invasion of wild/black mustard Brassica nigra; photo by carlbegge via Flickr
A California state legislator has proposed a bill to expand state efforts to counter invasive species. Should we support it – and others like it in other states?
The bill is Assembly Bill 2827 introduced by Assembly Member (and former Majority Leader) Eloise Reyes of the 50th Assembly District. She represents urban parts of southwestern San Bernardino County, including the cities of Rialto, Colton, and Fontana.
According to media reports, Reyes was prompted to act by the current outbreak of exotic fruit flies, which as of some months ago resulted in detections in 15 California counties.
The bill is much broader than agricultural pests, however. It would find and declare that it is a primary goal of the state to prevent the introduction, and suppress the spread, of invasive species within its borders. I applaud the language of the “findings” section:
(a) Invasive species have the potential to cause extensive damage to California’s natural and working landscapes, native species, agriculture, the public, and economy.
(b) Invasive species can threaten native flora and fauna, disrupt ecosystems, damage critical infrastructure, and result in further loss of biodiversity.
Paragraph (c) cites rising threats associated with increased movement of goods, international travel, and climate change — all said to create conditions that may enhance the survival, reproduction, and spread of these invasive species, posing additional threats to the state.
(d) It is in the best interest of the state to adopt a proactive and coordinated approach to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species.
California sycamore attacked by invasive shot hole borer; photo by Beatriz Nobua-Behrmann
The bill calls for
The state agencies, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to develop and implement pertinent strategies to protect the state’s agriculture, environment, and natural resources.
The state to invest in research, outreach, and education programs to raise awareness and promote responsible practices among residents, industries, and visitors.
State agencies to coordinate efforts with federal, local, and tribal authorities.
However, the bill falls short when it comes to action. Having declared that countering bioinvasion is “a primary goal of the state”, and mandated the above efforts, the bill says only that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (which has responsibility for plant pests) is to allocate funds, if available, to implement and enforce this article. Under this provision, significant action is likely to depend on holding agencies accountable and providing increased funding.
removing coast live oak killed by goldspotted oak borer; photo by F.T. Campbell
Would this proposed legislation make a practical difference? I have often complained that CDFA has not taken action to protect the state’s wonderful flora. For example, CDFA does not regulate firewood to prevent movement of pests within the State. It has not regulated numerous invasive plants or several wood-boring insects. These include the goldspotted oak borer; the polyphagous and Kuroshio shothole borers; and the Mediterranean oak borer.
On the other hand, CDFA is quick to act against pests that might enter the state from elsewhere in the country, e.g., spongy moth (European or Asian), emerald ash borer and spotted lanternfly.
I hope Californians and the several non-governmental organizations focused on invasive species will lobby the legislature to adopt Assembly Bill 2827. I hope further that they will try to identify and secure a source of funds to support the mandated action by CDFA and other agencies responsible for managing the fauna, flora, and other taxa to which invasive species belong.
I applaud Ms. Reyes’ initiative. I hope legislators in other states will consider proposing similar bills.
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Whitebark pine – a foundational & keystone species in high elevation mountains of the West; photo by Walter Siegmund
A British scientist has proposed a new way to conduct early pest detection surveillance that she thinks will better serve resource managers: prioritize ecosystems which would suffer the greatest alteration if a non-native plant pest decimated one or more plant species. She says scientists should focus on foundational species and maintaining habitat resilience.
Dr. Ruth J. Mitchell leads the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Group within the Ecological Sciences Department at the James Hutton Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. The Institute works on issues relevant to sustainable management of natural resources. I provide a full citation of her article at the end of the blog.
Dr. Mitchell’s focus is on protecting biological diversity. She worries that introduced plant pests can drive large-scale declines in native plant species. She mentions several examples, including chestnut blight and ash decline. Those declines, in turn, can cause a range of cascading effects on associated species that use the host plant for feeding, breeding and shelter, and on ecosystem functioning. To be prepared to counter this level of risk, managers of natural habitats need to know which habitats and plants are at greatest risk in order to prioritize surveillance of the most likely human actions and sites; and allocate resources to address the most damaging invasions.
Her proposal: prioritize host plant species or habitats which ecological theory indicates an invasion would have the greatest ecological impact. In other words, focus on “foundational species” — plant species that drive key ecosystem functions; or low (plant) diversity habitats — based on the assumption that diverse communities are more stable and resilient than less diverse communities.
Mitchell notes that ecological theory posits that if a foundation species is lost or declines, its disappearance will have a greater effect on the ecosystem than if non-foundation species are impacted. She believes that although there is no list of foundation species, scientific staff can develop appropriate lists for their site. For her study, she made the simplistic assumption that those species that occur at high abundance are most likely to be foundation species. Regarding the second, habitat-resilience criterion, Mitchell assumed that a pest which eliminates a plant species in a low-diversity habitat is likely to have a greater ecological impact on that habitat’s functioning than would extinction of a species in a high-diversity habitat, which is likely to have redundancies.
Mitchell asserts that these approaches to surveillance take account of an invasion’s impacts on broader associated species and ecosystem functions – on biodiversity broadly. These suggested methods have other advantages, too. They avoid the bias in existing lists of pests, which consist predominantly plants of commercial importance; and they don’t need to be updated frequently.
Mitchell identifies four ways to prioritize surveillance efforts based on the potential host rather than the potential pest. The surveillance monitoring might target:
(1) Plant genera known to host the pests (including pathogens) most likely to establish (Host-pest);
(2) Habitats harboring hosts for the greatest number of pests most likely to establish (Habitat-pest);
(3) Plants classed as foundation species (Foundation-species);
(4) Habitats with low plant species diversity and hence low resilience (Habitat-resilience).
Mitchell analyzed the damage that 91 pest species might cause to plant species which occur at 25% or higher cover in 12 broad habitat types in the United Kingdom. As a case study, she also looked at 22 vegetation communities within one of those habitat types (heathland). (See the article for a discussion of how she derived her list of 91 pests, their hosts, and the entity responsible for designating the habitat types.)
For both hosts and habitats, Mitchell compared results of two approaches: (a) assessment based on lists of known known pests; and (b) assessment based on potential ecological impact. Surveillance based on known risks i.e. lists of plant pests(i.e., the Hosts-pest and Habitat-pest methods) assumes that scientists have a complete list of pests, their risk of establishment, and their impacts. We know that is not the case. As an illustration, Mitchell’s review of the literature identified 142 insects or pathogens hosted by plant genera present on British moorlands that are not listed as pests by the appropriate British authority, the UK Plant Health Risk Register (PHRR).
To conduct a “Foundation-species” surveillance program, one must first identify foundational plant species. Mitchell defined those as species that constitute more than 75% cover in any plant community. (While this is admittedly an oversimplification, Mitchell says that the loss or severe decline of such abundant species will have a major impact on community composition.) One then prioritizes surveillance of these species – regardless of whether they are at risk from a known pest. This method emphasizes attention to potential impact to the habitat or plant community. Furthermore, this approach accommodates detection of the ‘known unknown’ pests.
To conduct a “Habitat-resilience” surveillance program, one must first identify the number of species in each habitat or vegetation community that occur at more than 25% cover. One then prioritizes surveillance of those habitats with the lowest average species diversity.
Differences in results
When basing the analysis on lists of known pests threatening all 12 habitat types, two genera stood out as at particular risk: Prunus and Solanum. Each consists of hosts supporting more than 20 of the 91 pests. Another 17 genera comprised hosts of six or more pests. Many of these genera include species that are important in ornamental horticulture or production forestry. Mitchell considers this a flaw. She points out that different genera ranked highest under this system when the focus narrowed to heathland communities. In heathlands, the genera comprising hosts of the most pests were Calluna, Erica, Festuca and Vaccinium.
American elm – a deserving priority for pest surveillance! Photo by F.T. Campbell
I note that from my perspective – concern about pests that kill native trees – several of the 17 genera included in the “known pests” analysis do raise alarm: Acer, Salix, Ulmus, Fraxinus, Pinus, Quercus, Betula, Viburnum, and Juniperus.
Mitchell then tested the results of focusing on habitat types where the highest number of pests were likely to become established. This method gave highest priority to woodlands – because plants in this habitat type can host 87 of the 91 pests. The second priority should be open habitats (defined as disturbed habitats, arable weed communities, weedy pastures, paths, verges, wasteland and urban habitats). Plants in the “open habitat” type can host 54 pests. (While Mitchell did not specify whether she excluded non-native plant species from her calculations, she does write generally about impacts on native flora – so I believe she did.)
Looking specifically at the 22 heathland vegetation communities, Mitchell identified four communities as able to host the greatest number of pests so deserving surveillance priority.
When she focused on “foundation species”, Mitchell found a range of plant species that occur at 75% or greater cover in each habitat. Again, the highest number (71 species) occur in woodlands; the lowest (11 species) grow in Calcicolous grasslands. In the 22 heathland plant communities, the number of plant species meeting this criterion numbered fewer than five in each. Two communities have no “foundation” species for surveillance since no vascular plant species that occur at 75% cover. In both the habitat and community cases, the surveillance priority of managers of each habitat type would concentrate on the species that fit this criterion for the appropriate biome.
Finally, Mitchell identified those habitats or communities with the lowest species richness / fewest species as being at greatest risk of unravelling if they lose one or more species to an introduced pest. The data indicated these to be the Salt Marsh and Swamps and tall-herb fens systems. At the other end of the spectrum, Mesotrophic grasslands and Woodlands have the lowest priority for surveillance because they are species-rich. Of course, communities within a habitat type vary greatly in their species richness and associated resilience. For example, the one heathland community which has only two species occurring at 25% or greater cover has a higher priority than the communities with more such species.
heath – Erica carnea ; photo by H. Zell
Mitchell asserts that prioritizing plant species or habitats for surveillance based on potential ecological impact rather than risk (known pests) provides a less biased process and allows for the detection of the known unknowns pests. The resulting set of priority surveillance targets differs significantly from the set developed by reliance on pest lists. For example, looking at heathland communities, the Host-pest and Foundation-species methodologies share only three of 24 host genera. The differences arise from the PHRR’s bias oflisting predominantly species relevant to agriculture, horticulture, or forestry. None of these genera is listed under the Foundation-species methodology.
