Funding Levels Reveal Low Priority for Combatting Tree-Killing Pests

As the recent article demonstrated, non-native insects and pathogens pose a unique threat to America’s forests.  See also my blog posted May 10.

As Scott Schlarbaum and I said in Fading Forests III:

“Ultimately, then, the future of American forests is in the hands of our nation’s people.  In choosing our elected representatives, holding other government officials accountable, and making our private choices, we decide the priority of  whether addressing the causes and solutions to these pest issues is a priority – and, thus, whether we will keep of our natural heritage.  There is already a strong foundation for action.”

However, American society – as reflected in its political decisions – has not put a high priority on countering this threat. We outlined the long history of inadequate funding for USDA APHIS and USFS in chapters III and VI. Also, I wrote about the appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2017 (which begins in October) in my blog posted on March 22.

$100

Recent action by the House of Representatives (see below) might signal a change. We shall have to wait to see whether this change lasts.

 

APHIS Funding

Too often, we think first of U.S. Forest Service funding as singularly important regarding non-native forest pests and pathogens. When it comes to prevention, though, its USDA’s Animal and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that is key.

Total funding for the USDA APHIS in FY17 will be on the order of $939 million. The budget for its plant health program is about $310 million.  Included in this sum are mere tens of millions for addressing tree-killing pests:

  • Tree and wood pests — $54 million in the Senate bill, but only $45.9 million in the House bill
  • “specialty crops” — $167.5 million in the House bill, $158 million in the Senate bill; with only about $5 million likely to be spent on managing the sudden oak death pathogen, especially movement of infected plants, soil, etc. in the nursery trade.

The Center for Invasive Species Prevention and others had requested the higher number for “tree and wood pests”.  We think higher funding is appropriate given the number of highly damaging wood-boring insects already in the country – e.g., Asian longhorned beetle; emerald ash borer; redbay ambrosia beetle and its associated laurel wilt pathogen; the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers and their associated pathogens … (all these species are described here).  Furthermore, there is every likelihood that additional pests will be detected in the country since the wood packaging pathways remains leaky (see the Lovett et al. article cited above and my blogs about the wood packaging material pathway posted in July through October 2015).

The House bill specifies that $15 million of the “specialty crops” money should be allocated to citrus pests and pathogens, fruit flies, a grapevine pest and a multi-host pest (light brown apple moth).

USFS Forest Health Funding

Funding levels for the USDA Forest Service also demonstrate a low priority to countering non-native tree-killing insects and pathogens.

Total funding for the USFS is about $5 billion.  In making its request for $4.9 billion, the Administration allocated only $92 million to countering threats to forest health (on both federal and non-federal lands).

The House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee has a different – and welcome – view: the House bill provides $114.6 million for forest health protection.  This is $15 million above the FY16 level and $22.55 million above the Administration’s request – a substantial increase unequaled in past years.  The accompanying committee report expresses concern about severe insect and disease threats, especially in California.  The report also notes that invasive forest pests threaten more than 58 million acres of the Nation’s forests.  The Committee encourages the Service to continue its work to assess future risks, control existing threats, research and develop new control methods, and improve the health of forest ecosystems.  Since only $5 million of the increase is to be used on non-federal lands, the “bump-up” for non-native pests will be modest.

A note of caution: the House expansion of funding for the forest health program was doubtless made easier by the House’s cuts to programs managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is funded by the same bill.)

The Senate bill follows the Administration in allocating only $92 million for forest health protection.

Not only has the Administration asked for less for the forest health program in recent years.  The funding allocations within that total trouble me.  In the current year (FY16), the USFS allocated only $20.2 million (15% of total forest health funds for this year) to specific projects targeting non-native insects or pathogens.  Nearly $10 million of these funds went to just one species – European gypsy moth.  The only other species receiving a significant proportion of the funds is hemlock woolly adelgid – HWA received $1.77 million. The second greatest allocation was to oak wilt — $466,000.  Ranking third is white pine blister rust, which was allocated $420,000.  A group of three species (goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt) received a total $587,000.  This low figure does not, in my view, reflect the great damage caused by goldspotted oak borer and laurel wilt.  Furthermore, I assume that the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers are included in this grouping, although they are not listed specifically.  Both shot hole borers threaten many tree species in southern California riparian areas, and pose a possible threat to trees in other parts of the country.  All of these species are expected to receive less funding in FY17 under the Administration’s request.  (Again, all these species are described here).

(Native pests – southern and western bark beetles – received a total of $7.2 million in FY16. Invasive plants were allocated $1.7 million.  These figures are not included in my calculations in the preceding paragraph.)

USFS Research Funding

The House appropriations bill provides just under $292 million for research – the amount requested by the Administration.   The Senate bill cut funding for research to $280 million – a cut of $11 million from the FY16 level.  Worse, the Senate also added $2 million to the share of research funding allocated to foerst inventory.  The only mention of non-native pests and diseases in the report accompanying the Senate bill is a paragraph instructing the USFS to work with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDA APHIS, and state agencies to address the threat to the Hawaiian Islands’ `ohi`a trees from the Ceratocystis fungus (the disease is described here).  This report emphasizes the importance of continuing research on forest product utilization.

Even more troubling, for years the USFS has allocated only about 3% of its total research budget to research on “pest” species (including invasive plants).  Of this total, about half – $5 million – has been allocated to projects targeting non-native insects or pathogens.  This year (FY16), the highest funding went to hemlock woolly adelgid, at $1.782 million.  The second greatest amount was allocated to emerald ash borer —  $1.168 million.

(In FY16, the non-native western bark beetles received nearly $1.4 million in research funding; invasive plants received nearly $1.9 million.  Again, these figures are not included in my calculations above. )

USFS Wildfire Funding

One explanation for the Administration’s lower funding requests is the great pressure on the USFS to fund management of wildfire.  The agency now spends more than half of its annual budget to fight wildfires.  This situation is expected to get worse as the climate warms and fires become even more frequent and intense.

The Obama Administration’s budget proposals for both FY16 and FY17 asked Congress to set up a system to pay the costs of fighting extreme wildfires in the same way it finances the federal response to other natural disasters.  When hurricanes and tornadoes cause sufficient damage to be declared disasters by the president, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is authorized to exceed its annual budget and draw on a special disaster account. The account is adjusted each year to reflect the 10-year average cost of responding to such events.  President Obama suggested creating a similar exception for USDA Forest Service and Department of the Interior.

Currently, the USFS must obtain funds through annual Congressional appropriations – which are adopted too early for an accurate assessment of that season’s likely fire damage. When fire-fighting costs exceed the appropriation, the USFS must transfer money from other accounts – setting back forest restoration projects and efforts aimed at preventing wildfires.

The Obama administration asked Congress to end the need for such transfers by appropriating 70% of the 10-year average it costs to fight wildfires each year and allowing the Forest Service access to a disaster fund.

However, the Congress has been unwilling so far to establish the disaster fund.

Conclusion

The House bill’s welcome increase for the USFS forest health protection program – if enacted – would address pests that are already widespread.  Programs aimed at preventing introductions and responding to newly detected invasions – programs operated by APHIS – do not yet enjoy sufficient support from either the Administration or the Congress.

Advocates for stronger programs to combat non-native forest pests are exploring ways to ensure additional funding for key programs, especially early detection of and rapid response to newly detected outbreaks.  You will hear more about these ideas in future!

SOURCES

Descriptions of the Administration’s fire-funding proposal can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/obama-to-propose-shift-in-wildfire-funding.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=U.S.&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/253687-obama-officials-press-congress-to-change-wildfire-funding

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

 

Junk the international phytosanitary system? One seed breeder says yes.

If you have read my earlier work, you know that I think the international phytosanitary “system” is not working well to prevent introduction of novel arthropods and pathogens that attack naïve plant hosts in the new ecosystem. For example, see my blog in May on the study of introduced forest pests with Gary Lovett as senior author; my blog in April 2016 on Phytopththoras in Europe; discussions of the problems in my reports, Fading Forests II and Fading Forests III – available here.

forum-1190786_960_720the IPPC is located in Rome

One plant breeder has read the critiques by Clive Brasier (world-famous British forest pathologist) and others and apparently concluded that the solution is not to strengthen phytosanitary measures but to abandon them! He suggests that instead of attempting to prevent pest introductions, agriculture should instead rely on new breeding technologies to rapidly breed plants that are resistant to the introduced pest.

