Wood packaging: serious data gaps … but clear opportunities to act

discarded pallets next to developed area in Glacier National Park (!); photo by F.T. Campbell

Since July 2015 I have posted nearly 50 blogs about non-native insects introduced via movement of solid wood packaging material (SWPM). Why? Because SWPM is one of two most important pathways by numbers introduced & by impact of the species introduced. (The other pathway is P4P.) To read those earlier blogs, scroll below “archives” to “categories”, choose “wood packaging”.

Examples of insects introduced via the wood packaging pathway include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle, Mediterranean oak borer, and possibly, three species of invasive shot hole borers.

dead redbay trees in Everglades National Park; killed by laurel wilt vectored by redbay ambrosia beetle

As I have reported in the earlier blogs and in my “Fading Forests” reports (links at the end of this blog), in 2002, the parties to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) adopted an international “standard” to guide countries’ programs intended to reduce the presence of damaging insects in the wood packaging: International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) #15). The U.S. and Canada adopted the standard through a phase-in process culminating in 2006. [For a discussion of the phase-in periods and process, read either of the studies by Haack et al. cited at the end of this blog.] In other words, the U.S. and Canada have implemented ISPM#15 for almost 20 years. China specifically has been subject to requirements that it treat its SWPM even longer – since December, 1998, i.e., more than 25 years.

Unfortunately, ISPM#15 is not intended to prevent pest introductions.  As stated in Greenwood et al 2023, “Prior to 2009, the goal of compliance with ISPM 15 was to render the risk of wood-borne pests “practically eliminated,” in 2009 the standard was amended to “significantly reduced”.  

Despite almost universal adoption of the standard by countries engaged in international trade, insects have continued to be present in wood packaging. A very high proportion of these infested shipments — 87% – 95% — of the SWPM found by U.S. officials bears the ISPM#15 stamp – that is, is apparently compliant. (See my blogs by clicking on the “Category” “wood packaging” listed below the “Archives”.) The same proportion was found in a narrower study in Europe (Eyre et al. 2018). All the post-2006 examples of infested wood analyzed by Haack et al. (2022) (see below) carry the stamp. I conclude that the ISPM#15 mark has failed in its purpose: to reliably indicate that SWPM accompanying imports has been treated so as to minimize the likelihood that an insect pest will be present.  

Dr. Robert Haack, retired USFS entomologist, has twice tried to estimate the “approach rate” of insects in SWPM entering the United States (both studies are cited at the end of this blog). A study published in 2014 that relied on data from 2009 found that U.S. implementation of ISPM#15 was associated with a reduction in the SWPM infestation rate reported of 36–52%. The authors estimated the infestation rate to be 0.1% (1/10th of 1%, or 1 consignment out of a thousand). (See Haack et al. 2014; citation at the end of this blog.)

In their second study, published in 2022, Haack and colleagues found a 61% decrease in rates of borer detection in wood packaging when comparing numbers of wood borer detections in 2003 – before the U.S. implemented ISPM#15 – to those in 2020. Specifically, detections dropped from 0.34% in 2003 to 0.21% in 2020. This decrease occurred despite the volume of U.S. imports rising 68% between 2003 and 2020. (My blogs document a further increase in import volumes over the years since 2020.) In addition, the number of countries from which the SWPM originated more than doubled from 2003–2004 to 2010–2020. This expansion exposes North America to a wider range of insect species that might be introduced, as well as a wider range of individual countries’ effectiveness in enforcing the standard’s requirements (Haack et al. 2022).

These decreases are encouraging. However, Haack et al. (2022) note some caveats:

  • The reduction in pest presence was greatest during the initial implementation of the program the first phase, 2005-2006 (61%); in subsequent periods pest approach rate inched back up. In the 2010-2020 period, the pest detection rate was only 36% below the pre-ISPM#15 level. Detection rates have been relatively constant since 2005. Does this stasis mean that exporters learned that they could ignore or circumvent the requirements without suffering significant penalties? Or is some of this rise related to increased trade volumes, increasing variety of country of origin for trade, or other global trade patterns unrecognized in the data? (However, see the next bullet point.)
  • Certain types of commercial goods and exporting countries have consistently fallen short. Specifically, the rate of wood packaging from China that is infested remained relatively steady over the 17 years since 2003. The proportion of consignments with infested wood packaging coming from China was more than five times the proportion of all inspected shipments for this period. In other words, China has had a consistent record of poor compliance with phytosanitary regulations since they were imposed in December 1998. Why is USDA not taking action to correct this problem? (As I note below, DHS CBP has ramped up enforcement efforts.) Some other countries, e.g., Italy and Mexico, have reduced the rate at which wood packaging accompanying their consignments is infested. In fact, Mexico’s improved performance largely explains the overall infestation rate estimate of 0.22% during the period 2010-2010. Mexico’s successes affect the overall statistics in a way that makes other countries’ failure to reduce the presence of pests in wood packaging they ship to the United States far less obvious.

Haack et al. (2022) discuss ten possible explanations for their finding that pest approach rates – as determined by their study — have not decreased more. See the article or my blog https://www.nivemnic.us/?p=3905 about the study.

Although USDA APHIS has not taken steps to strengthen its enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection [an agency in the Department of Homeland Security] has done so twice — see here and here.  CBP staff have expressed disappointment that these actions reduced the numbers of shipments in violation of ISPM#15 by only 33% between Fiscal Year 2017 and FY2022. True, more than 60% of these violations consisted of a missing or fraudulent ISPM#15 stamp. However, 194 consignments still harbored live pests prohibited under the standard.

APHIS did agree in 2021 to enable the study by Robert Haack and colleagues, via an interoffice data sharing agreement between USDA APHIS and the Forest Service- this resulted in Haack et al. 2022.

APHIS and CBP also collaborated with an industry initiative to train inspectors that insure other aspects of foreign purchases. The ideas was that CBP or APHIS and their Canadian counterparts would inform importers about which foreign treatment facilities have a record of poor compliance or suspected fraud. The importers could then avoid purchasing SWPM from them. I have heard nothing about this initiative for three years, so I fear it has collapsed.

We lack data on which to base a rigorous analysis

While the two studies by Robert Haack and colleagues are the best available, and they relied on the best data available, the fact is that those available data do not provide a full picture of the risk of pest introduction associated with wood packaging. As pointed out by Leigh Greenwood of The Nature Conservancy in her presentation to 2025 USDA Invasive Species Research Forum, available data have been collected for different purposes than to answer this question. Leigh’s powerpoint is posted here.

Leigh has identified the following data gaps:

  1. In their studies, Haack and colleagues rely on data from the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) system. This dataset is based on random sampling of very distinct segments of incoming trade. It is therefore a better measure of insect approach rates than reports of interceptions by either APHIS or CBP.

However, AQIM includes data from only those very distinct segments of trade: perishable goods, SWPM associated with maritime containerized imports, Italian tiles, and “other” goods, AQIM does not contain a segment of trade that includes wood packaging associated with maritime breakbulk or roll-on, roll-off (RORO) cargo. These exclusions have prevented scientists and enforcement officials from determining, inter alia, how great a risk of pest introduction is associated with various types of wood packaging, especially dunnage, as the randomized sample does not include entire pathways for the entrance of dunnage.

Greenwood states that she has not found another country that operates a similar analysis of randomly collected data at ports of entry.

2) USDA does not collect data on consignment size, piece-specific infestation density, nor consignment-wide infestation density. As Haack et al. (2022) point out, reporting detections by consignment doesn’t reveal the number of insects present. If implementation of ISPM#15 resulted in fewer live insects being present in an “infested” consignment, this would reduce the establishment risk because there is lower propagule pressure. However, we cannot know whether this is true.

3) Neither USDA nor CBP reports the inspection effort. Nor do they conduct a “leakage survey” to see how often target pests are missed. This means, inter alia, that we cannot estimate inspectors’ efficiency in detecting infested wood packaging. If their proficiency has improved as a result of improvements in training, inspection techniques, or technology, the apparent impact of ISPM#15 would be under-reported in recent years.

