Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Invasive Plants: a major threat to forests of the East

Go anywhere in the woods of the East, you are likely to see Japanese or shrub honeysuckles, multiflora rose, privets, Japanese stiltgrass, garlic mustard, Chinese tallowtree, … .

Japanese honeysuckle; Chuck Bargeron; Bugwood.org

A new study confirms how widespread these invasive plants are.

Christopher Oswalt and colleagues (2016) have studied the data from the national Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program of the United States Forest Service. They found that almost 40% of forests in the United States are invaded by alien plant species. Furthermore, forests in the eastern United States have been invaded by more invasive plant species than those in the West.

Large numbers of invasive plants are established in the United States. As I noted in this blog in January, nearly 10,000 non-native plant species are present, although not all are invasive. (See Rod Randall’s report here ).
The USDA Forest Service develops region-specific lists in consultation with invasive plant experts. Then the authors normalized the data by calculating the proportion of forested subplots in each county with at least one invasive species present. Oswalt and colleagues then used this percentage to define invasion intensity for those plots that contain any invasive plants on the region or state-specific monitoring lists. They mapped the subcontinental spatial distribution of invasive plants based on this measure of “invasion intensity”.
Nationwide, 39% of forested plots sampled contained at least one invasive species. There are significant regional differences. To no-one’s surprise, Hawai`i had the highest invasion intensity – 70%. Second highest density is in the eastern forests – 46%. Forests in the West ranked third, with 11% of plots containing at least one of the monitored invasive plant species. Finally, forests in Alaska and the Intermountain regions both had 6% of plots invaded. This finding might surprise some because of the level of political attention given to plant invaders on grazing lands in the West.
The authors attributed clusters of more highly invaded counties to disturbance, e.g., fragmentation in the North Central region and major travel corridors in the Piedmont of the Southeast.
I would rephrase the principal cause as “propagule pressure”. While forests of the East are certainly small and surrounded by other land uses – that is, fragmented – these are also areas where invasive plants have been extensively planted – some for nearly a century. Some – e.g., honeysuckles, multiflora rose, and lespedeza – were intentionally planted in woodlots as food or cover for wildlife.
Another factor is the great diversity of invasive plant species present in the East and thus available to spread into the forest by such mechanisms as transport of seed by birds and other wildlife. The Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council maintains a list of approximately 400 invasive species. The Mid-Atlantic Invasive Plant Council has a list of 285 invasive plants. Many of the invaders in both lists are herbs, shrubs, or trees which can invade shaded environments.
The top five most frequently detected invasive plants in the Southeast were Japanese honeysuckle, privets, roses, lespedeza, and microstigium. The first four have been deliberately planted either directly in “natural” areas or in yards and gardens throughout the region. The top five species for the Northeast and Midwest are multiflora rose, reed canary grass, garlic mustard, Japanese honeysuckle, and common buckthorn. Again, four of these have been widely planted deliberately. Note that few of these species’ seeds are spread by wind.

In contrast, the top five species in the Intermountain West are less frequently planted intentionally: cheat grass, Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, houndstongue, and musk thistle. Invasive plants in forests of the Pacific states fall between these poles, as they include planted species, such as Armenian blackberry, and unplanted ones, such as cheat grass and medusahead.

Clearly the threat from invasive plants is great and growing (see my blogs from January for discussions of other aspects of the problem). What should we do to counter it?
• Those who sell plants for any use – ornamental horticulture, ground cover, livestock forage, soil amelioration, wildlife habitat management, biofuels – should commit to avoiding species that are known or suspected to be invasive in the region.
• Voluntary efforts to limit sales of invasive plants have fallen by the wayside. The various Invasive Plant Councils should work with industry groups and others to renew this effort. Also, the Councils should propose a joint list of additional plants for APHIS regulation under NAPPRA (see below).
• Those who buy plants for these various uses should make a similar commitment – especially large, institutional buyers like state highway departments.
• Concerned citizens should lobby their state governments and the Congress to fund ongoing “noxious weed” programs and to ensure that these programs include plant species that threaten natural areas, not just weeds of agriculture.
• Concerned citizens should lobby the Congress to increase funding for federal agencies’ invasive plant control programs, especially those addressing natural areas, and especially in Hawai’i and the eastern United States. Also, the U.S. Department of Agriculture needs to adopt procedures that enable APHIS to act more quickly to curtail introduction and human-assisted spread of invasive plants. Most urgently, APHIS should finalize the May 2013 proposal to restrict importation of 22 species under the NAPPRA program (see my blog “Invasive plants – huge numbers! Continuing spread …” from January and the description of the NAPPRA program here).
Source
Christopher M. Oswalt, Songlin Fei, Qinfeng Guo, Basil V. Iannone III, Sonja N. Oswalt, Bryan C. Pijanowski, Kevin M. Potter 2916. A subcontinental view of forest plant invasions. NeoBiota. 24: 49-54 http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/48489

Posted by Faith Campbell

Feral Hogs: numbers climbing, threats to soils & ecosystems increasing, no control in sight

Introduced wild hogs (Sus scrofa) threaten ecosystems across the continent and on islands ranging from Hawai`i to the Caribbean.

large_hog_damage (MO) feral hogs in Missouri

Pigs are the ultimate survivors – highly adaptable and prolific. Most of the damage is done by their rooting for plant parts and invertebrates in the soil, and by wallowing to cool themselves and fend of biting insects. Depending on soil type (density, moisture level, compaction), pigs may root to depths of three feet below the surface (USDA APHIS EIS).

Feral hogs consume primarily plant matter. They prefer hard mast – e.g., acorns, beechnuts, chestnuts, or hickory nuts. Pigs can be formidable competitors with native wildlife for this nutritious food. Feral hogs also eat algae, fungi, invertebrates such as insects, worms, crustaceans, and bird and reptile eggs. In addition, they feed on small animals, including reptiles, fish, amphibians, ground-nesting birds, and young of wild game and domestic livestock. They even feed on larger animals – although it is not clear whether they kill such animals or only scavenge their carcasses (USDA APHIS EIS).

Since pigs lack sweat glands, they wallow in water and mud to cool off. Some wallow sites are used for years. Adjacent areas are usually denuded of vegetation and the soils are compacted. Wallows are commonly located in or adjacent to riparian or bottomland habitats (USDA APHIS EIS).

Despite the apparent damage, only a few studies address the feral hogs’ impacts on soil structure, chemistry, bulk density and nutrient cycling. The conclusions of those studies are mixed (USDA APHIS EIS).