Since trade in plants for planting is the main pathway of introduction of non-native pests, Mitchell concedes that plant species in natural habitats that are closely related to species of commercial importance might be more threatened than other species. However, such an approach takes no account of the potential for a pest to jump hosts.
Prioritization based on potential ecological impact rather than known risk has many advantages. The Foundation-species method prioritizes those plant species whose decline would have the greatest impact on wider biological diversity, ecosystem function and service delivery. That is, it incorporates consideration of the wider risks to the whole ecosystem rather than just the risk to a specific plant species. The Habitat-resilience method similarly takes account of the wider ecosystem level impacts, targeting those habitats or communities that might recover less quickly
On a practical level, these approach do not require surveyors (who might be citizen scientists or land manager) to identify specific pests. Instead, the surveyors report signs of unhealthy-looking plants to the relevant authorities, who then identify the cause.
These methods address a universal problem for plant health: the many pests that are previously unknown before their emergence in new regions and on naïve hosts. Mitchell briefly mentions scientists’ continue struggle to identify traits that can forecast potential pest impacts. [See my blogs re: studies by Mech, Schulz, Raffa]
redbay tree killed by laurel wilt disease – a pathogen unknown until it was introduced to southeastern U.S. Photo by F.T. Campbell
Mitchell suggests several ways to adapt these approaches to other countries or improve their targetting. First, scientists can link various pest/host databases (e.g., EPPO or CABI databases) to landcover or biome data and national or regional vegetation classification systems to make the system appropriate for their country or region. Incorporating attention to dirty equipment and movement of soil &/or plants is fitting at sites undergoing habitat restoration.
It is possible to refine the “foundation species” approach by applying a trait-based approach. She names two examples.
Finally, the Habitat-resilience method could be enhanced by integrating metrics of plant phylogenetic and functional diversity to the idea functional redundancy.
Mitchell stresses the need to unite efforts by many agencies and stakeholders within each country, as well as across political boundaries. She asserts that such collaborative efforts are more efficient / less costly, so lessening the restrictions imposed by resource limits. She also advocates reliance on citizen science and “passive surveillance” or chance observations by professionals agents, land-users and owners. These steps can facilitate large-scale surveillance that would otherwise be financially infeasible.
Mitchell highlights the difficulties imposed by the division of responsibilities. Usually the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) is responsible for early detection surveillance. The agency’s goal is to detect pests sufficiently early to facilitate eradication – or at least effective control. Its program is linked to regulatory requirements under the international plant health system. link to blogs & FF reports While the NPPO’s responsibilities include both cultivated and uncultivated (wild) plants, in many countries the NPPO prioritizes plants with commercial value. (This is certainly true in the United States – see my previous blogs & the Fading Forest reports – links provided below; and apparently the United Kingdom [Dr. Mitchell’s article] and Australia.) Protecting plant health in habitats is usually the task of conservation organizations. Mitchell calls for unifying these programs. CISP is advocating draft legislation that aims to fix this gap in the U.S. link to Welsh bill
What do you think? Is this approach as promising as Dr. Mitchell believes? Is it feasible?
I certainly concur that pest-based surveillance ignores the various categories of “unknown” pests and focus on commercially important species to the detriment of ecologically important ones. However, can such a system provide “early detection” of introduced pests? We have learned that insects and pathogens causing noticeable damage in natural environments have probably been present in a country or region for years – or decades. Perhaps these ecosystem-based criteria should be applied as guidance for selecting species to be monitored in “sentinel plant” programs. The plantings would be established in situations likely to receive pests early in their invasion process, e.g., warehouse districts (for pests in wood packaging) and ornamental nurseries that import growing stock.
Mitchell says the same issues pertain with regard to wildlife disease. See her article for sources.
SOURCE
Mitchell, R.J. 2024. A host-based approach for the prioritization of surveillance of plant pests and pathogens in wild flora and natural habitats in the UK. Biol Invasions (2024) 26:1125–1137 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03233-x
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus); photo by Will Brown via Wikimedia; one of invasive animals deliberately introduced to Europe in the past
In February 2024 the European Parliament approved legislation outlawing “ecocide” and providing sanctions for environmental crimes. Member states now have two years to enshrine its provisions in national law.
The new rules update the list of environmental crimes adopted in 2008 and enhance the sanctions. The goal is to ensure more effective enforcement. Listed among the offenses are:
the import and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases,
the import of invasive species,
the illegal depletion of water resources, and
pollution caused by ships.
This action followed an in-depth analysis of the failures of the previous EU environmental directive, first adopted in 2008 (Directive 2008/99/EC). The review found that:
The Directive had little effect on the ground.
Over the 10 years since its adoption few environmental crime cases were successfully investigated and sentenced.
Sanction levels were too low to dissuade violations.
There had been little systematic cross-border cooperation.
EU Member states were not enforcing the Directive’s provisions. They had provided insufficient resources to the task. They had not developed the needed specialized knowledge and public awareness. They were not sharing information or coordinating either among individual governments’ several agencies or with neighboring countries.
The review found that poor data hampered attempts by both the EU body and national policy-makers to evaluate the Directive’s efficacy.
The new Directive attempts to address these weaknesses. To me, the most important change is that complying with a permit no longer frees a company or its leadership from criminal liability. These individuals now have a “duty of care”. According to Antonius Manders, Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), if new information shows that actions conducted under the permit are “causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop.” This action reverses the previous EU environmental crime directive – and most member state laws. Until now, environmental crime could be punished only if it is unlawful; as long as an enterprise was complying with a permit, its actions would not be considered unlawful. Michael Faure, a professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University, calls this change revolutionary.
Lorton Prison; via Flickr
Another step was to make corporate leadership personally liable to penalties, including imprisonment. If a company’s actions cause substantial environmental harm, the CEOs and board members can face prison sentences of up to eight years. If the environmental harm results in the death of any person, the penalty can be increased to ten years.
Financial penalties were also raised. Each Member state sets the fines within certain parameters. Fines may be based on either a proportion of annual worldwide turnover (3 to 5%) or set at a fixed fine (up to 40 million euros). Companies might also be obliged to reinstate the damaged environment or compensate for the damage caused.Companies might also lose their licenses or access to public funding, or even be forced to close.
Proponents of making ecocide the fifth international crime at the International Criminal Court argue that the updated directive effectively criminalizes “ecocide”— defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”
Individual member states also decide whether the directive will apply to offences committed outside EU borders by EU companies.
Some members of the European Parliament advocate for an even stronger stance: creation of a public prosecutor at the European Union level. They hope that the Council of Europe will incorporate this idea during its ongoing revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. To me, this seems unlikely since the current text of the Convention, adopted by the Council in 1998, has never been ratified so it has not come into force.
The Council of Europe covers a wider geographic area than the European Union – 46 member states compared to 27. Members of the Council of Europe which are not in the EU include the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania; several mini-states, e.g., Monaco and San Remo; and countries in arguably neighboring regions, e.g., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.
While I rejoice that invasive species are included in the new Directive, I confess that I am uncertain about the extent to which this inclusion will advance efforts to prevent spread. The species under consideration would apparently have to be identified by some European body as “invasive” and its importation restricted. As we know, many of the most damaging species are not recognized as invasive before their introduction to a naïve environment. On the other side, the requirement that companies recognize new information and halt damaging actions – even when complying with a permit! – provides for needed flexibility.
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters; lets lobby these people! photo by Wikimedia
Twenty-three scientists based around the world published a Letter to the Editor titled “Overwhelming evidence galvanizes a global consensus on the need for action against Invasive Alien Species” It appears in the most recent edition of Biological Invasions (2024) 26:621–626.
The authors’ purpose is to draw attention to the release of a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ (IPBES).
The report was issued in September 2023. It is described as the most comprehensive global synthesis of the current knowledge on the bioinvasion process and the impacts of invasive alien species (952 pages!). Its preparation took nearly a decade. Most important, it represents the first consensus among governments and scientists worldwide on the magnitude and extent of the threats that bioinvasions pose to nature, people, and the economy.
The proposed solutions are astoundingly broad and ambitious: transformation of how governments and societies perform. I don’t disagree! However, we need interim steps – “bites of the elephant.” In my view, the report falls short on providing these.
Our challenge: join others in bringing this analysis to decision-makers’ attention. Can we pull out information that will help persuade U.S. decision-makers – governmental and non-governmental – that the threat is both urgent and solvable? How do we more effectively advocate for the aggressive, science-based action that we all know is needed?
(I hope that the fact that the report was prepared under the auspices of the Convention on Biodiversity, to which the U.S. is not a party, does not intensify the challenge for us.)
Why we need to restructure the behavior of governments and societies
Bioinvasions are facilitated by policies, decision-making structures, institutions, and technologies that are almost always focused on achieving other goals. Species transport and introduction are driven by policies aimed at promoting economic growth – especially trade. Later stages of invasions, i.e., establishment and some spread, are accelerated by certain uses of land and sea plus climate change. For example, activities that fragment habitats or cause widespread habitat disturbance provide ready places for bioinvasions. Rarely are those who gain by such policies held accountable for the harms they produce via bioinvasions.
To address these unintended consequences, the IPBES report calls for “integrated governance.” Its authors want coordination of all policies and agencies that touch on the indirect drivers, e.g., conservation; trade; economic development; transport; and human, animal, and plant health. Policy instruments need to reinforce – rather than conflict with — strategic invasive species management across sectors and scales. This involves international agreements, national regulations, all governmental sectors, as well as industry, the scientific community, and ordinary people – including local communities and Indigenous Peoples.
The report also calls for establishment of open and inter-operable information systems. This improved access to information is critical for setting priorities; evaluating and improving regulations’ effectiveness; and reducing costs by avoiding duplication of efforts.
Critically important information that is often unspoken:
Indirect causes underlying the usual list of human activities that directly promote bioinvasions are the rapid rise of human population and even more rapid rise in consumption and global trade.
