized that any biotic form having the ability to move from a BLD-infected tree would be able to transport Lcm to other non-infected trees. Beyond caterpillars, they speculate that birds consuming these caterpillars might also disperse Lcm. Doug Tallamy has documented that many birds feed on caterpillars, link although he is focused on those that consume caterpillars in the spring, not the autumn. They note that others are studying that the bird species that feed on beech buds (e.g., finches) might transport nematodes. They note the need for additional research to clarify whether the nematode can survive birds’ digestive system.
Re: detection of live Lcm in spider webs, Goraya et al. suggest two possible interpretations: 1) this finding demonstrates that nematodes might fall from leaves, potentially spreading the infection to other trees beneath the canopy. (Supporting this idea is the fact that sub-canopy trees are often heavily infected with BLD and are frequently the first to exhibit BLD symptoms.) 2) Nematodes in spider webs are very likely to be transported by other “incidental organisms” (e.g., insects, birds, mammals) that feed on invertebrates trapped in webs — thereby potentially increasing the number and impact of nonspecific nematode vectors.
In conclusion, Goraya et al. found that many factors, e.g., distance & size of infected beech trees, wind speed, & humidity, contribute significantly to Lcm dispersal. The multitude of organisms interacting beneath the canopy also play a role.
They suggest that several major questions still need to be explored. These include how Lcm navigate environmental factors in their spread; and whether Lcm can survive – perhaps in a anhydrobioses state –transport over long distances, whether by abiotic or biotic vectors.
I remind my readers of the importance of beech in the hardwood forests in northeastern North America. Many wild animals, including squirrels, wild turkeys, white-tailed deer, and bears depend on beechnuts for fats and proteins. Moreover, some insects birds rely on beech tree canopies for shelter & nesting.
Other Hosts
Beech leaf disease attacks not just American beech (Fagus grandifolia). In North America, it has also attacked planted European beech(F. sylvatica), Chinese beech (F. engleriana), and Oriental beech (F. orientalis). Thus if it spreads it could have severe impacts across forests of much of the Northern Hemisphere.
range of European beech; from Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
I appreciate that this project was funded by the USDA Forest Service International Program. I will pursue information concerning efforts by USFS Research and Development and the Forest Health Protection program.
SOURCE
Goraya, M., C. Kantor, P. Vieira, D. Martin, M. Kantor. 2024 Deciphering the vectors: Unveiling the local dispersal of Litylenchus crenatae ssp mccanni in the American beech (Fagus grandifolia) forest ecosystem PLOS ONE |https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311830 November 8, 2024 1 / 16
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
Yet again, studies focusing on issues of regeneration and mortality failing to consider all aspects.
Two studies focused on persistence of oak forests – a topic of great concern because of economic and ecological importance of oak-dominated forests. Since they dominate forests covering 78.5 million ha (51% of all forestland in the eastern United States) (Dey 2013), oaks shape stand structure and composition; their extensive crowns support many bird and arboreal mammal species; their acorns and leaf litter are the foundation of complex food webs; they live in symbiotic relationships with mycorrhizal fungi that enhance nutrient cycling and uptake within forest ecosystems. Deep roots prevent soil erosion. Oaks play a pivotal role in carbon sequestration (Khadka, Hong, and Bardhan 2024).
Until recently concern has focused on mortality of species in the red oak group (Section Lobatae). Now there is increasing concern about white oak (Quercus alba) mortality. Forest managers reported elevated mortality not just in resource-limited sites,e.g., those characterized by drought conditions, poor drainage, and soil nutrient deficiencies. Deaths are also occurring in higher-quality mesic sites, especially in forests with high stand density and advanced maturity stages. While white oaks go through a self-thinning phase – when dense stands of younger trees compete intensely for limited resources –it appears that some of the concern is focused on this stage (Khadka, Hong, and Bardhan 2024).
I think much of the concern is driven by economic rather than ecological considerations. None of oak species mentioned by Duana et al. (2024) is considered at risk by the authors of the recent conservation gap analysis (Beckman et al. 2019). (This is not surprising since presumably these species are sufficiently numerous to support commercial harvests). Furthermore, complaints about forest regeneration in the East are broader than oaks. A multi-author examination of the future of the northern forest projected decreases for four forest types = aspen-birch, elm-ash-cottonwood, oak-hickory, and spruce-fir. One type –maple-beech-birch – was expected to expand (Shifley and Moser 2016).