In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, feral pigs are reported to “plow up” areas in search of bulbs, tubers and wildflowers and to consume small mammals, snakes, mushrooms, bird eggs, and salamanders. (The Smokies are a center of endemism for salamanders.) Wallows are said to contribute significantly to stream sedimentation, thereby harming aquatic life.
Furthermore, feral hogs contribute to both human and animal disease. Their feces contaminate water and soil with coliform bacteria and Giardia which are both a threat to human health. Some of the wild pigs also carry Pseudorabies, a disease that is almost always fatal to mammals, including such important wildlife species as black bear, bobcat, elk, white tailed deer, red fox, grey fox, coyote, mink, and raccoon. Pseudorabies from wild boar can survive in humid air or water for up to seven hours and in plants, soil, and feces for up to 2 days.

Unfortunately, the United States’ population of introduced wild pigs has dramatically increased since 1990. People are to blame.

States with feral hog populations; provided by John Mayer, US Department of Energy, Savannah River National Laboratory

According to John J. Mayer, the number of states with established wild boar populations has risen from 19 in the 1990s to 37. The total number of feral hogs has risen from an estimated 1 to 2 million animals to a range of 4.4 to 11.3 million (Mayer).

The overwhelming majority of the feral hogs is found in only 10 states –AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, LA, MS, OK, SC, TX. Texas has the largest numbers, 30 to 41% of the U.S. total, depending on whether one is counting the states’ animals by mean, maximum, or minimum estimates.

Why have people transported feral pigs to so many new places over the last 20 years? Largely because hunters wanted an exciting game animal to pursue (USDA APHIS EIS; Mayer). In Tennessee, populations of feral swine (probably released by farmers to forage for themselves) were relatively stable and confined to only a few counties from the 1950s through the 1980s. However, since a statewide, year-round, no bag-limits hunting program was instituted in 1999, pig populations have expanded rapidly. In 2011, nearly 70% of counties had pockets of feral swine (USDA APHIS EIS).

But hunting is not an effective means of controlling the animals’ populations and damage. Mayer reports that sport hunters remove about 23% of a wild pig population annually. Models demonstrate that 50 – 75% of a wild pig population must be removed annually, year after year, in order to reduce or eradicate that population (J.J. Mayer pers. comm]

Mayer says there are currently no effective management tools or options to reduce or control feral hog populations in most situations. I note that the Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala National parks have been able to eradicate feral pigs through determined efforts.

Missouri is one state that is tackling feral hogs aggressively. In January, the Missouri Conservation Commission approved changes to the Wildlife Code of Missouri that would prohibit the hunting of feral hogs on lands owned, leased, or managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation. A public comment period on the proposed regulation change will run from April 2 through May 1. After considering the citizen input and staff recommendations, the Commission will reach a decision whether to finalize the new regulation – probably in September. (Missouri has quite extensive material on feral hogs posted here
Meanwhile, the Missouri Department of Conservation has reached out to several partners to strengthen its increase the number of feral hog traps it can place and enhance communication to the public. These partners include such agricultural organizations as the Missouri Farm Bureau and Missouri Pork Producers; and such conservation organizations as the National Wild Turkey Federation and two quail associations.

New York has gone farther; it has adopted a policy of eradicating Eurasian wild boar from the state. To achieve this goal, the state in October 2013prohibited importing, breeding, or releasing Eurasian boars. As of September 2015, it has been illegal to possess, sell, distribute, trade or transport Eurasian boars in New York. Hunting or trapping of Eurasian boars is illegal except for law enforcement officers, farmers, and landowners authorized by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The hunting ban was adopted in order to minimize breakup of sounders so as to facilitate eradication trapping by trained conservation officers. For more information, visit the DEC website.

Sources
Mayer, J.J. 2014. Estimation of the Number of Wild Pigs Found in the Unted States. August 2014 SRNL-STI-2014-00292, Revision 0.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Feral Swine Damage Management: a National Approach May 27, 2015

Click to access 2015%20Final%20EIS%20Feral%20Swine%20Damage%20Management%20-%20A%20National%20Approach.pdf

Posted by Faith Campbell

Emerald ash borer – crucial research needs funding!

ash tree dying after attack by emerald ash borer

We all know that the emerald ash borer (EAB) has caused enormous damage in the approximately 25 years since it was first introduced to Michigan and Ontario. (For more information, see writeup here. In brief, EAB has killed “untold millions” of ash trees across more than 170,000 square miles in 25 states and two provinces (map).
Apparently all North American ash are vulnerable – more than 20 species in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. The genus Fraxinus is one of the most widespread on the continent. These trees’ deaths are causing changes in forest species composition, structure, and function. Hundreds of arthropod species that depend on the genus will be affected.

Nevertheless, forests with important ash components are still outside the infested area and deserve greater protection.

Also, ash trees are among the most common ornamental trees planted in U.S. cities and towns. The death of these trees show us that EAB also has imposed billions of dollars in costs on people who had no direct role in the insect’s introduction and spread. Several studies have proposed estimates:
o Communities in Ohio would likely incur costs up to $4 billion if all ash trees on public land were removed and replaced (Sydnor et al. 2007).
o Communities in four Midwestern states would have to pay an estimated $26 billion to remove and replace as trees growing in parks, private lands, and along streets (Sydnor et al. 2011).
o The cost of treating or removing only half of the affected urban and suburban trees across the anticipated range of EAB during the 10-year period from 2009 to 2019 would be $20 billion (Kovacs et al. 2011).

ash tree killed by EAB; Ann Arbor, MI; courtesy of Major Hefje

Over the 14 years since EAB was detected, scientists have learned much about the insect, its hosts, and its management. Early detection of new outbreaks remains difficult. However, traps and lures are more effective than even a few years ago. Other new tools also have been deployed, including strategies for protecting high value trees, and slowing the rate of ash mortality in urban and natural forests.

Four biocontrol agents have been released at sites across the invaded area, although it is too early to know how effective they will be in suppressing EAB populations and protecting ash trees.

The systemic insecticide emamectin benzoate controls EAB for up to three years. This means that municipalities and property owners can now save mature ash trees. Studies show that treating such trees costs less than removing dead trees and planting replacements (Herms and McCullough 2014).

Scientists in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Massachusetts are testing whether treating just some trees in forest settings can help protect nearby ashes.

One of the most important potential responses to this insect is to breed resistant ash trees. The USDA Forest Service and USDA APHIS have funded such efforts since 2005 – only three years after the insect was detected. Scientists have demonstrated that some ash species that have coevolved with the insect in Asia – especially Manchurian ash – are resistant to EAB attack. More recently, they have been studying how to cross-breed the resistant and non-resistant species and how to evaluate the hybrid progeny for genetic resistance.

