Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Senate Hearing on Invasive Species Policy on Federal Lands

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

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

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

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

WHO WAS THERE?

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

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

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

At the end of the day …

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

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

Witness Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I called on the Senators to take several practical steps:

Amend the Lacey Act to enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to

apply scientific risk assessment tools in evaluating species proposed for importation;
act quickly when confronted by an emergency.

Plus clarify FWS’ authority to regulate

all animal taxa (in coordination with USDA);
the threat to wildlife from disease; and
interstate movement of species already listed under the Lacey Act as “injurious”.

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

Questions from the Senators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell & Phyllis Windle

European study buttresses case for revolutionary changes to phytosanitary system

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

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

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

The authors note that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

What You Can Do

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

SOURCES

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

Time to view “Trees in Trouble”!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

Threats to America’s Magnificent Oaks

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

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

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

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

CURRENT THREATS IN THE EAST

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

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

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

Oak wilt (caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum) is widespread from central Pennsylvania across Iowa, down the Appalachians in West Virginia and North Carolina-Tennessee border, in northern Arkansas and with large areas affected in central Texas. There is an isolated outbreak in New York State. (See map here). According to the US Forest Service, oak wilt is one of the most serious tree diseases in the eastern U.S. It attacks primarily red oaks and live oaks. It is spread by both bark-boring beetles and root grafts.

From Long Island along the coast into Nova Scotia and into central Massachusetts, oaks are being killed by the winter moth (Operophtera brumata). Like the gypsy moth, the winter moth has a wide host range. (For more information, see here). A small program led by Joseph Elkington of the University of Massachusetts has focused on biocontrol. Biocontrol agents have successfully reduced winter moth damage in Nova Scotia and the Pacific Northwest. First results are promising in New England.

CURRENT THREATS IN THE WEST

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

Coast live oaks, canyon live oaks, California black oaks, Shreve’s oaks, and tanoaks growing in coastal forests from Monterey County north to southern Oregon that catch fog/rain are being killed by sudden oak death and here. Sudden oak death has killed over one million tanoaks as well as hundreds of thousands of coast live oaks and other trees. In early days of the infestation, Oregon – with considerable help from the US Forest Service – tried to eradicate a small infestation in Curry County. The inherent difficulty in managing a pathogen and interruptions in funding caused that effort to fail. The state is now focused on trying to slow spread of the disease.

In California, coast live oaks, black oaks, and canyon oaks in the southern part of the state – primarily in San Diego County, but also parts of San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles counties – are being killed by goldspotted oak borer and here. At least 100,000 black oaks have been killed in less than 20 years. Neither the State of California nor USDA APHIS has adopted regulations aimed at preventing spread of the goldspotted oak borer, despite oaks being at risk throughout California.

Two more wood-boring beetles threaten oaks in southern California. In five counties in the region, coast live oaks, canyon live oaks, Engelman oaks, and valley oaks – and many other kinds of trees – are being killed by a disease transmitted by the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers and here. The polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers attack more than 300 plant species, including tree species that anchor the region’s riparian areas as well as half of the trees planted in urban areas of the region.

Also, oaks on the West coast would be attacked by gypsy moths should they reach the area. The risk is two-fold – the Asian gypsy moth continually is carried to the area on ships bearing imports from Asia (as discussed in my blog in March). And the European gypsy moth is sometimes taken across the country on travellers’ vehicles, outdoor furniture, or firewood. Both the West Coast states and USDA search vigilantly for any signs of gypsy moth arrival.

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

ADDITIONAL THREATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symptoms can be viewed here.

SOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

The ALB Eradication Effort

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

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

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

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

pshb_1 PSHB damage to coast live oak;

photo by Akif Eskalen, UCRiverside

Other tree-killing insects are being ignored

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other funding needs

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

SOURCES

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

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

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

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

USDA APHIS NEWS RELEASE 3/28/16

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

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

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

Asian gypsy moth – the risk is still too high

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

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

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

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

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

AGM Interceptions by year

United States Canada

2010 4

2011 21

2012 44 32

2013 42 33

2014 76 39

2015 7 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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