Biosecurity measures at international borders have not kept pace with the growing volume, diversity, and geographic origins of goods in trade.
Continuation of current patterns is expected to result in one-third more invasive species globally by 2050. However, this is an underestimate because today’s harms reflect the consequences of past actions – often from decades ago. Drivers of invasions are expected to grow in both volume and impact.
We can prevent and control invasive alien species – but that success depends on the availability of adequate, sustained resources, plus capacity building; scientific cooperation and transfer of technology; appropriate biosecurity legislation and enforcement; and engaging the full range of stakeholders. These require political will.
A major impact of bioinvasion is increased biotic homogenization (loss of biological communities’ uniqueness). This concerns us because we are losing the biotic heterogeneity that provides insurance for the maintenance of ecosystem functioning in the face of ongoing global change.
The IPBES study asserts that successfully addressing bioinvasions can also strengthen the effectiveness of policies designed to respond to other drivers, especially programs addressing conservation of biological diversity, ensuring food security, sustaining economic growth, and slowing climate change. All these challenges interact. The authors affirm that evidence-based policy planning can reflect the interconnectedness of the drivers so that efforts to solve one problem do not exacerbate the magnitude of others and might even have multiple benefits.
More Key Findings
Overall, 9% (3,500) of an estimated 37,000 alien species established in novel environments are invasive (those for which scientists have evidence of negative impacts). Proportions of invasives is high among many taxonomic groups: 22% of all 1,852 alien invertebrates; 14% of all 461 alien vertebrates; 11% of all 141 alien microbes; and 6% of all 1,061 alien plants. (The discussion of probable undercounts relates to aquatic systems and certain geographic regions. However, I believe these data are all undermined by gaps in studies.)
Invasive alien species – solely or in combination with other drivers – have contributed to 60% of recorded global extinctions. Invasive species are the only driver in 16% of global animal and plant extinctions. Some invasive species have broader impacts, affecting not just individual species but also communities or whole ecosystems. Sometimes these create complexoutcomes that push the system across a threshold beyond which ecosystem restoration is not possible. (No tree pests are listed among the examples.)
dead whitebark pine in Glacier National Park; photo by National Park Service
The benefits that some non-native – even invasive – species provide to some groups of people do not mitigate or undo their negative impacts broadly, including to the global commons. The report authors note that beneficiaries usually differ from those people or sectors that bear the costs. The authors cite many resulting inequities.
There are insufficient studies of, or data from, aquatic systems, and from Africa; Latin America and the Caribbean; and parts of Asia.
The number of alien species is rising globally at unprecedented and increasing rates. There are insufficient data specifically on invasive species, but they, too, are thought to be rising at similar rates.
Horticulure is a major pathway for introducing 46% of invasive alien plant species worldwide.
Regarding invasive species’ greater impact on islands,the IPBES report mentions brown tree snakes on Guam and black rats on the Galapagos Islands. It also notes that on more than a quarter of the world’s islands, the number of alien plants exceeds the total number of native ones. See my blogs on non-native plants on Hawai`i and Puerto Rico. In addition, I have posted several blogs regarding disease threats to rare bird species in Hawai`. The IPBES report does not mention these.
Where the Report Is Weak: Interim Steps
The report endorses adoption of regulated species (“black”) lists.
The report emphasizes risk analysis of species. Unfortunately IPBES’ analysis was completed before publication of the critique of risk analysis methods by Raffa et al. ( (2023) (see references). However, we must take the latter into consideration when deciding what to advocate as U.S. policy.
The report authors call for more countries to adopt national legislation or regulations specifically on preventing and controlling invasive species. (They note that 83% of countries lack such policies). They also list the many international agreements that touch on invasive species-relevant issues. However, Raffa et al. found that the number of such agreements to which a country is a party bears no relationship to the numbers of alien species detected at its border or established on its territory.
The challenge to risk assessment posed by multiple sources of uncertainty can be managed by recognizing, quantifying, and documenting the extent of that uncertainty.
Beech leaf disease – one of many non-native pests that were unknown before introduction to a naive ecosystem. Photo by Jennifer Koch, USDA Forest Service
I appreciate the report’s emphasis on the importance of public awareness and engagement, but I thought the discussion of effective campaigns lacked original ideas.
The report did not fulfill its own goal of fully exploring unappreciated impacts of policies in its discussion of habitat fragmentation. For example, the report notes that grazing by feral alien ungulates facilitates the spread of invasive alien plant species. However, it does not mention the similar impact by livestock grazing (Molvar, et al. 2024).
SOURCES
Molvar, E.M., R. Rosentreter, D. Mansfield, and G.M. Anderson. 2024. Cheat invasions: History, causes, consequences, and solutions. Hailey, Idaho: Western Watersheds Project, 128 pp.
Raffa, K.F., E.G. Brockerhoff, J-C. GRÉGOIRE, R.C. Hamelin, A.M. Liebhold, A. Santini, R.C. Venette, and M.J. Wingfield. 2023. Approaches to forecasting damage by invasive forest insects and pathogens: a cross-assessment. BioScience 85 Vol. 73 No. 2 (February 2023) https://academic.oup.com/bioscience
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
‘i‘iwi (Drepanis coccinea) – formerly very common from low to high elevations; photo by James Petruzzii_U
The endangered honeycreepers (birds) of Hawaiian forests are receiving the attention they deserve – and desperately need. There is good news! Promising and significant efforts are under way, matched to a recent strategic plan. However, it is too early to know their results.
Nearly two and a half years ago, I blogged about efforts by a multi-agency consortium (“Birds, Not Mosquitoes” ). It was working to suppress populations of non-native mosquitoes, which vector two lethal diseases: avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) and avian pox virus (Avipoxvirus). A single bite from an infected mosquito is enough to weaken and kill birds of some species, e.g., the ‘i‘iwi.
The threats from these diseases – and their spread to higher elevations as mosquitoes respond to climate change – pile on top of – other forms of habitat loss and inroads by other invasive species. All of the 17 species of honeycreeper that have persisted until now are listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Four are in danger of extinction within as little as 1 – 2 years. These are ‘Akeke`e (Loxops caeruleirostris), ‘Akikiki (Oreomsytis bairdi)), Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill, (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), and `Akohekohe (Palmeria dolei).
Akikiki; photo by Carter Atkinson, USGS
All these bird species are endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago — found nowhere else on Earth. They are already remnants. Nearly 80 bird species have gone extinct since people first colonized the Hawaiian Islands 1,500 years ago. Eight of these extinctions were recognized in October 2021. Extinction of the final cohort would compromise the integrity of unique ecosystems as well as the Islands’ natural and cultural heritage.
I rejoice to report that the federal government has responded to the crisis. In late 2022 several Interior Department agencies adopted a multiagency Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds. The strategy specifies responsibilities for the key components of the program. These include: a) planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT); b) translocating birds to higher elevation sites on other Hawaiian islands; c) establishing captive populations of at-risk birds; and d) developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions. All these activities are being developed and conducted through intensive consultation with Native Hawaiians.
On August 8, 2023, the Secretary of Interior announced the allocation of $15,511,066 for conservation and recovery efforts for Hawaiian forest birds. About $14 million of the total was from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). The funds are being channelled primarily through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ($7.5 million) and the National Park Service (NPS) ($6 million). Other sources of funding are the “State of the Birds” Program (FWS – $963,786); the national-level competitive Natural Resource grants program (NPS – $450,000); and the Biological Threats Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS – $100,000).
What Is Under Way
I do worry continuing these efforts will be harder once their funding is subject to annual appropriations. However, they are a good start!
Steps have been taken on each of the four key component of the Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds:
a) Planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT – see below) to reduce the mosquito vector of avian malaria.
The Consortium has obtained all necessary state permits, regulatory approval of the approach by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and done required consultations under the Endangered Species Act.
The Department of the Interior has funded a public-private partnership between the National parks and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to develop, test, and carry out the first deployments of IIT. These occurred in May 2023 at high-elevation sites on the island of Maui. The next releases are planned for Kaua`i.
Consortium participants are carrying out the consultations and scientific preparations need to support the next deployment on the Big Island.
b) Translocating birds to higher elevation sites on the one island where they exist – Hawai`i.
Initial planning has begun to guide translocation of the endangered Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill) and Akohekohe to higher-elevation, mosquito-free, habitats on the Big Island.
c) Establishing captive populations of the most at-risk species
To facilitate captive breeding of the four most endangered species, the two existing aviaries in Hawai`i need to be expanded. Space must be provided for at least 80 more birds. A contract has been signed for construction of this new aviary space.
d) Developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions.
Lab capacity has been expanded to monitor the effectiveness of IIT, as well as for developing next-generation mosquito control tools.
those who decide funding work here … & they work for us!!!!
The Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT) explained
The incompatible insect technique has been used successfully elsewhere to combat mosquitoes that transmit human diseases. Many insect taxa – including mosquitoes – harbor a naturally-occurring bacteria (Wolbachia). This bacterium has more than one strain or type. When a male mosquito with one type of Wolbachia mates with a female mosquito bearing a different, incompatible type, resulting eggs do not hatch. The IIT project releases male mosquitoes that have an incompatible strain of the bacterium than do local females. (Male mosquitoes do not bite animals seeking a blood meal, so releasing them does not increase the threat to either birds or people.) Implementation requires repeat treatment of sites at a cost of more than $1 million per site per year. It is hoped that this cost will fall with more experience.
Funding for the Strategy’s Four Components
As I noted above, much of the funding for these efforts has come from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). Grants under this one-time statute are intended to cover project costs for perhaps five years. Other sources of funds are Congressional appropriations to Interior Department agencies under programs which presumably will continue to be funded in future years. These include the “State of the Birds” program; Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation, especially its §6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; and State Wildlife Grants administered by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. However, funding under these programs is never guaranteed and competition is fierce. I hope participants – and the rest of us! – can be effective in lobbying for future funds required to save Hawaii’s birds from extinction.
a) Deploying IIT
Over Fiscal Years 2017 – 2021 (ending September 2021), Interior Department agencies supported the IIT program by:
Providing $948,000 to the State of Hawai`i from “State of the Birds”, State Wildlife Grants, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) §6;
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided $545,000 plus staff time’
National Park Service provided $1.2 million for IIT preparations at Haleakala National Park and surrounding state and Nature Conservancy lands
U.S. Geological Survey provided about $7.05 million in research on Hawaiian forest birds, invasive mosquitoes, and avian malaria.