Dr. Pierluigi (Enrico) Bonello and others at Ohio State and Wright State University are studying how Manchurian ash trees resist EAB attack. Their focus is on the chemicals present in the trees’ tissues – how they differ in Manchurian ash compared to North American species. These studies have found that Manchurian ash trees contain chemicals that decrease growth and survival of EAB larvae, and decrease the attractiveness of the tree to ovipositing females.
The Ohio team next needs to continue their progress towards identification of the specific chemicals involved, insert the genes that produce them into other ash tree genomes, and produce a large enough number of progeny to test whether the new trees’ genes provide the expected protection.

The team is also studying the other side of this equation – how EAB larvae neutralize defense mechanisms of vulnerable ash species and how these trees may be manipulated to interfere with these adaptations of EAB.. This is a long-term project that needs consistent and sustained support over many years to bring about real capacity for restoring disappearing ash populations.

Unfortunately, funding for this vitally important work is not assured. USDA APHIS (link to 101 on CISP) has funded the team’s work to date, but may no longer be in a position to do so. . After all, it is 14 years since EAB was detected and a decade since APHIS stopped trying to eradicate it. The goal now is to manage EAB in the forest and in urban settings, over the long term. This task logically should fall to the USDA Forest Service.

Both APHIS and the Forest Service are challenged by the need to respond to the introduction of ever more non-native tree-killing insects and diseases; by the need for programs to address pests already present; and by simultaneous reductions in agencies’ budgets. APHIS’ budget for managing all “tree and wood pests” has fallen from $76 million to $55 million since 2011 – a 28% reduction. The USFS’ research budget has fallen less, proportionately: from $307 million to $292 million (a 4% cut).
However, the USFS Research budget has never been generous in funding research on non-native invasive species. Annual totals for invasive species research have been between $5 and $5.6 million since 2012. EAB specifically has been funded at between $1.2 and $1.8 million.
(For a longer discussion of funding shortfalls and other impediments to programs intended to help our forests recover from EAB and other non-native pests, read Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III, available here)

The emerald ash borer is the most destructive and costly forest insect ever introduced to the United States. Surely the government agency responsible for protecting our forests should provide additional resources to counter this threat.

Sources:
Herms, D. A. and D. G. McCullough. 2014. Emerald Ash Borer invasion of North America: History, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual Review of Entomology, Vol 59, 2014 59:13-30.

Kovacs KF, Mercader RJ,Haight RG, SiegertNW,McCulloughDG,Liebhold AM. 2011. The influence
of satellite populations of emerald ash borer on projected economic costs in U.S. communities, 2010–
2020. J. Environ. Manag. 92:2170–81

Sydnor TD, Bumgardner M, Subburayalu S. 2011. Community ash densities and economic impact
potential of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) in four Midwestern states. Arboric. Urban For. 37:84–89

Sydnor TD, Bumgardner M, Todd A. 2007. The potential economic impacts of emerald ash borer
(Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio, U.S., communities. Arbor. Urban For. 33:48–54
Posted by Faith Campbell

Support Higher Funding Levels for Key APHIS & USFS Programs

The President’s proposed Fiscal Year (FY)17 budget once again proposes to reduce funding for APHIS and USDA Forest Service. These are the programs that protect our trees and forests; these are the programs that try to prevent introductions of tree-killing insects and disease pathogens, and to counter the damage they cause once introduced.

Congress is expected to act beginning this spring; we need Congress to enact adequate funding for these programs in FY17 – which begins in October.

I provide below the FY15 & FY16 funding levels and the President’s proposed FY17 level. I also suggest more appropriate funding levels for these programs.
Please contact your Representative and Senators by mid-March and ask him or her to support higher funding for these crucial programs. Your voice is particularly important if your Representative or Senator sits on either the Agriculture or Interior Appropriations subcommittees (listed below).
Fiscal Year Funding for Key Programs (funds are given in millions of dollars)

APHIS (I apologize – columns don’t line up!)
FY15 FY16 FY17 (Pres’ request) $needed

Plant Health (total)       305         314           288
Specialty crops               156        164           146            164
Tree & wood pests           54          54              46               54

The “Tree & wood pests” account funds all APHIS efforts to contain or eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer; much smaller programs targeting walnut twig beetle/thousand cankers disease, laurel wilt, and polyphagous shot hole borer [all described here as well as the agency’s involvement in firewood and other slow-the-spread campaign. Even at the $54 million funding level, APHIS is already ignoring many established pests … and its ability to respond to new introductions is severely restricted. With the continuing presence of damaging wood-borers in incoming crates and pallets (See earlier blogs discussing the wood packaging pathway posted in August, September, and October; and Chapter IV of Fading Forests III, now is not the time to cut funding for this program.

The “specialty crops” account includes a small amount of funding (in past years, approximately $5 million) to support APHIS’ program aimed at preventing spread of sudden oak death through movement of nursery stock. (For discussions of this risk see my earlier blogs from July and August and Chapter IV of Fading Forests III.

The budget justification notes that “cooperators who directly benefit from … activities [under the Tree and Wood Pests and Specialty Crop Pests programs] will need to increase contributions to achieve the same level of program operations. Even with the proposed decreases, APHIS will continue to pay between 47 percent and 80 percent of the costs of the programs. …” The Office of Management and Budget has long tried to reduce the federal share of pest containment costs. I counter: is it not appropriate that the agency with the legal responsibility for preventing and containing pest introductions bear the cost of responding when pests are introduced nevertheless?

Fiscal Year Funding for Key Programs (funds are given in millions of dollars)

USFS (I apologize – columns don’t line up!)
FY15 FY16 FY17 Pres’ request needed
Forest Health Protection (total)

104.57         99.6             92.06           100?
Federal lands    58.922        58.922       51.382
Coop lands         45.655        40.678       40.678         48
FHP funds the Forest Service’ assistance to federal partners (e.g., National Park Service) and non-federal entities (e.g., states, cities, private land managers) for management of forest pests – both native and alien species. The FY17 budget justification does not provide a breakdown of spending by species. The FY16 President’s request allocated only $12 million (13% of total funds) to specific projects targeting non-native insects or pathogens. More than $7 million of these funds went to just one species – European gypsy moth. Please advocate for a higher proportion to go to non-native pests.

Research (total) 296 291 291.982 300?
Forest Inventory 70 75 77 83

The USFS Research and Development program provides most of the funds for research to understand non-native pests’ pathways of introduction and spread and biological impacts. These funds also support most of the efforts to breed resistance into tree species and some of the work on other control methods, such as chemicals and biocontrol. The FY17 budget justification does not provide a breakdown of spending by species; the FY16 President’s request allocated only $5 M (less than 2% of total funds) to projects targeting non-native insects or pathogens. Please advocate for a higher proportion to go to non-native pests.

