Category: invasive species

Spring! the good & the ugly

Virginia bluebells

 

It’s spring in the Mid-Atlantic!

Spring prompts many memories for me. I first committed to environmental causes 48 (!) years ago when I discovered the glories of spring in the woods owned by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, NJ.  I would rise at 5 AM or earlier to greet the sunrise in the woods. There were wonderful birds, deer, even weasels … and carpets of spring ephemerals. The floodplain was covered by spring beauties, violets of every hue, trout lilies, occasional toothwarts … for reasons no one has never been able to explain, very few bluebells (other floodplains I have visited in the Mid-Atlantic — e.g., Brandywine & Bull Run —  have lots of bluebells). Within weeks, there were mayapples and some trilliums and even some pink ladyslippers.

trout lilies & spring beauty

(My studies at Princeton had nothing to do with nature or conservation … )

Yesterday I visited a floodplain near my home in Northern Virginia (Accotink Creek downstream from the dam; Fairfax County). I found those same wildflowers – but they are struggling to find space under a tsunami of invasive herbaceous plants – especially European buttercup and Leucojum. (Garlic mustard is much less common – I think volunteers might be pulling it.)

European buttercups

 

Leucojum  

The shrub layer is dominated by multiflora rose, honeysuckles (shrub & vine), and privet .

Makes me sad … makes me mad! Let’s redouble our efforts.

What is invading your favorite bottomland hardwood forest? Send me your comments!

Faith

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.

APHIS Nursery Stock Regulations (Q-37) – Modernization Finally Completed!

citrus longhorned beetle – entered country several times in imported bonzai plants

After about 20 years, APHIS has finalized important changes to the regulations which govern imports of living plants (what they call “plants for planting”; the regulation is sometimes called “the Quarantine 37” rule).  The new regulation takes effect on April, 18, 2018.

I congratulate APHIS on this important achievement!

[Twenty years is a long time – so changes happen. When APHIS released its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in December 2004 and its proposed rule in April 2013, I was employed by The Nature Conservancy and submitted comments for that organization. I will refer to those earlier comments in this blog. However, I now represent the Center for Invasive Species Prevention, so my comments here on the final regulations reflect the position of CISP, not the Conservancy.]

APHIS’ 2004 ANPR came after years of preparation. Then, more than eight years passed until the formal proposal was published on April 25, 2013. Comments were accepted from the public until January 30, 2014. During this nine-month period, 17 entities commented, including producers’ organizations, state departments of agriculture, a foreign phytosanitary agency (The Netherlands), private citizens, and The Nature Conservancy. [You can view the ANPR and proposal, comments on these documents, and APHIS’ response here — although you need to click on “Restructuring of Regulations on the Importation of Plants for Planting” and then “Open Docket Folder” to pursue the older documents.]

In the beginning, APHIS had a few goals it hoped to achieve: to allow the agency to respond more quickly to new pest threats, to apply practices that are more effective at detecting pests than visual inspection at points of import, and to shift much of the burden of preventing pest introductions from the importer and APHIS to the exporter.

Progress has been made toward some of these goals outside this rule-making. APHIS instituted a process to temporarily prohibit importation of plants deemed to pose an identifiable risk until a pest risk assessment has been completed (the NAPPRA process). APHIS has further enhanced its ability to act quickly when a pest risk is perceived by relying increasingly on “Federal Orders”.

At the same time, APHIS participated actively in efforts by international phytosanitary professionals to adopt new “standards.” These define a new approach to ensure that plants in international trade are (nearly) pest-free. Both the North American Plant Protection Organization’s regional standard (RSPM#24)  and the International Plant Protection Organization’s global standard (ISPM#36)  envision a system under which countries would no longer rely primarily on inspections at ports-of-entry. Instead, they would negotiate with the supplier or exporting country to develop programs to certify that growers’ pest management programs are effective. Both standards detailed: 1)  how the place of production might manage pest risk and ensure traceability of plants; 2) how the importing and exporting countries might collaborate to administer the program; 3) how audits (including site visits) would ensure the program’s efficacy; and 4) what actions  various parties might take in cases of noncompliance.

It was hoped that these international standards would lead to widespread adoption of “integrated pest management programs” composed of similar requirements – similar to the impact of ISPM#15 for wood packaging.  However, living plants are more complex pest vectors than the wooden boards of crates and pallets, so each country was expected to negotiate its own specific programs – something not  encouraged for wood packaging.

APHIS’ decades-long effort to amend its regulations is warranted because of the high risk of non-native insects and – especially – pathogens being introduced via international trade in living plants. U.S. examples include white pine blister rust, chestnut blight, dogwood anthracnose, and sudden oak death (all described briefly here )

dogwood anthracnose

According to Liebhold et al. 2012 (full reference at end of blog), 12% of incoming plant shipments in 2009 were infested by a quarantine pest. This is an approach rate that is 100 times greater than the 0.1% rate documented for wood packaging (Haack et al. 2014). I have discussed the living plant introductory pathway and efforts up to 2014 to get it under control in my report, Fading Forests III.

 

Shortcomings of the Final Q 37 Rule

So – how well does this final rule  meet APHIS’ objectives?

First, will it shift much of the burden of preventing new pest introductions from the importer and APHIS to the exporter, while ensuring the system’s efficacy? In my view, on behalf of CISP, it falls short.

The new rule sets up a process under which APHIS might require that some types of imported plants be produced and shipped under specified conditions intended to reduce pest risk. However, non-American entities have little incentive to protect America’s natural and agricultural resources and from invasive species. So any new process needs severe penalties for violators.

We have seen how widespread and persistent compliance failures are for wood packaging under ISPM#15. http://nivemnic.us/wood-packaging-again-11-years-after-ispm15-problems-persist/ For this reason, I (on behalf of the Conservancy) had suggested that APHIS formally adopt a specific goal of “no new introductions”. I recognized that this goal was unachievable per se, but suggested that it should stand as a challenge and be the basis for adopting stringent restrictions on plant imports. I suggested  limiting plant imports to those either a) produced under integrated pest management measures systems (verified by third-party certification) or b) plants brought into facilities operating under post-entry quarantine conditions — and following other best management practices that had been developed and supervised by independent, scientifically-based bodies.

In my current view, APHIS’ regulation falls far short of either this goal of shifting burdens or setting a truly stringent requirement. In fact, APHIS has explicitly backed away from its own original goals and procedures.

The new regulation does authorize APHIS to choose to set up import programs under which the exporting country agrees to produce plants for the U.S. market under a system of integrated pest risk management measures (IPRMM) approved by APHIS. In accordance with the international standards, the programs established under this new power will address how the place of production will manage pest risk and ensure traceability of plants; how APHIS and the exporting country will administer the program; how plant brokers will ensure plants remain pest-free while in their custody; how audits will be performed to ensure program efficacy; and what actions various parties will take in cases of noncompliance.