Regarding oaks specifically, Khadka, Hong, and Bardhan (2024) found that 30% of FIA plots in ten states composed primarily of white oak met their criteria for considering white oaks to be “declining”. However, higher mortality was limited to scattered areas (see map in Fig. 2B in the article). They suggested that contributing factors included higher elevation and distance from water in the north, intense competition in central regions, and drought stress in oak-hickory forests in the south. They also mentioned mature stands which are not replacing themselves in the southern region. Khadka, Hong, and Bardhan (2024) noted that oak decline complex is a factor in the southern region, and localized non-native insect pests (apparently spongy moth) in the northern region. (I will discuss both regeneration failures and the impacts of non-native pests below.) Still, these authors focus most attention to environmental stresses, e.g., droughts or water logging, poor soils, extreme weather events; and to human management, e.g., fire suppression, logging intensity, edge effects. They suggest strategies for mitigating these factors.
A second study, published by Duana et al. (2024), considered stocking levels of several species of oaks (Q. alba, Q. coccinea, Q. prinus, Q. rubra, and Q. velutina) but limited themselves to a large, temperate hardwood forest landscape in southeastern Ohio. Their purpose was to evaluate the efficacy of two levels of silvicultural intervention in sustaining oaks and restraining maples over the long-term, defined as 150-years (to 2060).
red oak (Quercus rubra); photo by F.T. Campbell
Their model suggested that continuing “business as usual” management would result in oaks shrinking from 22.8% dominance in 2010 to 12% dominance in 2160. Many of the remaining oaks would be large — in the 70 cm DBH class. The undesired maples would rise from 23% of total relative dominance in 2010 to 58% in 2160. The maples grew to almost the same size as the oaks: 50–65 cm DBH. As a result of these developments, the maple basal area increase by more than five times. The basal area of early successional species, e.g., poplars and aspens, decreased from 25% dominance to 11% dominance by 2160. Shade-tolerant species like elms, hickories, beech, and hemlock were suppressed by more competitive maples, occupying 17% of the total dominance.
Under the more manipulative alternative management strategy, oaks’ relative dominance on private land would stay above 20% of total relative dominance; all ages and sizes would be present. Maples would hold steadier at 23% to 33%. Shade-tolerant species would also rise, reaching a quarter of relative dominance on private some site (private public lands).
Duana et al. (2024) explained the outcome of “business as usual” management on maples’ ability to thrive in shaded conditions while oak regeneration requires sunlight to reach the forest floor. Another factor is the prevalence of high-grading harvesting practices. These factors result in a significant absence of oak trees in the sapling and midstory sizes, reflecting challenges to both oak seedlings and saplings. In other words, despite the continued growth of mature overstory oaks, the trees cannot reproduce. As Duana et al. (2024) point out, these results are supported by other field-based studies — including ones I have blogged about. Duana et al. (2024) discuss barriers and incentives to private landowners adopting more active management.
However, as I pointed out above, many tree species are regenerating poorly, not just oaks. Indeed, none of the eastern species fulfilling Potter and Riitters’ (2022) criteria for species threatened by poor regeneration was an oak. See Table 2 in Potter and Riitters (2022).
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) – one of the tree species not regenerating adequately; photo by F.T. Campbell
Hanberry et al. (2020) found that actual changes in forest species composition and density do not conform to expectations arising from three factors proposed as drivers: increased precipitation, increased white-tailed deer densities, and functional extinction of American chestnut. They found disappearance of frequent low-intensity fires to be determinative. However, Hanberry et al. (2020) also do not mention invasive plants or non-native pests other than chestnut blight.
Here I review others’ discussion of browsing by overabundant deer and competition from non-native plants as factors widely recognized as impeding regeneration of canopy trees, including oaks.
Deer
There is widespread agreement that browsing by overabundant deer is a major cause of poor regeneration of deciduous forests, especially but not limited to oaks (Quercus species.). Sources cited in my previous blogs include most studies discussed at the 2023 Northern Hardwood research forum (USDA, FS 2023b Proceedings), Spicer et al. (2023), Miller et al., and two studies based in either Ohio (the location of the study by Duana et al. [2024]) or neighboring Pennsylvania: Yaccuci et al. (2023) and Reed et al. 2023. Yacucci et al. reported that stem density of red (Q. rubra) and pin oaks (Q. palustris) was 13 times higher in canopy gaps located in areas with low densities of deer than in gaps in high-deer-density locations. In these gaps, oak saplings were growing into the subcanopy. Reed et al. said deer herbivory might be one of the most important drivers of forest composition and canopy structure over long time-scales.
Deer might be less important in New England. Stern et al. (2023), working in Vermont, focused on the importance of changing precipitation patterns in shifting numbers of red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). Northern red oak was described as a common co-occurring dominant species in their plots, but was not discussed. In New Hampshire, Ducey et al. reported changing species composition as the forest ages but did not mention deer.