Members of key House & Senate Appropriations Subcommittees
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees (fund APHIS):
House: Aderholt (AL), Yoder (KS), Rooney (FL), Valadao (CA), Harris (MD), Young (IA); Farr (CA), DeLauro (CT), Bishop (GA), Pingree (ME)
Senate: Moran (KS), Blunt (MO), Cochran (MS), McConnell (KY), Collins (ME), Hoeven (ND), Daines (MT), Merkley (OR), Feinstein (CA), Tester (MT), Udall (NM), Leahy (VT), Baldwin (WI)

Interior Appropriations Subcommittees (fund USFS):
House: Calvert (CA), Simpson (ID), Cole (OK), Joyce (OH), Stewart (UT), Amodei (NV), Jenkins (WV); McCollum (MN), Pingree (MD), Kilmer (WA), Israel (NY)
Senate: Murkowski (AK), Alexander (TN), Cochran (MS), Blunt (MO), Hoeven (ND), McConnell (KY), Daines (MT), Cassidy (LA); Udall (NM), Feinstein (CA), Leahy (VT), Reed, Tester (MT), Merkley (OR)

Posted by Faith Campbell

How should regulators address strains of pathogens?

Species of tree-killing pathogens can have several “strains” that may vary in virulence or hosts affected.

`ohi`a tree on Hawai`i

This is a phenomenon well known to pathologists, but regulators have not adapted their programs to address it. Once a pathogenic species is determined to be established in the country, APHIS considers the entire species to be “non- actionable” and will not attempt to prevent introduction of any new strains. As the examples below illustrate, allowing introduction and spread of new strains poses risks to North America’s trees.

World-renowned British forest pathologist Clive Brasier has spoken out often on the risk posed by various strains of a pathogen. He has also written about the potential for pathogen species to hybridize and for that hybrid to threaten new hosts.

How widespread a problem is this? Some of the pathogens causing the greatest damage have several strains that vary in their virulence and host range.

The sudden oak death pathogen, Phytophthora ramorum is known to have four strains: NA1, NA2, EU1 and EU2. The EU1 lineage has primarily been found in European nurseries and forests. It has also been recovered from several nurseries and waterways on the U.S. west coast. Last year, the EU1 lineage was detected in a forest in Oregon (see my blog posted 15August 2015). This is troubling for two reasons:
* the EU1 lineage is more aggressive than the NA1 lineage already present in the forests of California and Oregon. Some of the individual tree which now appear to be resistant to the NA1 lineage might succumb to the EU1 lineage.
* The EU1 and NA1 lineages belong to opposite mating types, so they can potentially reproduce, thereby increasing the genetic variability of the pathogen. (Sexual reproduction in P. ramorum can only occur when opposite mating types meet; in the absence of opposite mating types, all reproduction is clonal.)

• The guava rust or myrtle rust pathogen, Puccinia psidii, also has several strains which vary in their virulence. Already, a new strain introduced to Jamaica in the 1930s caused extensive damage to the allspice industry – although a different strain had been on the island for decades (Carnegie 2016).

Hawaiian conservationists worry that a more virulent strain of P. psidii might be introduced and threaten additional species of Myrtaceae on the Islands – especially the `ohi`a tree which is the major canopy tree in 80% of the Islands’ remaining native forest. These forests are key to maintaining the Islands’ watersheds and biodiversity, especially because `ohi`a nectar is the principal food source for many of the remaining native and rare bird species. (See writeup here)

Multiple strains of `ohi`a rust have been identified in the pathogen’s native range of Brazil. Using funds from the USDA Forest Service, scientists in Brazil (Costa da Silva et al. 2014) tested five of the strains; three proved to be highly virulent on most `ohi`a seedlings tested. `Ohi`a from several locations were tested; none showed significant resistance to these three strains of the P. psidii pathogen.

The tests were carried out under conditions highly conducive to infection, so the results cannot be used to predict epidemiological behavior and ecological ramifications in natural conditions. Nevertheless, the results do support the need for greater efforts to prevent introduction of new strains to the Islands.

Additional tests are under way to determine whether the Brazilian strains are more virulent than that strain currently found in Hawai`i and to learn more about possible variation in vulnerability among `ohi`a trees from a greater variety of sites.
• The pathogen that causes Port-Orford cedar root disease (Phytophthora lateralis) has now been found to have four lineages. Scientists compared isolates from the pathogen’s putative native range on Taiwan to isolates from the North American west coast (where it has been established since early in the 20th Century) and Europe (where it began killing trees in the 1990s). They found one slow- growing strain from Taiwan, one fast-growing strain from North America and Europe, and one of intermediate growth from a small area of the United Kingdom (Brasier et al. 2012).

Sometimes, pathogens behaving in unexpected ways are initially thought to be a strain or lineage, but are later classified as a novel species. Thus the Ceratocystis causing `ohi`a wilt was initially thought to be a strain of C. fimbricata, a widespread fungus that has been on the Hawaiian Islands for decades. Scientists now think it is a new species (Keith 2016).

Pathogens are difficult to manage. The vast majority of species remain undescribed. They are difficult to detect until they cause noticeable damage. For a longer discussion of the challenges posed by pathogens and other unknown organisms, read Chapter 3 of Fading Forests II, available here.

However, the great threat to our forests necessitates that APHIS and other phytosanitary agencies (in states and around the world) develop improved methods for addressing the challenge that pathogens pose. Our forests simply cannot afford introductions of more tree-killing fungi, oomycetes, and other pathogens.

At a minimum, APHIS should respond to evidence that a particular pathogen is composed of multiple strains with varying virulence by agreeing to designate such novel strains as “actionable” and applying all its authorities and powers to prevent introduction and spread of the novel strains.

As I noted in my blog of earlier this month, APHIS also needs to develop more effective strategies for addressing introduction and spread of pathogens generally. USDA should assist such efforts to improve controls over pathogens by bringing about prompt finalization of two APHIS initiatives:
1) Prohibiting temporarily plants suspected of transporting known damaging pathogens. This action is allowed under the NAPPRA (not authorized for importation pending pest risk assessment) program.
2) Requiring foreign suppliers of living plant imports to implement “hazard analysis and critical control point” programs to ensure that the plants are pest-free during production and transport. This approach is allowed under ISPM#36 and would be authorized under pending changes to APHIS’ “Q-37” regulation. (See Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 80 April 25, 2013.)