D. Zamir (who works at the Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) has published an article in Plos 1 Biology citing Brasier’s criticisms (see Dr. Brasier’s web link above and my Phytophthora blog).  Zamir calls for the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to launch a global plant breeding project.  In his view, such a project would not only improve plant species’ resilience vis a vis pest attacks. It would also build the scientific capacity of countries with high biological diversity

Zamir says that the IPPC is waging a losing defensive strategy that imposes ever-more regulations on plant movement and exposes those who would like to move plants for various reasons to increasingly heavy penalties if they violate the rules. At the same time, the internet provides unlimited opportunities for anyone to obtain mail-ordered seed, often with free international shipping.

Citing Brasier, Zamir notes that the current phytosanitary system has the following flaws:

  1. The system ignores the approximately 90% of pathogens that are unknown to science.
  2. It assumes that potential hosts will be taxonomically related to those affected in the country of origin, whereas the host range may be much wider in the new environment.
  3. Reliance on visual evaluations fails because pathogens might be present in a form that does not cause symptoms (e.g., spores).
  4. Aggressive pathogens identified in a particular country might not be recognized as a risky pest by the international community because of inefficient global communication of such threats.

Zamir says that biological diversity drives improvements in crop productivity and resilience to diseases and environmental stresses. In his view, release of new varieties provides added value to consumers, producers, and the environment.  Breeding programs often rely on the use of wild species and local varieties for gene mapping and rapid deployment of traits.  However, Zamir complains, the international system hampers exchanges of seed among countries. It is often not possible to ascertain if the original seed used as a source of the traits was obtained in accordance with all the phytosanitary regulations. Zamir says that breeders often “cut through the red tape” by sending the seed through the mail without obtaining a phytosanitary certificate.

Zamir then proposes that people concerned about plant productivity and health in the face of growing trade volumes and vulnerability to insects and pathogens should abandon reliance measures intended to prevent introductions of pests and instead launch a massive plant breeding program.

While his focus is apparently on crop breeding, Zamir cites success in breeding elm trees resistant to the Dutch elm disease pathogens as proof that this approach can work – and that success depends on access to the full genetic variability of the target species.

Zamir concedes that he has not addressed issues of governance, financing, selection of the species to be included in the program, and how to involve the private sector.

Of course, movement of seeds across ecological barriers poses less of a risk of introducing an alien pest than does movement of whole plants or cuttings. For that reason, phytosanitary regulations governing seed movement are more lenient than those for plants and cuttings.

I consider Zamir to wildly underestimate the difficulty – nay, impossibility – of applying his approach. To date, efforts to breed trees resistant to individual pests have required decades of effort. The U.S. tree breeding system falls far short of what is needed to respond to pests already in the country (see Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III, available here). For example, American chestnut has benefitted from decades of devoted effort – but success in countering chestnut blight is not yet certain, and the tree is under attack by another half-dozen pests.  (To see a reminder of how many tree taxa are under threat from non-native pests, go to the write-ups on the Don’t Move Firewood website or re-read articles by Lovett et al. or Aukema et al. 2010 — citations provided below.)

Even though modern genetic techniques, e.g., CRISPR –Cas9, seem to promise faster and cheaper breeding methods, how would breeding programs catch up to the tidal wave of new introductions?

Furthermore, few breeding programs for North American forest trees have yet proved a capacity to restore trees to the forest.

Finally, Zamir’s proposal would compound the existing equity problem. Already, the cost, environmental degradation, and other burdens of countering pest spread lie predominantly on the receiving society – including municipal tax payers and homeowners who must remove and replace trees killed by introduced pests (see Aukema et al. 2011.) Those who profit from international trade rarely pay directly. Zamir’s proposal would exacerbate that inequity by transferring all the risk of new introductions and cost of responding to new pests to the receiving ecosystem and the broad public. Those profiting from the trade would face next to no responsibility.

Fortunately, most plant breeders engaged in moving seed internationally have taken a more productive approach to adapting the international phytosanitary system to accommodate their business. The North American countries adopted a regional standard on the seed trade (RSPM# 36) in 2012.  A draft global standard will soon be circulated for comments by the IPPC member countries.

As I have said before, I call on phytosanitary agencies and the multitude of stakeholders harmed by pest movement – including grant-making foundations; federal and state agencies; conservation non-governmental organizations; forest products companies; trade associations representing various aspects of international trade in plants, wood packaging, and other vectors; and urban tree programs and mayors – to work together to improve U.S. and international phytosanitary programs.

 

SOURCES

 

Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)

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

Campbell, F.T. and S.E. Schlarbaum. Fading Forests I, II, and III at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Lovett, G.M., M. Weiss, A.M. Liebhold, T.P. Holmes, B. Leung, K.F. Lambert, D.A. Orwig , F.T. Campbell , J. Rosenthal, D.G. McCullough, R. Wildova, M.P. Ayres, C.D. Canham, D.R. Foster, S.L. LaDeau, and T. Weldy. 2016. Nonnative forest insects and pathogens in the United States: Impacts and policy options. Ecological Applications, 0(0), 2016, pp. 1–19. DOI 10.1890/15-1176.1 Available at www.caryinstitute.org/tree-smart-trade

Zamir D (2016) Farewell to the Lose–Lose Reality of Policing Plant Imports. PLoS Biol 14(4): e1002438. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002438 Published:  April 19, 2016Available at http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002438 Or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27093460

 

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

When will invasive species get the respect they deserve from conservationists?

i`iwi birdblogger i`iwi in Hawai`i

photo from www.TheBirdBlogger.com; used with permission

 

Evidence is growing that invasive species are among THE major threats to conservation goals worldwide.

In 2015 the IUCN called invasive species the second most significant threat to those World Heritage sites around the world that have outstanding natural values. (Poaching is the greatest threat.) My October 21, 2015 blog showed that the IUCN report actually underestimated the impact of invasive species. I listed briefly the principal invaders in several U.S. National parks. Earlier blogs criticized the National Park Service for failing to regulate the movement of firewood (August 2015) and described the invasive threat to Hawai`i (earlier in October 2015).

Now a second study shows invasive species are a principal driver of species extinction. The authors assessed the prevalence of alien species as a driver of extinctions among plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (which are the best-studied taxa) post-1500 AD. Overall, 58% of extinct or extinct-in-the-wild species had been driven to extinction at least in part by invasive species. Invasive alien species are the second most common threat overall. Indeed, invasive species are the most common threat for vertebrate extinctions (62% of extinct or extinct-in-the-wild species faced threats from invasive species). Invasive species ranked fourth as a cause of extinction for plants: 27% of listed plant species were threatened by invasive species.

For those species with just a single driver of extinction, invasive species is the cause for 47% of mammals, 27% of birds, 25% of reptiles, and 17% of plants. In no case were invasive species identified as the sole threat to an amphibian species – although invasive species are their second highest threat.

Although the paper lists invasive species as second, their threat was virtually identical to that of “overexploitation”, the threat ranked first. That is, 124 out of 215 species studied were threatened at least in part by invasive species; 125 were threatened by overexploitation.

Other principal threats were overexploitation, agriculture, aquaculture, and – in the case of plants – residential and commercial development. Categories related to habitat loss ranked surprisingly low. Only 61 of the 215 cases listed agriculture and aquaculture as threats.

The authors reflect on whether invasive species are not themselves causal agents of extinction, but rather symptoms of the real causes, especially habitat destruction. They conclude that that is unlikely.

Instead, they suggest that invasive species impacts might often be underestimated, as many interactions – especially those between alien parasites and native hosts – are very hard to detect.