Some of these authors advocated wide-scale efforts to reduce deer populations in order to restore forest ecosystems. Yacucci et al. proposed 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. Blossey et al. urged creation of a nation-wide lethal removal program.
Some of these studies indicated that additional biological entities were also important. Miller et al. stressed the role of invasive plants in suppressing forest regeneration in National parks from Virginia to Maine. Reed et al. focused on invading earthworms. One study – again, conducted in Ohio – Hovena et al. (2022), found that interactions between non-native shrubs and soil wetness overshadowed even the impact of deer herbivory on the species richness and abundance of seedlings.
Invasive Plants
FIA data indicate that 46% of forests in the eastern United States are invaded by alien plant species (Oswalt et al. 2016). Across the region, hundreds of non-native plant species are established in forests and woodlands. (See lists compiled by the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council, Mid-Atlantic Invasive Plant Council, Midwest Invasive Plants Network). Forests of the northern Midwest are among the most heavily invaded; in Ohio specifically, two studies found that more than 90% of FIA plots harbor at least one invasive plant species (Oswalt et al. [2016] and Kurtz (USDA NRS 311).
Many of these invaders are herbs, shrubs, or trees which can invade shaded environments. I remind you that a high proportion of these invasive plant species have been deliberately planted either directly in “natural” areas or in yards and gardens throughout the region.
Invasive plants can reduce native diversity, alter forest structure, suppress tree regeneration, alter nutrient cycling, and modify disturbance regimes (Miller et al. 2023).
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) is widespread in forests of both Northeast (Oswalt et al. (2016) and Southeast. Stiltgrass invasions can suppress oak regeneration – at least as part of interactions with herbivore browsing and harvest history (Johnson et al. 2015).
Amur honeysuckle; via Flickr
Several non-native shrub and vine species are also widespread. For example, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is the most frequently recorded invasive plant, present on 16.6% of surveyed plots in 39 states and five Canadian provinces. Again, the state with the highest proportion of plots invaded is Ohio – 85% (USDA Forest Service NRS-109). A study in central Ohio found that the presence of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera mackii) had a stronger influence on tree species diversity than on the size or number of trees. Removing honeysuckle from heavily invaded areas promoted native tree growth (e.g., the height of tallest trees) and increased the tree canopy’s structural complexity for up to 10 years. Forest recovery began within two years of honeysuckle removal Fotis et al. (2022). (To access earlier blogs, visit www.nivemnic.us; scroll below “archives” to “categories”, click on “invasive plants.)
This impediment to forest regeneration is expected to get worse: non-native plant species are already more widely distributed than native species although the average invasive plant inhabits only about 50% of its expected range (Bradley, Early and Sorte 2015). From Virginia and West Virginia north to Maine, 80% of National Park units have experienced a significant increase in at least one trend measuring abundance of invasive plants in recent decades. In 10 parks (a quarter of all parks studied), total invasives increased significantly in two of three metrics (Miller et al. 2023).
Non-native Pests
Another set of biological factors affecting forest persistence and possibly regeneration is non-native pests that kill North American trees. I have complained that too few of the studies of regeneration discuss implications of these bioinvasions. So Khadka, Hong, and Bardhan (2024), Duana et al. (2024), and Hanberry et al. (2020) continue a tradition that I think is most unfortunate.
American elm in full glory; photo by F.T. Campbell
In Ohio specifically, Hovena et al. and Yacucci et al. did not mention loss of canopy elms, or ash, or the impending threat from beech leaf disease. All these trees are – or used to be – quite common in Ohio. More understandable, perhaps, is lack of attention to laurel wilt disease, which is just now at the state’s southern border. It might decimate an important native shrub, Lindera benzoin. American chestnut was also present in Ohio before its near disappearance following introduction of the chestnut blight fungus early in the 20th Century.
Another possibly damaging pest that has recently turned up in Ohio is the elm zigzag sawflyAproceros leucopoda. This Asian insect was first detected in North America in 2020 in Ontario. It quickly became apparent that it was more widespread. The Ohio detection came in 2023 – too recent to be discussed by Hovena et al. or Yacucci et al. Its impact several elm species is currently unknown.