(See longer discussions of these programs in Fading Forests III, available here.)
Sources

Clive M. Brasier, C.M, S. Franceschini, A.M. Vettraino, E.M. Hansen, S. Green, C. Robin, J.F. Webber, and A.Vannini. 2012. Four phenotypically and phylogenetically distinct lineages in Phytophthora lateralisFungal Biology. Volume 116, Issue 12, December 2012, Pages 1232–1249

Carnegie, A.J., A. Kathuria, G.S. Pegg, P. Entwistle, M. Nagel, F.R. Giblin. 2016. Impact of the invasive rust Puccinia psidii (myrtle rust) on native Myrtaceae in natural ecosystems in Australia. Biol Invasions (2016) 18:127–144 DOI 10.1007/s10530-015-0996-y

Costa da Silva, A., Magno Teixeira de Andrade, P. Couto Alfenas, A., Neves Graca, R., Cannon, P., Hauff, R., Cristiano Ferreira, D., and Mori, S. 2014. Virulence and Impact of Brazilian Strains of Puccinia psidii on Hawaiian `Ohi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha). Pacific Science (2014), vol. 68, no. 1:7-56
Keith, L. 2016. Ceratocystis fimbriata, Rapid O’hi’a Death: Unraveling the mystery. 27th USDA Interagency Research Forum on Invasive Species January 12-15, 2016 Annapolis, Maryland

Posted by Faith Campbell

How should APHIS manage pathogens with Multiple Hosts?

large redbay tree on Jekyll Island, Georgia; afterwards killed by laurel wilt

North America and other continents have been invaded by a growing number of tree-killing organisms – primarily pathogens – that attack a wide range of hosts100 species or more. Examples include sudden oak death / Phytopthora ramorum**, laurel wilt**, and the Fusarium fungus transported by the polyphagous and Kushiro borers**. These pathogens are more difficult to manage because of the range of potential hosts. Furthermore, a single introduced species can threaten numerous host species across large areas.
This is not a new phenomenon. Root rot caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi reached North America in the late 18th or early 19th Century, where it eliminated chestnut and chinkapin from low-elevation sites. P. cinnamomi is found in countries around the world. In Australia, it is killing a wide range of trees and shrubs across several plant families that constitute important components of Australia’s flora, including Myrtaceae, Proteaceae, Epacridaceae and Papilionaceae. There have been significant ecological impacts to plant communities and dependent wildlife in southeast and southwest Australia (Carnegie et al. 2016).

Nevertheless, the apparent proliferation of tree-killing organisms with multiple vulnerable hosts is troubling. So is the rapidity with which these organisms have been spread to distant places.

The disease called variously guava, eucalyptus, or myrtle rust – caused by Puccinia psidii** – attacks plants in “only” one family – the Myrtaceae. Its host list now includes more than 450 species in 73 genera. More than 200 of these are native species in Australia – where more than 10% of the plant species are members of this family. At least some of these plants are highly vulnerable to the rust; more than half of the individuals of the small tree Rhodomyrtus psidioides surveyed in a recent study were dead less than four years after the pathogen was introduced (Carnegie et al. 2016). New Zealand also has large numbers of Myrtaceae.

Guava rust is believed to be native to South and Central America. It was introduced to the Caribbean and southern Florida by the first decades of the 20th Century. Recently, the pathogen began to move. A new strain arrived in Florida in the 1990s. The rust was detected in Hawai`i in 2005. There, it is killing the native endangered shrub Eugenia koolauensis and an invasive shrub Syzygium jambos. In the past decade, guava rust has also invaded Japan, China, Australia, South Africa and New Caledonia (Carnegie et al. 2016).

Laurel wilt** also attacks “only” one plant family, the Lauraceae. While the United States is home to a relatively small number of plants in this family, Central America is a center of endemism for the family. In the United States, concern has focused on the disease’s threat to the avocado industry. However, the pathogen’s principal wild host, redbay, is likely to be virtually eliminated from U.S. forests except as seedlings too small to be attacked. (One ray of hope: Professor Jason Smith at the University of Florida is making progress on breeding redbays resistant to the disease.) Given the large number of presumably vulnerable trees and shrubs in Mexico and Central America, the spread of laurel wilt into Texas is worrisome.

Other pathogens attack shrubs and trees across several families. I noted Phyotphthora cinnamomi above. Other Phytophthoras share this ability.

Phytophthora ramorum** has a host list exceeding 130 herbaceous, shrub, and tree species in families ranging from maples to rhododendrons, oaks to hemlocks. P. ramorum is established in coastal parts of California and southern Oregon; and in western United Kingdom and Ireland. Another Phytophthora, P. kernoviae,** has a similarly broad host range. It is also established in the United Kingdom.

Fusarium dieback is caused by the fungus Fusarium euwallacea, which is transported by two beetles in the Euwallacea genus, called the polyphagous** and Kushiro shot hole borers. The beetle is known to attack more than 300 species of trees, shrubs, and vines in more than 58 plant families; hosts include species of oaks, maples, sycamores, hollies, and willows.

These multi-host pathogens are extremely difficult to contain – or even to detect early in the invasion. Australia tried to contain Puccinia rust, but conceded failure after only a few months. USDA APHIS does not have containment programs for any of three pathogens described here – despite the danger they pose to trees and other native vegetation.

Industry groups sometimes fund efforts to protect their crops. Avocado growers have spurred research on both laurel wilt and the Fusarium fungus — threats to their crop. However, academic researchers working on the impacts of laurel wilt on native ecosystems must scramble for funds. This is exactly the kind of research that requires – and deserves – increased public funding.

What should be done? Phytosanitary agencies need to improve greatly programs aimed at preventing introduction of pathogens to naïve hosts in new geographies. For the U.S., APHIS has already advocated two important improvements:
1) Prohibiting temporarily plants suspected of transporting known damaging pathogens. This action is allowed under the NAPPRA (not authorized for importation pending pest risk assessment) program.
2) Requiring foreign suppliers of living plant imports to implement “hazard analysis and critical control point” programs to ensure that the plants are pest-free during production and transport. This approach is allowed under ISPM#36 and would be authorized under pending changes to APHIS’ “Q-37” regulation. [See Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 80 April 25, 2013]

(See longer discussions of these programs in Fading Forests III, available here.)

Unfortunately, implementation of both of these programs has stalled. A list of plants proposed in May 2013 for NAPPRA restrictions has still not been finalized. Revisions to the Q-37 regulation proposed in April 2013 have also not been finalized.

USDA leadership should promptly implement these long-delayed improvements.
** indicates those pathogens and insect/pathogen complexes that are described briefly here

Source

Posted by Faith Campbell

Help promote new film about tree-killing pests!