The State of Hawai’i allocated $503,000 and employee staff time.
In addition,
the National Fish and Wildlife Fund provided a total of $627,000 in grants to TNC and American Bird Conservancy for Wolbachia IIT.
TNC committed to supporting some of the initial costs to deploy Wolbachia IIT for the first site in Hawai`i through a contractor (see below)
American Bird Conservancy provided funding for coordination and public outreach.
In FY2022 (which ended in September 2022),
NPS provided $6 million for on-the-ground work on Maui, also development and initial production of Wolbachia IIT.
Interior Department Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to engage with Native communities’ members
b) Moving endangered birds to mosquito-free areas at high elevations on the Big Island
This is planned to begin by 2030. Interior committed unspecified funds to planning and consultation with Native Hawaiians.
c) Rearing captive birds
FWS supports operation of the two existing aviaries through two funding channels: $700,000 annually provided directly to the aviaries, plus another $500,000 per year through ESA §6through the State of Hawai`i. The San Diego Zoo – which operates the aviaries — provides $600,000 – $800,000 per year in the form of in-kind services, staffing, veterinarians, and administrative support. Interior’s Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to support to engagement with Native Hawaiian community members
d) Regarding exploration of “next-generation” mosquito control tools
The FWS provided $60,000 to a scientific laboratory to study precision-guided Sterile Insect Technique (pgSIT) tools to protect bird species threatened by avian malaria.
Funding for the portions of these programs dependent upon annual appropriations is uncertain. Current signs are promising: House and Senate bills to fund for the current year (Fiscal Year 2024) – which began in October 2023! – both support at least some aspects of the program. According to American Bird Conservancy, the Senate appropriations bill has allocated $2.5 million to parts of the program. According to the Committee report, the House appropriations bill allots $4.7 million to the State of the Birds program to respond to urgent needs of critically endangered birds. The report goes on to direct the FWS to “incorporate adaptation actions into new and revised recovery plans and recovery implementation strategies, such as with the mosquito vector of avian pox & malaria in the revised Hawaiian Forest Birds recovery plan. …” Per the report, the Appropriations Committee “continues to encourage the [NPS] to respond to the urgent landscape-scale needs of critically endangered forest birds with habitats in national parks.” The report then specifies species threatened by non-native mosquitoes carrying avian malaria and other pathogens. Finally, the report allocates $500,000 to the U.S. Geological Survey for research on the Hawaiian forest birds.
Meanwhile, the American Bird Conservancy is preparing to advocate for $20 million for FY25 through “State of the Birds” Activities and associated NPS and USGS programs. The details of this amount have not yet been laid out.
CISP will support this request and urges you to do so also. We will suggests ways to help when we know more.
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
leaf symptoms of beech leaf disease; photo by Jennifer Koch, USFS
Recently I posted a blog on a paper by Paulo Vieira et al., reporting how the nematode Litylenchus crenatae subsp. mccannii (Lcm) [causal agent of beech leaf disease (BLD)] distorts the leaves of affected American beech trees (Fagus grandifolia). Now Leila Rose Fletcher and her colleagues have confirmed these structural changes and discussed how they might affect the anatomy and physiology of the leaves and harm the tree. For the full details, see this 2024 publication, cited at the end of this blog. Both articles contain stunning photographs of diseased leaf structures.
As Dr. Fletcher pointed out on a recent call involving most scientists and conservationists working on BLD, plant growth depends on the plant’s success in gaining more carbon (through photosynthesis) than it expends during growth, cell maintenance (respiration), and sugar storage. When plants open the stomata on their leaves to take in CO2 from the atmosphere, they lose water from the interior of their leaves.
Her team discovered that BLD-related leaf distortions reduced the tree’s carbon balance in two ways.
Two impacts of the nematode
First, alterations of the leaf structure reduce the tree’s photosynthetic rate (assimilation of carbon). The photosynthetic rate in affected leaves was 61% lower than in healthy leaves. The impact is heightened by the thinning of the beech tree’s canopy due to abortion of many leaf buds.
While veins in diseased leaves are also altered by BLD, the data in Fletcher et al. indicate that the main limitation on photosynthesis in symptomatic leaves is not from a decreased water supply, but from several limitations on stomatal exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere. First, stomata on symptomatic portions of diseased leaves are less dense, which means there are fewer openings through which CO2 can enter the leaf.
Second, the diseased leaves are thicker, meaning that once inside the leaf, CO2 molecules must travel farther from the stomatal pores to reach the photosynthetic cells. Fletcher et al. did not assess the possibility (raised in a separate study by Carta, et al.) that the stomata that are present are deformed, and that this might impact their function.
In addition, the deformed leaves demand more resources to grow and function. Production of the multiplicity of cells in affected portions of the leaf (these portions are 249% thicker than normal leaves) uses resources the tree would otherwise put into growth. In fact, the more severely symptomatic an individual leaf is, the more carbon the plant allocates to that leaf.Furthermore, the additional cell layers also appear to increase “operating costs” of these leaves, as seen in the higher respiration rate per unit leaf area. Finally, if the tree sheds deformed leaves and forms new ones, this further diverts resources.
Questions seeking answers
How is nematodes’ influence localized to domains bounded by second-order veins (large veins that branch off the central vein) – symptomatic and asymptomatic tissue in adjacent domains in the same leaf? Fletcher et al. propose that the presence of the nematode influences the physical or hormonal regulation of leaf development – but after the development of primary and secondary order veins (since they are not distorted). They place a high priority on investigating the tree’s hormonal signaling that might be disrupted by the nematode.
Given the carbon imbalance that the data in Fletcher et al. suggest might arise over time, will symptomatic trees face carbon shortages, and if so, will this eventually lead to mortality? Studies analyzing the non-structural carbohydrate (stored sugar) concentrations in symptomatic beech are urgently needed to explore this possibility.
What is the impact of beech trees’ suboptimal vigor – short of mortality – on composition of plant communities and animals reliant on beech leaves and beechnuts? One possible causal factor raised by Fletcher et al. is reduced development of symbiotic relationships with ectomycorrhizal fungi, which can also reduce production of beech nuts. Dr. Fletcher concedes that there have been no studies yet of these possible effects. I add that many animals also depend on tree cavities – which are also common in beech trees.
SOURCES
Carta, L.K., S. Li, J. Mowery. 2023. Chapter 8 – Beech leaf disease (BLD), Litylenchus crenatae and its potential microbial virulence factors. In F.O. Asiegbu & A. Kovalchuck (Eds.), Forest microbiology Vol. 3 (PP. 183-192) Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-18694-3.00018-3
Fletcher, L.R. A.M. Borsuk, A.C. Fanton, K.M. Johnson, J. Richburg, J. Zailaa, C.R. Brodersen. 2024. Anatomical & physiological consequences of beech leaf disease in Fagus grandifolia L. Forest Pathoklogy. 2024;54:e12842 https://doi.org/10.1111.efp.12842
Vieira P., M.R. Kantor, A. Jansen, Z.A. Handoo, J.D. Eisenback. (2023) Cellular insights of beech leaf disease reveal abnormal ectopic cell division of symptomatic interveinal leaf areas. PLoS ONE October 5, 2023. 18(10) https://doi.org/10.1371/pone.0292588
container ship at Port of Savannah; photo by F.T. Campbell
Import Volumes in 2023
U.S. imports in 2023 fell about 13% from 2022 levels, returning to approximate pre-pandemic 2019 levels (Mongelluzzo 2024). The 2023 total was 24.2 million TEUs, (a united equal to twenty-foot container) compared to nearly 28 million TEUs in the previous two years (JoC.com February 2024). Imports from Asia in 2023 totalled 16.2 million TEUs. This was above the 2019 level (15.9 million TEUs) but below the more than 18.5 million TEUs in 2022 and 2021 (Mongelluzzo 2024).
This decline in imports from Asia reflected trends in the first months of 2023. This trend reversed sharply in October; during that month, containerized imports were 12.4% higher than in October 2022, even 1.1% higher than in pre-COVID October 2019 (Mongelluzzo, 2023). The upward trend continued through November: U.S. imports from Asia that month were 10.8% higher than the same month in 2022 (Journal of Commerce).
New Shipping Routes = More Possible Pests
chir pine (Pinus roxburghii) – a 5-needle pine native to the Himalaya in India; photo by Treesftf via Flickr
Proposed new shipping routes will expand the range of pests that can be introduced to eastern ports. For example, in November 2023, the Indian company Ocean Network Express announced plans to begin direct shipments from India to the Ports of New York-New Jersey, Savannah, Jacksonville, Charleston, and Norfolk. Expected cargo includes electronics, apparel, textiles, and foods. (Angell, 2023a) Have USDA authorities evaluated what pest species might be introduced from India?
Traders also expect rising trade volumes from South America in response to shifts in supply chains. Industries include textiles, pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, information technology, and agriculture.
The U.S. is importing more chilled produce from the west coast of South America to meet demand when these fruits are out-of-season in the U.S. The number of refrigerated containers rose to 395,572 TEUs (equivalents of twenty-foot containers). (Knowles. 2023) The Port of Savannah is actively courting these imports; it can now handle more than 3,000 refrigerated containers at one time and is expanding its capacity (Griffis 2023). Chile has a Mediterranean climate similar to that of California; Dr. Mark Hoddle reports several pests of avocado are found in neighboring Peru.
blueberries in Chile; Jardin Botanico Nacional, Chile via Flickr
Problems in the canals likely to push trade from Asia back to California ports
In an editorial published on January 25, 2024, The Washington Post reports that drought has caused water levels in the Panama Canal to fall below what is needed to operate the locks. In normal years, about 5% of global maritime trade passes through the canal. This includes nearly half the containers shipped from northeast Asia to the eastern United States. The reduction in numbers of ships moving through the Canal has affected supply chains in agriculture and energy. The situation is further complicated by wars in the Middle East hampering shipments through the Suez Canal.