There are exceptions. Both Stern et al. (2023) and Ducey at al. (2023) reported robust growth rates of American beech (Fagus grandifolia) despite decades-long establishment of beech bark disease. DMF Neither mentioned beech leaf disease – to be fair, this bioinvader is just starting to appear in New England. Stern et al. (2023) did not discuss hemlock woolly adelgid although Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) is also a common co-occurring dominant species in their plots. Ducey et al. did anticipate pest-driven reversals of increased numbers of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and of white ash (Fraxinus americana). Stern et al. (2023) also did not mention oak wilt, despite a vulnerable host — northern red oak — being a common co-dominant species in his study site in Vermont. To be fair, oak wilt is not yet established in New England, although it is in New York and in western Ontario.
The most complete discussion of non-native pests is by Payne and Peet, working in the Piedmont of North Carolina. They state that several “specialist” pathogens have caused loss of important tree species, resulting in drastic and long-lasting shifts in community dynamics. They mention elms and dogwoods plus impending insect-caused widespread mortality of ash.
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida); photo by F.T. Campbell
Miller et al. describe the impact of EAB on ash resources in the National parks and express concern that BLD will cause considerable damage to some units of the system.
I think the failure of scientists to integrate invasive species’ impacts into assessments of changes in forest tree composition will mean that recommendations for management will be – at best – incomplete; at worst – wrong.
SOURCES
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Denvir, A., Gill, D., Man, G., Pivorunas, D., Shaw, K., and Westwood, M. (2019). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum.
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
Bradley, B.A., R. Early and C. J. B. Sorte. 2015. Space to invade? Comparative range infilling and potential range of invasive and native plants. Global Ecology and Biogeography
Dey, D.C. 2013. Sustaining Oak Forests in Eastern North America: Regeneration and Recruitment, the Pillars of Sustainability. For. Sci. 60(5):926–942 October 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-114
Duana, S., H.S. He, L.S. Pile Knapp, T.W. Bonnot, J.S. Fraser. 2024. Private land management is more important than public land in sustaining oaks in temperate forests in the eastern U.S. Journal of Environmental Management 352 (2024) 120013
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
Fotis, A., Flower, C.E.; Atkins, J.W. Pinchot, C.C., Rodewald, A.D., Matthews, S. 2022. The short-term and long-term effects of honeysuckle removal on canopy structure and implications for urban forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 517(6): 120251. 10 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120251
Hanberry, B.B., M.D. Abrams, M.A. Arthur & J.M. Varner. 2020. Reviewing Fire, Climate, Deer, & Foundation Spp as Drivers of Historically Open Oak & Pine Forests & Transition to Closed Forests. Front. For. Glob. Change 3:56. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00056
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
Johnson, D.J., S.L. Flory, A. Shelton, C. Huebner and Keith Clay. 2015 Interactive effects of a non-native invasive grass Microstegium vimineum and herbivore exclusion on experimental tree regeneration under differing forest management. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, 52, 210–219 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12356
Khadka, H.S. Hong, S. Bardhan. 2024. Investigating the Spatial Pattern of White Oak (Q. alba L.) Mortality Using Ripley’s K Function across the Ten States of the eastern United States. Forests 2024, 15, 1809. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15101809
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
Oswalt, C.M., S. Fei, Q. Guo, B.V. Iannone III, S.N. Oswalt, B.C. Pijanowski, K.M. Potte. 2916. A subcontinental view of forest plant invasions. NeoBiota. 24: 49-54 http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/48489
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
Deer browse susceptibility limits c’nut restoration success in northern hardwood forests PUBLIC
Potter, K.M and Riitters, K. 2022. A National Multi-Scale Assessment of Regeneration Deficit as an Indicator of Potential Risk of Forest Genetic Variation Loss. Forests 2022, 13, 19.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010019.
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
Shifley, S.R. and W.K. Moser, editors. 2016. Future Forests of the Northern United States
Simpson, A., and Eyler, M.C., 2018, First comprehensive list of non-native species established in three major regions of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1156, 15 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181156.
ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
Spicer, M.E., A.A. Royo, J.W. Wenzel, and W.P. Carson. 2023. Understory plant growth forms respond independently to combined natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management 543 (2023) 12077
Growth trends and environmental drivers of major tree species of the northern hardwood forest of eastern North America J. For. Res. (2023) 34:37–50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01553-7
Stout, S.L., A.T. Hille, and A.A. Royo. 2023. Science-Management Collaboration is Essential to Address Current and Future Forestry Challenges. IN United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2023. 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
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
USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Rooted in Research ISSUE 18 | SEPTEMBER 2023
Kurtz, C.M. 2023. An assessment of invasive plant species in northern U.S. forests. Res. Note NRS-311. http://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-RN-311
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-109. An Assessment of Invasive Plant Species Monitored by the Northern Research Station
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2005 through 2010.