How efficacious this new approach will be in preventing new introductions will depend on how aggressive APHIS is in both choosing the plant taxa and places of-origin to be managed under such IPRMM programs and in negotiating the specific terms of the program with the exporting country.

It is discouraging that APHIS has ratcheted down how frequently it expects to rely on the IPRMM approach. In the explanatory material accompanying the final regulation, APHIS clarifies that did not intend that IPRMM would be used for all imports of living plants. The IPRMM framework is described as only one of several means to achieve the goal of preventing introduction of quarantine pests. APHIS will choose the “least restrictive measures” needed to prevent introduction of quarantine pests. To clarify its position, APHIS changed the introductory text to indicate that IPRMM will be applied when such measures are necessary to mitigate risk – that is, “when the pest risk associated with the importation of a type of plants for planting can only be addressed through use of integrated measures.” [Emphases added]

The final rule is also discouraging in some of its specifics.

  • Whereas the draft regulation specified steps that places of production must take to ensure traceability of the plants they produce, in the final regulation the traceability elements specified in each IPRMM agreement will depend on the nature of the quarantine pests to be managed. Again, APHIS seeks to ensure that its requirements are not unnecessarily restrictive.
  • Although the international standard had specified severe penalties when a grower or broker violated the terms of the IPRMM agreement, APHIS proposed to base the regulatory responses to program failures on existing bilateral agreements with the exporting country. Despite the Conservancy’s plea that APHIS follow ISPM#36 in adopting more specific and severe penalties, APHIS has not done so. The one bright spot is that APHIS may verify the efficacy of any remedial measures imposed by the phytosanitary agency of the exporting country to correct problems at the non-compliant place of production. [Emphasis added]
  • APHIS is relaxing the detailed requirements for state post-entry quarantine agreements – despite the Conservancy’s concern that such agreements’ provisions could be influenced by political pressure and other nonscientific factors.

 

Two Improvements

I am pleased that APHIS has retained requirements applied to plant brokers, despite one commenter’s objections. Brokers handling international shipments of plants grown under an IPRMM program must both handle the plants themselves in ways that prevent infestation during shipment and maintain the integrity of documentation certifying the origin of the plants. A weakness, in my current view, is that APHIS will allow brokers to mix consignments of plants from more than one producer operating under the IPRMM program.  APHIS does warn that if non-compliant (infested) plants are detected at import, all the producers whose plants were in the shipment would be subject to destruction, treatment, or re-export.

A major improvement under the new regulation is that APHIS will now operate under streamlined procedures when it wishes to amend the requirements for importing particular plants (whether a taxon, a “type”, or a country of origin). Until now, APHIS has been able to make such changes only through the cumbersome rulemaking process, Instead, APHIS will now issue a public notice, accept public comments, and then specify the new requirements through amendment of the “Plants for Planting Manual” [  https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/Manuals/ports/downloads/plants_for_planting.pdf ] APHIS estimates that such changes can be finalized four months faster under the new procedure.

 

A Final Caveat

Finally, APHIS needs to be able to measure what effect the new procedures have on preventing pest introductions.  Such measurement depends on a statistically sound monitoring scheme. APHIS has stated in some documents that the current Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) system doesn’t serve this purpose. APHIS needs to develop a valid monitoring program.

 

References

 

Haack RA, Britton KO, Brockerhoff  EG, Cavey JF, Garrett LJ, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on Reducing Wood Borer Infestation Rates in Wood Packaging Material Entering the United States. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096611

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

 

Posted by Faith Campbell

 

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.

 

Help Fund Priority Tree-Protection Programs

 

Your help is needed to prevent cuts to vitally important programs that protect America’s forests from non-native insects and pathogens.

  1. USDA APHIS

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for preventing introductions of new pest that threaten plants – including forest trees —  and for carrying out programs to eradicate or contain those that slip through their safeguards. I have blogged often about the unacceptable level of risk that the agency accepts, which enables new pests to be introduced. For examples, search “international trade” or “invasive species policy” on this site.

To see the President’s budget proposal, download the USDA budget justification here; search for “animal and plant”]

APHIS’ most important programs to counter tree-killing pests are funded through the “tree and wood pest” and “specialty crops” accounts. The former account pays for efforts to eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), and to slow the spread of the emerald ash borer (EAB). As part of the latter program, it also funds APHIS’ engagement in regulating movement of firewood from quarantined areas.

For several years, the “tree and wood pest” account has been funded at $54 million. This is not sufficient, but we now face worse. The Administration has proposed cutting funding for the “tree and wood pest” account by more than half (from $54 million to $25 million).  This level of funding would not even maintain the ALB eradication effort!

 

USDA smokejumpers search for ALB

The specialty crop account funds APHIS program to prevent sudden oak death  from being spread via the nursery trade. It is slated for a cut of 18.7%  (from $172 million to $139 million).

The Administration has proposed cuts to other programs that also would undermine protection for forest trees:

  • 24% cut (from $21 million to $16 million) to methods development. This is the program under which APHIS develops new techniques for detecting, monitoring, and controlling pests.
  • 5% cut (from $27 million to $22 million) to funding for pest detection. It is counterproductive to reduce programs to detect pests, since early discovery is crucial to successful eradication.

APHIS funds work on the spotted lanternfly (in Pennsylvania) and the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers (in California) through Section 10007 of the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill sets a funding limit for each year that is not subject to annual appropriations so these programs are not at immediate risk of being defunded. Also, APHIS can request emergency funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation. In February 2018, APHIS obtained $17.5 million in such emergency funding to support enhanced eradication efforts targetting spotted lanternfly in Pennsylvania. APHIS will continue to rely on Section 10007 funds to address this pest in other states to which it has apparently spread (Virginia, possibly Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey).

 

 

Please ask your Congressional Representative and Senators to oppose these proposed cuts!

APHIS receives its annual appropriation through the Agriculture Appropriations bill. This legislation is written by the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittees.  Members of these subcommittees are listed below. These legislators are especially influential in determining funding for APHIS programs.

House:

  • Robert Aderholt, Alabama, Chairman
  • Kevin Yoder, Kansas
  • Tom Rooney, Florida
  • David Valadao, California
  • Andy Harris, Maryland
  • David Young, Iowa
  • Steven Palazzo, Mississippi
  • Sanford Bishop, Georgia, Ranking Member
  • Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut
  • Chellie Pingree, Maine
  • Mark Pocan, Wisconsin

Senate:

  • John Hoeven, North Dakota
  • Thad Cochran, Mississippi
  • Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
  • Susan Collins, Maine
  • Roy Blunt, Missouri
  • Jerry Moran, Kansas,
  • Marco Rubio, Florida
  • Jeff Merkley, Oregon
  • Diane Feinstein, California
  • Jon Tester, Montana
  • Tom Udall, New Mexico
  • Patrick Leahy, Vermont
  • Tammy Baldwin, Illinois

 

  1. USDA Forest Service

The Administration has proposed damaging decreases in both research and management programs that target non-native insects and pathogens.