Not surprisingly, 86% of island endemic species had invasive species as one extinction driver. Nevertheless, continental organisms are also threatened — 14% of alien-related extinctions have been of species with mainland populations. These include eight amphibians, five birds, and six mammals. Most of these invader-threatened mainland organisms are from the Americas

Among the approximately 30 alien taxa named as extinction drivers are rats, cats, and trout as threats to other vertebrates such as birds and mammals. All three were also ranked highly as damaging invasives in the earlier IUCN report on World Heritage sites. Diseases – especially chytridiomycosis and avian malaria – were causal agents of extinction for amphibians and birds. Several herbivores – especially goats, sheep, and European rabbits – and alien plants were drivers of extinction for plant species.

Of course, outright extinction is not the only damage to biological diversity caused by invasive species. American chestnut, Fraser fir, and redbay are not extinct, but their ecological role has been virtually eliminated as the vast majority of these forest trees die off. Other tree taxa are on same road – ash and eastern hemlocks across wide expanses of their ranges; tanoaks; whitebark pines …

Invasive species pose major threats to biological diversity and other conservation goals. These damages are on top of the acknowledged threat of invasive species to agriculture, forestry, or economic groups. (See, for example, Lovett et al. 2016 discussed in my previous blog.) The role of invasive species in extinction described in this new paper suggest a long-standing bias among conservationists’ priorities. Too often, we have focused on species threatened by overexploitation – which is such easier to see and involves an obvious “villain”.

Nevertheless, a host of practical suggestions have been put forward to address the root causes of species introductions and spread. Often, these ask some or many of us to stop doing what we have been doing. But much meaningful conservation action requires someone to accept limits or to make sacrifices.

Will the conservation community – including grant-making foundations, federal and state agencies, and the many conservation non-governmental organizations ranging from the IUCN to local groups – now take up the challenge of implementing suggested actions and actively advocating for the funding needed for practical steps that will begin to bring this threat under control?

 

Sources

Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn TM. 2016 Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol. Lett. 12: 20150623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623 http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org /

 

Lovett,G.M., M. Weiss, A.M. Liebhold, T.P. Holmes, B. Leung, K.F. Lambert, D.A. Orwig , F.T. Campbell , J. Rosenthal, D.G. McCullough, R. Wildova, M.P. Ayres, C.D. Canham, D.R. Foster, S.L. LaDeau, and T. Weldy. 2016. Nonnative forest insects and pathogens in the United States: Impacts and policy options. Ecological Applications, 0(0), 2016, pp. 1–19. DOI 10.1890/15-1176.1

Available at www.caryinstitute.org/tree-smart-trade

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

Experts describe forest pests’ impact, call for action

 

Sixteen scientists and policy analysts (including me) have published a new study reviewing recent work on numbers, pathways and impacts of non-native, tree-killing insects and pathogens. I encourage you to read the article. It provides a concise and compelling overview of the threat to our wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and diseases and proposes some thought-provoking solutions.

SOD Parke diseased plant

rhododendron infected by sudden oak death; photo by Jennifer Parke, Oregon State University

Meanwhile, here are our conclusions:

Current policies for preventing introductions have reduced the numbers of pests introduced via the various pathways (e.g., wood packaging and horticultural plants – but not sufficiently to counter pests’ rising opportunities for introduction resulting from burgeoning global trade. [Emphasis mine.]

 

At the current efficacy of implementing the international regulations governing wood packaging [ISPM #15] ( Haack et al., 2014),  and given growing trade, Leung et al. 2014 project that by 2050 – just 35 years from now – up to three times as many wood-boring insects may be introduced to the U.S. as are currently here.

 

(I discussed this high risk in blogs posted at this site on July 15 and August 22, 2015.)

 

The new paper presents several options for improving prevention. These include: measures to ensure exporters ship “clean” plants and wood packaging; post-entry quarantines to raise the likelihood that pests will be detected; placing all genera of North American woody plants on USDA’s NAPPRA list of genera not currently approved for import and awaiting risk assessment; and improved surveillance and eradication programs. We also note the importance of improving data collection and allowing  researchers outside USDA access to those data to support independent evaluation of policy’s effectiveness.

 

As Aukema et al. demonstrated six years ago, non-native forest insects have accumulated in U.S. forests at a steady rate of about 2.5 per year over the last 150 yrs. While the rate of introduction has not changed, the types of insects introduced have. In the 20th Century, plant-associated insects dominated the introductions. In recent years wood-boring insects associated with wood packaging materials have dominated. Some of these wood-borers also are highly damaging! (See emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle/laurel wilt, and polyphagous shot hole borer/Fusarium here). Lack of information precludes a similar analysis for pathogens; although we all know that the 20 or so high-profile pathogens cause great devastation – see descriptions here.

 

The whole country is at risk; although the highest numbers of tree-killing insects and pathogens are established in the Northeast and Midwest, Pacific Coast states are catching up (and certainly already have their share of devastating insects and pathogens).  See the map below.  You can check the pests in your state by visiting the interactive map here .

map

map developed by USFS; published in Aukema et. al 2010.

Our new article notes that these non-native pests are the only disturbance agent that has effectively eliminated entire tree species or genera from U.S. forests in the span of decades. Follow-on effects include alterations of ecosystem functions and huge costs to various stakeholders, especially residents and governments of (sub)urban areas.

 

These impacts can persist for centuries as a result of altered species composition, which affects multiple trophic levels.

 

We followed Aukema et al. 2011’s results in estimating the direct annual economic impact of non-native forest insects to be at least:  $2 billion in municipal government expenditures, $1.5 billion in lost residential property values, and $1 billion in homeowner expenditures for tree removal and replacement or treatment. These costs and losses contrast with the paltry $216 million estimated in federal government expenditures.

 

Aukema et al. 2011 noted that these expenses cannot be summed across cost categories because of the potential for double-counting. We note that these figures are probably underestimates for several reasons. They did not include the introduced diseases such as sudden oak death. Nor do they  include pests detected recently, such as the polyphagous shot hole borer.  Finally, our paper excluded consideration of insects or pathogens native to some part of North America, such as the goldspotted oak borer. (For more information about these organisms, consult the write-ups here.)

 

As our article notes, the billions of dollars in annual economic damages (and un-quantified ecological impacts) are economic externalities. That is, the importers who benefit from the economic activity do not pay directly for preventing or responding to the associated pest introductions.

 

The article discusses several policy options that we believe would greatly reduce unacceptable risks. These options include several bold actions:

 

  • Require importers to switch from packaging made from wooden boards to packaging made from materials other than solid wood (fiberboards ok). This change is both highly protective and potentially cost-effective. Such a switch would have to be justified under the terms of international trade agreements – but given the high levels of damage caused by wood-boring pests, I don’t think that hurdle is insurmountable.
  • Greatly strengthen measures aimed at preventing pest introduction on imports of plants. One step would be restricting imports of all genera of “woody” plants native to North America by designating them as “not authorized for importation pending pest risk assessment” (NAPPRA). Another protective step would be to promptly finalize the Q-37 revision proposed by USDA in April 2013 and immediately initiate negotiations with principal foreign suppliers of temperate climate woody vegetation to implement the pest-minimization procedures contained in that revised regulation, as well as in ISPM#36.

 

Other options discussed are straight-forward and simpler:

 

  • Tighten enforcement of existing regulations by ending the practice of allowing an importer to be detected five times in a year with wood packaging that does not comply with regulatory requirements before imposing a penalty. When a new year starts, that importer gets a “clean slate”! Is this how agencies enforce regulations that they are serious about?
  • Expand efforts to assist trade partners in adopting clean trade measures.
  • Expand and integrate surveillance programs for new pest outbreaks, and providing timely and adequate funding for emergency eradication efforts.

 

SOURCES

 

Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)

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

 

Haack, R. A., K. O. Britton, E. G. Brockerhoff, J. F. Cavey, L. J. Garrett, M. Kimberley, F. Lowenstein, A. Nuding, L. J. Olson, J. Turner, and K. N. Vasilaky. 2014. Effectiveness of the international phytosanitary standard ISPM no. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States. Plos One 9:e96611.