4) USDA does not require port inspectors to report the type of SWPM in which the pest was detected. Leigh participated in an effort that included industry representatives, DHS CBP and USDA APHIS to define the types of wood packaging in legal terminology so that they could be incorporated in the drop-down menu on inspectors’ reporting system. This was first successfully included in the legal glossary within USDA APHIS system of record, ACIR Glossary. Last fall the team was working to integrate the requirement for using these definitions into the inspection data collection system used by DHS CBP, which would then make this data available in Agricultural Risk Management, ARM (see Abstract here for adequate primer on ARM). However, it is unclear now whether the new administration will do so. One potential barrier is that asking the port of entry inspection staff to record these data will add to the time and training required for reporting inspection results.

In summary, Leigh reports that current data systems do not support

  • estimating probabilities of pest infestation of via volume or type of SWPM (e.g. pallet vs dunnage)
  • measuring the risk of arrival associated with a specific hazard (in this case, a hazard being a live pest or pathogen associated with SWPM)
  • extrapolating or supporting findings for some types of wood packaging to other types of wood packaging

Scientists from Canada, Mexico, and the United States have formed a working group under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). The group is trying to determine whether various types of wood packaging are more likely to harbor pests. This study is currently hampered by the many data gaps, including those Leigh outlined above. The best data available, cited by Haack et al. (2022), found that in maritime containerized shipping, crates were more likely to harbor pests than pallets- however, other forms of SWPM (dunnage, bracing, etc.) had such low sample size that no analysis of those is possible. One of the main objectives of the NAPPO study is to evaluate if dunnage poses the same or higher risk, so this is a major impediment.

Two issues need to be resolved.

One is scientific: why are insects continuing to be detected in wood packaging marked as having been treated? What is the relative importance of insects surviving the treatment versus treatment facilities applying the treatments incorrectly or inadequately?

The second issue is legal and political: what proportion of the detections is due to treatment facilities committing outright fraud – claiming to treat the wood, stamping it with an IPPC stamp, while not actually performing any treatments at all?

Knowing which measures will most effectively solve these quandaries / reduce pest presence in wood packaging depends on knowing what the relative importance of these factors are in causing the problem.  The lack of basic data on which to base any analysis certainly hampers efforts to improve protection.

Leigh calls for researchers to recognize these data needs and work to fill them.

•Understand, account for, and communicate data realities

•Work collectively to increase useable data quality

•Use additional research to validate, or to demonstrate disparities

Why Wait for the Science?

In the meantime, however, I assert that more vigorous enforcement efforts by responsible agencies should help reduce the occurrence of fraud. I have suggested the following actions:

  • U.S. and Canada refuse to accept wood packaging from foreign suppliers that have a record of repeated violations – whatever the apparent cause of the non-compliance. Institute severe penalties to deter foreign suppliers from taking devious steps to escape being associated with their violation record.
  • APHIS and CBP and their Canadian counterparts follow through on the industry-initiated program described above and here aimed at helping importers avoid using wood packaging from unreliable suppliers in the exporting country.
  • Encourage a rapid switch to materials that won’t transport wood-borers. Plastic is one such material. While no one wants to encourage production of more plastic, the Earth is drowning under discarded plastic. Some firms are recycling plastic waste into pallets.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

What will replace hemlocks? Intractions with other plants & introduced pathogens complicate the situation

eastern hemlocks in Cook Forest State Forest Pennsylvania; photo by F.T. Campbell

As Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) suffers high levels of mortality across nearly all its range due to hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA; Adelges tsugae),  scientists scramble to determine what the successor forests will look like. The transformation will be stark: from deeply shaded evergreen coniferous forest with a sparse understory to something very different. As this process takes place, most scientists expect cascading effects on not only terrestrial and aquatic wildlife but also onecosystem functions, including soils and nutrient and hydrologic cycles (Dharmadi et al. 2019 Plotkin et al. 2024).

New England

In southern New England, hemlock groves are being replaced by stands of deciduous hardwood forests dominated by black birch (Betula lenta). While birch are expected to continue to dominate, other species comprise at least one third of seedlings in the Harvard Forest experimental sites, primarily eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Plotkin et al. (2024) note that conversion of hemlock forests to pine forests would be a less dramatic ecosystem shift since both are evergreen conifers.

symptoms of beech leaf disease; photo by the Ohio State University

In both southern New England and farther north, in Vermont and New Hampshire, maples and American beech have increased in prominence. In the latter case, this is despite the prevalence of beech bark disease and managers’ efforts to suppress beech. I have noted that beech leaf disease now threatens to disrupt this process.

Landowners in the region often seek to get some financial return from their forests before a pest kills the trees. About a quarter of the almost 9,000 ha of hemlock stands in the southern Connecticut River Valley have been harvested as HWA spread into the area. To test the effect of pre-mortality logging of hemlock stands, Plotkin et al. tried to mimic HWA-caused mortality by girdling all the hemlocks in some plots in Harvard Forest. In other plots they harvested most hemlocks and some of the other tree species. The girdled plots had a dramatic increase in standing and downed deadwood and a longer period of elevated understory light levels than the logged plots. They note that standing snags and on-ground dead wood provide critical ecosystem functions. Many wildlife and microbial species depend on dead wood for nutrition and a variety of micro habitats. Plotkin et al. found that the slowly decomposing dead wood also stored a large amount of carbon: girdled plots stored 18% more above-ground carbon than logged sites, even after accounting for carbon stored in harvested wood products.

a beech snag with nesting cavities; photo by F.T. Campbell

The magnitude of these differences might be even larger than demonstrated in this experiment. In New England, hemlocks infested with HWA die over a decade, not the two years seen after girdling. The delayed mortality provides a longer window of opportunity for succeeding vegetation to adapt and preserve higher levels of biodiversity. Plotkin et al. (2024) suggest that logging pest-threatened hemlock forests might remove structural resources that would support forest response to ongoing climate stress and future disturbances.

Considering the disturbed plots’ invasibility by non-native plants, Plotkin et al. (2024) found that more non-native shrubs invaded the girdled plots than the logged plots. They suggest that birds that disperse the shrubs’ fleshy fruits were attracted by perch sites provided by the standing dead trees.

Southern Appalachians

In the Southern Appalachians, post-HWA forests will apparently be quite different. At the USDA Forest Service’ Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in the Nantahala Mountain Range of western North Carolina, eastern hemlock died much faster than in New England. Hemlocks comprised more than 40% of the basal area before arrival of HWA (detected in 2003). Within two years all hemlock trees were infested. Half were dead by 2010, 97% by 2014 (Dharmadi et al. 2919).

In some part of the southern Appalachian forests the shrub layer is dominated by Rhododendron maximum (rosebay rhododendron). This dense shrub layer is preventing recruitment of deciduous tree species that had been expected to replace the dead hemlocks. Tree seedlings died rather than grew into saplings. Scientists working in the Coweeta experimental forest attribute the seedlings’ demise to limited access to key resources, e.g., water, nutrients (especially inorganic nitrogen), and light (Dharmadi, Elliott and Miniat 2019).

In the Coweeta Basin, hemlock loss is the most recent of a series of severe disturbances that have apparently led to a cascade of responses in the overstory, midstory, and soil that have promoted expansion of rhododendron. (The earlier disturbances were widespread logging in the 19th Century and the loss of American chestnut to chestnut blight in the first part of the 20th Century. Therefore, the response of future forests to changes in temperature and rainfall might now depend on these novel tree-shrub interactions .

R. maximum hampers succession by forming a dense subcanopy layer that greatly limits light reaching the forest floor and reduces soil moisture and temperature. These changes impede seed germination and seedling survival. In addition, rhododendron leaves that fall to the ground create a thick organic soil layer that decomposes very slowly. This affects soil chemistry, specifically availability of the key nutrient nitrogen.