  1. Research & Development

The research budget proposal contains numerous figures which don’t appear to add up. I have contacted USFS budget officials to learn how to understand these apparent discrepancies. To read the overall USFS budget, go here.

The budget proposes cutting overall research by 14.8% — from $306,216,000 to $260,800,000. According to the table on p. 30 of the budget justification, invasive species research is allocated $28,558,000. The text says this is 17% of the total Research budget – but my calculation is that it is 10.9%. The discrepancy apparently resulted from a failure to adjust to last-minute changes in funding amounts. The invasive species allocation is described as being a decrease of $3,217,000 from the FY18 figure. Despite these cuts, invasive species are described as one of six “strategic program areas”.

The Forest Service provides a table breaking out funding for work by the research stations on more than a dozen individual pest species or groups of species. The table listing this spending (on pp. 45-46) shows a total of $7,591,000 for FY18 and $6,271,000 for FY 19. The $22 million remaining in the “invasive species” program is apparently spent by staff at headquarters or possibly regional offices.  I am trying to find out what this larger category of expenditures includes.

Furthermore, the $6.2 million total includes programs targetting several native species (western bark beetles, southern pine beetle), as well as subterranean termites and invasive plants. If one subtracts expenditures for those species, only $3,091,000 is allocated to non-native tree-killing insects and pathogens in FY18 and $3,252,000 for FY19. This is 1.2% of the overall research budget. Cuts for the individual species range from 19% to 21%.

Since 2010, total funding for research on the ten specified non-native insects and pathogens has fallen by more than 60% — from about $8 million to $3 million. The table listing expenditures on individual species cannot be complete; for example, it does not include efforts to breed pest-resistant elm and beech. Nor does it include recently detected pests, such as spotted lanternfly and polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers – which I hope the Forest Service is studying.

The budget foresees a 42% cut in staff-years from FY18 to FY19 – from 1,469 to 855. USFS Research staffs have been falling for several years (illustrative graph is available in Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III here.) Supportive funds to cover costs of travel, fieldwork, student assistants, and grants to universities have also fallen precipitously, further impeding research efforts.

 

  1. State & Private/ Forest Health Management

The Administration’s proposed budget for the USFS proposes a cut of 8.5% in the program that actually combats damaging pests. The cut to funding for pest-management projects on federal lands is 6.5% ($55,123,000 to $51,495,000). The cut to funding for work on state and private lands (the “cooperative lands” account) is 11% ($38,735,000 to $34,376,000). The budget assumes corresponding cuts to staff by 11% (341 staff-years).

The justification notes that, with this budget, the Service will be able to treat fewer acres, so the agency will “focus on the most pressing needs for forest restoration and reducing communities’ risk to wildfire”.

I consider the ostensible focus to be highly misguided. Even the budget justification concedes that pests and pathogens cause billions of dollars of damage each year and that pest-management methods are more effective when treatments are applied regardless of land ownership. Indeed, history shows that pests enter and first establish in urban and suburban areas that receive the imports that transport pests, like wood packaging or nursery stock. If the USFS fails to help counter pests at these introduction sites, it dooms itself to dealing with well-established invaders – at best an enormous and expensive effort, at worst, failure.

As noted earlier, the table on pp. 45-46 lists spending on individual pest species. The total given is $21,356,000 in FY18; the proposal cuts spending to $19,407,000 in FY19.  As above, I subtract expenditures for native species (western bark beetles, southern pine beetle), subterranean termites, and invasive plants. The resulting subtotals are $12,874,000 for FY18 and $11,681,000 for FY19.  As usual, the gypsy moth receives the bulk of the expenditures — 62% for both years. To meet the lower total mandated for FY19, spending is cut 8 – 9% for each non-native species listed.

In FY10, spending on the 11 named non-native insects and pathogens was $24 million. By FY18, it had fallen by nearly 50% — to $12.8 million. Pest species suffering the largest cuts are the Asian longhorned beetle (zeroed out), hemlock woolly adelgid (52% decrease), oak wilt (27% decrease), sudden oak death (18% decrease), and the combination of goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt (15% decrease). The budget justification document does not provide sufficient information to allow me to judge the wisdom of the individual cuts.

It is troubling that the table makes no mention of other invaders – e.g., polyphagous & Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, velvet longhorned beetle, winter moth (this last is mentioned in the narrative). The first four are relatively new pests with costs that could impose catastrophic damage if they are not countered by adequate programs.

  1. Urban Forestry and International Programs

The budget proposes to eliminate funding for both urban forestry and international programs. I consider both programs important to invasive species management. The former strengthens forestry programs and public support for them in the very places where new pests are most likely to be introduced! The international program supports cooperation with foresters in foreign countries – the sources for potentially invasive insects and pathogens, as well as locales that can provide possible agents for biological control.

Please ask your Congressional Representative and Senators to oppose these proposed cuts!

The Forest Service receives its annual appropriation through the Interior Appropriations bill. This legislation is written by the House and Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittees.  Members of these subcommittees are listed below. Again, please let them know of your concerns.

House:

  • Ken Calvert, California, Chairman
  • Mike Simpson, Idaho
  • Tom Cole, Oklahoma
  • David Joyce, Ohio
  • Chris Stewart, Utah, Vice Chair
  • Mark Amodei, Nevada
  • Evan Jenkins, West Virginia
  • Betty McCollum, Minnesota, Ranking Member
  • Chellie Pingree, Maine
  • Derek Kilmer, Washington
  • Marcy Kaptur, Ohio

Senate:

  • Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
  • Thad Cochran, Mississippi
  • Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
  • Roy Blunt, Missouri
  • John Hoeven, North Dakota
  • Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
  • Steve Daines, Montana
  • Shelly Moore Capito, West Virginia
  • Diane Feinstein, California
  • Patrick Leahy, Vermont
  • Jack Reed, Rhode Island
  • John Tester, Montana
  • Jeff Merkley, Oregon
  • Chris Van Hollen, Maryland

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.

New study evaluates “candidate pool” from which invasive species might come

Campanula latifolia – one of the species detected as an “emerging” invasive species in the database relied upon by the authors of the study

The authors of a new study note that officials managing invasive species programs rely largely on knowledge of a species’ previous invasion history to predict its level of threat in the geographic area under their responsibility. This approach does not work with the many introduced species that have no history of a previous detected invasion. Hanno Seebens and 49 coauthors – including tree-pest experts Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Marc Kenis, Andrew M. Liebhold, and Alain Roques — have sought to figure out how great a handicap that lack of data is. See “Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source.” The study is available for $10 here. Figures, tables, and references are available without charge.

The study used a database of 45,984 first records of establishment of 16,019 species belonging to the following major taxonomic groups: vascular plants, mammals, birds, fishes, insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates.