The Post describes the Panamanian government’s efforts to buttress the canal, which is a major source of income. Droughts elsewhere are also impeding transport, e.g., the Amazon, Rhine, and Mississippi rivers. In the Post’s view, “threats to global growth will make it harder to … respond to poverty and hunger. … Ultimately, prevention, by arresting the emission of planet-warming greenhouse gases, is the only way to stop the list of looming climate-related threats to the global economy from getting even longer.”
Here, my focus is on what this means for volumes of ships and containers visiting ports in the eastern United States – and the associated risks of pest introductions.
Ambitious Plan for Eastern Ports
As I have pointed out in previous blogs [on the website home page, scroll below the “Archives” to “Categories”, click on “wood packaging”, especially this one], ports in eastern and Gulf Coast states have been eagerly conducting dredging operations and making other preparations to attract large container ships bringing goods from Asia. As of just a few months ago, several ports had ambitious plans. The Port of Virginia will reach a depth of 55 feet this year (Angell, 2023b). The Port of Charleston already has a 52-foot depth. Nevertheless, the port authority hopes to further deepen the channel so that it can quintuple its capacity over a decade — from 500,000 TEUs to 2.5 million TEUs (Anonymous, 2024). The Port of New York-New Jersey has approved $19 million to study deepening the ship channels from 50 to 55 feet. The Port Authority hopes to persuade Congress to share the costs (Angell, 2023b). None of the reporting mentions any consideration of the possible pest risk despite past disasters – e.g., introduction of the redbay ambrosia beetle to Savannah or Asian longhorned beetle to Charleston.
redbay mortality in Claxton, GA; photo by Scott Cameron
The proportion of total U.S. imports going to West Coast ports in 2023 was 53.6% (Mongelluzzo, 2023). Journal of Commerce’ long-time analyst Bill Mongelluzzo expects the effective closure of both the Suez (attacks on shipping) and Panama canals will push more imports from Asia to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. These linked ports now handle 32% of all U.S. imports. Mongelluzzo expects the increased volume to create new congestion problems (Mongelluzzo 2024).
containers at Long Beach in early 2000s; photo courtesy of Port of Long Beach
SOURCES
Angell, M. 2023a. ONE readies Indian-U.S. East Cost service as part of 2024 network rollout. Journal of Commerce. November 27, 2023.
In the context of reading about forest succession (see previous blogs) I came upon a new publication by Akresh et al. (full citation at the end of this blog.) The article explores the impact of various silvicultural treatments on bird conservation in eastern North America. They note that forest managers are challenged to balance the opposing habitat needs of organisms that, on one hand, depend on structurally diverse old-growth forests and, on the other hand, those that inhabit more open areas or shrubs.
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of studies that examined birds’ responses to three silvicultural regimes: low-retention stands, shelterwoods, and high-retention stands. These terms were not defined in the article. According to Michigan State University extension, in shelterwood systems, all mature trees are harvested in a two- or three-stage process over several years. The other classes presumably reflect the proportion of trees remaining after the harvest.
Akresh et al. focussed on “community conservation scores,” not on protecting individual bird species. They followed the level of conservation concern for the two communities developed by the Partners-in-Flight program
Shrubland Birds
Akresh et al. note that a high proportion of open-canopy, shrubland bird species are declining range-wide; their habitat is already quite limited in eastern North America and continues to decline. Consequently, the Birds-in-Flight program gives them a high priority for conservation measures.
eastern bluebird – prefers open areas; photographer not named; Pickpic
The researchers found that clearcuts (presumably = low retention) and shelterwoods typically had the highest conservation scores because they provide habitat for the declining avian group, shrubland birds. More heavily harvested forests also support non-avian taxa such as pollinators and other arthropods, mammals, snakes, and vascular plants.
Forest Birds
Stands on which 40%–70% of tree were retained also have a high conservation score because they provide habitat for both shrubland and “mature forest” species. Only a few species, e.g., ovenbird and brown creeper, had lower densities in moderately harvested stands than in unharvested forests. The majority of “mature forest” species had relatively higher or equal densities in the sites on which 40%–70% of trees are retained than in unharvested stands. They suggest that several mature-forest bird species prefer the increased understory vegetation density found in these stands.
ovenbird; Wildreturn; Wikimedia Commons
Unharvested and lightly thinned stands, in which 70%–100% of trees remain, had the lowest conservation scores. The first explanation is that these forests don’t support shrubland bird species.
A second reason, Akresh et al. suggest, is that the second-growth forests now widespread in eastern North America are quite young (even if they have not been logged for at least 50 years). They are even-aged and lack the structural diversity of true old-growth forests. The authorsappear to place the greatest importance on the lack of dense understory vegetation, although otherkey elements of mature forests are also missing, e.g., large-diameter trees and snags, continuous canopy, and deep leaf litter. They concede that some bird species depend on forest characteristics that they did not examine. They did not provide examples of these other ecological attributes.
Akresh et al. note that their study concerns only bird species’ use of forests during the breeding season. Some species use other habitat types at other seasons. Furthermore, data were insufficient to analyze some species altogether. A more comprehensive analysis might have raised the conservation score of older forests. I would add that restoration of true old-growth forests depends on allowing some late-seral stands to continue aging.
Finally, fauna other than birds also depend on forest ecosystems and need to be considered when choosing management approaches. The authors mention salamanders and other amphibians, fungi, invertebrates, and lichens – some of which might be of conservation concern themselves.
Gaps in the forest: complicating factors
Akresh et al. mention deer browsing as an influence on understory conditions once, but do not explore this. I am surprised that they don’t expand this statement by a paragraph or two, given the role deer play in suppressing understory vegetation.
Nor do they mention possible impacts of invasions by non-native plants. As my earlier blogs have reported, plant invasions are common in many forested areas in eastern North America. These studies recommend great care in activities that open the forest canopy. Drs. Akresh and King have told me that they believe that forest managers in this region are well aware of invasive plant issues and already incorporate this concern into their management decisions. They referred me to two studies that indicate a very mixed picture of invasive plant impacts on birds (Labbe and King, 2020; Nelson et al, 2017. see full citations below).
multiflora rose – most common invasive plant on forest plots; photo by Famartin
Not Discussed: Insects as food sources
The studies analyzed by Akresh et al. explore levels of nesting success and bird species’ foraging on fruits of non-native shrubs. Others have focused on the reduced numbers of insects feeding on non-native plants; these insects are the principle food for many perching birds’ nestlings. Douglas Tallamy has documented lower numbers of a wide variety of birds which depend on the insect food supply.
SOURCES
Akresh, M.E., D.I. King, S.L. McInvale, J.L. Larkin, A.W. D’Amato. 2023. Effects of forest management on the conservation of bird communities in eastern North America: A meta-analysis. Ecosphere. 2023; 14:e4315. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/r/ecs2
Labbe, M.A. and D.I. King. 2020. Songbird Use of Native and Invasive Fruit in the Northeastern USA. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Volume 44, Issue 3. September 2020
Nelson, S.B, J.J. Coon, C.J. Duchardt, J.DL Fischer, A.J. Kranz, C.M. Parker, S.C. Schneider, T.M. Swartz, J.R. Miller. 2017. Patterns and mechanism of invasive plant impacts on North American birds: a systemic review. Biological Invasions. Volume 19, pp. 1547-1563.
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
TACF back-crossed American-Chinese chestnut; photo by F.T. Campbell
I have advocated for considerably expanding efforts to breed trees resistant to non-native pests (including pathogens) for a decade. Again and again, I and others have pointed out the dire consequences for our forests if we Americans do not rise to the challenge.
In 2014, Scott Schlarbaum – coauthor of Fading Forests III – American Forests: What Choice Will We Make? warned that without restoration becoming an integral part of a strategy addressing non-native plant pests, American ecosystems are doomed to continuing transformation. Once established, a non-native pest is never eliminated, but its impact can be reduced through a combination of measures – as long as support is made available. Scott advised initiating a germplasm conservation strategy when invasion is imminent or once the pest is likely to become a resident pest. (See Chapter 6).
I have posted seven blogs since August 2021 describing the current status of various efforts and urging the U.S. Government and conservation organizations to step up. [To view these blogs, go to www.nivemnic.us, scroll below Archives to “Categories” and click on “resistance breeding.”
More, and Recent, Voices: Implications of Not Acting
More recently, several USDA Forest Service (USFS) experts, including Richard Sniezko, C. Dana Nelson, and Jennifer Koch, have published articles making the same point. These scientists note that many of the decimated species were formerly among the most common trees in our forests. Therefore, the cumulative effect of their disappearance on forest species composition and function is multiplied.
One blog, posted in 2022, is particularly pertinent. It summarizes a special issue of the journal Plants, People, Planet devoted to resistance breeding. The opening essay, by R.J.A. Buggs, concisely reviews six major reasons why so many believe that resistance breeding is a failed strategy.
Port-Orford cedar – one of the trees for which resistance breeding has been successful; photo courtesy of Richard Sniezko, USFS
Others say there have been successes – all through application of classic tree improvement measures, not “genetic engineering.” Pike, Koch and Nelson (2021) list as successes Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), the western five-needle pine species, koa (Acacia koa), and resistance to fusiform rust (Cronartium quercuum f. sp. fusiforme) in the commercially-important loblolly (Pinus taeda) and slash (P. elliottii) pines. They also cite encouraging progress by The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF) through backcross breeding of America and Asian chestnuts and a USFS/private foundation effort to expand the genetic base of American elms (Ulmus americana). I regret to say this, but some of these efforts seem to me to be still in experimental stages or — at best — early in widespread – ‘though still experimental — plantings.
Participants in a 2021 Purdue University workshop have again called for greatly expanding breeding. See the special issue of New Forests, Vol. 54 Issue 4. Once again, experts reiterate the urgency of acting, then outline the opportunities and challenges.