The rhododendron shrubs in the region are younger than the deciduous trees now making up the canopy above them (Dharmadi, Elliott and Miniat 2019). The dense rhododendron stands resulted from the widespread mortality of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) in the early 20th century and of hemlock in the first years of the 21st Century. What’s more, even the mature deciduous trees appear to be suppressed by dense rhododendron stands. Canopy trees above rhododendrons are on average 6m shorter than those growing on sites without rhododendron thickets (Dharmadi, Elliott and Miniat 2019). In fact, by 2014, 10% of standing trees other than hemlocks had died. The tree suffering the highest level of mortality was flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The authors do not mention a probable factor, the introduced disease dogwood anthracnose. Other species experiencing high levels of mortality are not, to my knowledge, under attack by non-native pests, so their demise seems more clearly linked to resource competition with rhododendron. These were striped maple (Acer pennsylvanicum), pitch pine (Pinus rigida), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), and that staple of New England aftermath forests, black birch (Betula lenta).

Dharmadi, Elliott and Miniat (2019) suggested that managers should step in to increase recruitment in both understory and overstory layers. They proposed active management: removing rhododendrons and the soil organic layer. USFS scientists are applying these ideas experimentally at the Coweeta research station. I am unclear as to whether there is one study or more. In any case, rhododendronplants have been removed with the goal of restoring vegetation structure and composition – presumably both understory plant diversity and recruitment of tree species capable of growing into the canopy. In at least some cases, the rhododendron removal is followed by prescribed fire. One study is looking also at whether this action increased water yield.

Apparently this lack of tree regeneration is extensive – although published data are not easily accessible. Staff of the North Carolina Hemlock Restoration Initiative report they encounter similar issues (O.W. Hall, Hemlock Restoration Initiative, pers. comm.)

Several experiments have demonstrated that even in the southern Appalachians, where there are abundant moisture and rainfall, the trees and shrubs compete for water and other nutrients. However, Dharmadi et al. (2022) found that removal of the rhododendron shrub layer is unlikely to significantly alter streamflow, atr least during the growing season. In winter, when deciduous trees lack leaves, reduction in interception of precipitation might result in increased streamflow (Dharmadi et al. 2022). I ask whether increasing stream flow in winter is a goal? I thought the concern was stream flow levels in summer.

Nor is removal of the rhododendron shrub layer likely to alter stream chemistry during the growing season.

Removal of living Rhododendron and leaf litter apparently can help restore forest structure through improving tree seedling survival and recruitment as well as increasing growth of established trees.

Removing Privet

However, other management actions might bring about desired changes more effectively or broadly. Specifically Dharmadi and colleagues mentioned removal of privet (Ligustrum) – a very widespread invasive shrub in forests of the Southeast. (Fifteen years ago it was estimated that just one privet species, Chinese privet, occupied more than a million hectares in 12 southeastern states [Hanula 2009].)

Chinese privet

I ask also whether prescribed fire to remove the rhododendron-dominated soil organic layer is useful. Dharmadi and colleagues found that such fires reduced leaf litter temporarily, but annual leaf-fall replaced the litter layer the next year, so this management effort is unlikely to affect plot evapotranspiration rates.

Supporting Pollinators

Another study (Ulyshenet al. 2022) examined whether removing rosebay rhododendron would benefit bees and other pollinators. They found that removal of Rhododendron alone (without fire) did not dramatically improve pollinator habitat in the southern Appalachians. In fact, about a quarter of the bee species studied visited R. maximum flowers and might decline if the shrub’s population is reduced. Ulyshen and colleagues suggest that some factors that correlate with fire severity probably promotes growth of insect-pollinated plants. They suggest specifically the greater presence of downed woody debris, which provides nesting sites and other resources used by insects. They recommended creation of open areas to support wildflowers as a more effective way to benefit bees in this region. Again, rhododendron removal pales in effectiveness compared to eradication of privet.

SOURCES

Dharmadi, S.N., K.J. Elliott, C.F. Miniat. 2019. Lack of forest tree seedling recruitment and enhanced tree and shrub growth characterizes post-Tsuga canadensis mortality forests in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 440 (2019) 122–130.

Dharmadi, S.N., K.J. Elliott, C.F. Miniat. 2022.  Larger hardwood trees benefit from removing Rhododendron maximum following Tsuga canadensis mortality. Forest Ecology and Management

Hanula, J.L., S. Horn, and J.W. Taylor. 2009. Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) Removal and its Effect on Native Plant Communities of Riparian Forests. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2009 2:292–300.

Plotkin, A.B., A.M. Ellison, D.A. Orwig, M.G. MacLean. 2024. Logging response alters trajectories of reorganization after loss of a foundation tree species. Ecological Applications. 2024;e2957.

Ulyshen, M., K. Elliott, J. Scott, S. Horn, P. Clinton, N. Liu, C.F. Miniat, P. Caldwell, C. Oishi,  J.  Knoepp, P. Bolstad. 2022. Effects of Rhododendron removal and prescribed fire on bees and plants in the southern Appalachians. Ecology and Evolution. 2022;12:e8677.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

A systemic treatment for beech leaf disease!

Reminder: beech leaf disease (BLD) came to attention in 2012 near Cleveland. It has since spread rapidly to the East and more slowly to the North, South, and West. It has been detected in 15 states and the Province of Ontario. The disease is caused by the foliar nematode Litylenchus crenatae mccannii (Lcm). Damage to the leaves can significantly reduce the tree’s ability to photosynthesize, resulting in a progressive depletion of carbohydrate reserves following successive years of infection. Scientists continue efforts to determine how it is spread and the extent of tree mortality.

Last summer I blogged about an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy developed by Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories – the research arm of Bartlett Tree Experts – to treat individual beech trees afflicted with beech leaf disease (BLD). This treatment relied on a foliar spray. The challenge is that the entire canopy must be sprayed; this is difficult for large trees. Also, some trees cannot be sprayed because of their proximity to water bodies or other issues. For these large trees, Bartlett sought to develop a systemic treatment that can be applied as a drench or root flare injection.

photo by Matt Borden, Bartlett, via Flickr

I rejoice to tell you that Bartlett has now confirmed effectiveness of a systemic root flare injection treatment. Again, the project is led by Dr. Andrew Loyd and Dr. Matthew Borden. The full citation for their publication is at the end of this blog.ph

This second treatment utilizes Thiabendazole (TBZ), which has a long history of use in arboriculture to manage Dutch elm disease and sycamore anthracnose. In addition to being a fungicide TBZ is also a potent nematicide.  

Bartlett tested the efficacy of TBZ by monitoring 62 symptomatic American beech (Fagus grandifolia) trees across three sites comprising natural mixed hardwood forests with beech as a dominant species. Half of the trees were injected with TBZ, and the rest were monitored as non-treated controls. In the late winter after applying the injection, the researchers sampled twigs from all the trees and counted the number of nematodes in late-season dormant buds, where most of the damage occurs. They also quantified canopy density and BLD symptom expression before treatment and around 11 months after the tree injections the following year, to gauge year-over-year change. At one site, in Ohio, the trees were assessed again in the second season, or 22 months, after the initial injection. They also assessed damage to the root flare caused by the injection process.

Bartlett’s researchers found that at both 11 and 22 months after treatment, injected trees had significantly better visual ratings of canopy condition and lower numbers of Lcm in dormant buds. The untreated controls continued to have high disease severity and large numbers of nematodes in their buds.

Detailed Results

At the time of the initial inventory and treatment, about 65% of the canopies of beech trees at the two Ohio sites displayed foliar BLD symptoms. The proportion was lower at the New Jersey site, where BLD has been present only a season or two before treating – 42%.

During the first growing season post-treatment, the percent of the symptomatic beech canopies at the two Ohio sites fell by 70 – 85%. At the site where trees were evaluated again the second season (22 months) post-treatment, the percent of the canopy exhibiting leaf symptoms continued to decline. The scientists hypothesize that this continuing decrease could be due to TBZ residues being translocated to new leaves and buds, or to a reduction in local inoculum sources within the individual trees and surrounding forest due to treating a significant portion of the community.

At the New Jersey site, where injection was performed later in the season, the percent of the canopy exhibiting leaf symptoms increased by 66%. However, by another measure – percent of canopy with fine twig dieback – these trees improved by 71% while on untreated trees twig dieback increased by 95% and were already experiencing severe canopy loss.

New Jersey site contrasting treated & untreated trees; photo by Matt Borden, Bartlett

On average, there were significantly fewer Lcm in dormant bud tissues in treated trees compared to the untreated control trees. At the two sites in Ohio, the reductions were by 86% and 99%. At the New Jersey site, the decline was not as great, but still encouraging: 70%.