 

Leung, B., M. R. Springborn, J. A. Turner, and E. G. Brockerhoff. 2014. Pathway-level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:273-279.

 

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

Senate Hearing on Invasive Species Policy on Federal Lands

The Public Lands Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held an oversight hearing on invasive species management on federal lands on April 28, 2016. This hearing is the result of lobbying effort by the Healthy Habitats Coalition, which drafted the initial bill and has worked for its passage for several years.  One specific aim was to gather comments on S. 2240.

yellow start thistle 1316001 Peggy Greb ARSyellow start thistle photo by Peggy Greb, USDA ARS  Bugwood # 1316001

The bill would, inter alia, require land-managing agencies to allocate their invasive species funds according to the following formula: 75% for on-the-ground activity; 15% for combined research and outreach; 10% or less for administrative costs. Priorities for federal agencies’ invasive species efforts would be set by state governors. The bill would also exempt some invasive species control programs from analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In December 2015 I posted a blog about an earlier hearing on the bill (H.R. 1485) held by the House Oversight Committee.

WHO WAS THERE?

Witnesses represented the USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Healthy Habitats Coalition, and I, representing the Center for Invasive Species Prevention and Natural Areas Association. The witnesses’ written testimony and hearing video are archived here

Senators at the hearing were Chairman Barasso (WY), Franken (MN), and Hirono (HI).  Senators Risch (ID), Hoeven (ND), and Gardner (CO) attended briefly.  About 13 Congressional staffers were there, along with an audience of 15-20 and two from the press.

In their introductions, all senators spoke about the economic damage caused by invasive species Chairman Barasso said his bill – S. 2240 — is intended to fix western complaints about the ineffectiveness of federal agencies’ efforts.  Senators Franken and Hirono agreed on the need for new tools and strategies and better coordination among actors. However, they expressed concern about some components of the bill.

At the end of the day …

The Healthy Habitats Coalition and the Wyoming Department of Agriculture support the bill. The USFS  supported the bill’s goals and emphasis on collaboration but had some concerns. BLM praised changes made from earlier versions of the bill, hopes additional clarifications will be made, and explicitly opposed the categorical exclusion from NEPA. CISP and NAA (I) opposed the bill and suggested that the Senators take other actions to strengthen federal invasive species programs.

Will the bill move forward? I think action is unlikely … It is a shame that Congress has so little concern about invasive species.  If there were a forward impetus, we could work with the Senators and Representatives to develop an approach that I think would be more productive.

Witness Statements

The administration witnesses took the usual approach, speaking about their agencies’ efforts and successes. Glenn Casamassa, USFS, noted the Service’s “leadership role” and spoke about programs across the agency. He estimated that the USFS treats ~400,000 acres per year for invasive species; the agency has restored about 2 million acres, with great success.

I question how these claims of success fit with the findings of USFS researcher Dean Pearson in Montana? I blogged about his studies in January. Pearson found that both invasion by alien forbs such as spotted knapweed and weed control efforts using either herbicides or grazing can lead to suppression of the native forbs. Furthermore, suppressing invasion by one set of plants – whatever the strategy used – often facilitates a secondary invasion by some other plant species that might cause greater changes to the system or that are harder to control. Such secondary invasions are likely any time a “strong” invaders relatively insensitive to the control method used is present.  Often this secondary invader is cheatgrass.

Mike Pool, BLM, noted that invasive plants occupy ~79 million acres of lands it manages and described particular successes in CO and NM. Key is a comprehensive and coordinated response.

Doug Miyamoto, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, said S. 2240 would rely on local leadership; ensure consistent commitment by federal partners; specify a goal of reducing invasive species’ acreage by  5% annually; and halt delays caused by NEPA compliance. As an example, he cited a four-year delay in managing a USFS site following fire, which resulted in doubling of cheatgrass extent.

George Beck, a weed scientist at Colorado State University, representing the Healthy Habitats Coalition, took Federal agencies to task for inconsistent budgets; lack of cooperation; lack of coordination with states; and using NEPA as an excuse for delays. Not expecting leadership from the federal government, he called on Congress to enact binding requirements through S. 2240.

Faith Campbell, representing CISP and the Natural Areas Association. I agreed that Federal leadership has fallen short and that the Nation needs a comprehensive invasive species program. I raised concerns about provisions of S. 2240:

  • Funding allocations would undercut essential research, outreach, and other activities aimed at development and implementation of effective tools;
  • These restrictions are exacerbated when combined with the unrealistic goal of bringing about 5% per year net reduction in invasive species populations;
  • New reporting and coordination requirements that might further delay needed actions;
  • Priorities in managing invasive species on national lands should reflect the national perspective, not be set by states’ governors.
  • The NEPA Categorical Exclusion could expose the environment to additional damage.

I called on the Senators to take several practical steps:

  1. Amend the Lacey Act to enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to
  • apply scientific risk assessment tools in evaluating species proposed for importation;
  • act quickly when confronted by an emergency.

Plus clarify FWS’ authority to regulate

  • all animal taxa (in coordination with USDA);
  • the threat to wildlife from disease; and
  • interstate movement of species already listed under the Lacey Act as “injurious”.
  1. Provide higher appropriations for key agencies: APHIS, FWS, EPA, Corps of Engineers, and the land and water-managing agencies.
  2. Conduct oversight hearings at which Senators ask Secretaries (of USDA & USDI) and their Assistant/Under secretaries about their efforts to address invasive species, specifically:
    • Has the USFS implemented its 2011 internal directive amending the Forest Service Manual? (The directive calls for integrating invasive species activities across programs on National forests and grasslands.)
    • Why has neither the USFS nor NPS adopted a nation-wide policy to limit campground visitors from bringing their own firewood?
    • Has/when will the Council on Environmental Quality collaborate with the National Invasive Species Council re to develop guidance on applying the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to invasive species management?
  3. Ensure that when the Senate confirms nomimees to be new secretaries or assistant/under secretaries of USDI and USDA in 2017, those nominees are asked about their goals with regard to invasive species prevention and management.

Questions from the Senators

Much of the discussion centered around the bill’s language excluding invasive species control programs from NEPA. Chairman Barrasso, Miyamoto of Wyoming, and Beck all said NEPA compliance had caused damaging delays and described the Categorical Exclusion language in the bill as “limited”.

Pool said BLM has successfully used programmatic environmental impact statements to evaluate options over large areas ahead of time in order to act quickly in a crisis. Pool said that BLM distinguishes between catastrophic wildfire – when no NEPA analysis is required; When deciding how to respond to long-lived problems that affect hundreds of thousands of acres, BLM  wants to inform and engage the public – and NEPA  is a good process to do that.

Casamassa said USFS emergency responses on significant burned areas are not subject to NEPA; instead its actions are guided by Forest Plans.  He supported rulemaking to clarify the bill’s categorical exclusions for invasive species.

I opposed a NEPA Categorical Exclusion because all actions – even those based on good intentions – have downsides that need to be evaluated. (See discussion of Pearson’s research from my blog in December.) APHIS has used programmatic EIS to help agency move quickly. I expressed frustration that CEQ has stonewalled NISC on developing guidance.

(Whether the NEPA exemption is “limited” is open to discussion!  It would apply to projects on federal lands that are or will be “located in a prioritized, high-risk area” and treat invasive species within 1,000 feet of, inter alia, a water body or waterway; a railroad line or roadside; a water project; a utility or telephone infrastructure or right-of-way; a campground; a National Heritage Area or National Monument; a park or other recreational site; a school; or “any other similar, valuable infrastructure”.)

In response to Chariman Barasso’s question about the Early Detection/Rapid Response plan recently released by the National Invasive Species Council, Beck said that in his view states should take the lead in slowing the spread of species within the country.  He criticized federal agencies’ failure to halt new introductions.

Senator Franken expressed dismay that only one of the five witnesses’ written statements mentioned climate change as a factor re: invasive species. In response, the USFS and BLM stressed their efforts to adapt.