In one of the articles (Jacobs et al.) several people – including me! – note that several keystone tree species or genera in North America and Europe have been driven to functional extinction by non-native pests. By this we mean they are no longer sufficiently abundant and/or of adequate size to reproduce sexually or perform their ecological function. Examples include – on both continents – ashes (Fraxinus) and elms; and on North America – American chestnut (Castanea dentata), butternut (Juglans cinerea), and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis).If these threats are left unchecked, these at-risk tree species might develop truncated ranges, lose genetic diversity, and face becoming threatened, endangered, or extinct.
In another article, Nelson says the question that should be asked about applying genetic engineering (GE) techniques to tree breeding is whether we should let a species be reduced to a marginal role — or disappear — when GE provides a solution to saving and restoring the species. His case study is a detailed history of TACF’s development of a transgenic American chestnut (called “Darling 58”). He points out that decades of breeding efforts were based on the hope of developing blight resistance within the native gene pool or to obtain resistance from related species through hybridization. However, those efforts have not yet provided trees suitable for restoring the “king of the Appalachian forest” to native landscapes. Nelson wrote his description before TACF discovered flaws in the GE trees they had been working with and decided to pursue different GE “lines” (see below).
Barriers
The overall strategy is clear. Schlarbaum, Sniezko, and Dana Nelson all describe essentially the same steps, built on the same kinds of expertise and facilities.
Of course, each species will require years of input by a range of experts. These challenges are not trivial. However, the experts named above agree that the principal barrier is the absence of sustained, long-term commitment of resources and facilities. With sufficient resources, many of the scientific challenge can be overcome for at least some of the species at risk.
So, what are the scientific challenges? First, scientists must assess whether the tree species contains sufficient genetic variation in resistance. This involves locating candidate resistant trees; developing and applying short-term assay(s) to screen hundreds or thousands of candidate trees; and determining the levels of resistance present. Second, scientists must develop resistant planting stock for use in restoration. This stage includes scaling up the screening protocol; selecting the resistant candidates or progeny to be used; breeding to increase resistance; establishing seed orchards or other methods to deliver large numbers of resistant stock for planting; and additional field trials to further validate and delineate resistance. Sniezko and Koch (2017) and Sniezko and Nelson (2022) discuss the challenges and describe successes.
facilities at Dorena Genetic Resource Center; photos courtesy of Richard Sniezko, USFS
Complicating the restoration phase is the fact that the resistant tree must be able to thrive and compete in an ecosystem that has changed greatly from that in which it formerly resided. Causes of these changes include repercussions from the absence of the tree species – and possibly associated species; the possible presence of other biotic stresses (pests); and climate change. This is discussed by Nelson (2022). See also my blog.
Successfully completing these steps requires a long-term commitment, which includes significant funding and strong supportive infrastructure. Schlarbaum pointed out that the public and politicians don’t understand the complexity of the restoration challenge and the resources required. He documented the shrinking tree improvement infrastructure as of 2014. At that time, funding for all USFS regional breeding programs was just $6 million. State and land grant university breeding programs were fragmented and seriously underfunded. Only 28 states still had some type of tree improvement activity – and some of these programs were only seed orchards, not active breeding and testing programs. Members of university-industrial cooperatives focus on a small number of commercial species – which are not the species threatened by non-native pests. I believe these resources have shrunk even farther in the decade since 2014.
A separate source of funds for resistance breeding is the Forest Health Protection program, which is under the Deputy Chief for State, Private, and Tribal Forestry rather than the Deputy Chief for Research and Development. While nation-wide data on seed or scion collection or screening to identify and evaluate genetic resistance are poorly reported, Coleman et al. indicate that the USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center screens unspecified “hundreds” of seed lots for resistance to pathogens annually. The Center also participates in seed, cone, and scion collections, especially of white pines vulnerable to white pine blister rust (WPBR). Supplemental Table S3 lists projects funded over the two decades analyzed by Coleman et al. (2011 – 2020). These included efforts to identify and evaluate possible genetic bases for resistance to, e.g., hemlock woolly adelgid, balsam woolly adelgid, laurel wilt, emerald ash borer, butternut canker, rapid ʻōhiʻa death; and gene conservation for eastern hemlock, ashes, chestnut, in addition to the five-needle pines. Currently, FHP allocates $1.2 million annually to support the group of activities called Genetic Conservation, Resistance and Restoration (R. Cooksey, pers. comm.).
American beech grafts to be tested for resistance to beech bark disease; at USFS center in Delaware, Ohio; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS
USFS scientists involved in these projects describe challenges arising from efforts to cobble together funding from these many sources to support coherent programs. Overall funding levels still fall short of the need, and failure to obtain funding for one component of a program stymies the entire endeavor.
However, some developments are encouraging. The number of private foundations devoted to tree breeding has increased in the last decade. The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF) and American Chestnut Cooperators Foundation (ACCF) have been joined by the White Pine Ecosystem Foundation, the Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative, Forest Restoration Alliance, ‘Ohi‘a Disease Resistance Program … These organizations raise awareness, coordinate efforts by multiple parties, and provide opportunities for individuals to contribute funds and volunteer work.
In Hawai`i, disease resistance programs with both koa (Dudley et al.) and ʻōhiʻa ((Metrosideros polymorpha) (Luiz et al.) are active. Work with ash species to find and develop resistance to emerald ash borer is under way but limited due to lack of funds.
Finally, we can persuade Congress to incorporate the provisions of two bills, H.R. 3174 and S. 1238, into the next Farm Bill. The bills would, inter alia, create two grant program. One would fund research addressing specific questions impeding the recovery of native tree species that have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native plant pests. The second would fund implementation of projects to restore these pest-decimated tree species to the forest.
Funded projects would be required to be part of a forest restoration strategy that incorporates a majority of the following components:
(1) Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material;
(2) Production of propagules of the target tree species in numbers sufficient for landscape-scale restoration;
(3) Preparation of planting sites in the target tree species’ former habitats;
Facilities needed to support successful breeding programs
Sniezko and Nelson identified these needs as follows:
(a) growing space (e.g., greenhouses);
(b) seed handling and cold storage capacity;
(c) inoculation infrastructure;
(d) field sites for testing;
(e) database capability for collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data;
(f) areas for seed orchard development;
(g) skilled personnel (tree breeders, data managers, technicians, administrative support personnel, and access to expertise in pathology and entomology).
There are very few facilities dedicated primarily to development of populations of trees with resistance to non-native pests; the most notable is the Dorena Genetic Resource Center. Even the existing programs require significant funding increases to accelerate current programs or expand to address additional species. Sniezko and Nelson stress further that a resistance breeding program has different objectives, magnitude and focus than most research projects. It is applied science, that is, an action-oriented effort that is solution-minded—countering the impact of a major disturbance caused by a pest (in our case, a non-native pest).
Schlarbaum provides a shorter but similar list of facilities needed:
production of propagules (seed or clones);
mass propagation in growing facilities, e.g., bare-root seedling nursery or greenhouses;
site preparation of former habitat and planting; and
post-planting maintenance.
Schlarbaum emphasized that each of these activities requires different skill sets, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure.
Genetic Engineering as a Specific Tool
There is considerable interest in the potential role of genetic engineering in pest resistance breeding. None of the successful programs world-wide has yet used genetic engineering (Sniezko and Koch 2017). While incorporating it into holistic breeding programs might result in greater efficiency for certain processes, it raises legal and social acceptability issues. Jacobs et al. discuss the type of education and outreach program needed to generate widespread public support this approach to tree species “rescues.” They call for USDA Forest Service to lead this education effort.
The focus of the 2021 workshop hosted by Purdue University was to explore the pros and cons of using biotechnology in restoring pest-threatened forest tree species. The special issue of New Forests contains several participants’ analyses.
The overall conclusions are that:
“Genetic engineering” – defined as “any technique that uses recombinant, synthesized, or amplified nucleic acids to modify a genome” – is only one type of biotechnology applicable to tree breeding. Other biotechnologies include tissue culture-based propagation, molecular-based genetic markers, gene cloning and sequencing, and genome mapping and sequencing.
These new technologies can increase the efficiency of more traditional breeding techniques, However, biotechnologies cannot substitute for holistic programs that incorporate all helpful methods. Careful consideration goes into selecting which techniques are appropriate for a particular host-pest system.
Each tree species has unique needs regarding seed or scion collection; seedling propagation in nurseries; site preparation and planting techniques; and management of regeneration after its re-introduction into forests. Scientists don’t yet understand these various needs of many threatened species.
In the eastern U.S., the tree-breeding infrastructure is based in the Southeast and focused on a few pine species grown commercially. The facilities do not match the greatest need. That is, many of the at-risk species are hardwoods native to the Northeast.
Current resources are inadequate to support the sustained, long-term commitment of resources and facilities necessary to be successful.
Dana Nelson addressed the role of genetic engineering (GE) in detail. He emphasized repeatedly that GE is not a short-cut to tree improvement. Incorporating a GE component does not avoid the other steps. It can, though, provide new possibilities to address problems. Nelson says the crucial, initial question is – can GE solve the specific forest conservation or management problem more effectively and efficiently than existing methods? There are some important subtleties to consider. First, success does not require achieving immunity (100% resistance); the level of resistance needs to be only sufficient to allow the tree species to survive, reproduce and co-evolve with the pest. Second, “efficiency” is an important consideration. We cannot afford delay because during those years or decades the wild tree loses genetic variability as more trees die. Also, changes in the environment continues to change, and the decimated tree species is not adapting.
If genetic engineering promises to contribute meaningfully, then the breeders must answer several follow-up questions before proceeding to develop a specific plan. Nelson also stresses that the planned activities must be integrated with an ongoing tree breeding program to ensure project success.
Nelson provides a lengthy description of the process of integrating genetic engineering into tree breeding programs.
GE in Chestnut Breeding – Setback
The most prominent breeding effort incorporating genetic engineering in the U.S. has been The American Chestnut Foundation’s (TACF) program to restore American chestnut (Castanea dentata). For decades, TACF has pursued development of trees resistant to the fungus which causes chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica). Over the past decade, hopes have centered on a genetically engineered line into which was inserted a gene from wheat (oxalate oxidase; OxO). The OxO gene detoxifies the oxalic acid produced by the chestnut blight fungus and thus prevents the cankers from killing the tree.