Last year, many of the same scientists, relying on the same database, found that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and shows no sign of slowing down. The adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th century have slowed introductions – but they are not sufficiently effective, especially regarding those plants and animals that are introduced primarily accidentally as stowaways on transport vectors or contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, mollusks and other invertebrates). The 2017 study found a strong correlation between these “accidental” alien species’ spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest. For that study, go here.  I blogged about the findings on 1 March 2017 – here.

In the new 2018 article, the scientists found that even after many centuries of invasions the rate of emerging alien species is still high. Across all taxonomic groups, one out of four detections during 2000 – 2005 was of a species that had not been previously recorded anywhere as alien. Detections of “new” or “emerging” aliens is occurring at an even higher rate for some taxonomic groups. But new detections of insects fit the average – every fourth detection during 2000 – 2005 was of a species not previously recorded outside its native range.

The authors conclude that the continuing high proportion of “emerging” alien species is best explained by the interplay of 1) the incorporation into the pool of potential alien species of species native to regions formerly not accessible to traders; 2) increases in introduction rates due to higher import volumes; and 3) probably rising establishment rates as a consequence of land degradation that facilitates establishment in recipient regions. This process compensates for the decrease of new invaders from historically important source regions – from which potentially invasive species have presumably already taken advantage of pathways and been recorded as introduced somewhere.

emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis – one of the species in the database of “emerging” invasive species

 

The number of insect species in the database candidate species pool is 20,611 species – an admittedly small fraction of all insects (for example, there are more than 350,000 beetle species worldwide). Twenty-four percent of these insect species have already been established somewhere outside their native ranges. However, the authors note that data gaps – which are larger for some taxonomic groups and geographic regions – mean that the number of actual “first” introductions is probably larger than records indicate, and consequently the estimated size of the candidate species pools may also be higher. Indeed, the paper does not attempt to estimate the actual size of the invasive species “pool” for insects.

The authors analyzed the importance of eight factors – temperature, relative humidity, import values, three land-use categories, number of botanical gardens, and human population size – in explaining the continued high number of “emerging” invaders detected in recent years. While these factors were explanatory for some taxonomic groups, they had a very low predictive value for insects.

For vascular plants, every third record of an introduction in 2000 – 2005 was of an “emerging” alien  species. Interestingly, the number of botanical gardens in a country was a significant predictor for emerging alien vascular plants. However, as the authors of the article point out, reliance on this factor ignores the probable importance of other contributors such as the number of species planted in the receiving country; similarities between source and receiving environments; and introductions by acclimatization societies, European explorers or settlers, and plant hunters.

Acer ginnala –one of the species detected as an “emerging” invasive species in the database; photo by J. Weisenhorn, University of Minnesota extension

In any case, lots of previously undetected alien species are detected each year. In this database, 58% of the species had a single record; 86% of all species have no more than two first records in countries on the same continent. The large number of species with only one or two records led the authors to conclude that most species will not spread widely. I question that conclusion because species often require some time to spread to new locations – either local or distant. The authors do admit that they are unable to determine which species have a high potential for spread.

ash trees at the St. Louis arch – before arrival of emerald ash borer

 

The continued high rate of introduction of new species leads the authors to estimate that between 1% and 16% of all species on Earth – depending on the taxonomic group – qualify as potential invasive alien species. The authors did not attempt to estimate the true candidate pool or percentage of invasive species for insects. For vascular plants, the authors estimated the candidate pool at 47,000 species (out of a total of 368,000 species on Earth), or 13%.

Like its predecessor, this study’s importance arises from its broad perspective – covering the entire globe and a wide range of taxonomic groups. Its major conclusion that invasions will continue on a large scale serves as a warning to all stakeholders. These include officials charged with protecting agriculture and the broader economy, or the natural environment; conservationists; and those engaged in the economic activities that promote invasion.

However, the authors found that the data did not support more specific advice. First, as noted above, they were unable to determine which of the “emerging” invasive species in all taxonomic groups have a high potential to spread.

For those of us focused on invasive species that threaten native plants, data gaps limit the predictive value of the study the most. The database is too scant even to estimate the invasive species “pool” of potential insect pests. Plant pathogens are not included in the analysis.

 

 

Posted by Faith Campbell and Phyllis Windle

 

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.

 

 

You Might Be Surprised By Who is Authorized to Manage Wildlife on Federal Lands

mountain goats – introduced onto USFS-managed lands in the Columbia River Gorge at state initiative; in Utah, the state introduced mountain goats on lands adjacent to a USFS Research Natural Area

 

The journal Environmental Law has just published a 135-page article that debunks a common myth of wildlife management – a piece that the U.S. Forest Service tried to quash. The authors’ analysis could affect the introduction of potentially invasive non-native species – and the reintroduction of native ones – on federal lands.

Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt & S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands; debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law, Vol. 47, no. 4 (2017).

The article reviews the legal authority of federal and state governments to manage wildlife on federal lands.  The authors examined wildlife-related provisions within the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management, the special case of Alaska, the National Wilderness Preservation System, and the Endangered Species Act. They also reviewed cases where federal and state agencies came into conflict over wildlife management on federal lands.

Citing the U.S. Constitution, federal land laws, and relevant case law, the authors assert that federal agencies have an obligation, not just the discretion, to manage and conserve fish and wildlife on lands and waters under their management. They say that the often-cited statement that “the states manage wildlife and federal land agencies only manage wildlife habitat” is wrong from a legal standpoint. This is the myth that the article debunks.

Furthermore, the authors find that federal agencies frequently apply their powers in an inconsistent and sometimes even unlawful fashion. Due to political pressures, they may back down when confronted by states wanting to manage wildlife to achieve their own goals – even when the state’s goals conflict with the legally-mandated purposes of the federal land under question. Such goals might include ensuring maximum populations of “game” animals or introduction of species to new habitats – regardless of the potential impact on native plants and animals.

The authors note that federal land and wildlife laws provide ample opportunities for constructive intergovernmental cooperation in wildlife management. They call for truly mutual collaboration by federal, state, and tribal authorities in managing wildlife. However, such cooperation is blocked in part by states choosing to challenge the constitutional powers, federal land laws, and U.S. government supremacy. In addition, the authors contend, most states have not put together programs that address their own conservation obligations. These obligations are inherent in the widely recognized doctrine of wildlife being a public trust to be managed for the present and future benefit of the people, not the government or private individuals.

According to the website of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics,  posting of a draft of this article on the University of Montana website (where lead author Martin Nie teaches) led the U.S. Forest Service to pressure the university to withdraw the article. The university refused, and the Forest Service ended its contract with Nie and his research center.

The paper can be downloaded here. 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.

Posted by Faith Campbell

“Invasive Species Denialism” Increases Exponentially

 

Anthony Ricciardi and Rachael Ryan have analyzed 77 articles published from 1994 to 2016 in scholarly journals and the mainstream media that express some level of “invasive species denialism”. Denialist articles appearing in these publications have increased exponentially over the past three decades, most notably in the mainstream popular press – and they have the graph, fitted to a curve, to prove it.