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
ʻŌhiʻa trees killed by ROD; photo by Richard Sniezko, USFS
Several Hawaiian tree species are at risk due to introduced forest pests. Two of the Islands’ most widespread species are among the at-risk taxa. Their continuing loss would expose watersheds on which human life and agriculture depend. Habitats for hundreds of other species – many endemic and already endangered – would lose their foundations. These trees also are of the greatest cultural importance to Native Hawaiians.
I am pleased to report that Hawaiian scientists and conservationists are trying to protect and restore them.
Other tree species enjoy less recognition … and efforts to protect them have struggled to obtain support.
1) koa (Acacia koa)
Koa is both a dominant canopy tree and the second-most abundant native tree species in Hawai`i in terms of areas covered. The species is endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago. Koa forests provide habitat for 30 of the islands’ remaining 35 native bird species, many of which are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Also dependent on koa forests are native plant and invertebrate species and the Islands’ only native terrestrial mammal, the Hawaiian hoary bat. Finally, koa forests protect watersheds, add nitrogen to degraded soils, and store carbon [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Koa forests once ranged from near sea level to above 7000 ft (2100 m) on both the wet and dry sides of all the large Hawaiian Islands. Conversion of forests to livestock grazing and row-crop agriculture has reduced koa’s range. Significant koa forests are now found on four islands – Hawai’i, Maui, O‘ahu, and Kauaʻi. More than 90% of the remaining koa forests occur on Hawai`i Island (the “Big Island) [Inman-Narahari et al.]
In addition to its fundamental environmental role, koa has immense cultural importance. Koa represents strength and the warrior spirit. The wood was used traditionally to make sea-going canoes. Now Koa is widely used for making musical instruments, especially guitars and ukuleles; furniture, surfboards, ornaments, and art [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Koa timber has the highest monetary value of any wood harvested on the Islands. However, supplies of commercial-quality trees are very limited (Dudley et al. 2020). Harvesting is entirely from old-growth forests on private land. [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Koa forests are under threat by a vascular wilt disease caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. koae (FOXY). This disease can kill up to 90% of young trees and – sometimes — mature trees in native forests. The fungus is a soil-dwelling organism that spreads in soil and infects susceptible plants through the root system (Dudley et al. 2020).
Conservation and commercial considerations have converged to prompt efforts to breed koa resistant to FOXY. Conservationists hope to restore native forests on large areas where agriculture has declined. The forestry industry seeks to enhance supplies of the Islands’ most valuable wood. Finally, science indicated that a breeding program would probably be successful. Field trials in the 1990s demonstrated great differences in wilt-disease mortality among seed sources (the proportion of seedlings surviving inoculation ranged from 4% to 91.6%) [Sniezko 2003; Dudley et al. 2009].
In 2003, Dudley and Sniezko outlined a long-term strategy for exploring and utilizing genetic resistance in koa. Since then, a team of scientists and foresters has implemented different phases of the strategy and refined it further (Dudley et al. 2012, 2015, 2017; Sniezko et al. 2016]
First, scientists determined that the wilt disease is established on the four main islands. Having obtained more than 500 isolates of the pathogen from 386 trees sampled at 46 sites, scientists tested more than 700 koa families from 11 ecoregions for resistance against ten of the most highly virulent isolates (Dudley et al. 2020).
The Hawaiian Agricultural Research Center (HARC), supported by public and private partners, has converted the field-testing facilities on Hawai`i, Maui, and Oahu into seed orchards. The best-performing tree families are being grown to maturity to produce seeds for planting. It is essential that the seedlings be not just resistant to FOXY but also adapted to the ecological conditions of the specific site where they are to be planted [Dudley et al. 2020; Inman-Narahari et al. ] Locally adapted, wilt-resistant seed has been planted on Kauaʻi and Hawai`i. Preparations are being made to plant seed on Maui and O‘ahu also. Scientists are also exploring methods to scale up planting in both restoration and commercial forests [R. Hauff pers. comm.].
koa; photo by David Eickhoff via Flickr
Restoration of koa on the approximately half of lands in the species’ former range that are privately owned will require that the trees provide superior timber. Private landowners might also need financial incentives since the rotation time for a koa plantation is thought to be 30-80 years. [Inman-Narahari et al.]
Plantings on both private and public lands will need to be protected from grazing by feral ungulates and encroachment by competing plants. These management actions are intensive, expensive, and must be maintained for years.
Some additional challenges are scientific: uncertainties about appropriate seed zones, efficacy of silvicultural approaches to managing the disease, and whether koa can be managed for sustainable harvests. Human considerations are also important: Hawai`i lacks sufficient professional tree improvement or silvicultural personnel, a functioning seed distribution and banking network — and supporting resources. Finally, some segments of the public oppose ungulate control programs. Inman-Narahari et al.