Years of tests have shown the gene to be effective and to cause no environmental harm. In 2023, when trees in outside test plots grew larger, scientists observed disappointing results. Trees’ blight tolerance varied greatly. Worse, resistant trees grew more slowly and exhibited lower overall fitness. [For a full discussion of the issues, visit TACF’s website] Prompted by these disappointments, scientists carried out further molecular analyses. They found that the OxO gene was on a different chromosome than expected.
TACF researchers now suspect that the trees’ variable performance stems primarily from the placement of the OxO gene and the fact that the gene is always “switched on”. That constant expression appears to result in high metabolic costs for the trees. Since all the genetic lines developed to date have this defect, TACF is no longer pursuing research efforts with any of the GE trees developed to date. The Foundation believes it would be irresponsible to continue efforts – by itself and by partners – focused on a genetic line that looks unable to compete successfully when introduced to the forest.
Instead, TACF has begun investigating other transgenic lines that use a “wound inducible” promoter that switches on the OxO gene only in cells where the plant is wounded. Researchers at both the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF) and the University of Georgia are working with a variety of inducible promoters. TACF is also testing whether inducible OxO expression can be “stacked”onto genes for blight resistance present in the backcross hybrids. Finally, TACF and Virginia Tech are also exploring whether resistance can be enhanced by insertion of genes from Chinese chestnut directly into American chestnut using methods similar to OxO insertion.
It will be years before we know if these approaches provide sufficient levels of resistance. TACF will undertake more extensive testing for efficacy through the tree’s full life cycle – in the lab, greenhouse, and field – before submitting a new GE organism to regulators for review. Meanwhile, it will continue rigorous testing for plant health and environmental risks and will strengthen the cooperative structure to facilitate sharing of intellectual property and provide full transparency.
The Darling GE line was the most important transgenic hybrid chestnut line TACF had invested in. So this is a major setback – and comes when regulatory approval seemed near.
Let’s keep this in perspective, however. As a colleague has said, based on his years of teaching science to middle school students, “There are no failures in science, just reductions in the unknown; Edison failed a thousand times before getting the light bulb right, etc….” The technology is ready when it is ready. In addition, he praised TACF for choosing to explain its decision frankly: “nothing builds credibility like early failures openly admitted.”
Meanwhile, TACF continues to make gains in blight resistance with its traditional American chestnut backcross hybrid breeding program. They have established a genetically diverse, reproducing population of thousands of trees representing hundreds of breeding lines. These trees are planted in TACF’s expansive network of germplasm conservation orchards and regional breeding and backcross orchards. They have substantially increased resistance to both the blight and Phytophthora cinnanomi in these populations. The future inclusion of transgenic and/or gene-edited trees will further increase those gains.
Another Approach
Meantime, the American Chestnut Cooperators Foundation (ACCF), which breeds from persistent pure American chestnut, now has some trees that are nearly 50 years old. The program has bred five generations of pure American chestnuts that show durable blight resistance. Many trees are 60 feet tall or higher; they produce nuts. Vice President Jenny Abla (pers. comm.) reports that they show excellent canker response (swollen and superficial). The picture shows one of their most notable stands, which is in the Jefferson National Forest. Dr. Sniezko is exploring whether this program shows sufficient promise to justify increased support from the USFS.
ACCF chestnut trees; photo courtesy of Jenna Abla
Improving Coordination – will funds follow?
In July 2023, representatives from essentially all the forest tree resistance breeding programs in the U.S. met at Dorena Genetic Resource Center in Oregon to discuss their current successes and how to fast-track all programs. This is the first such meeting since 1982 (Richard Sniezko, pers. comm.). I encourage us all to study the report when it emerges and encourage USFS leadership to support the more unified enterprise.
Status of Efforts to Conserve Other Tree Species
The special issue of New Forests (Vol. 54 Issue 4) included several articles exploring the specifics of breeding elms, ashes, and ʻōhiʻa. These describe difficult challenges … and scientists determined to make progress on overcoming them.
“survival” American elm at Longwood Gardens; photo by F.T. Campbell
Elms (Ulmus spp.) (see article by Martin et al.)
Let’s not forget that elms were keystone species in Europe and North America until attacked by two epidemics of “Dutch” elm disease during the 20th Century. While hybrid elms are available for urban plantings, many consider them not appropriate for planting in natural forests because these genotypes are not native.
Martin et al. describe a bewildering conglomeration of complexities and possibilities arising from biotic and abiotic factors. Initiation and especially intensity of the disease in a particular tree depend on
the species or strain of the tree, vectoring beetle, and pathogen;
timing of the attack; and
adequacy of water supplies at that time.
Possible targets for manipulation include the pathogen, its beetle vector, and the tree’s response — either in its bark or xylem. Martin et al. suggest that a combination of resistance to the pathogen within the xylem, resistance to beetles’ feeding wounds, and lowering tree clues that attract the beetles could considerably enhance longer-term overall resistance in the field.
However, verifying which approaches produce the best result will be complicated by the trees’ sensitivity to environmental factors such as season and water supply. Apparent resistance might actually be tied to, for example, low water supplies during the spring when the attack occurred.
Restoration strategies, including resistance to pests, must accommodate the diverse ecological conditions in the species’ large range, the rapid evolution of the Ophiostoma pathogens; and other pests and pathogens that attack elms. Nor do scientists know appropriate planting strategies.
Martin et al. believe Dutch elm disease is unlikely to be spread by movement of living elm plants, although other pests could be (and have been).
ash trees to be tested for resistance to emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS
Ashes (Fraxinus spp.)
While a USFS team led by Jennifer Koch link are conducting much of the on-the-ground efforts to breed ash trees resistant to the emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus plannipennis), Stanley et al. note that scientists cannot simply cross most North American ash species with the Asian ash, F. mandshurica, because the two groups are sexually incompatible. Scientists have instead focused on trying to enhance the resistance to EAB that is apparently present in a small proportion of ash trees, called “lingering ash.” Scientists funded by USDA Forest Service have already devoted over 14 years to finding such lingering ash to be tested for resistance.
Testing these trees is not simple (see Stanley et al.). But scientists are overcoming some of the obstacles. They have shown that the capability of a few green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (less than 1%) to defend themselves from EAB attack is genetic. Genes determine the relative abundance of specific metabolites manufactured by the tree; high levels kill more beetle larvae. These trees’ tolerance is not immunity but it might be sufficient to allow the tree to survive and grow. The level of metabolites synthesized by succeeding generations of the tree can probably also be enhanced by breeding.
To restore ash it is necessary to propagate large numbers of clones and to root the resulting embryos. This has been challenging. Merkle et al. describe five years of efforts to develop techniques that allow in vitro propagation to speed up selection and breeding. These techniques will facilitate establishment of numerous groups of propagules with the genetic differences needed to accommodate the large geographic range of several ash trees. For example, the green ash range covers more than half the continental U.S. plus multiple Canadian provinces.
ʻōhiʻa on lava field, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
‘Ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha)
‘Ohi‘a is the most widespread tree species on the Hawaiian Islands. It provides vitally important habitat for conservation of countless taxa of endemic birds, insects, and plants. It is also of great cultural importance for Native Hawaiians.
Luiz et al. review the tree species’ importance, the many threats to native Hawaiian forests, and a coalition’s efforts to counter the most recent – and alarming – threat, rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD).
Rapid ʻōhiʻa death is caused by two introduced species of in the genus Ceratocystis. C. lukuohia colonizes the tree’s sapwood and kills the tree quickly. This disease is present on two islands, Hawai`i and Kaua‘i. It has the potential to devastate ‘ohi‘a forests across the state. The other pathogen, C. huliohia, invades the phloem, cambium, and outer xylem, resulting in a well-defined area of necrotic tissue and slower mortality. This disease is on Hawai`i and Kaua‘i, plus Maui and O‘ahu. The two pathogens have different origins. C. lukuohia belongs to a genetic line that is based in Latin America, C. huliohia to a genetic line based in Asia and Australia.
Conservationists formed a coalition and developed a strategy to guide the process of identifying and developing disease resistance in M. polymorpha and, if possible, other Metrosideros species on the Islands. Luiz et al. describe the coalition’s many activities. The challenges are familiar ones:
obtaining sufficient facilities to screen large numbers of seedlings;
developing techniques for inoculation, propagation, and speeding up growth of seedlings;
improving techniques for detecting individual infected and healthy trees across difficult terrain;
testing trees native to all parts of the tree’s range, which is not large in area, but covers a great variety of elevations and climates); and
needing to develop trees resistant to both C. lukuohia and C. huliohia.
Luiz et al. reiterate the necessity to manage all threats to healthy ʻōhiʻa stands, for example, by
curtailing human spead of infected wood, using both quarantines and supportive public education;
testing repellants to reduce beetle attack.
reducing injuries to trees by fencing forests and removing feral ungulates. link to website?