The authors cite Diethelm and McKee (2009) in defining “science denialism” as “the use of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, with the ultimate goal of casting doubt on scientific consensus.” Similar strategies have appeared in disputes over the dangers of tobacco smoking and climate change.

Ricciardi and Ryan say that “[u]nlike normal scientific debates, which are evidence based, this discourse typically uses rhetorical arguments to disregard, misrepresent or reject evidence in attempt to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that species introductions pose significant risks to biological diversity and ecosystems….” In their view, the “denialist” articles assert an absence of damage from bioinvasion “despite peer-reviewed research that shows otherwise ….”  One example of evidence ignored by the contrarians are several analyses of the causes of endangerment or extinction of vertebrate species listed on the Red List maintained by the IUCN [as reported in my blog from May 2016 link]

Furthermore, these claims are almost always made in the absence of peer review – either in popular media or as opinion articles in scholarly journals. Many of the writers are social scientists and philosophers, not natural scientists. Only five of the 77 articles, or 6%, were published in natural science journals.

Ricciardi and Ryan say that unlike genuine scientific debate, “denialists” reject scientific evidence while repeating claims that have already been refuted in the scientific arena. Often, “contrarians” link invasion biology to xenophobia and latent racism, or otherwise impugn the motives of those engaged in the invasion biology field.

Ricciardi and Ryan consider possible reasons for the rise in “denialist” articles. Possible reasons include anti-regulatory ideologies, distrust of scientific institutions, conflicting values and perceptions of nature, even individuals’ desire for attention. They note that despite the absence of a true scientific controversy, the “denialists’” assertions gain credibility because science reporters think they need to present “both sides” of the argument.

Unlike the situation in the contrived controversies over climate change and risks from tobacco, we at CISP have not found a powerful industry backing the contrarians.

Ricciardi and Ryan express concern that the growing number of articles rejecting decades of research on invasive species might undermine policy initiatives at a time when invasion biology’s relevance to biosecurity, conservation, and ecosystem management is increasing. Gaining public support is critical to the success of such policies.

This concern is especially well-founded given that the authors’ results underestimate the extent of invasive species denialism. That is, they omitted from their analysis articles from internet blogs – known to be major platforms for promoting “science denialisms” – and websites that specifically attack invasion biology.

While Ricciardi and Ryan published this as a “note,” it is packed with information, e.g., references on science denialism, in general; and, in supplementary information, a table citing the 77 denialist articles.

 

SOURCE

INVASION NOTE. Ricciardi, A. & R. Ryan The exponential growth of invasive species denialism. Biological Invasions. Published online 12 September 2017

 

New Disease that Attacks Beech is Spreading

beech leaf disease symptoms;  photo by John Pogacnik, Lake Metroparks

In 2012, Ohio authorities detected a new disease attacking American beech (Fagus grandifolia) in northeast Ohio. The disease has spread to several counties in northeast Ohio and neighboring areas of Pennsylvania, New York, and Ontario.

Counties currently reporting beech leaf disease; Cleveland Plain Dealer relying on data from Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Currently, no cause has been determined – despite efforts by the USDA Forest service, Ohio Division of Forestry, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Holden Arboretum, and Ohio State University.

Early symptoms are dark striping on the leaves – best seen by looking upward into the backlit canopy. The striping is formed by a darkening and thickening of leaf tissue between leaf veins. Later, lighter, chlorotic striping may also occur. Both fully mature and very young “emerging” leaves show symptoms. Eventually the affected foliage withers, dries, and yellows. Bud and leaf production is also affected. However, there is little premature leaf loss.

All ages and sizes of beech are affected. Sapling and pole-sized trees die within about three years after symptoms are observed. In areas where the disease is established, the proportion of American beech affected nears 100%.

Disease incidence does not appear to be influenced by slope, aspect, or soil conditions. Also, while a wide variety of insects and pathogens is associated with symptomatic trees, these appear to be separate from and unrelated to beech leaf disease.

The disease might also affect European and Asian beech.

Given the range and ecological importance of American beech – a species already under threat in from beech bark disease – scientists seek to form a collaborative group that would efficiently address research issues related to the cause of this malady and management implications for the species.

Beech trees in the Northeast, Appalachians, and even Michigan are already under threat from beech bark disease, described here .

Workshop to Coordinate Research and Management

A workshop will take place May 2-3, 2018 at Cleveland Metroparks Watershed Stewardship Center, 2277 West Ridgewood Drive, Parma, OH 44134

https://clevelandmetroparks.com/parks/visit/parks/west-creek-reservation/watershed-stewardship-center-at-west-creek

Presentations on the first day of the meeting would seek to

  1. Prioritize next steps and coordinate efforts.
  2. Increase communication and coordination among land managers and researchers.
  3. Inform resource allocation and leverage funding sources for maximum effectiveness.
  4. Set up 5-year plan – Research, Survey, Diagnostics, etc.

The second day would include a field trip to view the disease.

Contact one of the following if you are interested in giving a presentation on the ecological importance of beech; or the history, etiology, surveys, or epidemiology of beech leaf disease.

healthy beech in Virginia; F.T. Campbell

SOURCES

http://portal.treebuzz.com/beech-tree-leaf-disease-no-known-cause-1036

John Pogacnik, Biologist, Lake Metroparks & Tom Macy, Forest Health Program Administrator, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry. Forest Health Pest Alert Beech Leaf Disease July 2016

 

New Woodborer Detected – Importance of Surveillance By-Catch

 

Agrilus smaragdifrons – photo by Ryan Rieder, New Jersey Department of Agriculture

 

At least 11 non-native metallic wood-boring beetles in the genus Agrilus  have been introduced to either the United States or Canada – or both. The most recent detection is Agrilus smaragdifrons Ganglbauer, which feeds on the invasive plant tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). This information comes largely from an important new paper by noted entomologist E. Richard Hoebeke at the University of Georgia and others (see the reference Hoebeke et al. 2017 at the end of this blog).

 

Two more Agrilus species that are native to Mexico and – in one case, also Arizona – have been introduced to separate parts of the U.S. and are killing naïve hosts there. These are A. prionus (which attacks soapberry trees in Texas) and A. auroguttatus (the goldspotted oak borer, which attacks several oak trees in California). Both species are described here

 

The genus Agrilus is considered to be the largest genus of the entire Animal Kingdom; it has over 3,000 valid species (Hoebeke et al. 2017).

 

Most of the Agrilus introduced to North America do not attack trees. Several attack crops such as grapes, currants and gooseberries, and rasberries (Hoebeke et al. 2017; (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009; reference at the end of the blog). Others attack horticultural plants including roses, wisteria, and mimosa (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009).

 

Still others attack plants that are invasive, such as honeysuckles (Lonicera spp). One, A. hyperici Creutzer, was deliberately introduced as a biocontrol agent targeting St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009).