Finally, scientists must monitor seed orchards and field plantings for any signs of maladaptation to climate change. (Dudley et al. 2020).
2) ʻŌhiʻa Metrosideros polymorpha)
ʻŌhiʻa lehua is the most widespread tree on the Islands. It dominates approximately 80% the biomass of Hawaii’s remaining native forest, in both wet and dry habitats. ʻŌhiʻa illustrates adaptive radiation and appears to be undergoing incipient speciation. The multitude of ecological niches and their isolation on the separate islands has resulted in five recognized species in the genus Metrosideros. Even the species found throughout the state, Metrosideros polymorpha, has eight recognized varieties (Luiz et al. (2023) (some authorities say there are more).
Loss of this iconic species could result in significant changes to the structure, composition, and potentially, the function, of forests on a landscape level. High elevation ‘ohi‘a forests protect watersheds across the state. ʻŌhiʻa forests shelter the Islands’ one native terrestrial mammal (Hawaiian hoary bat), 30 species of forest birds, and more than 500 endemic arthropod species. Many species in all these taxa are endangered or threatened (Luiz et al. 2023). The increased light penetrating interior forests following canopy dieback facilitates invasion by light-loving non-native plant species, of which Hawai`i has dozens. There is perhaps no other species in the United States that supports more endangered taxa or that plays such a geographical dominant ecological keystone role [Luiz et al. 2023]
For many Native Hawaiians, ‘ōhi‘a is a physical manifestation of multiple Hawaiian deities and the subject of many Hawaiian proverbs, chants, and stories; and foundational to the scared practice of many hula. The wood has numerous uses. Flowers, shoots, and aerial roots are used medicinally and for making lei. The importance of the biocultural link between ‘ōhi‘a and the people of Hawai`i is described by Loope and LaRosa (2008) and Luiz et al. (2023).
In 2010 scientists detected rapid mortality affecting ‘ōhi‘a on Hawai‘i Island. Scientists determined that the disease is caused by two recently-described pathogenic fungi, Ceratocystis lukuohia and Ceratocystis huliohia. The two diseases, Ceratocystis wilt and Ceratocystis canker of ʻōhiʻa, are jointly called “rapid ‘ōhi‘a death”, or ROD. The more virulent species, C. lukuohia, has since spread across Hawai`i Island and been detected on Kaua‘i. The less virulent C. huliohia is established on Hawai`i and Kaua‘i and in about a dozen trees on O‘ahu. One tree on Maui was infected; it was destroyed, and no new infection has been detected [M. Hughes pers. comm.] As of 2023, significant mortality has occurred on more than one third of the vulnerable forest on Hawai`i Island, although mortality is patchy.
[ʻŌhiʻa is also facing a separate disease called myrtle rust caused by the fungus Austropuccinia psidii; to date this rust has caused less virulent infections on ‘ōhi‘a.]
rust-killed ‘ōhi‘a in 2016; photo by J.B. Friday
Because of the ecological importance of ‘ōhi‘a and the rapid spread of these lethal diseases, research into possible resistance to the more virulent pathogen, C. lukiohia began fairly quickly, in 2016. Some ‘ōhi‘a survive in forests on the Big Island in the presence of ROD, raising hopes that some trees might possess natural resistance. Scientists are collecting germplasm from these lightly impacted stands near high-mortality stands (Luiz et al. 2023). Five seedlings representing four varieties of M. polymorpha that survived several years’ exposure to the disease are being used to produce rooted cuttings and seeds for further evaluation of these genotypes.
ʻŌhiʻa flowers
Encouraged by these developments, and recognizing the scope of additional work needed, in 2018 stakeholders created a collaborative partnership that includes state, federal, and non-profit agencies and entities, ʻŌhiʻa Disease Resistance Program (‘ODRP) (Luiz et al. 2023). The partnership seeks to provide baseline information on genetic resistance present in all Hawaiian taxa in the genus Metrosideros. It aims further to develop sources of ROD-resistant germplasm for restoration intended to serve several purposes: cultural plantings, landscaping, and ecological restoration. ‘ODRP is pursuing screenings of seedlings and rooted cuttings sampled from native Metrosideros throughout Hawai`i while trying to improve screening and growing methods. Progress will depend on expanding these efforts to include field trials; research into environmental and genetic drivers of susceptibility and resistance; developing remote sensing and molecular methods to rapidly detect ROD-resistant individuals; and support already ongoing Metrosideros conservation. If levels of resistance in wild populations prove to be insufficient, the program will also undertake breeding (Luiz et al. 2023).