SOURCES
Buggs, R.J.A. 2020. Changing perceptions of tree resistance research. Plants, People, Planet. 2020;2:2–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10089
Coleman, T.W., A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17
Dudley, N.; Jones, T.; Gerber, K.; Ross-Davis, A.L.; Sniezko, R.A.; Cannon, P.; Dobbs, J. 2020. Establishment of a Genetically Diverse, Disease-Resistant Acacia koa A. Gray Seed Orchard in Kokee, Kauai: Early Growth, Form, and Survival. Forests 2020, 11, 1276 https://doi.org/10.3390/f11121276
Jacobs, D.F., R. Kasten Dumroese, A.N. Brennan, F.T. Campbell, A.O. Conrad, J.A. Delborne, et al. 2023. Reintroduction of at-risk forest tree species using biotech depends on regulatory policy, informed
by science and with public support. New Forests (2023) 54:587–604
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-023-09980-y
Luiz, B.C., C.P. Giardina, L.M. Keith, D.F. Jacobs, R.A. Sniezko, M.A. Hughes, J.B. Friday, P. Cannon, R. Hauff, K. Francisco, M.M. Chau, N. Dudley, A. Yeh, G. Asner, R.E. Martin, R. Perroy, B.J. Tucker, A. Evangelista, V. Fernandez, C. Martins-Keli.iho.omalu, K. Santos, R. Ohara. 2023. A framework for establishing a rapid ‘Ohi‘a death resistance program. New Forests https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-021-09896-5
Martín, J.A., J. Domínguez, A. Solla, C.M. Brasier, J.F. Webber, A. Santini, C. Martínez-Arias, L. Bernier, L. Gil1. 2023. Complexities underlying the breeding and deployment of Dutch elm disease resistant elms. New Forests https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-021-09865-y
Merkle, S.A., J.L. Koch, A.R. Tull, J.E. Dassow, D.W. Carey, B.F. Barnes, M.W.M. Richins, P.M. Montello, K.R. Eidle, L.T. House, D.A. Herms and K.J.K. Gandhi. 2023. Application of somatic embryogenesis for development of emerald ash borer-resistant white ash and green ash varietals. New Forests https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-022-09903-2
Nelson, C.D. 2023. Tree breeding, a necessary complement to genetic engineering. New Forests
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-022-09931-z
Pike, C.C., J. Koch, C.D. Nelson. 2021. Breeding for Resistance to Tree Pests: Successes, Challenges, and a Guide to the Future. Journal of Forestry, Volume 119, Issue 1, January 2021, Pages 96–105, https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa049
Sniezko, R.A., J. Koch, J-J. Liu and J. Romero-Severson. 2023. Will Genomic Info Facilitate Forest Tree Breeding for Disease and Pest Resistance? Forests 2023, 14, 2382.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122382
Sniezko, R.A. and C.D. Nelson. 2022. Chapter 10, Resistance breeding against tree pathogens. In Asiegbu and Kovalchuk, editors. Forest Microbiology Volume 2: Forest Tree Health; 1st Edition. Elsevier
Stanley, R.K., Carey, D.W., Mason, M.E., Doran, A., Wolf, J., Otoo, K.O., Poland, T.M., Koch, J.L., Jones, A.D. and Romero-Severson, J. 2023. Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) infestation bioassays and metabolic profiles of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) provide evidence for an induced host defensive response to larval infestation. Front. For. Glob. Change 6:1166421. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2023.1166421
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Gettysburg battlefield; now under attack by emerald ash borer (see below)
Kathryn Miller and colleagues (full citation at end of blog) have published a study that examined the status and trends of forest regeneration in 39 National parks from Virginia to Maine. Four-fifths of the forest plots in the study are classified as mature or late successional – so at first glance the forests look healthy. However, the researchers made an alarming finding: in 27 of 39 parks, forest regeneration is failing – either imminently or probably. Acadia National Park is an exception; it is the only park in the study experiencing healthy regeneration. They warn that without intense, sustained – and expensive! – intervention, these forests are likely to be converted to other types of ecosystems. [I blogged recently about findings regarding regeneration in eastern forests: here and here and here and here.
The forests’ understories have too few seedlings and – especially – saplings to maintain themselves. Worse, in many cases the seedlings and saplings are not the same species as the mature trees that form the canopy. The saplings are shorter species that never reach the canopy. That is, species like pawpaw (Asimina triloba), American holly (Ilex opaca), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) are regenerating, rather than the oaks (Quercus spp.), hickories (Carya spp.), maples (Acer spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.) that constitute the canopies of mature forests in these parks.
Miller and colleagues call these “regeneration mismatches.” Inabout half of the parks, these native canopy tree species make up less than half of current saplings and seedlings. This situation suggests the forests’ species composition will shift substantially, thereby undermining resilience in the face of other challenges, such as invasive plants and pests and climate change.
In many of these National parks, Miller and colleagues found abundant ash regeneration. For example, ash (Fraxinus spp.) constitute more than half of all seedlings in four parks (Johnstown Flood and Friendship Hill in Pennsylvania; Catoctin Mountain in Maryland; Manassas Battlefield in Virginia). Miller and colleagues consigned ash species to the “subcanopy class” because the emerald ash borer (EAB) has caused such high mortality of mature trees. They think regard it unlikely that current and future seedlings will ever reach full size. The devastating impact is most starkly illustrated in Gettysburg National Battlefield Park. Consistent deer management since 1996 has been rewarded: the Park ranks at the top for regeneration among the 39 parks. However, more than half of the seedlings and a quarter of the saplings are ashes. EAB has shifted the Park’s otherwise secure regeneration status into probable failure.
When regeneration fails: too many deer
Throughout the study region, the overwhelming reason regeneration fails is browsing by overabundant deer. The level of deer browse is considered “acceptable” in only four parks. Deer suppress the number of seedlings and saplings. They also skew species composition of native subcanopy species toward those less palatable. Miller and colleagues found that canopy tree density and cover and past human land use had minimal impacts on seedling and sapling numbers or species composition.
Overabundant deer also promote invasion and spread of non-native plants, which are the second most important factor impeding regeneration. Together, invasive plants and non-native earthworms are ecosystem engineers that negatively impact soil and cause cascades of biotic and abiotic impacts throughout forest ecosystems.
Many of the parks experiencing the most severe impacts of chronic deer browse also have the highest invasions by non-native plants. A natural process of regeneration occurs when the death or collapse of mature trees create gaps in the forest canopy. Where deer and invasive shrubs overlap, this process is often hijacked. Instead of nearby native tree species accelerating their growth toward the canopy, thickets of invasive shrubs crowd the space.
For this reason, Miller and colleagues recommend that park management prioritize treating invasive plants in canopy gaps of disturbed stands to avoid forest loss. They recommend deliberate creation of canopy gaps to promote resilience only for parks, or stands within parks, that have low deer and invasive plant abundance or the capacity to intensively manage invasive plants in gaps.
In most parks, non-native tree species are rare, less than 2% of total regeneration. In seven parks, though, non-native trees exceed ten percent of seedlings and/or saplings. In three parks, saplings of non-native trees are increasing. These are primarily tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Norway maple (Acer platanoides). In Saratoga National Historical Park, seedlings of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) are increasing.
Beech regeneration in Prince William Forest Park
Role of other pests
Miller and colleagues express fear that beech bark disease andbeech leaf disease might have effects similar to those of EAB, leading to a greater “regeneration debt” in parks where American beech (Fagus grandifolia) is the dominant regeneration component. They cite specifically Prince William Forest Park in northern Virginia, [25 mi2]Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia, [2.7mi2] and Saratoga National Historical Park. [5.3 mi2] The authors also suggest that thickets of beech root sprouts formed in response to BBD can suppress regeneration of other native canopy species and so might need to be managed.
Miller and colleagues mention hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), but provide very little information. They report that Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park in New Hampshire (the home and studio of sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens) is at particular risk because of growth of both beech and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). I know that Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area [109m2] has experienced major losses of mature hemlocks. [Shenandoah National Park has also, but it was not included in the study.]
Hemlock Ravine, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area; photo by Nicholas T via Flickr
Miller and colleagues report that Acadia National Park is seeing recovery of red spruce (Picea rubens) from a major fire in 1947 and possibly also from acid rain. They do not mention the longer-term threat from the brown spruce longhorned beetle. Their focus is on forest dynamics largely unaffected by deer.
In the same way, the authors make no mention of the absence of dogwood trees, presumably because they had been eliminated by dogwood anthracnose decades ago. Nor do they mention vascular streak dieback of redbud; the causal agent still uncertain. [See Annie Self’s presentation to National Plant Board, August 2023.]
dead ash tree in Shenandoah National Park
One omission is large enough that it might affect the study’s findings. At mi2Shenandoah is the largest National Park in the region. It was not included in the study because the Park’s forest monitoring process is not compatible with those in other NPS units. All the other parks – including Acadia (562 mi) – are much smaller, protecting historic sites like Civil War battlefields.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Miller and colleagues recommend that deer management be initiated in parks classified as at imminent or probable regeneration failure, if such programs are not already under way. They warn that effective deer management requires sustained commitment. Studies of deer exclosures show that full forest recovery from chronic deer overabundance can take as long as 40–70 years.
The authors also recommend actions to open the subcanopy to facilitate growth of saplings belonging to desired species. They caution that deer predation must be controlled. Furthermore, either invasive plant cover must be low, or management must ensure that that the park has sufficient resources to sustain an invasive plant control program – especially if invasive plants are combined with abundant deer.
Parks experiencing compositional mismatches and that are dominated by oak–hickory forest types might also benefit from prescribed burning. Again, deer browse pressure must be minimized. In addition, regeneration of oaks and hickories must already be present.
In park forests dominated by species vulnerable to lethal pests, e.g., beech-, ash-, or hemlock-dominated forest stands, Miller and colleagues recommend considering planting alternative native canopy species and protecting those plantings from deer. Park managers should also consider thinning beech thickets formed after beech bark disease kills canopy trees.
Media coverage
The Washington, D.C., public radio station, WAMU, reported on this research on the air (broadcast December 20) and on its website. It is written by Jacob Fenston, with great photographs by Tyrone Turner. The story emphasized the link between deer and invasive plants – since regeneration in eastern deciduous forest happens by saplings taking advantage of gaps formed when mature trees die. The story quotes DC-area people on their efforts to contain vines. The Natural Resource Manager at Catoctin Mountain Park [8 mi2] describes that park’s longstanding deer control program. The story also mentions impacts of EAB and threat of BLD.
News – Funding for these parks to counter the threats!
Lead author Kathryn Miller has informed me that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act has provided the 39 parks involved in this study over $10 million to improve forest resilience largely through reduction of invasive plants and overabundant deer.
Of course, invasive species threats to National parks are not limited to the Northeast – nor are they new. I have raised this problem from the beginning. To see these blogs, on the “nivemnic” website, scroll down below the archives to the “categories”, then click on “national parks”.
SOURCE
Miller, K.M., S.J. Perles, J.P. Schmit, E.R. Matthews, M.R. Marshall. 2023. Overabundant deer and invasive plants drive widespread regeneration debt in eastern United States national parks. Ecological Applications. 2023;33:e2837. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/r/eap Open Access
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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