 

However, Agrilus sulcicollis attacks oaks, beech, chestnut and other trees in the Fagaceae family in its native Europe. The beetle was detected in Ontario in 2006 (Jendek and Grebennikov 2009).

 

The most recently detected East Asian “jewel” beetle, Agrilus smaragdifrons, was discovered by analysis of Agrilus species caught in surveillance programs targeting other species – usually emerald ash borer (EAB) (A. planipennis). The beetle was first identified in traps deployed by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture. Unlike in many trapping programs, New Jersey screened the trap catches for all beetles in the family Buprestidae (which includes EAB). In 2015, two samples from separate trapping sites in the state contained a distinct but unrecognized species. These were identified by Dr. Hoebeke as the East Asian A. smaragdifrons (Hoebeke et al. 2017).

 

Alerted to the new species, scientists conferred and found additional detections of the species. An EAB biosurveillance program in New England utilizing the native ground-nesting wasp Cerceris fumipennis also detected the A. smaragdifrons in at least one location in central Connecticut in 2015. (The wasps capture beetles in the Buprestid family to feed to their young. By observing which species of beetles are brought to their nests by the wasps, scientists can learn which species are present in an area.)

 

Pennsylvania has collected A. smaragdifrons in surveillance programs targeting either EAB or spotted lantern fly (Lycorma delicatula (White))(Hoebeke et al. 2017).

locations where A. smaragdifrons has been detected; map from Hoebeke et al. 2017

It turned out that A. smaragdifrons has been in the U.S. for several years. One scientist photographed the beetle – without knowing what it was – in 2011 in New Jersey and posted the image at BugGuide (http://bugguide.net/node/view/1139674/bgimage ; accessed by Hoebeke and colleagues on 1 May 2017).

 

Recent field observations in China and the U.S. have observed both adults and larvae feeding on tree of heaven. In Beijing, many Ailanthus trees in gardens or along roadsides have succumbed to attack by this wood-borer. Other tree species on the grounds of Beijing Forestry University have not been attacked by A. smaragdifrons (Hoebeke et al. 2017). Still, no proper host-specificity test has yet been conducted on the beetle.

 

Of course, Ailanthus is widespread across North America, from southern Canada to Florida, and even along river courses in the arid Southwest. According to the USDA Forest Service (see the third on-line reference at the end of the blog), Ailanthus is known to be present in 42 states. It is most abundant in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states. For example, 18% of the forest plots inventoried by the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory Analysis program in West Virginia had Ailanthus present. Efforts are under way to try to find biocontrol agents (Hoebeke et al. 2017).

 

 

Importance of analyzing by-catch in insect detection surveys.

 

While most managers of pest surveys ignore the non-target species caught in their traps (“by-catch”), this detection shows that examining the by-catch can sometimes result in discovering previously unknown species. (Other examples of such detections include the pine pest Sirex noctilio in New York in 2004 and the oak-feeding Agrilus sulcicollis in Ontario and later Michigan.

 

Hoebeke and his colleagues strongly recommend that scientists pay attention to non-target insects captured in their surveys, especially those insects that show up in any abundance for the first time.

 

SOURCES

 

Hoebeke, E.R., E. Jendek, J.E. Zablotny, R. Rieder, R. Yoo, V.V. Grebennikov and L. Ren. 2017. First North American Records of the East Asian Metallic Wood-Boring Beetle Agrilus smaragdifrons Ganglbauer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae: Agrilinae), a Specialist on Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima, Simaroubaceae) Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 119(3):408-422.

 

This article demonstrates how to distinguish the Ailanthus beetle from other Agrilus species.

 

Jendek, E. and V.V. Grebennikov. 2009. Agrilus sulcicollis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a new alien species in North America. Canadian Entomologist 141: 236–245.

Maryland has declared A. smaragdifrons its “invasive species of the month” for December 2017. Visit http://mdinvasivesp.org/invader_of_the_month.html

Information about Ailanthus as an invasive plant is available at

https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/treeheaven.shtml ; https://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/midatlantic.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/43136

Biological Control Approved for Invasive Black and Pale Swallow-wort!

black swallow-wort; photo by Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut

Help is on the way!

With funding support through the Northeast IPM Partnership, University of Rhode Island entomologist Richard Casagrande has been leading a team to find biological control agents for two invasive plant species. The target species, black swallow-wort (Vincetoxicum nigrum) and pale swallow-wort (Vincetoxicum rossicum), are native to Europe and members of the milkweed family Apocynaceae (previously Asclepiadaceae). In the U.S., their vigorous growth overtakes and smothers small trees, shrubs and other native plants and threatens the survival of the monarch butterfly whose larvae rely on milkweed for their development. They are currently found in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states but could spread much farther.

(See Faith’s earlier blog about USDA speeding up approvals of biocontrols for invasive plants here.

U.S. native swallow-wort species belong to the genus Cynanchum and include a dozen or so rare and endangered plant species. It was essential to consider these native species in the investigations. Feeding tests would need to show definitively that the potential biocontrol species would not attack native swallow-worts or other native members of the milkweed family. And, Jennifer Dacey, Casagrande’s graduate student, wanted to find out how well the exotic swallow-worts might provide for monarch butterflies. The results were alarming.  All of the monarch larvae died when hatching on black swallow-wort.  “They stopped eating after a single bite,” says Casagrande.

pale swallow-wort; photo by Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut

Why biological control?

Small infestations of invasive swallow-wort, seedlings and young plants can be pulled up by hand, mature plants can be dug up, and frequent mowing can suppress populations in fields. However, most infestations are too extensive to control by hand. Systemic herbicides – those that are carried through the plant to the roots — can be used to control large infestations, using foliar sprays. Several years of treatment will likely be needed due to the persistence of swallow-wort seeds. These efforts can be part of an overall Integrated Pest Management strategy but the best long-range solution is biological control. Biocontrol relies on finding herbivores that have coevolved to feed on specific invasive plants in their native range that will not have a significant impact on non-target species. Graduate student Aaron Weed worked with Swiss scientists to identify a handful of specialist plant herbivores, mainly beetles and moths that evolved with black swallow-wort and pale swallow-wort in their native ranges in Europe and were highly unlikely to feed on other plant species.

Approval process.

All biological control agents must be approved for release by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS sets up a Technical Advisory Group, or “TAG”, to review the research on feeding tests conducted by the researchers, called “no-choice” tests.  Potential biocontrol agents are tested for feeding on an extensive selection of native plant species and their relatives to ensure the agents are specific to the target species and won’t pose a threat to agriculture or to rare, threatened or endangered species or to other native species. The TAG list includes, naturally, most native milkweed relatives and even species more distantly related.

“Luckily, none of our native plants is closely related to the [invasive]swallow-worts,” says Casagrande. “That makes [swallow-wort] a great candidate for classical biological control.  The Tag list also includes a suite of Eurasian plants you might expect these specialists to nibble at now and then, and even plants that could host these specialists’ relatives. The bar is high for these no-choice tests: biocontrols must prove they’ll die before they switch.”