To be successful, ‘ODRP must surmount several challenges (Luiz et al. 2022):
increase capacity to screen seedlings from several hundred plants per year to several thousand;
optimize artificial inoculation methodologies;
determine the effects of temperature and season on infection rates and disease progression;
find ways to speed up seedlings’ attaining sufficient size for testing;
develop improved ways to propagate ʻōhiʻa from seed and rooted cuttings;
establish sites for field testing of putatively resistant trees across a wide range of climatic and edaphic conditions;
establish seed orchard, preferably on several islands;
establish systems for seed collection from the wide variety of subspecies/varieties;
if breeding to enhance resistance is appropriate, it will be useful to develop high-throughput phenotyping of the seed orchard plantings.
Developing ROD-resistant ‘ōhi‘a is only one part of a holistic conservation program. Luiz et al. (2023) reiterate the importance of quarantines and education to curtail movement of infected material and countering activities that injure the trees. Fencing to protect these forests from grazing by feral animals can drastically reduce the amount of disease. Finally, scientists must overcome the factors there caused the almost complete lack of natural regeneration of ‘ōhi‘a in lower elevation forests. Most important are competition by invasive plants, predation by feral ungulates, and the presence of other diseases, e.g., Austropuccinia psidii.
Hawaii’s dryland forests are highly endangered: more than 90% of dry forests are already lost due to habitat destruction and the spread of invasive plant and animal species. Two tree species are the focus of species-specific programs aimed at restoring them to remaining dryland forests. However, support for both programs seems precarious and requires stable long-term funding; disease resistance programs often necessitate decades-long endeavors.
naio in bloom; photo by Forrest & Kim Starr via Creative Commons
1) naio (Myoporum sandwicense)
Naio grows on all of the main Hawaiian Islands at elevations ranging from sea level to 3000 m. While it occurs in the full range of forest types from dry to wet, naio is one of two tree species that dominate upland dry forests. The other species is mamane, Sophora chrysophylla. Naio is a key forage tree for two endangered honeycreepers, palila (Loxioides bailleui) and `akiapola`au (Hemignathus munroi). The tree is also an important host of many species of native yellow-face bees (Hylaeus spp). Finally, loss of a native tree species in priority watersheds might lead to invasions by non-native plants that consume more water or increase runoff.
The invasive non-native Myoporum thrips, Klambothrips myopori, was detected on Hawai‘i Island in December 2008 (L. Kaufman website). In 2018 the thrips was found also on Oahu (work plan). The Myoporum thrips feeds on and causes galls on plants’ terminal growth. This can eventually lead to death of the plant.
Aware of thrips-caused death of plants in the Myoporum genus in California, the Hawaii Department of Lands and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife and the University of Hawai‘i began efforts to determine the insect’s distribution and infestation rates, as well as the overall health of naio populations on the Big Island. This initiative began in September 2010, nearly two years after the thrips’ detection. Scientists monitored nine protected natural habitats for four years. This monitoring program was supported by the USFS Forest Health Protection program. This program is described by Kaufman.
naio monitoring sites from L. Kaufman article
The monitoring program determined that by 2013, the thrips has spread across most of Hawi`i Island, on its own and aided by human movement of landscaping plants. More than 60% of trees being monitored had died. Infestation and dieback levels had both increased, especially at medium elevation sites. The authors feared that mortality at high elevations would increase in the future. They found no evidence that natural enemies are effective controlling naio thrips populations on Hawai`i Island.
Kaufman was skeptical that biological control would be effective. She suggested, instead, a breeding program, including hybridizing M. sandwicensis with non-Hawaiian Myoporum species that appear to be resistant to thrips. Kaufman also called for additional programs: active monitoring to prevent thrips from establishing on neighboring islands; and collection and storage of naio seeds.
Ten years later, in February 2024, DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife adopted a draft work plan for exploring possible resistance to the Myoporum thrips. Early steps include establishing a database to record data needed to track parent trees, associated propagules, and the results of tests. These data are crucial to keeping track of which trees show the most promise. Other actions will aim to hone methods and processes. Among practical questions to be answered are a) whether scientists can grow even-aged stands of naio seedlings; b) identifying the most efficient resistance screening techniques; and c) whether K. myopori thrips are naturally present in sufficient numbers to be used in tests, or – alternatively – whether they must be augmented. [Plan]
Meanwhile, scientists have begun collecting seed from unaffected or lightly affected naio in hotspots where mortality is high. They have focused on the dry and mesic forests of the western side of Hawai`i (“Big”) Island, where the largest number of naio populations still occur and are at high risk. Unfortunately, these “lingering” trees remain vulnerable to other threats, such as browsing by feral ungulates, competition with invasive plants, drought, and reduced fecundity & regeneration.