Senator Hirono asked whether the prescribed funding allocations in S. 2240 (75% for “on the ground” work; 15% for research and outreach combined; 10% for administration, including strategy and oversight) would hamper needed actions?  She cited the need for research to develop tools to manage the sudden `ohi`a death fungus [described as “ohia wilt” here.]  Casamassa of the USFS said the agency’s spending on invasive species is already close to the S. 2240 funding allocation.  Nevertheless, the agency would sometimes need greater flexibility. On the other hand, Beck said research on invasive species should be left to other agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and Agriculture Research Service.

Senator Hirono expressed concern that the bill’s requirement that agencies use the “least costly” method would expand use of pesticides – an approach that concerns Hawaiians.

Senator Hirono asked Campbell whether the 5% reduction goal is do-able? Especially re: insects and pathogens? I replied that all agencies are dealing with hundreds of invasive species at a time. Many of the insects and pathogens – as well as the aquatics – can’t even be detected, much less the extent of invasion. Managers lack tools to reduce their extent.  I also worried that the 5% goal will put pressure on agencies to tackle easily measured invasive species e.g., plants, and ignore others.

Chairman Barrasso concluded the hearing by telling me that he thinks our views are not mutually exclusive. He sees the need for both prevention and control of widespread species.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell & Phyllis Windle

 

European study buttresses case for revolutionary changes to phytosanitary system

PHYTRA_06[1]

rhododendron in Europe sickened by P. ramorum; photo from EPPO website

 

A recently published study by European researchers [Jung, T. et al. 2015] documents the failure of current European and global phytosanitary programs and calls for “a new holistic and integrated systems approach”.  The authors specifically criticize Article VI.2 of the International Plant Protection Convention  because it requires that a plant pest be identified and its risks assessed before a country may adopt a phytosanitary measures.  The authors call this requirement “paradoxical” given the large number of potentially damaging plant pests that remain unknown to science.

 

The study focuses on the genus Phytophthora, which contains about 150 identified species and perhaps 500 species not yet identified by scientists.  The identified species include plant pathogens which are responsible for more than 66% of all fine root diseases & more than 90% of all collar rots of woody plant species.  Examples include the pathogens responsible for the Irish potato famine, sudden oak death, Port-Orford-cedar root disease, the die-off of many endemic plant species in Western Australia and damage to many other species in Europe and North America, and mortality and decline of oaks and alders across Europe.

 

The authors note that

  • Most of the ~150 currently known species and designated taxa of Phytophthora were unknown to science before they turned up in new environments on other continents as invasive aggressive pathogens of native plants.
  • Forty-four of the 64 Phytophthora taxa detected in the present study were unknown to science before 1990.
  • None of the 59 putatively exotic Phytophthora taxa detected in the present study had been intercepted at European ports of entry. (Some of these introductions are known to be recent; see UK reports on the 4th P. ramorum lineage ) and P. lawsonii detections in the U.K., France and the Netherlands in 2010.)
  • In many cases, had a Phytophthora been detected, the detection would not have resulted in rejection of the shipment because only 5 Phytophthora species are regulated under European regulations.
  • Spread of the quarantine organism ramorum was not halted despite the presence of strict quarantine regulations.

 

I have written several times about the threat to U.S. trees and forests from insects and – especially – pathogens introduced via the trade in live plants; see Fading Forests II and III .  Fading Forests II discusses the threat from unknown pests and the roadblocks to managing that threat raised by the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the implementing procedures adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention.  Fading Forests III discusses USDA APHIS efforts to adopt more effective regulatory approaches through adoption of both international and regional standards (ISPM#36 and RSPM#24) and revision of its own Q-37 regulations.

Jung and his 65 (!) coauthors present some frightening facts about the situation in European nurseries and forest, landscape, and ornamental plantings:

  • They found a total of 68 Phytophthora taxa (species, informally designated taxa, and previously unknown taxa). 49 taxa were found in nurseries, 56 in forest and landscape plantings.
  • 91% of the 732 nurseries analyzed had at least 1 Phytophthora taxon present; in the 101 infested nurseries in which more than 5 stands were tested, an average of 3.6 Phytophthora taxa per nursery were detected
  • 66% of forest & landscape plantings had at least 1 Phytophthora taxon present
  • The majority of infested plants in nurseries did not display symptoms; the sampling methods for plantings relied to a large extent on symptoms, so the presence of symptomless plants could not be evaluated.
  • Hundreds of previously unknown Phytophthora–host associations were observed.
  • One or more of 19 Phytophthora which can attack native European or widely-planted trees and shubs were isolated from 84% of ornamental planted stands. Two such pathogens were detected in 11.8% of those stands.
  • In a single British ornamental and amenity planting, 15 different Phytophthora taxa were isolated from 33 different species and varieties of plants. Smaller numbers were isolated from smaller numbers of sampled plants in other countries.
  • The infestation rate for various types of plantings ranged from 94% for riparian plantings through 83.1% for horticultural plantings to 79.3% for forest plantings. About half of amenity and ornamental plantings had one or more infestations.
  • 64% of oak plantings were infested by at least one Phytophthora species associated with decline of mature oak stands. Eight of the 9 plantings of Laurus nobilis in Spain and the UK hosted Phytophthora. Rates varied for other types of trees.
  • In total, 755 ornamental plantings of 281 broadleaved woody and herbaceous species were sampled in 8 countries. 45% had at least one of the 21 Phytophthora taxa known to damage a wide range of European and widely planted exotic tree and shrub species. About 10% of the tested stands had more than one.

 

As the authors state, their results clearly demonstrate that the vast preponderance of nursery stands across Europe are infested by a large array of Phytophthora species.  Nurseries and other plantings relied on as sources of plants for afforestation and other outplantings are routinely infected by the most aggressive Phytophthora pathogens that attack the respective tree or crop species. The result is continuous high-frequency spread of these aggressive pathogens to planted forests and horticultural systems — and will inevitably result in their introduction to the wider environment.

 

They estimate that 4.8 million ha of the 6 million ha of new forests planted in Europe over the past 20 years are potentially infested by Phytophthora pathogens.  Another 17.6 million ha of forests replanted after harvesting or fire were possibly established with Phytophthora-infested nursery stock.

 

Why has this happened? The authors note that under current nursery growing practices, individual plants often flow largely unregulated through several nurseries both within and between countries before being sold to a consumer. In addition, such common nursery practices as reusing containers, irrigating with unfiltered surface water or recirculated water, poor drainage and failure to remove dead plants and debris all contribute to establishment and spread of Phythothora.  These same criticisms have been made by U.S. scientists – and incorporated into APHIS’ revised regulations for management of sudden oak death and the nursery-regulatory SANC program now being tested.

 

Is the situation equally bad in North America?  Jung et al. cite several publications that cumulatively demonstrate high infestation rates of U.S. ornamental nurseries with at least 31 Phytophthora species.  They say that the situation in forest nurseries is largely unknown.

Certainly both continents are at high risk of additional introductions.  U.S. plant imports reached 3.2 billion in 2007 (Liebhold et al. 2012). I am unaware of a more recent calculation … In 2010, ten European countries cumulatively imported 4.3 billion living plants from overseas; almost all were imported first to the Netherlands.  The principal source was Africa (3.6 billion). Asia shipped 456 million plants; North America 181 million; South America 81 million; Oceania only 2.4 million plants. Between 2007 and 2010, the volume of imported woody plants increased by 44%, and in 2010, the proportion of woody plants reached 20.8% of all imported plants.  Only 3% of the imported consignments are subject to phytosanitary inspections.

 

As Jung et al. note, their study joins an ever-longer list of analyses that have concluded that current international plant health protocols based on random visual inspections for symptoms of listed quarantine organisms have failed and must be changed fundamentally.  (See, for example, the writing of Clive Brasier  and the Montesclaros Declaration.

 

Jung et al. call for adoption of a pathway regulation approach based on pathway risk analyses, and risk-based inspection regimes performed by an adequate number of skilled staff using molecular high-throughput detection tools. Nurseries wishing to ship plants internationally would have to comply with mandatory best practices. The requirements must be supported by rigorous enforcement and bold outreach campaigns. This approach would minimize the risks of further introductions and dissemination of both known and, even more importantly, unknown potential pathogens.