These results suggest that one treatment can substantially reduce symptoms. Scientists now need to determine at what point BLD symptoms return to damaging levels at both “low” & “high” concentrations of thiabendazole in order to determine retreatment intervals and expectations.

While the disease severity (measured by the percent canopy displaying BLD leaf symptoms) of all trees increased at Hillsborough, the canopies of trees injected with the “low rate” of TBZ was significantly better than those of the untreated trees. This was because of a significant reduction in fine twig dieback in the former as opposed to a significant increase in fine twig dieback in untreated controls. Fine twig dieback symptom expression is presumed to be associated with bud abortion caused by Lcm.

The New Jersey treatments occurred at the end of August. The scientists think that this period might follow rather than precede dispersal of many nematodes from the leaves to the buds, as evidenced by the reduced but still substantial numbers of nematodes found in the buds.

While there was some damage visible at injection sites, the Bartlett team considers the frequency of these symptoms to be low. Cracking of the bark was seen on 19% of injected trees; evidence of fluxing was present on 12%. Injection sites were closing rapidly at the site reviewed after 22 months post-treatment. Additionally, based on observations made during this study, they believe that cracking can be further reduced.

Loyd et al. conclude that TBZ injection is an effective treatment option for large beech (> 25-cm dbh) where full coverage sprays with fluopyram are difficult, or for trees growing near water, or where pesticide drift may be of concern.

a forest in Northern Virginia dominated by beech; photo by F.T. Campbell

While this treatment can be used in natural landscapes, treatments of whole forests will probably not be feasible due to the cost. Scientists continue investigating whether some combination of silvicultural practices such as reduction in stand density and with pesticide application of select mature beech might prove effective. In fact, scientists are establishing new plots this year to test a silviculture management approach in forests of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island where BLD is prevalent.

SOURCE

Loyd, A.L., M.A. Borden, C.A. Littlejohn, C.M. Rigsby, B. Brantley, M. Ware, C. McCurry, & K. Fite. 2025. Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2025 https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2025.007

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

More pests in Europe & Mideast – hazard to North American trees

giant sequoia; photo by Matthew Dillon via Flickr

The pest alert system “PestLens” has again alerted us to plant pests in Europe or Asia that feed on species closely related to tree species native to North American forests.  Two of the insects named in the alert apparently pose a hazard to icons of the forests of America’s Pacific coast forests, giant sequoia and redwood.

I hope APHIS is using this information to alert port and on-the-ground staff and perhaps initiating more in-depth risk assessments.

The posting on February 27, 2025 reported that cotton jassid, Jacobiasca lybica (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), affects not just cotton and citrus but also Cupressus sempervirens (Mediterranean cypress) [Cupressaceae]. More than a dozen North American trees species are in this family, including

  • Sequoiadendron giganteum or giant sequoia. Giant sequoia is listed as an endangered species by the IUCN with fewer than 80,000 remaining in its native California.
  • Chamaecyparis thyoides and C. lawsoniana (Port-Orford cedar). Port-Orford cedar has been decimated in its native range by an introduced pathogen, Phytopthora lateralis. A major breeding effort has developed trees that are resistant to the pathogen; they are now available for people to plant.
  • Thuja occidentalis, also known as northern white-cedar, eastern white-cedar, or arborvitae,
  • Taxodium ascendens, also known as pond cypress
  • several Juniperus
  • Hesperocyparis macrocarpa also known as Cupressus macrocarpa, or the Monterey cypress. NatureServe ranks the cypress as GI – critically imperiled.

Cotton jassid been reported from several countries in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

China has reported the existence of a previously unknown bark beetle species, Phloeosinus metasequoiae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). It was found infesting Metasequoia glyptostroboides (dawn redwood) trees in China. Affected trees exhibited reddened leaves and holes and tunnels in branches.

China has also discovered a several new hosts utilized by the fungus Pestalotiopsis lushanensis (Sordariomycetes: Amphisphaeriales). Formerly known to infect tea (Camellia sinensis) and several other plant species, P. lushanensis has now been found shoot causing blight and leaf drop on a conifer, deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) and leaf spots on an angiosperm with congeners in North America — the rare Chinese species, Magnolia decidua. There are eight species of Magnolia native to North America.

Magnolia grandiflora; photo by DavetheMage via Wikimedia

APHIS’ ability to respond to alerts remains uncertain.

The agency’s probationary employees have been fired – just as at other agencies. APHIS staff were prohibited from participating in last week’s annual USDA Invasive Species Research Forum – the 33rd such meeting. The bird flu emergency is demanding all the attention and funds.

So – how can the rest of us fill in?

At the USDA Research Forum I again presented a poster urging greater attention to tree-killing pathogens. Scientists have made considerable progress in identifying factors that indicate whether a non-native insect might pose a significant threat (see blogs on conifer and deciduous species; more to come!). However, USDA had not funded a similar effort to improve understanding of pathogens. The most promising strategy so far are sentinel plantings. However, these systems have weaknesses; I will blog in the near future about another analysis.

I propose that APHIS start by working with independent scientists to determine the actual, current level of pathogens associated with various types of incoming goods. Contact me directly if you wish to read the text of my poster.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Pest Alerts – is USDA (able to) pay attention?

redbay (Persea borbonia killed by laurel wilt

The pest alert system “PestLens” provides information about new reports of plant pests around the world. Notices are published weekly. These provide North American stakeholders advance notice of pests to be on the lookout for. While I have followed these postings for several years, I have been alarmed by recent notices report documenting the presence of insects or pathogens that feed on species in the same genera as tree species native to North American forests. The alerts cover pests of all types of crops, not just trees.

I note that several of these not-yet-introduced pests attack the genus Persea, which contains several native tree and shrub species that are already severely affected by laurel wilt disease.

The report for 19 December, 2024, provided information about two pathogens.

flowering dogwood Cornus florida; photo by F.T. Campbell
  1. The bacterium Pectobacterium aroidearum (Gammaproteobacteria: Enterobacteriales) was detected in China. The bacterium infests several crops and Persea americana (avocado). Although the detection in China is new, the bacterium is apparently already widespread, since it has been earlier been reported from parts of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Brazil, and Jamaica.
  2. The dagger nematodes Xiphinema simile and X. zagrosense (Longidoridae) were reported in Syria.  X. simile is associated with economically important plants, including Cornus spp. (dogwood; North American species already decimated by the introduced pathogen dogwood anthracnose), Malus spp.(apple), Prunus spp. (stone fruit), Quercus spp. (oaks – already under attack by many non-native organisms), and Vitis vinifera (grape). X. zagrosense is also associated with Poaceae. X. simile has earlier been reported from parts of Europe, Kenya, Iran, and Russia. X. zagrosense has also been reported from Iran.

The report for 9 January, 2025, conveyed information about 1 pathogen and 1 insect.

  1. It noted the presence in Thailand of the fungus Pseudoplagiostoma perseae (Sordariomycetes: Diaporthales) on Persea americana.
  2. The South American palm borer, Paysandisia archon (Lepidoptera: Castniidae), is infesting several palms at multiple locations in Switzerland. It attacks several economically important palm species and the native genus Washingtonia spp. (fan palm).
native California fan palm, Washingtonia filifera; photo by F.T. Campbell

The report for 13 February, 2025, gave information about 1 pathogen and 1 insect.

  1. An anthracnose fungus Colletotrichum aenigma (Sordariomycetes: Glomerellales) infecting Carya illinoinensis (pecan) and Ilex cornuta (Chinese holly) in China. Colletotrichum aenigma infects other economically important plants. These include the following genera with native species in North America: Vaccinium (blueberry), Malus (apple), Persea americana (avocado), and Vitis vinifera (grape). Colletotrichum aenigma is also widespread; it has been reported from parts of Europe, the Middle East, Asia, New Zealand, and South America.
  2. South African citrus thrips, Scirtothrips aurantii (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in a greenhouse in the Netherlands. The thrips infests several woody plants, including Ilex crenata (Japanese holly), Rosa spp., Malus (apple), Persea americana (avocado), Prunus spp. (stone fruit), and Vitis vinifera (grape). S. aurantii  it is under eradication in Portugal and Spain. It has also been reported from parts of Africa, Yemen, and Australia.
Scirtothrips aurantii; photo by Pablo Alvarado Aldea, Spain

A few weeks ago I wanted to conclude this blog by stating my hope that APHIS is using this information to alert port and on-the-ground staff and perhaps initiating more in-depth risk assessments. Now – as we learn about mindless firings of USDA staff, I fear I must limit my hopes to a future for APHIS’ programs and skilled staff in more general terms.