A new film demonstrating the impact of non-native tree-killing insects and diseases will be shown on or around Arbor Day (April 20). You can help ensure that lots of people see the film!!! Contact the program manager at your local PBS channel to ask that the channel broadcast the film.

“Trees in Trouble: Saving America’s Urban Forests” focuses on emerald ash borer in Cincinnati. The film explores our connections to the trees and forests in our communities – and the threats to those trees. The film’s website links viewers to resources for taking action.

To see clips from the film and other resources go to this site.

The film was produced by Torrice Media. Featured experts and speakers include Prof. Dan Herms of Ohio State, Jenny Gulcik, a community forestry consultant, and Cincinnati Council member Wendell Young.
As we all know, killer pests threaten trees across the country, not just in southern Ohio! 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.
Because of the high value of urban trees, these pests’ greatest economic damage is in urban and suburban areas. The study by Julianne Aukema and others documented that municipalities spend more than $2 billion annually to remove trees killed by non-native pests. Homeowners spend $1 billion a year removing trees killed by non-native pests, and another $1.5 billion is lost in property values due to tree mortality.

Thus, it is vitally important that American city dwellers learn about the values that trees provide to them, the threat to those values from introduced pests, and what they can do to minimize this threat. “Trees in Trouble” is a tool to advance citizens’ understanding of these issues through a combination of broadcasts, compelling video presentations and active civic engagement efforts linked to the film.

goldspotted oak borer

Some people – less familiar with the issue than we are – do not immediately understand the relevance of Cincinnati’s story to other cities. We know that while the trees and killers differ across the country, the cost to the communities is the same: destruction of trees that provide shade and other important ecosystem services and create our sense of home. Plus, the ways these pests are introduced are the same – and so are the steps we can take to reduce this threat.

[The goldspotted oak borer illustrates the universality of this threat – trees in southern California are being killed, too!]
You can help overcome this roadblock!
If you would like to help promote the film to your local PBS station or to local viewers, contact Andrea Torrice at 513-751-7050 or here

If you would like to obtain a copy of the film to screen to your group, contact Andrea Torrice at the same phone number or website. (Andrea is Italian; her name is pronounced “to re chay”, with the accent on “re”.)
Source:
Aukema, J. E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S. J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. M. Liebhold, D. G. McCullough, and B. Von Holle. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States. Plos One 6.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Invasive plants in the West

Much of the attention to invasive plants has focused on herbaceous plants (forbs and grasses) invading grasslands and sagebrush steppes of the West. Certainly these plants have invaded large areas and have – in the case of “strong” invaders – caused significant changes not just in plant community composition but also to food webs and even ecosystem structure and function. Some of these invaders have imposed large costs by reducing livestock forage, fueling more frequent fires, or contributing to severe declines in populations of iconic wildlife species.
For these reasons, the House Interior and Oversight committees have held several hearings on invasive species in recent years. Much of the committees’ focus has been on invasive plants and the failure of federal land-managing agencies to curtail or reverse their spread.

Scotch broom; photo by Eric Cooms, Oregon Department of Agriculture

At the most recent hearing, Dr. George Beck of Colorado State University noted that the number of acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management that has been invaded by harmful non-native plants has doubled since 2009, reaching 77 million acres. Dr. Beck and his allies in the Healthy Habitats Coalition (HHC) believe that federal agencies could bring about a decline in the “weed”-infested area if they focused their resources. The HHC has persuaded members of Congress and Senators to introduce two bills (H.R 1485 & S. 2240) which 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. (I discussed these proposals in my blog of January 4th.) The HHC apparently has given up trying to persuade the Congress to increase funding for land managing agencies’ resource management programs; instead, they seek to re-direct existing (shrinking) agency funds away from environmental compliance, planning, priority-setting, and research and to “on-the-ground” actions.

But I don’t think reversing plant invasions should be tackled without science and planning.

The remainder of this blog is based on the research results of Dean Pearson, USFS researcher based in Montana. See particularly the three sources listed at the end of the blog.

Studies have shown that simply suppressing the target weed does not ensure mitigation of its impacts. Managers need to weigh the success of control measures against their side effects. In the end, it is often very difficult if not impossible to restore invaded ecosystems to their pre-invasion condition. Instead, the goal of “weed” management should be to improve the system as a whole, as measured by the overall system response to management and not simply by the degree to which the target weed is suppressed. Pearson calls this “directed community assembly”.
Acting otherwise – wasting limited funds and resources on programs that don’t succeed; or – worse – that result in exacerbated ecological damage – is not acceptable! Nor is it acceptable – in my view – to be so focused on providing forage for livestock as to ignore invader- or management- induced decimation of native forbs (see below).

Pearson’s studies have focused on efforts to suppress spotted knapweed, one of the worst invaders in the grasslands of the intermountain West. Spotted knapweed invasions have both direct and indirect effects on these systems, including replacing the principal native forb (arrowleaf balsamroot); causing significant declines in invertebrates such as grasshoppers that are fed on by many small predators such as birds, small mammals, and spiders; and probably decreasing forage for domestic and wild ungulates. Invasive European forbs (including spotted knapweed) are generally larger, more rigid, and more structurally complex than the native grassland vegetation. This shift in vegetation architecture has led to a dramatic increase in native web-building spiders, resulting in an astonishing 89-fold increase in predation rates on spider prey. Knapweed invasions also apparently increase soil erosion and change the availability of soil nutrients. So, knapweed invasions have significant and persistent ecological effects. The variety of effects means that controlling spotted knapweed is likely to restore pre-invasion conditions only to the extent that native vegetation recovers. Recovery of the plant community might in turn depend on the ability to mitigate abiotic impacts of invasion, restore seed sources, and address similar factors that may interfere with native plant recovery.
Addressing the complexity of natural systems’ responses to plant invasion is difficult, especially given the limitations of available management tools.

According to USFS researchers Dean Pearson and Yvette Ortega, to improve weed management in natural systems, we need to better understand three important factors that greatly complicate natural areas weed management. Managers need to:
1) determine the invasive plants’ impacts on species, community, and systems; and which ones may be amenable to mitigation given current tools.
2) understand how prospective management tools might cause deleterious side effects and what can be done to minimize those effects.
3) understand the ecological conditions and processes underlying secondary weed invasions so that they can develop strategies to reduce the risk of secondary invasion following target invader suppression. (Pearson & Ortega 2009)

Programs aimed at countering plant invasions – no matter the method used – can cause unwanted damage to the ecosystem (= side effects). Side effects might affect not just non-target native plants, but also higher trophic levels, community interactions, and even ecological processes structuring the system.
These side effects need to be balanced against the damage caused by the invasive plants due to the complexity of natural systems and the limited specificity of the tools employed. Some might persist for years after control of the invasive plant. Managers need to consider the effects of both the invasive plants and the management action when selecting a strategy.