 

MY CONCLUSION

 

Revising the international phytosanitary regime will be difficult, requiring 170 countries to agree to amend both the World Trade Organization’s SPS Agreement and the International Plant Protection Convention. The difficulties will be not only political. Allowing countries to regulate unknown organisms that are potential pests will open a door to protectionist restrictions.  The countries that wrote these agreements have long sought to block protectionist restrictions by requiring that phytosanitary measures be based on scientific analyses of specific risks.

 

However, as Jung et al. – and before them many others, especially Clive Brasier  – have demonstrated, the current requirement that each pathogen be identified and its risk analyzed before  regulations are adopted is counter to the scientific fact that most pathogens and arthropods are not known to science.  The knowledge gap is many times greater when the question is how those microorganisms and arthropods will interact with millions of plant species if introduced to novel habitats.

 

Meanwhile, USDA APHIS has begun trying to close some of the regulatory gaps.  In 2011 APHIS adopted regulations creating a temporary holding category, called “Not Authorized (for importation) Pending Pest Risk Analysis,” or NAPPRA. Now, APHIS has authority to temporarily prohibit import of certain types of plants, from specific countries of origin, that it considers to pose a particular pest risk. The temporary ban gives APHIS time to complete a pest risk analysis and then enact appropriate safeguards to ensure that imported plants will be as pest-free as possible.  However, APHIS has been unable to utilize this new power.  The agency proposed a second round of “NAPPRA” species in May 2013, but nearly 3 years later it has not finalized that action. Even if fully implemented, NAPPRA does not address the problem of unknown pests and pathogens.

 

APHIS has also proposed a major revision of its plant import regulations (called “Q-37”).  This change would implement the IPPC standard on living plants (ISPM#36) and authorize APHIS to require foreign suppliers of plants to apply hazard identification and mitigation practices to ensure plants are pest-free. APHIS proposed this rule change 3 years ago, in 2013.  Again, the change has not yet been finalized.

 

What You Can Do

Write to your member of Congress and Senators and ask them to urge the Secretary of Agriculture to finalize the two pending regulations – to add the second round of species to the NAPPRA list and to update the Q-37 regulations.

 

SOURCES

Jung, T. et al. 2015 “Widespread Phytophthora infestations in European nurseries put forest, semi-natural and horticultural ecosystems at high risk of Phytophthora disease” Forest Pathology. November 2015; available from Resource Gate

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

 

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

Time to view “Trees in Trouble”!

ash & sky

Andrea Torrice’s film “Trees in Trouble: Saving America’s Urban Forests” depicts the impact of non-native tree-killing insects and diseases.

The film is being broadcast in April as part of Earth Day and Arbor Day programming on the PBS World Channel. Check your local public television station website for their schedule or visit the filmmaker’s site for more information.

Andrea’s film focuses on emerald ash borer in Cincinnati. It explores our connections to the trees and forests in our communities – and the threats to those trees. Featured experts and speakers include Prof. Dan Herms of Ohio State, Jenny Gulcik, a community forestry consultant, and Cincinnati Council member Wendell Young.

Because of the high value of urban trees, these pests’ greatest economic damage is in urban and suburban areas.  [See my earlier blogs about the wood packaging pathway and this study: Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)]

Nor is this damage limited to southern Ohio – or even the Northeast broadly. Such pests are usually introduced first in cities – not necessarily ports! – because that is where crates and pallets, imported ornamental plants, and other articles to which pests attach arrive.  Furthermore, trees along streets and in yards and parks are often more vulnerable than forest trees to such introduced pests because they are often subject to other stresses such as soil compaction, air pollution, elevated temperatures, and salt exposure.  Finally, city trees are often planted as multiple individuals of the same species; when a pest that attacks that species arrives, entire neighborhoods can lose their tree canopy – and the real values that canopy provides.

See the film. Ask your friends to watch it!  Be inspired by the film to contact members of Congress to ask that they support programs aimed at preventing tree pest introductions.  (These programs are operated by APHIS; see my blog about APHIS’ funding needs posted in March.)

If you want to do more – visit the “resources” page of the filmmaker’s website to obtain toolkits for outreach and hosting an event.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

Threats to America’s Magnificent Oaks

Oak trees are immensely symbolic to many people and many are magnificent. Congress even designated the red oak as America’s “national tree”.

5504878

Photo of Q. rubra leaves by Becca MacDonald, Sault College; www.bugwood.org

 

Of course, there are many kinds – from those that span many states to those that grow in just some special areas. USDA’s Plants database lists more than 300 native species for the U.S. alone.  Many provide substantial ecosystem services and all parts of the country would be poorer without them.

Despite our oaks’ importance, we are doing far too little to protect them from the full range of non-native insects and diseases that pose threats.

CURRENT THREATS IN THE EAST

In the East (from the Atlantic to the Great Plains), oaks are under attack from at least four non-native pests:

  • One of these, the European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), is the target of major containment and suppression programs operated by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the US Forest Service and the states. In fact, the US Forest Service spends half of its entire budget for studying and managing non-native pests on the European gypsy moth. In part, this is because the European gypsy moth is so widespread, with outbreaks from Nova Scotia to Wisconsin and south across eastern Ohio to Virginia. (See the map of EGM range here). It also attacks a wide range of tree and shrub species.

But other oak-killing insects and diseases, some with the potential to be at least as damaging, receive far fewer resources.

  • Oak wilt (caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum) is widespread from central Pennsylvania across Iowa, down the Appalachians in West Virginia and North Carolina-Tennessee border, in northern Arkansas and with large areas affected in central Texas. There is an isolated outbreak in New York State.  (See map here). According to the US Forest Service, oak wilt is one of the most serious tree diseases in the eastern U.S.  It attacks primarily red oaks and live oaks. It is spread by both bark-boring beetles and root grafts.
  • From Long Island along the coast into Nova Scotia and into central Massachusetts, oaks are being killed by the winter moth (Operophtera brumata). Like the gypsy moth, the winter moth has a wide host range. (For more information, see here). A small program led by Joseph Elkington of the University of Massachusetts has focused on biocontrol.  Biocontrol agents have successfully reduced winter moth damage in Nova Scotia and the Pacific Northwest. First results are promising in New England.

CURRENT THREATS IN THE WEST

In the West, millions of oaks have been killed by several pathogens and insects that are established and spreading; and additional threats loom.

  • Coast live oaks, canyon live oaks, California black oaks, Shreve’s oaks, and tanoaks growing in coastal forests from Monterey County north to southern Oregon that catch fog/rain are being killed by sudden oak death and here. Sudden oak death has killed over one million tanoaks as well as hundreds of thousands of coast live oaks and other trees. In early days of the infestation, Oregon – with considerable help from the US Forest Service – tried to eradicate a small infestation in Curry County. The inherent difficulty in managing a pathogen and interruptions in funding caused that effort to fail. The state is now focused on trying to slow spread of the disease.
  • In California, coast live oaks, black oaks, and canyon oaks in the southern part of the state – primarily in San Diego County, but also parts of San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles counties – are being killed by goldspotted oak borer and here.  At least 100,000 black oaks have been killed in less than 20 years.  Neither the State of California nor USDA APHIS has adopted regulations aimed at preventing spread of the goldspotted oak borer, despite oaks being at risk throughout California.
  • Two more wood-boring beetles threaten oaks in southern California. In five counties in the region, coast live oaks, canyon live oaks, Engelman oaks, and valley oaks – and many other kinds of trees – are being killed by a disease transmitted by the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers and here.  The polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers attack more than 300 plant species, including tree species that anchor the region’s riparian areas as well as half of the trees planted in urban areas of the region.
  • Also, oaks on the West coast would be attacked by gypsy moths should they reach the area. The risk is two-fold – the Asian gypsy moth continually is carried to the area on ships bearing imports from Asia (as discussed in my blog in March). And the European gypsy moth is sometimes taken across the country on travellers’ vehicles, outdoor furniture, or firewood. Both the West Coast states and USDA search vigilantly for any signs of gypsy moth arrival.