Do we face shut-down of pest prevention/response efforts across the board?

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report here or here.

Coming to an Ecosystem Near You??

Xylotrechus chinensis; EPPO photograph

Europe has been invaded by two insect species that North Americans should be watching out for. First, a Cerambycid, the wasp-mimicking tiger longicorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis. And second,the Buprestid cypress jewel beetle, Lamprodila festiva. We should also ensure that none of the other 500+ beetles introduced to Europe poses a threat to our trees. These are summarized in a 2024 paper by Bunescu et al.

Tiger Longicorn Beetle

This beetle is native to eastern Asia. It feeds on and kills mulberry trees (Moraceae: Morus spp.). It might also attack apple and pear trees and grapevines – Asian sources report these as hosts. The status of grapevines has been questioned by a Spanish experiment, in which artificial inoculations failed. I have seen no further information about the vulnerability of apple (Malus spp.) and pear (Pyrus spp.) (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021)

In Europe, the pest threatens mulberry trees which are commonly planted for shade and ornamentation, especially in southern France, Spain and Greece (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021). For example, there are more than 20,000 mulberry trees in Athens (EFSA 2021). The trees’ abundance contributes to spread of any associated pests, the level of damage caused by falling branches, and the expense of tree removal. Economic damages are those typically associated with wood-borer invasions of urban areas. That is, the cost of tree removals, loss of shade and amenity values, and increased risk of injury from falling branches.

We Americans should be concerned, too. Wild red mulberry (Morus rubra) occupies much of the eastern United States, from southern New England west to southeastern Minnesota, then south along the eastern edge of the Great Plains to central Texas, and east to southern Florida. It is also found in Bermuda. It grows primarily in flood plains and low moist hillsides. . Presumably it would also be attacked by Xylotrechus chinensis, although I don’t know whether anyone has tested this. As a native tree, red mulberry plays a role in natural ecosystems, including wildlife food supplies. Thus, America would see even more significant losses if Xylotrechus chinensis were to establish.

Morus rubra in Fairfax County, Virginia; photo by Fmartin via Wikipedia

Red mulberry is already declining in parts of its central range, possibly due to a bacterial disease. The effects and extent of this disease have not been investigated thoroughly.

Apples and pears are important crops across North America; the farm-gate value is estimated at $3.2 billon.

Introductions of the beetle to Spain, France, and Greece might have resulted from inadequately-treated wood packaging or other wood products. Detections of the species in wood imports were reported in Germany in 2007 and 2017 (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021). The U.S. has also intercepted X. chinensis at least once, at the port of Philadelphia, in 2011 (EFSA 2021).

These detections have raised questions to which no-one yet has answers. First, can X. chinensis develop in cut logs? The European Food Safety Agency concluded that it can (EFSA 2021). Second, one detection involved a shipment of wooden items made from birch (Betula spp.) and willow (Salix spp). It is not yet clear whether these taxa are also hosts (EFSA 2021). (The wood species were not specified in the case of the other interceptions.) I have blogged often about how “leaky” the wood packaging pathway has been; to see these blogs, scroll below the “archives” section of the webpage, then click on the category “wood packaging”.

European scientists believe X. chinensis might also be transported in shipments of plants for planting. However, the beetle prefers to oviposit on large trees. This pathway is less viable for the United States since USDA APHIS allows imports of mulberries (Morus) and pears (Pyrus) only from Canada. Apple trees (Malus spp.), however, may be imported from France – which hosts an introduced population of X. chinensis – and other European countries.  

Detection of any invasion by X. chinensis will pose the usual difficulties associated with woodborers. In some European cities, hundreds or even a thousand trees were infested before the outbreak was detected (EFSA 2021).

I am concerned that the Europeans appear to have been slow to respond to the threat from Xylotrechus chinensis. After several outbreaks were discovered in Greece, France, and Spain in 2017 and 2018, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) added X. chinensis to its Alert List. This action requires member states (which are not limited to European Union members) to report new outbreaks and inform about efforts to either stop or eradicate them (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021).

Shortly afterwards the European Union Commission requested the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) to conduct a risk assessment. This analysis was completed in 2021. (It contains lots of photos of the insect and its damage.) The analysis concluded that Xylotrechus chinensis could probably infest most areas in the Union and cause significant damage. The species meets the criteria for designation as a quarantine pest in the Union. However, as of December 2024, this action had not been taken. As a result, control measures for this species are not mandatory.

Introductions continue; an outbreak in Lombardy, Italy, was found in June 2023 (Sarto i Monteys, Savin, Torras i Tutusaus & Bedós i Balsach 2024).  European regulations – following IPPC standards – also are linked to named pests and known outbreak locations. Such restrictions almost guarantee that the pest will continue to spread from not-yet-detected outbreaks. (Decades ago, after the emerald ash borer invasion, Michigan’s State Plant Regulatory Official, Ken Rasher, noted that, to be effective, “slow the spread” efforts must apply to areas beyond the known limits of the pest’s range.) The EFSA risk assessment did suggest delimitation of buffer zones around known European outbreaks. I don’t know whether such zones have been set up.

The risk assessment also recommended [true?] improving detection of this insect by developing male pheromones as lures. These have not been acted on. Guidance on best timing for treatment [trunk injections of systemic insecticides] also appears to have been taken up by Greece but not by Spain (Sarto i Monteys, Savin, Torras i Tutusaus & Bedós i Balsach 2024).

These authors include more information about the Xylotrechus chinensis life cycle and trajectory of the invasion,. They note that climate change appears to be altering the insect’s phenology. Especially, the adult flight period is beginning earlier in the spring.

Lamprodila festiva; Udo Schmidt via flickr

Cypress jewel beetle

This second pest of concern is a buprestid that attacks trees in the Cupressaceae. Infested trees generally die within a few years.

In its native Mediterranean range, the beetle feeds on native Juniperus, Cupressus and Tetraclinis. In invaded urban landscapes of Europe it attacks primarily introduced Cupressaceae , particularly Thuja, Chamaecyparis, Platycladus, Callitris, and some hybrids (Cupressocyparis). It has also been recorded as damaging Sequoia sempervirens (Brunescu, et al., 2024). (Genera in bold are native to North America.)

Thuja occidentalis; photo by H. Zell via Wikimedia

White cedar, Thuja occidentalis is the focus of Brunescu, et al.’s article. It is native to eastern Canada and much of the north-central and northeastern United States. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) has identified eight species in the Lamprodila genus as important pests, (Brunescu et al. 2024) so the danger might be more widespread. The invasion of Europe is probably the result of adult flight or other short-range transport. The article does not suggest pathways that the species might exploit to cross oceans.

SOURCES

Bunescu, H., T. Florian, D. Dragan, A. Mara, I-B. Hulujan, X-D. Rau. 2024  The Cypress Jewel Beetle Lamprodila Festiva Linné, 1767 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), an Invasive Major Pest of Thuja Occidentalis Linné in Romania Hop and Medicinal Plants, 2024 XXXII, No. 1-2, 2024.

Saarto i Monteyu V., A. Costa Ribeu. I. Savin. 2021a. The invasive longhorn beetle Xylotrechus chinensis, pest of mulberries, in Euro: Study on its local spread & efficacy of abamectin control Plos One January 29, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245527

Sarto i Monteys, V., I. Savin, G. Torras i Tutusaus & M. Bedós i Balsach. 2024b. New evidence on the spread in Catalonia of the invasive longhorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis, & the efficacy of abamectin control. Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:26754 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78265-x  www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

New Shothole Borer in California — Alert! & Opportunity to Advise Whether the State or County Should Lead the Response

several Euwallaceae species; E. interjectus is 2nd from the top. Photo from Gomez et al. 2018; ZooKeys 768 19-68

In December 2024, California officials announced detection of a third species of invasive shothole borer beetle in the state. This invasion was found in Santa Cruz County in October 2024. The beetle has been identified as Euwallacea interjectus; the associated fungus is Fusarium floridanum. Like other non-native shothole borers in the same genus already known to be in California, Euwallacea interjectus is native to Southeast Asia.