Hawai`i DLNR has secured initial funding from the Department of Defense’s REPI program to begin a pest resistance project and is seeking a partnership with University of Hawai`i to carry out tests “challenging” different naio families’ resistance to the thrips [R. Hauff pers. comm.]
wiliwili; photo by Forrest & Kim Starr
2) wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis)
Efforts to protect the wiliwili have focused on biological control. The introduced Erythrina gall wasp, Quadrastichus erythrinae (EGW) was detected on the islands in 2005. It immediately caused considerable damage to the native tree and cultivated nonnative coral trees.
A parasitic wasp, Eurytoma erythrinae, was approved for release in November 2008 – only 3 ½ years after EGW was detected on O‘ahu. The parasitic wasp quickly suppressed the gall wasp’s impacts to both wiliwili trees and non-native Erythrina. By 2024, managers are once again planting the tree in restoration projects.
However, both the gall wasp and a second insect pest – a bruchid, Specularius impressithorax – can cause loss of more than 75% of the seed crop. This damage means that the tree cannot regenerate. By 2019, Hawaiian authorities began seeking permission to release a second biocontrol gent, Aprostocitus nites.Unfortunately, the Hawai’i Department of Agriculture still has not approved the release permit despite five years having passed. Once they have this approval, the scientists will then need to ask USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for its approval [R. Hauff, pers. comm.]
SOURCES
www.RapidOhiaDeath.org
Dudley, N., R. James, R. Sniezko, P. Cannon, A. Yeh, T. Jones, & Michael Kaufmann. 2009? Operational Disease Screening Program for Resistance to Wilt in Acacia koa in Hawai`i. Hawai`i Forestry Association Newsletter August 29 2009
Dudley, N., T. Jones, K. Gerber, A.L. Ross-Davis, R.A. Sniezko, P. Cannon & J. Dobbs. 2020. Establishment of a Genetically Diverse, Disease-Resistant Acacia koa Seed Orchard in Kokee, Kauai: Early Growth, Form, & Survival. Forests 2020, 11, 1276; doi:10.3390/f11121276 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests
Friday, J. B., L. Keith, and F. Hughes. 2015. Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death (Ceratocystis Wilt of ʻŌhiʻa). PD-107, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI. URL: https://www.ctahr.HI.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/PD-107.pdf Accessed April 3, 2018.
Friday, J.B. 2018. Rapid ??hi?a Death Symposium -West Hawai`i (“West Side Symposium”) March 3rd 2018, https://vimeo.com/258704469 Accessed April 4, 2018 (see also full video archive at https://vimeo.com/user10051674)
Inman-Narahari, F., R. Hauff, S.S. Mann, I. Sprecher, & L. Hadway. Koa Action Plan: Management & research priorities for Acacia koa forestry in Hawai`i. State of Hawai`i Department of Land & Natural Resources Division of Forestry & Wildlife no date
Kaufman, L.V, J. Yalemar, M.G. Wright. In press. Classical biological control of the erythrina gall wasp, Quadrastichus erythrinae, in Hawaii: Conserving an endangered habitat. Biological Control. Vol. 142, March 2020
Loope, L. and A.M. LaRosa. 2008. ‘Ohi’a Rust (Eucalyptus Rust) (Puccinia psidii Winter) Risk Assessment for Hawai‘i.
Luiz, B.C. 2017. Understanding Ceratocystis. sp A: Growth, morphology, and host resistance. MS thesis, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo.
Luiz, B.C., C.P. Giardina, L.M. Keith, D.F. Jacobs, R.A. Sniezko, M.A. Hughes, J.B. Friday, P. Cannon, R. Hauff, K. Francisco, M.M. Chau, N. Dudley, A. Yeh, G. Asner, R.E. Martin, R. Perroy, B.J. Tucker, A. Evangelista, V. Fernandez, C. Martins-Keli’iho.omalu, K. Santos, R. Ohara. 2023. A framework for establishlishing a rapid ‘Ohi‘a death resistance program New Forests 54, 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-021-09896-5
Sniezko, R.A., N. Dudley, T. Jones, & P. Cannon. 2016. Koa wilt resistance & koa genetics – key to successful restoration & reforestation of koa (Acacia koa). Acacia koa in Hawai‘i: Facing the Future. Proceedings of the 2016 Symposium, Hilo, HI: www.TropHTIRC.org , www.ctahr.HI.edu/forestry
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 https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