Or course, other non-native pests can also be introduced or spread to new, vulnerable, areas. I have blogged about the risk to the East from sudden-oak-death infested plants moving in the nursery trade (see blogs from July 2015). The polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers might also threaten forests in other warm regions of the country such as the Gulf Coast, where some known and potential host trees grow.

ADDITIONAL THREATS

Two apparent threats have come to our attention recently:  fungi in the genus Diplodia and another disease called foamy bark canker.  There is some uncertainty whether the insects or pathogens are non-native. Both are apparently closely linked to drought stress.

  • two Diplodia fungi – Diplodia corticola and quercivora – have been detected in both Florida and California. These fungi were previously known to kill oaks in the Mediterranean region.

According to Mullerin and Smith (2015), one or both of these fungi might be native to North America. Diplodia corticola was first identified in the 1980’s in cork oaks (Quercus suber L.) in Mediterranean countries.  It has since been determined to be the cause of mortality in other species of European oaks.  D. corticola was first reported in California in 1998 in coast live oak trees (Q. agrifolia) that had been colonized by bark and ambrosia beetles. There, it has been an important factor in the deaths of thousands of acres of coast and canyon live oaks (Q. chrysolepis) since 2002 (Mullerin and Smith 2015). In California, periodic diebacks since the late 1970s have been associated with droughts.  Symptoms have mainly shown up in coast live oak (Q. agrifolia), black oak (Q. kelloggii), and valley oak (Q. lobata). Dieback is noticeable in at least 20 California counties, throughout most of the range of coast live oak. (See here.)

The first detection of D. corticola in southern Florida was in 2010; D. quercivora was detected in 2013. In Florida, these fungi attack live oaks (Quercus virginiana).  Almost all the symptomatic trees in Florida grow in cultivated settings where they are exposed to various stresses. In addition, most of the state experienced severe drought in 2010, the year reports of dieback began (Mullerin and Smith 2015).

Host range studies indicate that 33 species of oaks and one species of chestnut that grow in the Southeast are vulnerable, to varying degrees, to D. corticola. Oaks in the red oak group (Section Lobatae) are more vulnerable than are white oaks (Section Quercus) (Mullerin and Smith 2015). In the test, the most vulnerable appear to be the following species native to the Southeast: Q. laurifolia, Q. virginiana, Q. geminata, Q. chapmanni, Q. laevis (turkey oak), Q. phellos, Q. pumila, and Q. incana. (source: poster presented by  Dreaden, Black, Mullerin, Smith at the 2016 USDA Invasive Species Research Forum.)

It is unknown how Diplodia corticola & Diplodia quercivora colonize oaks. However, members of the family (Botryosphaeriaceae) generally enter plants through wounds, including leaf scars, or stomata open for gas exchange. They often live harmlessly as endophytes within the plant, becoming pathogenic when the plant is stressed by environmental factors such as drought, flooding, heat, freezing, herbicide use, or soil compaction (Mullerin and Smith 2015).

 

  • Foamy bark canker is new disease of oak species caused by a newly discovered species of species of fungus (Geosmithia pallida). The pathogen is vectored by the Western oak bark beetle (Pseudopityophthorus pubipennis). The disease complex has great potential to cause extensive damage to oaks in California.  Still little is known about the disease’ overall distribution, establishment and incidence.

Declining coast live oak trees have been observed since 2012 throughout urban landscapes in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Monterey counties in California. Fungal colonies were observed within beetle galleries (Lynch et al. 2014). The Western oak bark beetle is thought to be a native. It commonly attacks trees weakened by other agents; it has not previously been associated with disease. However, the disease vector might be a different, similar beetle; scientists are collecting more, from a larger geographic area, to determine whether it is the native species or something else.  In Europe, the fungus appears to have be associated with a range of bark-boring insects and is widely distributed. There is no previous published record of the fungus occurring in the United States (Lynch et al. 2014).

Symptoms can be viewed here.

SOURCES

Dreaden, T. A. Black, S. Mullerin, and J. Smith risk to oaks from Diplodia cor+cola and D. quercivora, two emergent fungal pathogens (poster at Annapolis 2016) Includes map showing distribution in Florida.

Drill,S. New pest alert for Foamy Canker Disease on Coast Live Oak. 2014. http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=13707

Lynch, S.C., D.H. Wang,  J.S. Mayorquin, P.F. Rugman-Jones, R. Stouthamer, A. Eskalen. 2014. First Report of Geosmithia pallida Causing Foamy Bark Canker, a New Disease on Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), in Association with Pseudopityophthorus pubipennis in California. APS Journals Plant DiseaseSeptember 2014, Volume 98, Number 9 Page 1276 http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-03-14-0273-PDNhttp://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-03-14-0273-PDN

Lynch, S., S. Rooney-Latham, A. Eskalen. [DATE?]  Foamy Bark Canker A New Insect-Disease Complex on Coast Live Oak in California Caused by Western Oak Bark Beetle and Geosmithia sp.

Mullerin, S. & J.A. Smith. 2015. Bot Canker of Oak in FL Caused by Diplodia corticola & D. quercivora. Emergent Pathogens on Oak and Grapevine in North America. FOR318

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

Eradicate ALB – of course! But what about the other pests?

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is the target of most of APHIS’ spending on non-native, tree-killing insects and pathogens. I have been on the record for 18 years – representing a sequence of three organizations – supporting ALB eradication efforts. But other damaging pests do not get adequate attention. Much of the explanation is probably money – APHIS is inadequately funded. But why have the other tree-killers slipped from the attention of politically important constituencies? How do we reverse this situation so that needed actions are taken?

The ALB Eradication Effort

After consulting several sources — Haack 2009, periodic news releases by APHIS and the Ohio Department of Agriculture – I conclude that in the 20 years since ALB was detected in Brooklyn in 1996, US and Canadian authorities have removed at least 188,000 trees. Data on the numbers of high-risk trees treated with systemic pesticides are much less complete. However, it appears from these same sources that U.S. and state authorities have treated more than 800,000 trees. Easily available data do not reveal how many of the treated trees were later found to be infested and therefore had to be cut down. I do hope agency and academic scientists are tracking that information – it is crucial to evaluating the efficacy of programs that allow treatment of “high risk” trees instead of removing them. A related issue is how many trees at early stages of infestation are missed by surveyors.

In carrying out the eradication program over 20 years, APHIS has spent about $600 million (Santos pers. comm.;  US Department of the Interior 2016). Canada has spent far less – something more than $35 million Canadian (Marcotte pers. comm.).

In FY15 APHIS allocated $41.6 million to eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle [US DoI 2016]. This represented 77% of all funds in the agency’s “Tree and Wood Pests” account. The President’s FY17 budget calls for cutting funding for this account from its current level of $54 million to $46 million. If Congress accepts President’s proposed cut and funding for ALB eradication remains at the FY15 level, the proportion allocated to this one pest would rise to 90% of the total account. Perhaps APHIS anticipates spending less on the ALB program. APHIS has announced (USDA news release) that it will  no longer apply systemic pesticides to “high-risk” trees in order to prevent beetle infestation. Instead, the program will focus on identifying and removing infested trees. I worry that with ALB outbreaks still present in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, any reduction in the program would be risky. (Official USDA budget documents don’t provide an explicit funding level for the ALB program, so we can’t be sure whether cuts are planned.)

Certainly, ALB eradication deserves continued priority. The beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families – especially maples and birches, which constitute much of the hardwood forest reaching from Maine to Minnesota, as well as urban trees worth an estimated $600 billion. Furthermore, adequately funded eradication efforts have proven to be a successful tactic.

pshb_1PSHB damage to coast live oak;

photo by Akif Eskalen, UCRiverside

Other tree-killing insects are being ignored

However, other species need to be addressed, too. If these efforts are to succeed, they need more than the leftovers from funding ALB work.

Some funds are available through the Farm Bill Section 10007 “Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program” grant program. Still …

The Asian gypsy moth demands constant attention from APHIS. That effort is ramping up in response to moth detections in the Pacific Northwest. Apparently most of the funds for this program are from the Farm Bill Section 10007 program – but how long can this funding source be sustained? (See my blog posted earlier in March.)