So far, the infestation extends across at least 75 acres (CDFA proposal). It is affecting primarily box elders (Acer negundo). Other tree species have also been attacked: California sycamore (Platanus racemose), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Salix laevigata), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa). [See the CDFA risk assessment referred to below]. While it is too early to know precisely, E. interjectus is expected to pose a risk of tree dieback in urban, wildland and agricultural landscapes similar to that already caused by its relatives — the Polyphagous shot hole borer (Euwallacea fornicatus s.s. [PSHB]) and Kuroshio shot hole borer (Euwallacea kuroshio [(KSHB)].

The Santa Cruz County Department of Agriculture and University of California Cooperative Extension Service are coordinating with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to monitor and respond to the infestation. Research is being conducted by the University of California to evaluate the full range of potential tree species that may be affected by the beetle.

CDFA is seeking input on whether to designate Euwallacea interjectus as a category “B” pest. Under this category, response to the pest would be carried out by the counties at their own discretion, not by the state. You can advise CDFA’s on this decision until 17 February. Go here.

In its proposal, CDFA notes that several tree hosts of the beetle grow throughout California. The analysis gave a risk ranking of “High (3)” in four categories: climate/host interaction, host range, dispersal and reproduction, and ecosystem-level impacts. The economic risk rank is “Medium (2)” because it might attack only stressed trees – although CDFA concedes that drought stress is common in California. The overall determination is that the consequences of Euwallacea interjectus’ introduction to California is “High (14)”. Still, CDFA proposes to leave response to this introduction up to affected counties.

Santa Cruz County is outside the areas identified by a model developed by Lynch et al. (full citation below) as being at high risk of establishment of the Euwallacea-Fusarium complex, based on analysis of sites where Euwallacea fornicatus and E. kuroshio are already established. Nearby areas are ranked at high risk; these include drier areas in the San Francisco Bay region.

There are at least three four beetles in the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex. Several look almost identical to one another; the only reliable way to tell them apart is by looking at their DNA. However, E. interjectus is substantially larger than E. fornicatus and E. kuroshio, the two already-established shothole borers causing damage in southern California.

Various members of the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex have invaded countries around the world and other parts of the United States. While many of these introductions occurred decades ago – e.g., Hawai`i, Florida, possibly Israel, there appears to have been a spurt of introductions around or after 2000. The PSHB was first detected in California in 2003; the KSHB in 2013. As of 2022, disease caused by these two complexes had spread throughout Orange, San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. Outbreaks have been detected as far north as Santa Barbara /Santa Clarita. The KSHB had “jumped” to more distant locations in San Luis Obispo and Santa Clara counties. So far, the two later detections apparently do not represent established populations. In November 2023, the PSHB beetle–pathogen complex was confirmed killing hundreds of trees in riparian forests in San Jose, in the San Francisco Bay region. Two host trees – California sycamore and valley oaks – are important in the urban forest canopy of the region

NOTE: the invasive shot hole borers and their associated fungi attacking trees in California are completely unrelated to the laurel wilt complex killing trees in the Lauraceae family in eastern States.  This complex involves an ambrosia beetle Xyleborus glabratus and associated fungus Harringtonia (formerly Raffaelea) lauricola.

SOURCES

California Department of Food and Agriculture, California Pest Rating Proposal Euwallaceae interjectus (Blanford): Boxelder ambrosia beetle https://blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Euwallacea-interjectus.pdf  

Comments due by February 17, 2025.

Lynch, S.C., E. Reyes-Gonzalez, E.L. Bossard, K.S. Alarcon, N.L.R. Love, A.D. Hollander, B.E. Nobua-Behrmann & G.S. Gilbert. 2024. A phylogenetic epidemiology approach to predicting the establishment of multi-host plant pests  Communications Biology

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Urban forests – resource under many threats

ash tree in Michigan killed by emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of (then) Mayor John Hieftje

The Forest Service is promoting its efforts to protect urban forests [see the Northeast Region’s “Roots in Research” in mid-December 2024]. The rationale is that urban forests provide substantial environmental and economic benefits that deserve more attention. These include air purification, temperature regulation and energy savings, water absorption, and improved public health. At the same time, urban forests face multiple and overlapping threats – including the one of greatest concern to us, introduction of tree-killing non-native insects and pathogens.

The article on which the Roots in Research “Science Brief” is based was actually published in 2022 in the Journal of Forestry. In it, David Nowak, Eric Greenfield, and Alexis Ellis evaluated historical and current threats to urban forests across the contiguous states and projected them 50 years into the future. Threats included urban expansion, climate change, insect infestation, and extreme weather events. Their goal was to help urban forest managers and policymakers prioritize resources and planning efforts.

I believe stakeholders should view these projects as underestimates because the sources Nowak et al. relied on for both future climatic conditions and non-native pest impacts are incomplete or outdated. I am not criticizing the choice of sources – they are the standard ones. But events have raised questions about their accuracy.

Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis expected that urban tree cover will decline significantly by 2060. The principle cause is urban expansion — development of previously wooded areas. Development has traditionally been the leading cause of urban forest loss.

Newer threats have become obvious in recent decades – i.e., pest and disease attacks and extreme weather events.

coast live oak infected by GSOB; Heisey County Park, San Diego County photo by F.T. Campbell

The most troubling example of the sources’ weaknesses is the Alien Forest Pest Explorer (AFPE), on which the authors rely for their list of non-native insects and pathogens present in the United States. However, the compilers of this database decided not to include pests that are native to some parts of North America but are behaving as bioinvaders in other regions. The premier example is the goldspotted oak borer (GSOB), Agrilus auroguttatus. This insect kills three species of oaks native to southern California – coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), and canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis). Twelve years ago scientists estimated that GSOB had killed at least 100,000 trees in San Diego County; it has since been detected in widespread infestations in four other counties in southern California.

Not including GSOB (or Mediterranean oak borer; see below) skews the findings because of the importance of the oaks in California’s urban forests. Their genus is the second most-abundant native genus in the state’s urban forest, making up 6.5% of the trees. Because many of these trees are large, they contribute significantly to the ecosystem benefits provided by urban forests. Out of the 152,594 coast live oaks in 287 cities statewide, at least 30,000 of them meet GSOB’s preferred size limit (DBH greater than 18 – 20 inches [~45 cm]) (Love et al. 2022). The highest presence of oaks in urban forests in the South is in Santa Barbara – which has not yet been invaded by GSOB. However, built-up sections of Los Angeles – which are heavily invaded already — have between 250,000 and 300,000 coast live oak trees.

The Alien Forest Pest Explorer also does not include pests of palms. Palms are the first and second most the abundant species in urban areas of both the Southern California Coast and Southwest Desert regions (Love et al. 2022). Of course, palms contribute little to the ecosystem benefit associated with urban forests, but they are iconic symbols of the region. California’s palms are under attack by the South American palm weevil. https://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/south-american-palm-weevil

More difficult to understand is the AFPC’s failure to include the Mediterranean oak borer, (MOB) (Xyleborus monographus). MOB has been introduced from Europe, so it fits the AFPE’s criteria for inclusion. MOB is killing valley (Quercus lobata) and blue oaks (Q. douglasii) in Lake, Napa, Sacramento, and Sonoma counties in California and Oregon oak (Q. garryana) in Troutdale, Salem, and other towns in Oregon.