Casagrande’s team examined five possible biocontrol specialists in their quarantine lab, including two European moth species (Hypena opulenta and Abrostola asclepiadis) that feed on swallow-wort leaves in their native range. The researchers wanted to be sure these insects wouldn’t jump to non-target plants on the TAG list, since the last thing anyone wants is a new pest dominating the landscape, threatening agriculture, native ecosystems, and rare plants.

Results?

Both leaf-eating moths “passed the acid test,” says Casagrande. However, scientists have only petitioned for and received approval for Hypena opulenta, which was approved by the USDA in September 2017. They may seek approval for Abrostela in the future but for now are focused on rearing, releasing, and studying the effectiveness of Hypena.  Releases in Canada started in 2013 when Hypena was approved there. Since then, it has established and spread but it is too soon to evaluate its effectiveness.

Releases in the U.S.

Hypena opulenta was released on Naushon Island, Massachusetts, in early September 2017 – the only release in the United States – where both black and pale swallow-wort occur. The field release was carried out by placing about 400 larvae in each of 4 large cages containing both swallow-wort species in sun and shade locations. The larvae will be allowed to grow and develop in the cages for a little while before the cages are opened to allow the larvae to escape and start establishing on the island.

Next steps?

Funding will be sought to support rearing of Hypena at University of Rhode Island and other locations in the U.S. Dr. Lisa Tewksbury, Manager of Biological Control at URI, is running the program. It will take a few years to get to the point of having sufficient moths to distribute widely.  Best practices for releasing and monitoring will be developed.

Thanks to the Northeast IPM Partnership and the interest and dedicated efforts of Casagrande and his research team, we now have the most effective tool to use against two highly invasive plant species that will also protect our native species and natural ecosystems.

 

Posted by Jil Swearingen

Jil recently retired from the federal government and works as an invasive species consultant. She has 28 years of experience working on invasive species at the county, regional and national level in areas of education, outreach and management. Jil initiated and co-founded the Mid Atlantic Invasive Plant Council and serves on the board. Jil serves as the Coordinator for the Mid Atlantic Early Detection Network, a project she initiated and co-developed, and she continues to serve as Chair for the Plant Conservation Alliance’s Alien Plant Working Group and manager of the Weeds Gone Wild website. Jil is lead author of the book, Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas. She was recently elected to serve on the Board of Directors of the Maryland Native Plant Society

 

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.

 

Worldwide Study Confirms ISPM#15 is not Protecting Forests – What Do We Do Now About Pests in Wood Packaging?

 

You know that the continuing pest risk associated with imports of wood packaging is among my biggest concerns. See, for example, fact sheets here and blogs here and here.

A new book about the family Cerambycidae (edited by Wang 2017; reference at end of blog) confirms that longhorned beetles continue to be introduced to many countries via this pathway, more than a decade after widespread implementation of the international standard governing wood packaging (ISPM#15). Furthermore, data from several countries confirm that China continues to fall short … but that problems are more widespread.

The Wang book finds that 16 outbreaks of the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) were detected between 2012 and 2015.

Unless otherwise noted, the information provided here comes largely from the book’s chapter on biosecurity coauthored by Dominic Eyre and Robert A. Haack (see link below). Opinions stated are mine, unless specified otherwise.

In some cases – which I will note – further details are from my earlier posts.

While I think the risk of introduction of highly damaging pests via the wood packaging pathway is well documented in Wang (2017) and other publications, no one can truly quantify this risk because of shortcomings in countries’ data. Available data come primarily from countries’ records of pest “interceptions” – usually at points of entry.  However, interception data are inadequate to conclusively establish the lack of a threat for a particular trade or to provide a fair comparison of the relative threat of particular trades. Most interception databases have the following shortcomings (Eyre and Haack are summarizing points made by a third scientist – Lee Humble – in an earlier article):

(1) interception databases are not based on random sampling, which is necessary to measure the “approach” or “infestation” rate;

(2) inspections which find no pests are not recorded, so we cannot know what proportion of incoming shipments are infested;

(3) once inspectors have discovered a quarantine pest in a shipment, the consignments may be destroyed without further inspection, and thus other exotic organisms can be missed;

(4) only a small percentage of individual shipments are inspected; and

(5) organisms often are not identified to species due to difficulty of identifying larvae.

Furthermore,

(1) trade volumes and sources can change rapidly;

(2) the number of consignments inspected varies from year to year in response to national and regional plant health and wider government priorities;

(3) the method and intensity of quarantine inspections can vary within and among countries and as well as over time; and

(4) different proportions of consignments from different trades can be inspected, reflecting the perceived quarantine risks of each trade.

Still, scientists try to analyze the available data because propagule pressure may be the most important factor in determining whether an exotic pest becomes established.

What have they found?

Data from both the United States and Europe document that problems of non-compliance continue in recent years – more than a decade after adoption of ISPM#15.

United States:

  • Since APHIS interception records began being computerized in 1985, Cerambycidae have been among the most frequently intercepted insect families associated with wood products and packaging. The top five countries for infested shipments during the period 1984 – 2008 were China, Italy, Mexico, Turkey and Spain. A country’s rank is linked in part to import volumes – which are very high for China, Canada, and Mexico. Because the  U.S. inspects very limited quantities of wood packaging from Canada, its absence from the top five may be misleading [discussed in my blog from February, here.

Another factor explaining these countries’ rankings is the continued – in fact increasing! – presence of pests in wood packaging accompanying imports of tile and quarry products (e.g., marble, slate). Many of these imports are from Italy, Spain, and Mexico. Interceptions on these imports increased significantly from the mid-1990s to 2008. The increase in these interceptions is most alarming because it shows USDA leaders have not yet taken effective action to curtail this risk, despite its being evident since record-keeping began.

 

  • Over the period Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has detected nearly 5,000 consignments in which cases the wood packaging harbored a pest in a regulated taxonomic group. APHIS experts identified 2,500 insects taken from wood packaging during this period; a quarter were Cerambycids. A second APHIS analysis of a subset of the wood packaging-associated insects found examples from 39 countries, including 212 shipments from Europe; 130 shipments from Asia; and 341 shipments from the Americas – almost exclusively Mexico. [These detections are discussed in my blog from February, here.

 

Europe has had a similar experience.

  • Interception records included in EUROPHYT show 306 Cerambycidae interceptions on wood packaging over the period 1998 – 2013. The number of interceptions recorded in 2012 and 2013 are double those of all previous years. Each year, the majority are on wood packaging from China.
  • Most interceptions of ALB (distinct from detections of establishments) have occurred after the shipment cleared border inspection procedures, e.g., in warehouses.
  • As with the U.S., while the majority of non-compliant shipments are from China, the problem is worldwide: Europe has also found various species of longhorned beetles in wood packaging from various European countries (inside and outside the European Union), other Asian countries, Africa, Australasia, and the Americas.
  • Austria inspected 451 consignments of stone imports received April 1, 2013 – April 14, 2014. Forty-four consignments (9.8%) were found to be out of compliance with ISPM#15. Live Cerambycidae were found in 38 consignments (8%), including ALB. This finding confirms the widespread awareness that stone imports rank high for non-compliant wood packaging.