Forbs commonly making up ~80% of species richness in the intermountain meadows. In some un-invaded plots in western Montana, arrowleaf balsamroot mean cover was twice that of the native grass bluebunch wheatgrass. Forbs support communities of pollinators, herbivores, and higher trophic levels. 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. Thus at the study sites, broadcast spraying of the herbicide picloram reduced arrowleaf balsamroot cover and fecundity variables by nearly 60%. In this case, knapweed control efforts actually exaggerated the trajectory of species composition change initiated by spotted knapweed invasion – even when the invader was successfully removed.
Biological control is the most selective weed management tool currently in use other than hand pulling. However, even highly host-specific biocontrol agents can have rather significant non-target effects. One example is the dramatic increase in deer mouse populations in areas where they can feed on gallflies introduced as biocontrols for knapweed. Deer mice support the hantavirus pathogen, so this represents a potential human health threat. Worst of all, the gallflies have not proved effective at reducing knapweed populations – so the invasive plant, the mice, and the virus now all thrive. (In cases when the biocontrol agent is efficacious in significantly reducing the target plant species, any undesirable side effects will also be reduced.)
Furthermore, success in suppressing invasion by one set of plants often facilitates invasion by some other plant species that might cause greater changes to the system or that are harder to control. The problem of secondary invaders is not limited to any one management strategy, target weed, or secondary invader. Pearson think secondary invasion is likely any time additional species of strong invaders are present at a site where a dominant weed is controlled and the secondary invader proves relatively insensitive to the control method.

Grasses are most often the secondary invaders (whereas most target weeds were forbs). Perhaps, at least in some cases, weed control is simply accelerating general patterns of invader succession. In their study area in western Montana, Pearson and Ortega have found that cheatgrass invasion occurred faster in herbicide treated areas, but it also occurred in both otherwise un-invaded native grasslands and untreated spotted knapweed-invaded sites.
Secondary invasion by cheatgrass might be a particularly common consequence of weed control measures in western North America, given the species’ widespread occurrence, and its ability to exploit resources released by suppression of perennial taxa, outcompete native grasses, and attain dominance even when present at low initial densities (Ortega and Pearson 2010).

Pearson calls for understanding and addressing the system-level processes such as propagule pressure or disturbance underlying and promoting invasions in order to minimize secondary invasions.

In some cases, full restoration is not the manager’s goal. Managers of areas managed primarily as grazing lands might accept loss of forbs; even cheatgrass can be used as forage during part of the year. However, large scale reductions of forb diversity in grassland systems would not be acceptable in natural areas management.

While I think highly of Dr. Pearson’s studies, I think that researchers in the West pay too little attention to the contributing role of propagule availability, especially people’s role in taking propagules to sites where they can initiate invasions. Human movement of plants to satisfy wants for ornamental horticulture, or as unwise choices for erosion control or wildlife forage and shelter plants explains numerous examples of invasive forbs, shrubs, and trees proliferating across the West. However, there are also recent examples of unwise propagation of livestock forage grasses – cold-tolerant buffelgrass, anyone?
——————————–
Sources of scientific evaluations of plant management strengths and difficulties:

Yvette K. Ortega and Dean E. Pearson. 2010. Effects of Picloram Application on Community Dominants Vary With Initial Levels of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) Invasion. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2010 3:70–80

Pearson, D. E. and Y. K. Ortega. 2009. Managing invasive plants in natural areas: moving beyond weed control, pp 1-21, in (ed.) R.V. Kingley, Weeds: Management, Economic Impacts and Biology. Nova Publishers, NY

Ortega, Y. K., and D. E. Pearson. 2005. Strong versus weak invaders of natural plant communities: assessing invasibility and impact. Ecological Applications 15:651-661.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Invasive plants – huge numbers, continuing introductions & spread …

The U.S. is badly invaded by non-native plants. In the database he maintains,
Rod Randall of Western Australia reports that more than 9,700 non-native plant species are naturalized in the U.S. In this compendium, Randall defines “naturalized” species as those having self-sustaining and spreading populations with no human assistance. Not all of these species impact upon the environment.

As noted, not all 9,700 species are “invasive”. It is likely that a significant proportion of the invaders are “weak” invaders which coexist with the native plants and make up minor components of the plant community. Others are “strong” invaders that can rapidly attain community dominance and dramatically impact native species and ecological processes (Ortega and Pearson 2005).

But the evidence is that the situation will grow worse. A study of a small proportion of the naturalized plants (1201 alien species; 755 invasive; Bradley, Early & Sorte 2015) found that
– Invasive and alien plants are more widely distributed than natives across the continental United States
– The average invasive plant now inhabits only ~ 50% of its expected range
– Biological factors are less important than human actions in facilitating spread

According to Dr. George Beck of Colorado State University, by 2015, the acreage of land managed by the BLM that is invaded by non-native plants exceeds 77 million acres – more than twice the areas reported in 2009 (35 million acres) (see Dr. Beck’s testimony here). I noted in my blog about threats to U.S. National parks that are World Heritage sites (October 21, 2015), National parks from Hawai`i to Florida have been badly damaged by invasive plants.

Another source reports that more than 500 plant species invasive in some region are being sold on-line globally (Humair et al. 2015).

USDA APHIS has adopted a pre-import risk-screening system. Based on these analyses, utilizing the NAPPRA process, in April 2013 APHIS determined that 41 plant species may not be imported until a risk assessment has been conducted because of the risk they pose of being invasive. APHIS proposed a second group of species, containing 22 species, in May 2013. However, this list has not been finalized two and a half years later – despite meeting with conservation organizations/stakeholders in April 2015 at which we discussed ways to speed up the approval process. (We were told that the delay is caused by controversy over taxa proposed for NAPPRA-listing because their link to plant pests; that there is no controversy over the taxa to be restricted as potentially invasive plants.)

Clearly the threat from invasive plants is great and growing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture needs to adopt procedures that enable APHIS to act more quickly to curtail introduction and human-assisted spread of invasive plants. APHIS and federal land-managing agencies need adequate resources to develop and apply effective and environmentally sound control measures.