Quercus lobata, killed by Mediterranean oak beetle

As to the data sources relied on for projections of future climatic factors, several measurements of the changing climate already exceed projections in the models. They expect intensified threats from changes in air temperature, precipitation, aridity, wildfire risk, flooding, and sea level rise. By 2060, temperatures in urban areas are expected to increase by 1.2 – 3.5° C. Nowak and colleagues expected this warming to exacerbate threats from heat stress, flooding, increased salinity, drought, and wildfire. Less certain but possible are more intense storms and pest outbreaks. As I noted above, perhaps even these projections understate the threats.

For example, in discussing flooding the authors relied on measurements of the historic 100-year flood plain. I understand that experts now say this standard is inadequate, given existing records and projected further increases in precipitation (especially high-intensity storms). Urban areas in 98% of the 2,424 counties Nowak et al. analyzed contain flood-prone areas.

Nowak et al. do mention two additional elements exacerbating the flood risk: the spread of impervious surfaces and location of many cities next to bays or wide rivers. In these latter cases, risks might include salt intrusion linked to higher water levels, even in the absence of flooding. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s “intermediate high” scenario projects sea level will rise 61 cm by 2060. 

Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis said the greatest overall threat is in the eastern states, especially New England other than Vermont and Maine; the mid-Atlantic; South Carolina; and Ohio. They say this arises from the combination of high levels of urbanization and accumulation of several threats. The specific threats include projected precipitation changes, storms (hurricanes in the southeast; ice storms in the Appalachians); sea level rise; and the abundance of non-native pests. I think that reliance on data from the past results in understating the hurricane risk in the Northeast (especially the Hudson and Connecticut river basins) and in North Carolina.

Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis reminded us that a healthy urban forest canopy can help mitigate some of the threats associated with climate change. This applies particularly to local air temperatures. Reducing urban heat islands not only addresses a direct threat; it can also moderate such other threats as pest infestations, wildfire, aridity, and storm damage, especially runoff. They advocate science-based tree management programs including preserving existing trees and planting species that can thrive in the expected new local and regional environment, e.g., withstand droughts, flooding, saltwater exposure, or extreme temperatures.

I think their recommendation on pest threats is lame: they suggested “monitoring and managing local pest threats.” Non-native pests demand additional actions at all levels of authority — local, state, and federal.  (See the “Fading Forests” reports linked to at the end of this blog, and earlier blogs under the category “invasive species policy”.) I have already noted troubling exclusion of some pests already present in urban areas of the continental United States. I understand that it is impossible to predict which additional pests might be introduced in the next 50 years. But I would have appreciated a sentence stating the near certainty that more pests will be introduced and cause damage to urban forests in the next 50 years.  

Given the recent fires in the Los Angeles region, I believe we need new analyses of the risk of wildfire in cities and the positive and negative interactions with the urban forest.

SOURCES

Threats to Urban Forests in the United States Roots in Research Issue 45 | December 2024 https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/  products/rooted-research/threats-urban-forests-united-states?utm_source=MarketingCloud&utm_medium=email  accessed 24-12/31

Nowak, D.J., E.J. Greenfield, and A. Ellis. 2022. Assessing Urban Forest Threats across the conterminous United States. Journal of Forestry, 2022, Vol. 120, No. 6

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

APHIS funding for pests that kill trees (& cacti)

emerald ash borer; some of PPA grants are funding evaluation of biocontrol efficacy

USDA APHIS has released information about its most recent annual allocation of funds under the Plant Pest and Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program under §7721 of the Plant Protection Act. (Also see Fading Forests II and III; links provided at the end of this blog.) These funds support both critical needs and opportunities to strengthen the nation’s infrastructure for pest detection, surveillance, identification, and threat mitigation. Since 2009, this USDA program has provided nearly $940 million to more than 5,890 projects.

For FY25 APHIS allocated $62.725 million to fund 339 projects, about 58% of the proposals submitted. About $10 million has reserved for responding to pest and plant health emergencies throughout the year.

According to APHIS’ press release, the highest amount of funds (almost $16 million) is allocated to the category “Enhanced Plant Pest/Disease Survey.” Projects on “Enhanced Mitigation Capabilities” received $13.6 million. “Targetting Domestic Inspection Efforts to Vulnerable Points” received nearly $6 million. “Improving Pest Identification and Detection Technology” was funded at $5 million. Outreach & education received $4 million.  I am not sure why these do not total $63 million.

Funding for States and Specific Pests

Wood-boring insects received about $2.3 million. These included more than $869,800 to assess the efficacy of biocontrol for controlling emerald ash borer (EAB) Agrilus planipennis, $687,410 was provided for various detection projects, and $450,000 for outreach efforts related to various pests. Ohio State received $93,000 to optimize traps for the detection of non-native scolytines (bark beetles).

Biocontrol efficacy will also be assessed for hemlock woolly adelgid, invasive shot hole borers, cactus moth, and several invasive plants (including Brazilian pepper). (Contact me to obtain a copy of CISP’s comments on this biocontrol program.)

Opuntia basilaris in Anza Boreggo; one of flat-padded Opuntia vulnerable to the cactus moth; photo by F.T. Campbell

Funding for other pests exceeded $1 million for spotted lanternfly (nearly $1.4 million), Asian defoliators ($1.2 million) and box tree moth (just over $1 million).

$630,000 was provided for detection surveys and studies of the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, especially how it infects nursery stock. Nursery surveys are funded in Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Most of these states are in regions considered most at risk to SOD infection of wildland plants.    

sudden oak mortality of tanoak trees in southern Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon received much-deserved $41,000 to evaluate the threat of the NA2 and EU2 lineages of P. ramorum to nurseries and forests Oregon also received $104,000 to respond to the detection of Phytophthora austrocedri in nurseries in the state. The Oregon outbreak has been traced to Ohio, but I see no record of funds to assist that state in determining how it was introduced.

Asian defoliator (e.g., Lymantrid moths) surveys have been funded for several years. This year’s projects are in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. While I agree that the introduction risk is not limited to coastal states with maritime ports, I don’t what criteria were applied in choosing the non-coastal states which are funded to search for these insects

Spotted lanternfly surveys (including technological improvements) or related outreach are funded in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. California’s project is focused on postharvest treatments.

The Don’t Move Firewood project continues to be funded by APHIS. Several states also direct attention specifically to the firewood pathway: Kentucky, Maine, and Michigan.

I applaud the precautionary funding of the Agriculture Research Service to generate of high-quality genomic resources for managing the causal agent of Japanese oak wilt Dryadomyces quercivorous

Florida Department of Agriculture, North Carolina State University, and West Virginia University each received more than $100,000 to improve detection and management of invasive hornets.

Tennessee State University got $100,000 to continue efforts to detect and understand Vascular Streak Dieback in redbud Cercis canadensis.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Protect salamanders from fatal disease

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has taken new action to protect North America’s salamanders from the pathogenic Salamander Chytrid Fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans; Bsal). The Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) welcomes this action and urges you to help the Service to finalize it.

To read and comment on the interim rule, go here. The comment period closes on March 11.

oriental fire-bellied newt (Cynops orientalis); one of the non-native species imported in largest numbers before the 2016 Lacey Act interim rule; photo by Sebastian Voitel

USFWS acted under its authority to contained in the “injurious wildlife” provisions of the Lacey Act [18 U.S.C. 42(a)]. This statute, first adopted in 1900, empowers the Secretary of Interior to regulate human-mediated transport of any species of wild mammal, wild bird, fish, mollusk, crustacean, amphibian, or reptile found to be injurious to human beings; to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry; or to America’s wildlife or wildlife resources. Regulated articles include offspring or eggs of the listed species, dead specimens, and animal parts.

Any importation of a listed taxon into the U.S. is regulated. However, regulation of transport within the United States is complicated because of clumsy wording of the statute. In 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals [U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers, Inc. v. Zinke [852 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2017)] ruled that the law regulates transport of listed species (and their progeny, parts, etc.) between the contiguous 48 States and several other jurisdictions: Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, other U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. However, transport among the “lower 48” states (e.g., from Virginia to Kentucky) or from the “lower 48” states to Alaska, is not regulated (unless the route to or from Alaska passes through Canada). In past years conservationists asked Congress to amend the law to close this obvious gap in protection, but without success.

It is still illegal to transport listed species across any state borders if the wildlife specimen was either imported to the U.S. or transported between the above-enumerated jurisdictions in violation of any U.S. law. [Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(1)] 

Those wishing to transport a listed species for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes may apply for a permit from USFWS to do so.