 

Regulatory Authorities’ Response (or lack thereof)

Europe

  • Since March 31, 2013, the European Union has required inspection of 90% of consignments of slate, marble, and granite and 15% of consignments of two other categories of stone imports.

CBP agriculture specialists in Laredo, Texas, examine a wooden pallet for signs of insect infestation. [Note presence of an apparent ISPM stamp on the side of the pallet] Photo by Rick Pauza
United States

  • As noted by Haack et al. (2014) (reference below), as of 2009, approximately 13,000 containers harboring pests probably enter the U.S. each year. That is 35 potential pest arrivals each day. [This issue is also discussed in the fact sheet and blogs here and here.
  • The United States has not specified an obligatory inspection rate for such high-risk imports as stone and tile. Instead, it relies on Customs and Border Protection to target import shipments suspected of being out of compliance based on past performance of importers, suppliers, and types of imports.
  • Several relevant issues are discussed in the blog in February 2017 (second blog linked to above). First, I noted that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection – over the seven-year period Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016 – has detected nearly 5,000 cases of wood packaging harboring a pest in a regulated taxonomic group. Comparing the estimate by Haack et al. 2014 with the CBP data indicates that Customs is detecting about 6% of all pest-infested shipments.
  • Furthermore, about 26% of infested wood pieces detected by CBP were found in wood that was marked as having been treated according to ISPM#15 requirements. What does this mean? Fraud? Accidental misapplication of the treatments? Or are the treatments less effective than hoped? What are USDA and other responsible agencies doing to clarify the causes?
  • CBP staff reported that only about 30 import shipments (out of nearly 21,000 shipments found to be in violation of ISPM#15 requirements) have received a financial penalty. How can USDA and Customs officials justify this failure to enforce the regulations?

 

 

What Can Be Done to Close Down the Wood Packaging Pathway

 

I suggest that our goal should be to hold foreign suppliers responsible for complying with ISPM#15. One approach is to penalize violators. APHIS and Customs might

  • Prohibit imports in packaging made from solid wood (boards, 4 x 4s, etc.) from foreign suppliers which have a record of repeated violations over the 11 years ISPM#15 has been in effect (17 years for exporters from Hong Kong & mainland China). Officials should allow continued imports from those same suppliers as long as they are contained in other types of packaging materials, including plastic, metals, or fiberboards.
  • Fine an importer for each new shipment found to be out of compliance with ISPM#15 in cases when the foreign supplier of that shipment has a record of repeated violations.

 

There would need to be a severe penalty to deter foreign suppliers from simply changing their names or taking other steps to escape being associated with their violation record.

 

At the same time, the agencies should work with non-governmental organizations and importers to promote creation of an industry certification program that would recognize and reward importers who have voluntarily undertaken actions aimed at voluntarily exceeding ISPM#15 requirements so as to provide a higher level of protection against invasive species that would otherwise potentially be introduced into the United States.

 

What You Can Do

  • Tell your member of Congress and Senators that you are worried that our trees are still being put at risk by insects arriving in wood packaging. Ask them to urge the USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue to take the actions outlined above in order to curtail introductions of additional tree-killing pests.
  • Talk to your friends and neighbors about the threat to our trees. Ask them to join you in communicating these concerns to their Congressional representatives and Senators.
  • Write letters to the editors of your local newspaper or TV news station.

 

Use your knowledge about pests threatening trees in your state or locality in your communications!

 

Other Introduction Pathways for Cerambycids

tree removals in Tukwilla, WA to eradicate citrus longhorned beetle; photo by Washington State Department of Agriculture

Plants for planting

Other studies have confirmed that importation of living plants (called by regulators “plants for planting”) is a high-risk pathway for introducing tree-killing pests. See the Eyre and Haack chapter for a summary.

This is as true for highly damaging Cerambycids as for other types of plant pests. One of the most damaging is the citrus longhorned beetle (CLB) (Anoplophora chinensis). CLB [https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/invasive-species/] poses an even greater threat to North American forests than ALB – it has a wider host range and climate-matching models show that it could establish across most of the United States. CLB were detected in a nursery in Tukwilla, Washington, in 2001; the pest was eradicated. Nine CLB outbreaks have been detected in Europe; three are considered eradicated (Eyre & Haack 2017).

Eyre and Haack (2017) report that in Europe of the 455 Cerambycidae intercepted over the period 1998 – 2013, 54 were on imported in living plants. These included probably 49 citrus longhorned beetle (CLB). Most were detected primarily on maple nursery stock that originated China (32), with smaller numbers from other countries, including Netherlands (8), and Italy (where CLB has been established).

New Zealand has intercepted 74 CLB on plants for planting over the 28 year period 1980 – 2008.  One third of this total was intercepted in 2008.

 

Authorities’ Responses (or lack thereof)

Europe

  • Since 2012, the European Union has required that 10% of CLB host plants imported into the European Union should be destructively sampled (that is, dissected to see whether insects are present internally).
  • This requirement supplements a broader requirement that plants for planting be treated as a high risk commodity. Member states are required to inspect all incoming P4P consignments. This requirement is, however, undermined by much more lenient requirements regarding movement of plants among EU member states – some genera are not regulated … others are controlled by Plant Passports – an industry-led scheme.  [For more on this issue, see my blog from October 2016 here.

 

United States

  • APHIS issued a Federal order tightly restricting imports of CLB hosts from Europe in 2013 – four years after a CLB outbreak was detected in a part of the Netherlands which is a center for the production of hardy ornamental nursery stock for European and probably American markets.
  • APHIS proposed to revise its overall plant importation regulations (the “Q-37 regulations) to rely more on integrated management by the exporting nurseries in contrast to port inspections. This rulemaking has stalled. [See my blog about this here.]

 

Finished Wood Products

While no country is keeping comprehensive records, finished wood products have transported longhorned beetles.  Eyre and Haack (2017) concluded that upholstered furniture presents one of the highest risk among the finished wood products – partly because imports are rising rapidly, partly because insect-damaged wood can be hidden under the upholstery. New Zealand found that some Asian manufacturers place good quality wood on visible surfaces and poor quality timber (insect damaged and bark covered) in internal sections. Officials inspected 49 couches and found that 30 had wood with bark, 19 had insect contaminants, and 32 had visible insect damage. Fungal samples were isolated from 11 of the couches. They found 4 longhorned beetles.

 

References

Wang, Q. (Ed.). 2017. Cerambycidae of the world: biology and pest management.  Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press

The chapter on biosecurity is available here:  http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/54552

A chapter on Cerambycid impacts in urban and rural forests is available here: http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/54543

 

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.

 

Posted by Faith Campbell