Sources
Bradley, B.A., R. Early & C. J. B. Sorte. 2015. Space to invade? Comparative range infilling and potential range of invasive and native plants. Global Ecology and Biogeography

Humair, F., Humair, L., Kuhn, F. and Kueffer, C. (2015), E-commerce trade in invasive plants. Conservation Biology, 29: 1658–1665. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12579
Ortega, Y. K. and D. E. Pearson. 2005. Strong versus weak invaders of natural plant communities: assessing invasibility and impact. Ecol. Appl. 15:651–661

posted by Faith Campbell

Fed up by lack of action on invasive species? Let’s pressure the right targets!

On December 1, the House Oversight Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, held a hearing on invasive species. This hearing was apparently held at the request of the ranking Democrat, Brenda Lawrence of Michigan. Ms Lawrence is most concerned about aquatic invaders in the Great Lakes. Chairwoman Cynthia Lummis is from Wyoming, so her focus is on invasive plants on western rangelands.
Chair Lummis opened the hearing, but left promptly. Other subcommittee members who were present for varying lengths of time were Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Brenda Lawrence (D-MI), and Stacey Plasket (D-USVI) ; from full committee: Will Hurd (R-TX).

The witnesses were the newly appointed executive director of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), Jamie Reaser; the president of the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition (RRISC), Scott Cameron; Dr. George Beck of Colorado State University, representing the Healthy Habitats Coalition (HHC); and Dr. Alan Steinman, expert on aquatic invaders from Grand Valley State University in Michigan.
This hearing followed those in past years that had been stimulated by the HHC. Both HHC and Congressional members expressed great frustration that the federal government is not putting sufficient effort into stopping or reversing the spread of invasive plants on western rangelands.
The December hearing – like its predecessors – focused the criticism on NISC. I think this focus is misguided. NISC has no independent authority or power; it was created to coordinate agencies’ actions, not to substitute for them. Its staff lack sufficient rank to tell agencies what to do.
In § 4 of Executive Order 13112, NISC’s duties are listed as providing national leadership through (a) overseeing implementation of this order, seeing that Federal agencies’ activities are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective, …; (b) encouraging planning and action at local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels …; (c) developing recommendations for international cooperation …; (d) developing, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, guidance to Federal agencies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)…; (e) facilitating development of a coordinated network among Federal agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor IAS impacts …; (f) facilitating establishment of an … information-sharing system …; and (g) preparing a national Invasive Species Management Plan every two years.
NISC has fallen far short of these requirements. It has not succeeded in developing guidance on NEPA – at least in part because CEQ has not cooperated. Most glaringly, NISC has issued only two Management Plans over 15 years — the most recent in 2009. All Members at the hearing complained to Reaser about this failure. Members see the Plan as key to setting priorities and ensuring that funds are well-spent.

All Members seemed to think that NISC actually should carry out on-the-ground activities and direct agencies’ priorities. Some want NISC to overcome federal agencies’ alleged foot-dragging in helping local groups eager to attack local problems, or to pressure Native American tribes to cooperate.

While I share the critics’ frustration about federal agencies’ inaction, I believe the productive approach is to apply pressure on – and where deserved, support for – those who have the authority and power to act, but who often choose not to. These are:
• heads of agencies and departments, especially the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and their Under and Assistant secretaries;
• the President;
• budget staffs of these and other relevant agencies;
• the Office of Management and Budget;
• Members of the Congressional appropriations committees.

If these people think that dealing with invasive species is politically important, they will do so. If they don’t hear from their constituents about invasive species, they will focus on other issues.

At the hearing, Scott Cameron, of RRISC, said that what is missing is commitment at the Assistant/Under Secretary Level. Such a commitment would both drive coordination among agencies at headquarters and provide “cover” for regional staff trying to work together. He feels that a new Management Plan is useful but not sufficient. Scott made several recommendations intended to raise the political visibility of invasive species issues:
1) NISC submit annual work plan to Congress – he thought this would get political level attention in the departments;
2) NISC serve as forum to coordinate with regional governors’ associations;
3) NISC create national network of regional early detection/rapid response efforts;
4) NISC serve as forum for regional officials of land-managing agencies to coordinate and work together – this might succeed in getting attention of agency leadership and OMB;
5) NISC ensure coordination of priorities and approaches by member agencies at headquarters level; and
6) NISC evaluate best practices by other governments, propose their adoption by the United States.

Dr. Beck, of HHC, reiterated his constituency’s complaint that there has been little progress on invasive species problems despite three decades of effort. He blamed the lack of leadership by NISC – without saying how staff can “lead” the political appointees who head agencies! He called – again – for abolition of NISC and transfer of its $1 million budget to “on the ground” programs. Beck also decried inconsistencies in agencies’ budgets, lack of collaboration with states and local groups in setting priorities, and NEPA having become an excuse to avoid taking action.

HHC has promoted introduction of bills in both the House and Senate – H.R 1485 & S. 2240 – which would require:
• strategic planning;
• cooperation with states;
• categorical exclusion from NEPA review for efforts to protect high-priority sites;
• 5% annual reduction in weed species’ extent; and
• allocation of agencies’ 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.

Of these recommendations, I think the proposed dropping of environment reviews of invasive species management programs – especially in “high priority” sites of high ecosystem values – would be a disaster. Management programs have environmental impacts, too; and some approaches cause more harm than good. For example, use of herbicides to eliminate knapweeds has sometimes resulted in takeover of the site by non-native annual grasses that are even more difficult to control.

Also, I think the proposed funding allocation is very unwise. Research and outreach often contribute enormously to control or containment of invasive species. I have been unable to get straight answers from the USDA Forest Service about how such an allocation would affect their programs – which are divided among three separate entities – Research, State and Private Forestry, and National Forest System.

HHC is very active in promoting its position – and those of us who think differently are not yet being heard in Congress.

I think there is room to work with members of the House Oversight Committee to focus more attention on the agencies’ political leadership – where it belongs and where pressure might have an effect. Rep. Lawrence seems interested in continuing efforts. Rep. Hurd of Texas asked about steps to prevent plant pest introductions (none of the witnesses knew about APHIS programs). Furthermore, a second Michigander, Rep. Dan Benisheck, and a Californian, Rep. Mike Thompson, co-chair the Invasive Species Caucus. Although none of them has yet expressed concern about tree-killing pests, given where they are from they might be persuaded to engage.

At present, the only Congressional champion for effective invasive species programs – especially as regards tree-killing pests – is Senator Leahy of Vermont. He has helped prevent further cuts in budgets for APHIS and USFS. We need more friends in Congress.

I urge you – and your friends! – to contact your Representatives and Senators to explain how invasive species are damaging important ecological and economic resources in your state. Ask them to work with their colleagues to support and improve federal programs aimed at preventing new introductions, containing species already introduced, and developing effective methods to reduce pests’ impacts and restore native forests.

Posted by Faith Campbell