The threat to salamanders

The United States is a center of diversity for salamanders. Our nation is home to 221 species of salamanders, more than any other country. These species are in 23 genera in nine families. In fact, nine of the 10 families of salamanders worldwide are found in the U.S. Highest diversity is found along the Pacific Coast and in the southern Appalachian Mountains. As the most abundant vertebrates in their forest habitats, salamanders make significant contributions to nutrient cycling and even carbon sequestration.

Because they depend on both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, salamanders face many threats to their existence. Twenty species of American salamanders from 6 genera (Ambystoma, Batrachoseps, Eurycea, Necturus, Phaeognathus, Plethodon) are listed under the Endangered Species Act link as endangered or threatened. A subspecies of hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleghaniensis) has been proposed for listing.

Amylosterium xxx – marbled salamander; photo by John B. Clare via Flickr

Over the last 12 years, they have faced an alarming new threat.

In 2013, European scientists detected rapid, widespread death of salamander populations in the Netherlands. They determined that the cause was a fungal disease caused by Batrachochytrium salamandrivoran (Bsal). Their alarm was heightened because this fungus is closely related to another, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), which had recently caused serious decline of more than 100 frog and toad species, including driving several to extinction, and had been transported to all continents except Antartica.

Responding to this new threat, amphibian conservation specialists and wildlife groups generally banded together to put pressure on the USFWS to take regulatory action. In response, in 2016, the USFWS adopted an interim rule link prohibiting importation of 20 genera of salamanders. These genera had been shown by scientists to contain at least one species which either suffered mortality when it was exposed to  Bsal or could transmit the disease to other salamanders. At the time, Bsal had been shown by scientific studies to be lethal to two American species; USFWS had evidence that U.S. species in other genera could “carry” the pathogen and infect other animals. Three of the species included in the 2016 action had already been listed as endangered or threatened. USFWS’ action cut down the number of salamanders being imported annually by ~95% (based on official import data compiled by the USFWS’ Office of Law Enforcement).

The prohibitions do not apply to articles that cannot transmit the fungus. These include eggs or gametes; parts or tissues that have been chemically preserved, chemically treated, or heat treated so that the pathogen, if present, is rendered non-viable; and molecular specimens consisting of only the nucleic acids from organisms.

Now, 8 years later, the USFWS is acting to finalize the 2016 “interim” rule and to regulate importation and transportation of an additional 16 genera of salamanders. This step had been urged by the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS), and many others, in their public comments on that Interim Rule. Extending protection to these 16 genera is based on research conducted since the 2016 Rule. Species in 13 of the newly protected genera are considered likely carriers of the disease. Nine species have been demonstrated to be killed by Bsal. No studies have yet determined the vulnerability of more than 50 species in 10 genera of North American salamanders, including four species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The 36 genera covered by the combined actions of 2016 and 2025 actions are currently considered to comprise ~ 426 species. However, changes in taxonomy are frequent. So USFWS is no longer enumerating the species protected, but is instead relying on listing genera. The regulations apply to all species in a listed genus (whether so classified now or in the future) as well as hybrids of species in any listed genus, including offspring from a pair in which only one of the parents is in a genus listed as injurious.

Appalachian hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleghaniensis; historic book illustration via Flickr

USFWS chose to issue “interim” rules in both 2016 and 2025 because that action takes effect almost immediately. (The 2025 interim rule take effect on January 25th.) The usual rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) often takes years to complete. During that time, the species proposed for listing may still be imported and transported – that is, they could place additional salamander populations at risk of infection by Bsal. The USFWS states that it is unlikely to be able to protect or restore species and ecosystems if the pathogen does become established in the U.S.

In the interval between 2016 and now, Canada banned importation of all living or dead salamanders, eggs, sperm, tissue cultures, and embryos in response to the Bsal threat.

During these years scientists also completed several studies aimed at clarifying which salamander species are either at risk of infection by Bsal or are able to harbor and transmit the pathogen to other salamanders. The USFWS cites studies by, inter alia, Yuan et al. 2018, Carter et al. 2020, Barnhart et al. 2020, Grear et al. 2021, and Gray et al. 2023. USFWS says it cannot act in the absence of such studies, since it must justify its protective actions on scientifically defensible information.

Another relevant question is whether Bsal is already established in North America? Waddle et al. 2020 carried out an intensive search in 35 states that found no evidence that it is. The USFWS concludes that prohibiting importation of additional salamander taxa is still an effective measure to protect North American biodiversity. This is because the international commercial trade in salamanders is the most likely pathway by which Bsal would be introduced to the United States. We note in support of this assertion that former USFWS employee Su Jewell found years ago that none of the 288 non-indigenous species listed as injurious while they are not established in the U.S. has become established since the listing. 

The Federal Register document includes a lengthy discussions of why the USFWS has chosen to act under the Lacey Act rather than try some other approach, e.g., setting up quarantine areas or a disease-free certification program for traded salamanders. Among the factors they considered were the current absence of certainty in testing procedures and the possibility of falsified documentation.

WEAKNESSES THE LACEY ACT

The Lacey Act is the principal statute under which the U.S. Government tries to manage invasive species of wildlife – at least those that are not considered “plant pests”. It is not surprising that a law written 125 years ago is no longer the best fit for current conservation needs. See our earlier blog and discussions by, inter alia, Fowler, Lodge, and Hsia and Anderson.

Here, the USFWS lacks authority to regulate pathogens [viruses, bacteria, and fungi that cause disease] or fomites (materials, such as water, that can act as passive carriers and transfer pathogens). Instead, USFWS regulates the hosts. The USFWS previously listed dead salmonids as “injurious” because their carcasses can transmit several viruses.   

Another issue is that USFWS cannot designate a taxon “injurious” and regulate trade in it until the Service has conclusive scientific evidence that the species or genus meets the definition. The USFWS has chosen to rely on genus-level data rather than require that each species be tested. Still, as we noted above, American salamanders in 10 genera remain outside the Lacey Act’s protections because studies have not yet been conducted. The USFWS concedes that many of these genera might contain species that are vulnerable to this potentially deadly fungus.

As to relying on laboratory tests of a taxon’s response to the pathogen, the USFWS believes that environmental stresses inherent living in the wild might exacerbate a salamander species’ vulnerability to the disease.

The USFWS is requesting public comment specifically on:

(1) the extent to which species in the 16 genera listed by this interim rule are currently in domestic production for sale – and in which States this occurs? How many businesses sell salamanders from the listed genera between enumerated jurisdictions (e.g., between “lower 48” states and Hawai`i or the District of Columbia)?

(2) What state-listed endangered or threatened species would be affected by introduction of Bsal?

(3) How could this interim rule be modified to reduce costs or burdens for some or all entities, including small entities, while still meeting USFWS’s goals? What are the costs and benefits of the modifications?

(4) Is there any evidence suggesting that Bsal has been established in the U.S.? Or that any of these genera are not carriers of Bsal? Or that additional genera are carriers of Bsal? Is there evidence that eggs or other reproductive material pose a greater risk than USFWS determined, so should be regulated?

(5) Could a reliable health certificate system be developed that would allow imports of Bsal-free salamanders? Are there treatments that would ensure imported salamanders are reliably free of Bsal? How could compliance be monitored? As to salamander specimens, parts, or products, are there other treatments proven adequate to render Bsal non-viable?

(6) Do any Federal, State, or local rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict w/ this interim rule?

CISP encourages those with knowledge of amphibian conservation and disease to comment. Slow progress has been made toward blocking Bsal from the U.S., but the story is not yet closed.

See also the articles by Su Jewell,

Jewell, S.D. 2020 A century of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act: a history. Management of Biological Invasions 11(3): 356–371, https://doi.org/10. 3391/mbi.2020.11.3.01

Jewell, S.D. and P.L. Fuller 2021 The unsung success of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act. Management of Biological Invasions 2021 Volume 12 Issue 3

Posted by Faith Campbell and Peter Jenkins (former member of CISP’s board and consultant to NECIS and other groups on amphibian disease regulation)

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