Efforts to eradicate the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) from Pennsylvania continue. The lanternfly attacks 25 or more plant species that grow in the Mid-Atlantic states.  Concern focuses on grapes and fruit trees including apples and stone fruits. (The lanternfly prefers tree of heaven (Ailanthus) (PA DoA) but the insect’s host range is too wide to use it as a biocontrol agent for this widespread invasive plant. The spotted lanternfly entered country as egg masses attached to imported slate. It has been detected in four counties in southeastern Pennsylvania ]

What is – or should be – done about the 20 species of non-native wood-boring and bark insects that have been detected for the first time in the United States over just the past decade? While some appear not to be causing major damage, that impression could be wrong. The polyphagous shot hole borer was first detected in California in 2003 ]. It has taken over 10 years to determine that the PSHB and very similar Kuroshio shot hole borer transport fungi that threaten over 300 plant species, including trees that make up the majority of trees in riparian areas and half of the trees planted in urban areas across southern California.

Tree species in other warm regions of the country such as the Gulf Coast are also at risk if the shot hole borers’ spread is not curtailed. Examples include native boxelder and American sweetgum; as well as such widely planted ornamentals as camellia, mimosa, and Japanese maple. The insects and the Fusarium pathogen that they transport might also attack other species in the oak, maple, sycamore, holly, and willow genera which grow in the Southeast.

Other funding needs

APHIS needs to continue efforts to slow the spread of and reduce impacts on forests from the emerald ash borer, including by continuing to support programs aimed at curtailing movement of firewood. While the emerald ash borer has spread to 25 states, significant areas of natural and urban ash forests remain pest-free, especially in the deep South, Great Plains, and Pacific Coast. APHIS might also continue funding research aimed at improving both biological control and breeding of ash trees resistant to the emerald ash borer.  See my blog about resistance breeding posted in February.

APHIS must also have sufficient resources to respond when additional insect introduction are detected – which seems likely since an estimated 35 shipping containers entering the country each day carry wood packaging infested by damaging pests. [see my blogs about wood packaging posted in July and August 2015 and the SWPM fact sheets.

And – as the AGM and spotted lanternfly examples demonstrate – the risk of introduction of tree-killing insects goes far beyond imports of “agricultural” commodities – even when those commodities are widely interpreted to include wooden crates and pallets.

Please re-visit my blogs of 22 February to learn the details of funding issues and then contact your Representative and Senators to support increased funding for APHIS.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

 

SOURCES

Haack, R.A., F. Herard, J. Sun, J.J. Turgeon. 2009. Managing Invasive Populations of Asian Longhorned Beetle and Citrus Longhorned Beetle: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010. 55:521-46.

Marcotte, M. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Email to F.T. Campbell 29 April, 2013.

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture: Agriculture Secretary Urges Consumers to Help Keep Foreign Insect from Spreading through Pennsylvania, United States ​News for Immediate Release Nov. 3, 2014

Santos, R. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Email to F.T. Campbell, April 12, 2013.

USDA APHIS NEWS RELEASE   3/28/16

Contact: Rhonda Santos, (508) 852-8044, rhonda.j.santos@aphis.usda.gov

Suzanne Bond, (301) 851-4070, suzanne.m.bond@aphis.usda.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Safeguarding America’s lands and waters from invasive species: A national framework for early detection and rapid response, Washington D.C., 55p.

 

Asian gypsy moth – the risk is still too high

The Asian gypsy moth would be more damaging than the European gypsy moth because it feeds on a wider range of plants – including conifers – and the female flies – speeding up its spread.

lymdi18Asian gypsy moth; John H. Ghent; bugwood.org

The United States and Canada have a joint program – under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (see RSPM #33 here) aimed at preventing introduction of species of gypsy moths native to Asia. The principal risk arises from moths attaching their egg masses to ships (and containers on deck) when the ships visit ports in Far Eastern Russia, China, Korea, and Japan.  The NAPPO standard originally went into force in March 2012.  Under its terms, ships leaving ports in those countries during gypsy moth flight season must be inspected and cleaned before starting their voyage.

 

Gypsy moth populations rise and fall periodically; thus, it is much more likely that egg masses will be attached to ships during years of high moth population densities.

 

These variations are seen in U.S. and Canadian detection reports.

AGM Interceptions by year

United States                            Canada

2010                 4

2011                21

2012                44                                32

2013                42                                33

2014                76                                39

2015                  7                                15

 

(U.S. data from Kevin Harriger, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, at the 2015 meeting of the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases [http://continentalforestdialogue.org/continental-dialogue-meeting-november-2015/] ; Canadian data from Wendy Asbil, National Manager, Invasive Alien Species and Domestic Plant Health Programs Section, Plant Health and Biosecurity Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

 

While most AGM detections are at West Coast ports, the risk is not limited to that region. In 2013, Asian gypsy moths were detected at Baltimore, MD; Charleston, SC; Savanna and Brunswick, GA; Jacksonville, FL; New Orleans, LA; Houston and Corpus Christi, TX; and McAlester, OK.

Well aware of the risk associated with ships, U.S. and Canadian customs officials are vigilant in conducting inspections; if egg masses are found, the ships are required to return to international waters and clean off the egg masses.  The ships are inspected again before they are allowed back into port.  The process delays deliveries that are often on tight schedules and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

However, the risk is not limited to the ships themselves.  In 2014, more than 500 Asian gypsy moth egg masses were found on four shipments of imported steel slabs arriving at ports on the Columbia River. Efforts were made to clean the more than 5,000 steel slabs, but some egg masses were still present after the cleaning.  The steel was then sent to a furnace for final processing; the furnace heated the steel to  more than 2,000oF – sufficient to kill any remaining eggs! Still … (report by APHIS: Asian Gypsy Moth interceptions and mitigation of risk at Columbia River Ports of Entry, 2014. 18 February 2015)

 

Some question whether a global company with annual earnings close to $2 billion can be persuaded to take the necessary steps to ensure that its imports are free of gypsy moth eggs.  The cleanup costs charged  by APHIS would be minimal.

 

Besides, cleaning large steel plates is apparently difficult and probably requires fumigation with methyl bromide – which must be administered in a closed facility with appropriate safety measures.

Implementing the NAPPO standard that presents a unified front to Asian exporters – they must clean ships headed to North America – clearly has reduced the risk of introduction of Asian gypsy moths.  But the smaller risk remains.  Indeed, Oregon and Washington occasionally catch small numbers of Asian gypsy moths in their traps.  In 2015, ten Asian gypsy moths were trapped in Washington State (Report of the Technical Working Group for the Response to Asian Gypsy Moth Captures Washington-Oregon  2015 October 30, 2015).

Oregon caught two Asian gypsy moths in the Portland area (15,000 traps had been placed statewide; the state also trapped 12 European gypsy moths). Previous detections of Asian gypsy moth in Oregon were one each in 1991, 2000, and 2006. Two of these moths were trapped near the location of the 2015 detections.  A vessel that called at Tacoma in January 2013 had 275 egg masses.

The Asian gypsy moths were caught in traps across a broad area, including eight captures around  southern Puget Sound and three in the Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA area.  For these and other reasons, experts concluded that it is likely that females moths are also present in one or more of these areas (Report of the Technical Working Group for the Response to Asian Gypsy Moth Captures Washington-Oregon  2015 October 30, 2015).

The expert group recommended enhanced trapping plus eradication at the four sites where captures were clustered. The group discussed the pros and cons of various approaches, including spraying with Btk, Diflubenzuron (“Dimilin”), or Tebufenozide (“Mimic”); or with Gypchek (gypsy moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus); and  augmentation of spray programs by releasing sterile males.

Both Washington and Oregon plan gypsy moth eradication measures in 2016.  Washington plans to treat 10,500 acres at seven locations in Pierce and Thurston counties (both at the southern end of Puget Sound).   Oregon will spray in several places in northern and northwest Portland.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell