national parks – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

The Neglected Agrilus

I, and many others, have given much attention to the emerald ash borer (EAB), a species in the Agrilus genus. This attention is deserved. In 30 years EAB has spread from then-localized infestations in Michigan and Ontario to natural and urban ash ecosystems across North America. The EAB is spreading in Europe, too.

coast live oak killed by GSOB at Heisey State Park, San Diego County, California; photo by F.T. Campbell

We have paid far less attention to a second Agrilus, the goldspotted oak borer (GSOB), Agrilus auroguttatus. In roughly 30 years, the GSOB infestation has become the primary agent of oak mortality across much of southern California, an area of roughly 37 million square miles. This is bigger than the combined land areas of West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.

While the number of trees killed has generally expanded slowly, there have been periods of explosive growth. For example, annual mortality was estimated to have reached 40,000 trees in 2017. The officially documented cumulative total is over 142,000. At least one scientist, Joelene Tamm, considers this number to be a significant underestimate; she estimates the true number of trees killed as probably close to 200,000. As she explains (see here), the USFS’ Aerial Detection Surveys is not very effective at capturing mortality within fragmented urban landscapes, narrow riparian corridors, or when the target species have sprawling canopies (as oaks do).

Ravaged oak forests grow on five mountain ranges. People losing valuable resources and paying to manage the invasion include

U.S. taxpayers — three National forests have lost oaks; a fourth Forest is on the brink;
Residents of California – trees killed in at least four State parks, 10 County parks, and two major private reserves;
Native Americans on at least five reservations
City dwellers and property owners: up to 300,000 coast live oak trees live in built-up sections of just one heavily infested city, Los Angeles.

This damage is almost guaranteed to spread in the future. Three oak species host GSOB: coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), and canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis). The ranges of black and canyon live oak stretch north along the Coastal Mountain Range and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range into southwest Oregon. The range of coast live oak reaches Mendocino County. A risk assessment concluded that GSOB could invade all these regions. Among urban areas, Santa Barbara faces the highest risk because of the large number of oaks in its urban forest. While this county has not yet been invaded by GSOB, the beetle is now in adjacent Ventura County – although at the other end of the county.

GSOB is transported to new locations primarily by the movement of firewood. This means of human-assisted spread almost certainly explains its initial introduction to from southeastern Arizona to California – in eastern San Diego County – in the 1990s. (See here for the explanation why it is unlikely that the beetle would have spread to California through natural dispersal.) It is blamed for the establishment of numerous disjunct populations that propelled its spread. These outbreaks led to recognition of invasions in additional counties in new counties in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, and 2024.

Death of these trees causes numerous ecological impacts. Oaks provide food, habitat, and climate control for hundreds of species. Oak mortality also increases the probability and severity of wildfire. The few natural enemies, including woodpeckers and some parasitoids, are not keeping GSOB populations in check. Urban trees provide important ecological services, including shade which reduces energy use and expense associated with air conditioning; they also reduce storm water runoff. Larger trees – those preferred by GSOB – provide more of these services. Dead oaks not only deny people of these services; they also demand prompt removal to prevent them falling on people or structures; this is done at considerable expense.

GSOB invasions are now known to be present in six counties: San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Since the state has opted out of leading management of the beetle (see below), coordination of these many players presents significant challenges on top of the usual difficulties that hinder most U.S. efforts to reduce threats from non-native forest insects and pathogens:

Detection of outbreaks occurs years after the pest’s actual introduction. Locations of disjunct outbreaks are difficult to predict. They fuel more rapid dispersal.
The host species are not important commercial timber sources, so key forest stakeholders do not act – despite the tree species’ great ecological importance.
USDA APHIS does not engage because GSOB has become a non-native tree-killing organism in a single state (although it was introduced from a separate state – Arizona).

Problems more specific to GSOB are:

Some authorities dismiss this invasion because the beetle is native in one U.S. state.
California State agencies and the National Park Service have not taken effective action to control movement of the principal vector – in this case, firewood.

Fortunately, a broadening alliance of locals is trying to fill the gaps. These efforts are truly encouraging. Concerned individuals and organizations in Southern California have put together a broad coalition that works to ensure an outbreak-wide response. Participants include staffers in the USDA’s Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service; the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; CalFire; California Department of Conservation; State parks; agencies of four counties; community Fire Safe councils; regional conservation agencies; several Resource Conservation districts; various Tribes and Tribal Nations; and University of California extension. In some counties, there are also geographically-focused coordinating bodies.

Money is scarce, but somehow they manage to carry out detection and monitoring, vigorous outreach and education projects, and — at some sites — treatment of vulnerable trees and removal of “amplifier” trees. Teams working under the umbrella of this coalition have developed GSOB-killing treatments for logs (firewood); search for tools to increase survey efficacy; investigate the area-wide impact of the beetle, and its interaction with drought. Scientists have also explored possible biocontrol agents in the species’ native habitat in Arizona. However, the two parasitic wasps found there are already present in California, where their parasitism rates are much lower.

Some of the participants have been willing to “go political” in search of resources and official actions.

Might this coalition be a model for addressing other pests?

As if GSOB were not a sufficient threat to California’s oaks, several other non-native pests are already established in the state. These include at least seven pests and pathogens:

sudden oak death pathogen;
three shot hole borers — polyphagous, Kuroshio, and Euwallaceae interjectus; they attack at least Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), Canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis)
Mediterranean oak borer; attacks valley oak (Quercus lobata); blue oak (Q. douglasii); and Oregon oak (Q. garryana).
acute oak decline (bacterium Rahnellav victoriana);
foamy bark canker (caused by Geosmithia pallida); and
possibly two Diplodia fungi.

At least GSOB, SOD, and two of the shot hole borers have received official “zone of infestation” (ZOI) designation by the California Board of Forestry. This designation enables

the Board to specify required pest mitigation measures for any timber harvest;
the Board & the CalFire authority to enter private properties to abate pest problems if necessary.
calls attention to the presence of the pest within the Zone and provides the Department with a talking point to motivate landowners & land managers to address problems caused by the pest in question.

The southern California coalition includes these other bioinvaders in its efforts.

Lobbying by members of the coalition – especially John Kabashima – resulted in the state legislature providing funds to address the invasive shot hole borers (see here and here.)

Summary of information in the brief

Tardy detections

Although oak decline was observed in eastern San Diego County as early as 2002, and a GSOB was caught in a survey trap in 2004, the beetle’s role in killing these oaks was identified only in 2008. This detection was followed by the discovery of disjunct infestations were detected in towns surrounded by National forests first in Riverside County (2012), then in Orange County (2014) and Los Angeles County (2015). Outbreaks in San Bernardino County were detected in 2018 – although the beetle had probably been present since 2013. The LA County populations continued to spread, despite management efforts. The obvious danger prompted neighboring Ventura County to initiate surveillance trapping in 2023. Sure enough, this sixth county found its first outbreaks in 2024. Most of the initial outbreaks have been on private land bordering or surrounded by National forests.

black oak in Cleveland National Forest killed by GSOB; photo by F.T. Campbell

Responses: State, County, and Federal

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) classifies GSOB as a level “B” pest. Pests in this category are known to cause economic or environmental harm; however, their distribution is considered to be “limited”. Efforts to eradicate, contain, suppress, or control the species are at the discretion of individual county agricultural commissioners.

There is some outside support – usually because of the link to increased fire danger. Grants from the National Forest Foundation have enabled local Fire Safe councils, CalFire, and the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD) to conduct surveys and in some cases removal of amplifier trees in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. However, the funds no longer support the earlier practice of spraying at-risk trees.

County-by-County

In Orange County, a coalition of academics from the University of California and scientists with CalFire and USFS are testing various pesticide applications and efficacy of removing heavily infested trees. The county has adopted an Early Detection Rapid Response Plan.

Since the first detection of GSOB in Los Angeles County in 2015, authorities have removed nearly 10,000 “amplifier” trees. Because the Santa Monica Mountains are home to 151,000 oaks, LA County Agricultural Commissioner of Weights and Measures, the Santa Monica Mountain Resource Conservation District (RCD), Los Angeles National Forest and UC Cooperative Extension established a joint “Bad Beetle Watch” program with Ventura County. The program is training agency personnel, tree professionals, and recreationists to detect GSOB. A state agency – Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority – is managing two outbreaks in the Santa Monica Mountains. The Los Angeles County Fire / Forestry Division is surveying the oak-dense San Fernando Valley and Santa Susana Mountains after GSOB was found nearby. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning agency will target oak-dense communities with advocacy for oak woodland health and warnings not to move firewood.

Most encouraging, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is considering declaring a local or state emergency related to the risk of the spread of GSOB in the County and to the Santa Monica Mountains.

Ventura County began trapping at green waste facilities and campgrounds in 2023. Now that GSOB has been detected, several agencies — CalFire, Ventura County Fire, Ventura County Resource Conservation District, California Coastal Conservancy, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, Ventura Fire Safe Council, Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council as well as the state lands commission and Los Padres National Forest – are gearing up educational programs focused on the risk of GSOB spread to additional areas. The non-governmental organization Tree People helped to spark this effort. Efforts are under way to fund and formalize a regional coalition, with collaboration from California Department of Conservation, CAL FIRE, and UC Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Despite the damage to state parks and the clear nexus with firewood, the California State Park agency encourages – but does not require – campers and picnickers to purchase certified clean firewood on site from camp hosts.

Affected Tribal Lands

Among affected Native American reservations, the La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians has already removed almost one thousand large coast live oak trees in the Tribe’s campground; another thousand trees must be removed in coming years. Since 2019, the Tribe has been applying contact insecticides annually on 200 to 300 trees. In addition, the Tribe is planting seedlings and conducting research in partnership with UC Riverside, San Diego State University, and UC Irvine. Obtaining funds to develop management capacity is a constant challenge.

A second tribe, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, began a systematic survey of its lands in 2022. At that time, they found a light infestation in coast live oaks and some dispersal. Hundreds of dead trees are visible from highways bordering the Mesa Grande, Santa Ysabel, and Los Coyotes reservations. Even reservations that have no oaks on their land are affected because tribal members harvest acorns as a culturally important food.

Private Reserves

Two private reserves in Orange County responded aggressively to arrival of GSOB. The Irvine Ranch Conservancy started active management immediately after detection of GSOB in 2014. Their efforts – annual surveys, treating lightly infested trees, and removing heavily infested or “amplifier” trees – have paid off: by 2023, only 21 of 187 coast live oaks surveyed had new exit holes – and in most cases only one or two. Weir Canyon is considered a successful control program.

Managers of the California Audubon Starr Ranch Sanctuary began monitoring for GSOB by 2016. No GSOB were detected until 2023. Difficult terrain impedes survey and response. Orange County Fire Authority hired contractors to remove amplifier trees and treat others. Monitoring continues.

Responses by Federal Agencies

The Angeles, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National forests all have extensive and evolving management plans for GSOB. Actions include annual surveys, tree removal and/or treatment, regulating concessionaires’ sources of firewood, and restricting wood harvest permits. Each forest has also partnered with appropriate counties, NGOs, FireSafe councils, and Resource Conservation districts to expand outreach, monitoring, and management. Many of the efforts are centered around communities within and adjacent to National Forest boundaries and recreation sites, since they are the main source of GSOB ingress. Success is not guaranteed. Six years of applying contact insecticides to high-visit recreation sites did not prevent establishment of at least two new infestations on private inholdings in Trabuco Canyon (Cleveland National Forest).

The fourth National Forest in southern California, Los Padres NF – which lies partially in Ventura and Los Angeles counties – has not yet found any GSOB but it is preparing. The Forest conducted a forest health training with heavy emphasis on GSOB in spring 2024 and is in the process of creating its own monitoring and management plan to include preemptive evaluation of environmental concerns under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and planning.

GSOB management is an important facet of the National Forest Wildfire Crisis Strategy implemented by all four National Forests in southern California. Challenges include steep and inaccessible terrain; wilderness designations; designation of sensitive habitat for wildlife, ecological, or heritage sites; and the sheer amount of land managed. Despite this, the forests have expanded their efforts each year. At the National Plant Board meeting in July, Sky Stevens reported that GSOB is one of the priority pests being addressed by the Forest Health Protection program. However, this program has been severely downsized by the Trump Administration, so its ability to assist is unclear. Budgets for individual National forests are also in limbo.

The Issue of Firewood

Several National parks located in California contain important oak forests and woodlands that are also at risk, especially given the importance of firewood in spreading the pest. Yosemite and Kings Canyon-Sequoia National parks and other campgrounds in the Sierra Nevada receive large numbers of campers from the Los Angeles area.

A 2014 National Park Service resource guide for firewood management summarized federal plant pest regulations at the time. These have since changed because emerald ash borer is no longer federally regulated. The guidance advised Park staff to define their park’s forest resources, keep abreast of present and potential forest pest species, and act to manage risks from potentially infested firewood. Park concessioners are required to purchase and sell only locally grown and harvested firewood in accordance with state quarantines. However, California does not have relevant quarantines for either firewood as a commodity or for oak pests specifically. The websites of Yosemite and Kings Canyon-Sequoia National parks ask people not to bring firewood obtained from a source more than 50 miles from the parks.

California does participate in the Firewood Scout program, Firewoodscout.org which advises campers on local sources from which to purchase their wood. Statewide, a consortium of several agencies, academia, and non-government agencies operates a “Buy It Where You Burn It” campaign that promotes this message with the public and firewood vendors.

Funding is a perpetual problem. No agency, not even CalFire, is funded to remove amplifier trees. The agency does use its crews to remove GSOB infested trees when they can. Most funding for treating infested trees comes from competitive grants awarded by CalFire or National Forest Foundation.

In 2012 the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (which is appointed by the Governor) officially designated a Zone of Infestation (ZOI) for GSOB. The Zone has been expanded as the infestation spread. The Zone of Infestation formally recognizes GSOB as a threat to California’s woodland resources and seeks to raise awareness among the governor, legislature, and public. The action was also intended to foster collaborative efforts to manage the beetle.

Joelene Tamm, Vice Chair of the California Forest Pest Council Southern California Committee (CFPC), is leading an initiative to address wildfire risks from invasive pests, including GSOB, South American Palm Weevil, and the invasive shothole borers. She presented a pest update with potential solutions to the California Board of Forestry (BOF) and followed up with a presentation to the BOF Resource Protection Committee, which is now identifying responsive actions. The Governor’s Wildfire Task Force is considering incorporating the topic into future meetings. The initiative’s core message is that the state must address the root cause of pest proliferation, as treating the symptom of wildfire alone is an unsustainable strategy (Tamm, pers. comm. August 2025).

For more details and sources, visit the GSOB brief here.

[I could find no recent updates about a third Agrilus, the soapberry borer (Agrilus prionurus), which is established in Texas from Mexico and was earlier said to kill the western soapberry (Sapindus saponaria var drummondii). It is established in at least 42 counties, reaching from the Dallas-Ft. Worth area to the Rio Grande valley.

soapberry borer; photo by Texas A&M Forest Service

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

https://fadingforests.org

Status of Hawaiian species threatened by bioinvasion

stand of *Miconia* under albizia overstory on Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell

As I will describe in another blog, participants in the annual meeting of the National Plant Board link in Honolulu learned the basics about the uniqueness of agriculture and native species on remote Pacific islands. I want to complement this information by reminding you about other Hawaiian and Guamaian species at risk – although did not learn anything new.

As Martin and Andreozzi pointed out, the Pacific islands import nearly all their food and other consumables. Considerable interest in some quarters in Hawai`i to increase agricultural production. However, large swaths of land in the low-elevation area surrounding Pahoa on the Big Island is completely dominated by the albizia (Falcataria Molucca) [see photo above]. J.B. Friday says it is cost-prohibitive to remove these trees in order to restore agriculture in the area. Local people are concerned because in storms the trees fall onto houses and roads, causing considerable damage.

I saw numerous clumps of the notorious invasive plant Miconia calvescens. Dr. Friday told me that conservationists now focus on keeping this plant out of key areas, not trying to eradicate it completely.

area being restored by volunteers; photo by F.T. Campbell

Local people trying to restore disease-damaged forests by planting other native plants and hand-clearing invasive plants. Some of the ohia seedlings infected by Austropuccinia psidii.

ohia seedling with symptoms of ohia rust (*Austropuccinia psdii*); detected by J.B. Friday; photo by F.T. Campbell

Dr. Friday showed me many areas where ʻōhiʻa trees have been killed by rapid ʻōhiʻa death. Since this mortality occurred a decade or more ago, other plants have grown up. Pic In many if not most cases, this jungle includes dense growths of guava Latin the most widespread invasive tree on the islands (Potter). ‘Ōhi‘a trees continue to thrive in Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park – also on the Big Island – because the NPS makes considerable efforts to protect them from wounding by feral pigs. Demonstrates importance of fencing and mammal eradication in efforts to protect this tree species.

healthy ʻōhiʻa tree on cinder cone created by eruption of Kilauea Iki in 1959; photo by F.T. Campbell

I also saw healthy koa (Acacia koa) in the park, especially at sites along the road to the trail climbing Mauna Loa.

Regarding the wiliwili tree, I was told that it remains extremely scarce on Oahu.

wiliwili tree in flower; photo by Forrest Starr

I heard nothing about the status of naio – another shrub native to the Big Island – but on the dry western side of the island.

I rejoice that scientists are making progress in protecting and restoring Hawaii’s endemic bird species. Specifically, they are at the early stages of controlling mosquitoes that transmit fatal diseases. All 17 species of endemic honeycreepers that have persisted through the 250 years since Europeans first landed on the Islands are now listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Spp Act. The “Birds, not Mosquitoes” project has developed lab-reared male mosquitoes that, when they mate with wild female, the resulting eggs are sterile. (Male mosquitoes don’t bite, so increasing their number does not affect either animals or people.) Over time, the invasive mosquito population will be reduced, giving vulnerable native bird populations the chance to recover. Scientists began releasing these modified mosquitoes in remote forests on Maui and Kaua‘i in November 2023. In spring 2025, they began testing releases using drones. Use of drones instead of helicopters reduces the danger associated with flying close to complicated mountain rides in regions with variable weather. This project should be able to continue; the Senate Appropriations Committee report for FY26 allocates $5,250,000 for this project.

American Bird Conservancy is sponsoring a webinar about this program. It will be Wednesday, August 27, 2025 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM ET. Sign up for the webinar here

thicket of guava on the Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell

Finally, scientists are releasing a biocontrol agent targetting strawberry guava, Psidium cattleyanum, the most widespread invasive tree on the Islands (Potter et al. 2023). Distribution involves an interesting process. A stand of guava is cut down to stimulate rapid growth. The leaf-galling insect Tectococcus ovatus reproduces prolifically on the new foliage. Twigs bearing the eggs of these insects are collected and tied into small bundles. The bundles are then dropped from helicopters into the canopies of dense guava stands, where they establish and feed – damaging the unwanted host.

Guam

Guam’s endemic birds have famously been extinguished by the non-native brown tree snake. Dr. Aaron Collins, State Director, Guam and Western Pacific, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, informed participants at the National Plant Board meeting about the extensive efforts to suppress snake populations in military housing on the island, reduce damage to the electric grid, and prevent snakes from hitchhiking to other environments, especially Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland.

The program began more than 30 years ago, in 1993. The program now employs 80 FTEs and has a budget of $4 million per year. It was initiated because live and dead snakes had been found in shipments and planes that landed in Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland. Avoiding the snake’s establishment on Hawai`i is estimated to save $500 million per year. The program is a coordinated effort by USDA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Defense. Probably this estimate helped advocates reverse a decision by the “Department of Government Efficiency” to defund the program.

The program enjoys some advantages over vertebrate eradication programs on the mainland. For example, since Guam has no native snakes, it can use poison, e.g., in mouse-baited traps that can be dropped from planes. A recent innovation is auto-resetting traps baited with mammals; they can electrocute numerous snakes per night.

SOURCE

Potter, K.M., C. Giardina, R.F. Hughes, S. Cordell, O. Kuegler, A. Koch, E. Yuen. 2023. How invaded are Hawaiian forests? Non‑native understory tree dominance signals potential canopy replacement. Lands. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01662-6

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

Tree deaths in a National Park – what I saw

In June I visited Shenandoah National Park (SHNP) (above) for the first time in years. The Park’s forests are mostly mature secondary forests, having recovered over the 90 years since establishment from earlier logging and clearing for small-scale farms and pasture.

While I loved the forest and the vistas, I was aware of which species are missing …

Five years ago I blogged about a study by Anderson-Teixeira et al. (full citation at the end of this blog) that reported on the changes in the forests of SHNP and the neighboring Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI). This is important because, as Fei et al. (2019) (full citation at the end of this blog) documented, nine of the 15 most damaging introduced forest pests grow in eastern forests. In fact, the greatest increase in biomass loss has occurred in Eastern forests. Seven are found specifically in SHNP (Potter et al. 2019; full citation at the end of the blog).

Anderson-Teixeira et al. report that non-native forest pests caused a loss of about a quarter of ecosystem above-ground biomass between 1991 and 2013 across 66 sites. These invasions occurred after the worst impacts of chestnut blight, which entered the country ~120 years ago – before “modern” phytosanitary programs were instituted. Still, total above-ground biomass has largely recovered through germination and growth by trees in other genera. Greatest increases have been by tulip poplar (Liriodendron); oaks (Quercus); ash (Fraxinus) – but see below; birch (Betula); and maples (Acer). And while several taxa were lost from monitoring plots in SHNP and SCBI, a-diversity also remained steady.

So what does that look like on the ground?

American chestnut used to dominate many Eastern forests, composing more than one-third of the pollen assemblage in some stands (Fei et al.) According to Anderson-Teixeira et al., chestnut trees larger than 10 cm DBH disappeared by 1910, killed by chestnut blight. In past decades I frequently saw chestnut root sprouts when hiking. The National Park Service now urges visitors to hike to low elevation sections of the South River Trail to see such sprouts.

In the 1980’s, groves of eastern hemlocks occupied about 9,800 acres in SHNP, primarily in shaded valleys and along streams. Invasion by the hemlock woolly adelgid killed 95% of these hemlocks. Anderson-Teixeira et al. document the species’ disappearance from their study plots by 2007. Park staff treated more than 20,000 hemlocks using injections of imidacloprid. In 2015, the Park began partnering with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in releasing predatory biocontrol beetles (Laricobius spp.) While the beetles have shown promising establishment and spread, it is now recognized that additional biocontrol agents will be needed to suppress the adelgid. The Park plans to allow releases of predatory silver flies (Leucotaraxis spp.) in remaining hemlock sites and will begin to phase out the imidacloprid treatments.

I remember the hemlocks! But this year, at least in the creek valleys where I hiked, I saw almost no remnants – not even fallen logs.

fallen hemlock; all photos by F.T. Campbell in Shenandoah NP in June 2025

And I remember the flowering dogwoods. They are almost gone now from the Appalachian chain, killed by dogwood anthracnose. Their status in SHNP is unclear. Anderson-Teixeira et al. report flowering dogwoods only from the Smithsonian property. There, they declined by almost 90% from the study plots from 2008 to 2019. The Park’s list of tree and shrub species reports that flowering dogwood is still “abundant”; my visit was too late in the season to observe how visible flowering dogwoods still are. Certainly the species survives the disease better in open settings, e.g., meadows and roadsides. I don’t know how the three other native Cornus species were affected.

Dead ash are still visible. Ash trees made up about 5% of the Park’s forest cover. Anderson-Teixeira et al. report that ash aboveground biomass was increasing in SHNP and stable on the SBCI property before arrival of the emerald ash borer (EAB). EAB-caused mortality was first detected in 2016. In just three years — by 2019 – 28% of green, white, and black ash had died; this meant a loss of 30% of ashes’ aboveground biomass. Ninety-five percent of remaining live trees were described as “unhealthy’’. In an effort to retain ash trees for visitor enjoyment, reduce threats to visitors from hazard trees, and to preserve a portion of the park’s ash tree communities until host-specific biological controls become available, SHNP staff – supported by specially trained volunteers and interns, Virginia Department of Forestry and Fairfax County – began treating high-value ash with emamectin benzoate. They began at Loft Mountain Campground, a location (elevation 3,300 feet) where ash trees make up most of the forest. Three hundred forty three trees were treated there — exceeding expectations for what could be accomplished in a single year. The park hopes to treat an additional 200-400 trees. They will target ash trees around campgrounds, picnic areas, overlooks and other areas frequently used by visitors. These efforts were supported by the Shenandoah National Park Trust and here.

I saw many dead oaks – probably the result primarily of repeated attacks by the spongy moth link beginning in 1982. Oak-dominated study plots in SHNP lost on average 25% of individuals and 15% of above-ground biomass. After 1995, when spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis var. curstaki improved control efforts (at the expense of native moths), oak aboveground biomass increased gradually, driven by individual tree growth rather than recruitment. Oak abundance continues to decline due to oak decline and absence of management actions to promote regeneration (Anderson-Teixeira et al.). These authors do not mention oak wilt although a decade-old map shows the disease to be present just to the west of the Blue Ridge (visible here).

Fortunately Shenandoah National Park has relatively few American beech, so it will be less affected by beech leaf disease (BLD). The Blue Ridge is also far from large waterbodies — which promote the disease. However, I did see some beech sprouting in creek valleys – probably in gaps opened when the hemlocks died. These valleys with higher humidity are the type of ecosystem most conducive to the disease! Anderson-Teixeira et al. note that they did not analyze the impact of beech bark disease – which was the disease of concern before arrival of BLD and continues to be present.

They also did not evaluate the impacts of balsam woolly adelgid, described as having decimated high-elevation populations of firs (Abies balsamea); white pine blister rust on eastern white pine; or EAB on fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) in SCBI. Nor did they document the impact of thousand cankers disease (TCD) on walnuts or butternuts. This concerns me because they report that the disease “appears to be affecting Juglans spp. in our plots.” Furthermore, butternut (J. cinera) had been ‘‘common’’ in 1939, but had disappeared from SHNP by 1987. On the Smithsonian property, the four individuals found originally had declined by half – to two living individuals. Butternut has suffered high levels of mortality throughout its range from butternut canker.

The understory tree redbud (Cercis canadensis) also declined precipitously – by almost76% from 1995 to 2018 in SCBI plots. While Anderson-Teixeira et al. do not speculate why, a few years ago a wider decline was reported.

Of course, Shenandoah also has been invaded by non-native plants! So I saw some plants that should not be there. At least the mid- and high-elevations that I visited appear to be much less abundant in the Park than in coastal and piedmont regions of Virgina. Ailanthus is listed as “common” in the Park. I didn’t see Japanese stiltgrass but it is clearly present at lower elevations. I was particularly disturbed to see oriental bittersweet along trails located in all three sections of the Park.

The Blue Ridge PRISM is targeting 12 species: autumn olive, garlic mustard, Japanese honeysuckle, Japanese stiltgrass, kudzu, mile-a-minute, multiflora rose, oriental bittersweet, porcelainberry, privet, tree of heaven, and wavyleaf grass.

SOURCES

Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., V. Herrmann, W.B. Cass, A.B. Williams, S.J. Paull, E.B. Gonzalez-Akre, R. Helcoski, A.J. Tepley, N.A. Bourg, C.T. Cosma, A.E. Ferson, C. Kittle, V. Meakem, I.R. McGregor, M. N. Prestipino, M.K. Scott, A.R. Terrell, A. Alonso, F. Dallmeier, & W.J. McShea. 2021. Long-Term Impacts of Invasive Insects & Pathogens on Composition, Biomass, & Diversity of Forests in Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. Ecosystems

Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, & A.M. Liebhold. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect & disease invasions in United States forests. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences.

Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, G. Man, & B.S. Crane. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of United States tree spp: Evaluating vulnerability to forest insect & disease threats. Global Ecology & Conservation.

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

Call for new approach to biological conservation – integrating bioinvasion

whitebark pine in Glacier National Park killed by white pine blister rust

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) is a major global policy driver around the world for more effective action to preserve biodiversity from current and future threats. (However, the United States has not joined the underlying treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). So its importance is probably less in the United States than in countries that take part.) This relatively new Framework was adopted at the 15^th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD in December 2022 after four years of negotiations. However, cynics note that the 196 countries that are parties to the CBD have rarely met previous ambitious goals set at earlier COP.

Hulme et al. have just published a paper [full reference at the end of this blog] addressing how invasive species and this Framework’s target may interact. They note that conserving biodiversity costs money. Many of the countries hosting diverse and relatively intact ecosystems lack sufficient resources, capability, or robust governance structures for this conservation.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets out ambitious global targets to reduce biodiversity loss by 2030 so as to maintain the integrity of ecosystems and their constituent species. Of the 23 targets, one – Target 6 – addresses bioinvasion. Countries endorsing the CBD have committed to eliminating, minimizing, reducing and/or mitigating invasive species’ impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. This is to be accomplished by identifying and managing introduction pathways; preventing introduction and establishment of priority invasive species; reducing rates of introduction and establishment of known or potential invasive species by at least 50% by 2030; and eradicating or controlling invasive species, especially in priority sites.

I rejoice that the CBD parties have recognized invasive species as a major driver of biodiversity loss in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. I wish conservation organizations’ and funders’ activities clearly reflect this finding.

This is the challenge raised by Hulme et al.: countries must integrate efforts to counter bioinvasions into overall conservation programs. Success in curbing bioinvasion depends upon achieving almost all other KMGBF targets. And this is a two-way street: the more holistic approach offers greater likelihood of successful biodiversity conservation.

The same authors point out that some of the 22 other targets address rapidly evolving introductory pathways e.g.,

Target 15 – increasing international and domestic tourism;
Target 12 – encroachment of urban areas near protected areas;
Target 10 – development of intensive agriculture or aquaculture systems near protected areas;
Target 7 – species rafting on plastic marine pollutants; and
Target 8 – growing risk from species shifting ranges in response to climate change.

pallet graveyard behind camp store & snack bar art Lake MacDonald, Glacier National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

Other targets relate to management of established invasive species, e.g.,

Target 1 – planning and priority-setting for allocation of limited resources among the various threats to biodiversity;
Identifying factors that pose risks to highly-valued species, e.g., threatened species (Target 4) and species that provide important ecosystem services (Target 11);
Target 19—obtaining necessary financial resources.

A final group of targets are intended to guide all conservation efforts. These goals include integrating biodiversity concerns in decision-making at every level (Target 14); reducing harmful economic incentives and promoting positive incentives (Target 18); and several targets addressing issues of equity, benefit sharing, and access to information. Hulme et al. assert that the threat posed by bioinvasions must be incorporated into policies, regulations, planning and development processes and environmental impact assessments across all levels of government.

Hulme et al. decry an imbalance as to which KMGBF targets have been the focus of attention from governments, conservation organizations, and media. These stakeholders have concentrated on

Target 3, which calls for extending legal protection to 30% of lands and waters by 2030;
Target 4, which promotes maintaining genetic diversity within and among populations of all species;
Target 7, which encourages reducing harmful pollution;
Target 15, which urges businesses to decrease biodiversity risks arising from their operations; and
Target 21, which advocates ensuring equitable and effective biodiversity decision-making.

Even when stakeholders have looked at Target 6, they have focused primarily on how to quantify the numbers of species being introduced to novel ecosystems. Hulme et al. argue that conservationists should instead concentrate on the challenge of achieving the target. They note that bioinvasion is worsening despite implementation of many long-term management programs. As they note, numbers of introduced species globally have increased, these species are occupying larger geographic areas, and the species’ measured impacts have risen to astounding levels (see my previous blog about new cost estimates). This same point was made two years ago by Fenn-Moltu et al. (2023) [full citation at the end of this blog]; they found that the number of invasive species-related legislation and treaties to which a country adheres did not relate to either the number of insect species detected at that country’s border or the number of insect species that had established in that country’s ecosystems.

As conservationists, Hulme et al. remind us that not all damages are monetary: invasive species threaten more than half of all UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Hulme et al. say achieving Target 6 presents several scientific challenges – most of which have been discussed by numerous other authors. Introduction pathways are changing rapidly. There is great uncertainty regarding current and especially future propagule pressures associated with various pathways. Information about particular species’ impacts and where they are most likely to be introduced is insufficient. Management costs are routinely underestimated. Perhaps most challenging is the need to judge programs’ effectiveness based not simply on outputs (e.g., number of acres cleared of weeds) but on outcomes in relation to reducing the subsequent impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

I note that several environmental organizations endorsed a “platform” that discussed this last point a decade ago. [I have rescued the NECIS document from a non-secure website; if you wish to obtain a copy, contact me directly through the “comment” option or my email.] Unfortunately, the coalition that prepared this document no longer exists. Even when conservation organizations have invasive species efforts, they are no longer attempting to coordinate their work.

I greatly regret that Hulme et al. continue a long-standing misrepresentation of international border biosecurity controls as consisting primarily of inspections — of imported commodities, travellers, and associated transport conveyances. I have argued for decades that inspections are not effective in preventing introductions. See Fading Forests II Chapter 3 (published in 2003); Fading Forests III Chapter 5 (published in 2014); “briefs” describing pathways of introduction prepared for the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases – in 2014 and in 2018.

The weaknesses of visual inspection are especially glaring when trying to prevent introductions via wood packaging material and living plants — also here.

Hulme et al. propose a politically astute approach to finding the resources to strengthen countries’ efforts to curtail invasive species’ spread within their borders. Recognizing that no country has unlimited resources to allocate to managing invasive species, they suggest concentrating slow-the-spread efforts on preventing damage to legally protected areas. Furthermore, authorities should avoid designating as new “protected areas” places that are already heavily invaded – or at risk of soon becoming so. As they note, programs aimed at protecting these areas often engage conservation stakeholders, decision-makers, even potential non-governmental donors. In other words, there is a foundation on which to build.

To buttress their argument, Hulme et al. cite evidence that bioinvasions threaten these areas’ integrity. For example, Cadotte et al. (2024) found that bioinvasion is one of most frequently identified threats identified in a survey of 230 World Heritage sites; and that they pose a greater degree of concern than other threats to biodiversity. They reiterate that managing invasive species is one of the most effective interventions aimed at protecting biodiversity.

The task remains complex. Hulme et al. note that accurate information about pressure caused by invasive species is not easily quantified using remote sensing. It requires expensive on-the-ground data collection. Even current methods for ranking invasive species have crucial gaps regarding species’ potential impact and the feasibility of their control. Choosing management strategies also requires assessing potential unintended effects on biodiversity and other GBF Targets, e.g., pollution from pesticides (Target 7).

Still, the context remains: successful management of bioinvasions to support the integrity of protected areas depends on the integrative approach described above.

Hulme et al. note a contradiction within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Target 10 calls for the agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry industries to adopt sustainable practices, but doesn’t raise the issue of these sectors’ role in the introduction and spread of invasive species. They say guidelines have been developed for sustainable forestry production. These guidelines recommend that commercial plantation forests not plant non-native tree species within 10 km of a protected area. Hulme et al. also suggest applying a “polluter pays” fine or bond to forestry businesses that use invasive species without sufficient safeguards to prevent escape. These funds could be accessed to support invasive species management in protected areas, particularly surveillance. (Target 19 mandates obtaining more funds for this purpose). They add that these aquaculture, agriculture, horticulture and forestry sectors should take action to prevent the local feralization of alien crops and livestock.

Target 8 calls for minimizing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. Hulme et al. note numerous scientific challenges here, including understanding how specific ecosystems’ and native species’ are vulnerable to altered climates, along with how specific invasive species’ are responding to an altered climate regime.

These same authors provide specific recommendations to the global conservation community to put in place a more holistic perspective. Some recommendations deal with data integration. Others call for major undertakings: i.e., developing a protected area management toolkit at a global scale. This action will require significant investment in capacity-building of protected area managers plus international cooperation and technology transfer (Target 20). Hulme et al. suggest funding this effort should be a priority for any resources leveraged from international finance (Target 19).

Hulme et al. also propose changes in the conservation approaches advocated by the CBD and IUCN. Specifically, they call for more explicit consideration of current and future impacts of bioinvasions and their management — on protected areas. The needed activities fall into six areas:

(1) reduce risks associated with various pathways;

(2) plan for range-shifting invasive species;

(3) mitigate invasive species’ impacts on biodiversity and (4) on ecosystem services;

(5) ensure new protected areas (including urban green spaces and infrastructure corridors) are largely free of established (“legacy”) invasive species; and

(6) provide managers sufficient resources to take effective action.

SOURCES

Fenn-Moltu, G., S. Ollier, O.K. Bates, A.M. Liebhold, H.F. Nahrung, D.S. Pureswaran, T. Yamanaka, C. Bertelsmeier. 2023. Global flows of insect transport & establishment: The role of biogeography, trade & regulations. Diversity & Distributions DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13772

Hulme, P.E., Lieurance, D., Richardson, D.M., Robinson, T.B. 2025 Multiple targets of Global Biodiversity Framework must be addressed to manage invasive species in protected areas. NeoBiota 99: 149–170. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.99.152680

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

Shothole borer & associated fungus – demonstrating threat in South Africa & possibly beyond

*Erythrina caffra* one of the native tree species in South Africa killed by PSHB. photo by Coana/Riti via Flickr

Introductions of bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) have significantly increased over the past century. Surveys conducted at borders and ports of entry around the world have shown the majority of beetles intercepted were scolytines. These insects are highly destructive on their own. Also, they can carry pathogenic fungal symbionts that can have devastating effects on the trees they attack.

One or more species in a complex in the Euwallacea genus have become established in countries around the world. One of these, the polyphagous shot hole borer (Euwallacea fornicatus; PSHB) and its associated fungus (renamed from Fusarium euwallaceae to Neocosmospora euwallaceae) is threatening havoc in South Africa about a decade after its establishment (Townsend, Hill, Hurley, and Roets. 2025).

Over this brief period PSHB/Fusarium disease has spread from two introduction sites – Pietermaritzburg, in KwaZulu-Natal Province, and Cape Town, in Western Cape Province – to all but one of the country’s nine provinces. It has become established in four of five forest types studied – Afrotemperate, coastal, sand, and swamp forests. It has not established in mangrove forests. (The Western Cape Province is home to its own “floral kingdom”. The kingdom’s charactersitic fynbos flora is a heathland habitat, not a forest one.)

Townsend and colleagues established a network of 78 monitoring plots in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces. The sites reflected a variety of natural and human impacts.

tree infested by PSHB/Fusarium disease in KwaZulu-Natal Botanical Garden, Pietermaritzburg. Photo from website of Greenpop.org

By monitoring these plots over five years (2019 – 2024), Townsend and colleagues have demonstrated that the beetle/fungus complex and resulting “Fusarium disease” is spreading and intensifying. The number of infected trees rose from 100 to 176 over the five years – a mean increase of 0.6% per year. The number of PSHB entry holes increased by over 10% annually. The number of plots containing infected trees roughly doubled from 23 in 2019 (29% of the 78 plots) to 48 (60%) in 2023.

By the end of the study, 29% of the 148 species sampled had been infected. This represented 43 species and 7 unidentified trees infected. Trees of eight native species died, , although one — Diospyros glabra (Ebenaceae) – resprouted after the main bole died.

In addition to the eight species known to suffer mortality, another 18 species were found to be able to support PSHB reproduction. Townsend and colleagues worry that, as the infestation spreads and intensifies, some of these species might also succumb. They mention specifically Erythrina caffra (coral tree), which is prevalent in coastal forest ecosystems across South Africa.

Most of the hosts are in the same families as those identified earlier by Lynch et al. (2021), e.g., Ebenaceae, Fagaceae, Fabaceae, Malvaceae, Podocarpaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae and Stilbaceae.

Disease progress, speed of death, and visibility of symptoms varied not only between species, but sometimes among individuals of the same species. Some trees died rapidly. Townsend and colleagues say it is impossible to predict which individuals will succumb to infection.

There is, though, a clear frequency-dependent relationship between trees and beetles. Sites with higher relative abundance of host trees also had a higher proportion of infected trees, on average. The number of PSHB holes per species and per plot both increased to a larger extent at these same sites.

Individual trees’ traits influenced the severity of infestations (measured by the number of PSHB entry holes). Larger trees, those with a less healthy canopy, and those farther from a water source suffered more attacks. (This last finding differs from others’; Townsend et al. speculate that in the absence of flood-stressed trees, drought-stressed trees might be more attractive to ambrosia beetles.)

native tree in Tsitsikama National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

Characteristics of the monitoring plots also affected disease progression. Higher proportions of trees became infected when they grew in plots that were closer to source populations, or that contained a higher proportion of host species as distinct from non-host species. The proportion of trees infected decreased in plots with higher tree densities or tree species richness.

As of 2023, “Fusarium disease” is more widespread and intense in KwaZulu-Natal than in the Western Cape. In KwaZulu-Natal 0.11% of monitored trees are infected compared to 0.06% in the Western Cape. The number of infected trees rose twice as fast over the five years in KwaZulu-Natal – ~6%, than in Western Cape – 3%. While all KwaZulu-Natal plots contained infected trees, three of 11 monitoring sites in the Western Cape did not. Townsend and colleagues believe that the most likely explanation is that PSHB arrived in KwaZulu-Natal earlier (as far back as 2012 as opposed to 2017 in Western Cape). Another possible factor is that source populations of infected trees are indigenous trees within the forest in KwaZulu-Natal whereas, in the Western Cape, they are often non-native trees planted in urban areas far from the study plots. Also, forests in KwaZulu-Natal are fragmented while, in Western Cape, the study forests are nearly contiguous. Townsend et al. conclude that the disease will spread and intensify in Western Cape as additional source populations become established in the forest.

locations of PHSB/Fusarium disease in Cape Town, South Africa – West of the study sites; map from City of Cape Town

As of 2023, the proportion of trees infected appears to be small — 7.6% of the 2,313 trees monitored. Only 11 trees in the monitored plots have died. However, the longer PSHB is active in the environment the more trees it will infest, the higher its impact will be on hosts, and the higher the number of dispersing individuals produced. This will substantially increase the chances and rates of additional areas becoming infected, especially in areas close to infestations – e.g., cities. They fear that in the future impacts will increase as progressively more competent host individuals are infected. Therefore, they emphasize the importance of mitigating PSHB increase in natural ecosystems, even in already infected areas.

Townsend and colleagues urge phytosanitary officials and resource managers to prioritize surveillance and management on the families containing several host species (above) and within plant communities in which they predominate. Managers must also be alert to new reproductive hosts for the beetle that appear as the infestation spreads and intensifies.

The situation could be worse than described; the Townsend et al. study did not examine how the invasion might affect eco-regions outside these two provinces. Because the PSHB has such a broad host range, hosts can die quickly, and South Africa provides ideal climatic conditions, this bioinvader could cause severe ecological effects on most indigenous forest types as well as agriculture and urban trees throughout Africa.

SOURCES

Lynch, S.C., A. Escalen, and G.S. Gilbert. 2021. Host evolutionary relationships explain tree mortality caused by a generalist pest-pathogen complex. Evol Appl 14:1083 – 1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13182

Townsend, G., M. Hill, B.P. Hurley, and F. Roets 2025. Escalating threat: increasing impact of the polyphagous shot hole borer beetle, Euwallacea fornicatus, in nearly all major South African forest types. Biol Invasions (2025) 27:88 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-025-03551-2

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haack et al. (2022) discuss ten possible explanations for their finding that pest approach rates – as determined by their study — have not decreased more. See the article or my blog about the study.

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

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

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

We lack data on which to base a rigorous analysis

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

Leigh has identified the following data gaps:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two issues need to be resolved.

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

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

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

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

•Understand, account for, and communicate data realities

•Work collectively to increase useable data quality

•Use additional research to validate, or to demonstrate disparities

Why Wait for the Science?

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Phytophthora here, Phytopthora there … level of threat is unclear

Mt. Triglav – highest peak in the Slovenian (Julian) Alps; photo by Gunter Nuyts via Pexel

Scientists have discovered sizable diversity of pathogenic Phytophthora species in Europe, specifically in the Alps of northeastern Italy and western Slovenija. They have also named a new species, and noted the need to change the definition of species previously named. See Bregant et al. – full citation at the end of this blog – open access!

Two of its findings are especially important for the US

First, the authors document the vulnerability of alpine areas to 18 Phythophthora species. Most of the plant hosts they studied have congenerics in mountainous areas of North America: Acer, Alnus, Betula, Fagus, Fragaria, Fraxinus, Ilex, Juniperus, Larix, Lonicera, Lycopodium, Pinus, Populus, Quercus, Rhododendron, Rubus, Salix, Sorbus, Taxus, and Vaccinium.

Second, the paper discusses how junipers are at particular risk. I remind you that P. austrocedrii has recently been detected in nurseries in Ohio and Oregon. This is another non-native Phythophthora that attacks junipers. I hope authorities are actively seeking to determine whether P. austrocedrii is present in nurseries or natural systems in other parts of the country.

The genus Phytophthora includes many serious plant pathogens, from the one that caused the disastrous potato blight of Ireland (Phytophthora infestans) to globally important forest-destroying invasive species, e.g., P. cinnamomi and “sudden oak death” P. ramorum.

Bregant et al. surveyed 33 small tree, shrub, and herbaceous plant species in 54 sites on the Italian island of Sardinia and the Alps of both northeastern Italy and western Slovenija. Altitudes varied from the valley bottom (700 m) to above tree line (2100 m). Sites included typical forests, riparian ecosystems, and heathlands.

The 360 isolates taken from 397 samples belonged to 17 known Phytophthora species. Some species are widespread and well-known, e.g., P. pseudosyringae. Three isolates belonged to a putative new species described by Bregant et al. – Phytophthora pseudogregata sp. nov. This total of 18 taxa was unexpectedly high. Many of the species are able to cause aerial infections via production of caducous sporangia. These can infect various organs of the plant host: fruits, leaves, shoots, twigs and branches; and cause necrosis and rots. They detected 56 new host–pathogen associations. All are listed, by type of host, in Tables 4 – 6 of the paper.

The surprising diversity and detection of taxa previously described in Australia (see below) illustrate scientists’ still poor understanding of this genus. They also confirm fears that the global phytosanitary system is unable control intercontinental movement of Phytophthora.

The authors express concern because Alpine and subalpine regions are important hotspots for floral biodiversity. The great variation in altitude, aspect, moisture regimes, etc. – including extreme conditions – results in many different habitats on small spatial scales, with large numbers of both plant species and endemics in very confined spaces. The pathogens they discovered are spreading and compromising the biodiversity of these ecologically fragile habitats.

The authors say their study emphasizes the need to assess the full diversity of Phytophthora species and the factors driving the emergence and local spread of these invasive pathogens. They specify studying the Phytophthora communities on fallen leaves to evaluate host specificity, geographic distribution and survival strategies of the main Phytophthora species detected in this study. They report that scientists are currently mapping the distribution of the new species, P. pseudogregata, in the Alpine habitats and trying to establish its natural host range.

another view of the Julian Alps; photo via Rawpixl

Bregant et al. point out that increased scientific interest over the last 30 years has led to discovery of several previously unknown Phytophthora species and pathogen-host associations. They note that all but two of the taxa in one taxonomic grouping, Sub-clade 6b, have been described in the last 12 years. The majority of taxa have been described from forest ecosystems. This trend is depicted in Figure 8 of the article. This figure also displays which species were isolated from nurseries, agricultural systems, and forest ecosystems.

Results by Plant Type – Disease incidence was highest in shrub vegetation, alpine heathlands and along the mountain riparian systems. The most impacted ecosystems were heathlands dominated by common juniper & blueberry, and riparian systems dominated by alders. In these ecosystems, the Phytophthora-caused outbreaks had reached epidemic levels trend with a high mortality rate. On shrubs and heath formations, disease was initially observed in small areas and progressively spread in a concentric manner affecting more plant species.

Hosts and Diseases – Table 3 in the article lists the 33 host plant species, briefly describes the symptoms, and in some cases provides incidence and mortality rates. Those hosts described as suffering “sudden death” included Alnus viridis, Calluna vulgaris, Genista corsica, Juniperus communis, Lycopodium clavatum, Pinus mugo,Rhododendron ferrugineum, Salix alpine, Vaccinium myrtillus and Vaccinium vitis-idaea

Role of P. pseudosyringae – The most common and widespread species detected was P. pseudosyringae. It constituted more than half of the isolates (201 of the 360). Also, it infected the highest number of hosts (25 out of 33, including all three plant types). It was isolated at 36 of the 54 sites distributed throughout all geographic regions. Seventeen of the host–pathogen associations were new to science. (See Tables 4-6, in the paper.)

*Vaccinium myrtillis* – a vulnerable host; photo by Tatyana Prozovora via Wikimedia

P. pseudosyringae dominated disease agents in the shrub community, especially among high-altitude shrubs and heaths, e.g., blueberry, dwarf pine, juniper, rhododendron, and alpine willows. Bregant et al. note that these shrubs are extremely low-growing (an adaptation to high elevation conditions). This form might favor attack by Phytophthora sporangia and zoospores present in fallen leaves. Vaccinium myrtillus suffers particularly severe disease – as previously reported in Ireland. In their laboratory studies, Bregant et al. found P. pseudosyringae to be highly aggresse on common juniper (Juniperus communis), producing wood necrosis and shoot blight only four weeks after inoculation.

The importance of P. pseudosyringae in mountainous regions has been found in previous studies in Asia, Europe, and North and South America. However, the authors call for further study of certain aspects of the species. These regard infectivity and survival of the species’ sporangia in infected tissues fallen to the ground; and the ability of oospores to persist for years in environments subject to extreme low temperatures. The former could increase the risk of outbreaks and promote faster disease progression.

The authors suggest P. pseudosyringae’s survival stems from its production of very large and thick-walled chlamydospores. This reported feature is in contradiction with the original species description, which prompts Bregant et al. to call for a correction.

Other Species, Old and New – P. cactorum was the only Phytophthora species other than P. pseudosyringae detected on all three types of hosts (small trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants). Phytophthora plurivora was the second-most isolated species. It was detected on 12 hosts in 24 sites.

The new putative species — Phytophthora pseudogregata sp. nov. – was detected on Alnus viridis, Juniperus communis, and Rhododendron ferrugineum. As noted above, scientists are now testing whether other plant species are also hosts. It was detected at two sites in Italy — Borso del Grappa and San Nicolò di Comelico; and one site in Slovenija.

*Juniperus communis*; photo by Joan Simon via Flickr

Diseases of Juniper – Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled, demonstrating that eight Phytophthora species – the new P. pseudogregata sp. nov. as well as P. acerina, P. bilorang, P. gonapodyides, P. plurivora, P. pseudocryptogea, P. pseudosyringae, P. rosacearum – are pathogenic on common juniper (Juniperus communis). The lesions caused by P. pseudosyringae were significantly larger than those caused by other species. Lesions caused by P. pseudosyringae, P. plurivora and acerina progressively girdled the twigs causing shoot blight, browned foliage & wilting symptoms.

Most Threatening Phytophthora clades – The most-frequently isolated Phytophthora species belong mainly to clades 1 and 3 – including P. pseudosyringae. Bregant et al. say these species have several advantages for surviving in mountainous ecosystems: they produce caducous sporangia useful for aerial infections and they tolerate relatively low temperatures. Twoother species in clade 3 were isolated only from the mountains of Sardinia. One, P. psychrophila, was isolated from bleeding cankers on an oak species, Quercus pubescens. Its geographic distribution and impact are still unknown. A second species, P. ilicis, is a well-known pathogen on various hollies in Europe and North America.

Four species belonging to subclade 1a were isolated in the Alps of northeastern Italy and Slovenija. P. cactorum is a widespread polyphagous pathogen found from tropical to temperate climates. It has been responsible for severe diseases on agricultural crops and forest trees. Its occurrence in cold areas has recently been reported in Europe and Australia. The recently described P. alpina has the highest ability to survive in extremely cold conditions. It was detected on four hosts – Alnus viridis, Lonicera alpigena, Vaccinium myrtillus, and V. vitis-idaea.

Some species, e.g., P. hedraiandra and P. idaei, were reported for the first time in natural ecosystems in Europe. They have previously been linked to root and foliar disease in agricultural and ornamental nurseries.

The second-most common species in the Bregant et al. study, P. plurivora, was isolated from 54 symptomatic samples from 12 plant species; eight of the hosts are new. It is common in forest ecosystems of Central Europe – which is now considered to be its region of origin. Little is known about the closely related P. acerina. To date, the latter has been detected widely in agricultural systems, nurseries, forests, and ornamental trees in northern Italy and Sardinia. It is much more rarely found elsewhere. Both P. acerina and P. plurivora are already known to be primary pathogens involved in decline of common and grey alder in Italy.

Five of the Phytophthora species in this study, including the new species P. pseudogregata, are in Clade 6. These include pathogens very common in European forests, e.g., P. bilorbang and P. gonapodyides. Others have more limited or still unknown distributions, e.g., P. amnicola and P. rosacearum. These five species’ ability to cause aerial infections on mountain vegetation might warrant re-evaluation of the reputation of species in this clade being saprophytes or only occasional weak opportunistic pathogens.

P. pseudogregata – in sub-clade 6a – was originally described in 2011 in wet native forests in Australia and on dying alpine heathland vegetation in Tasmania. It has recently been reported in the Czech Republic and Finland. The related P. gibbosa is known to occur only in Australia, where it is associated with dying native vegetation on seasonally wet sites.

Two species of clade 8 — P. kelmanii & P. syringae — have a very limited distribution. A third – P. pseudocryptogea — is widespread in Italian ecosystems from Mediterranean areas to the tree line in the Dolomites. One species from clade 7 (P. cambivora) isolated, mainly from stem bleeding cankers of small trees and shrubs. It has two mating types; bothoccurr in the Alps of northeastern Italy and neighboring Slovenija — on Alnus incana, Laburnum alpinum and Sorbus aucuparia.

SOURCE

Bregant, C., G. Rossetto, L. Meli, N. Sasso, L. Montecchio, A. Brglez, B. Piškur, N. Ogris, L. Maddau, B.T. Linaldeddu. 2024. Diversity of Phytophthora Species Involved in New Diseases of Mountain Vegetation in Europe with the Description of Phytophthora pseudogregata sp. nov. Forests 2023, 14, 1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14081515 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Forest Regeneration — Need to See Holistic Picture

Research scientists in the USFS Northern Region (Region 9) – Maine to Minnesota, south to West Virginia and Missouri – continue to be concerned about regeneration patterns of the forest and the future productivity of northern hardwood forests.

The most recent study of which I am aware is that by Stern et al. (2023) [full citation at the end of this blog]. They sought to determine how four species often dominant in the Northeast (or at least in New England) might cope with climate change. Those four species are red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). The study involved considerable effort: they examined tree ring data from 690 dominant and co-dominant trees on 45 plots at varying elevations across Vermont. The tree ring data allowed them to analyze each species’ response to several stressors over the 70-year period of 1945 to 2014.

In large part their findings agreed with those of studies carried out earlier, or at other locations. As expected, all four species grew robustly during the early decades, then plateaued – indicative of a maturing forest. All species responded positively to summer and winter moisture and negatively to higher summer temperatures. Stern et al. described the importance of moisture availability in non-growing seasons – i.e., winter – as more notable.

The American Northeast and adjacent areas in Canada have already experienced an unprecedented increase of precipitation over the last several decades. This pattern is expected to continue or even increase under climate change projections. However, Stern et al. say this development is not as promising for tree growth as it first appears. The first caveat is that winter snow will increasingly be replaced by rain. The authors discuss the importance of the insulation of trees’ roots provided by snow cover. They suggest that this insulation might be particularly necessary for sugar maple.

The second caveat is that precipitation is not expected to increase in the summer; it might even decrease. Their data indicate that summer rainfall – during both the current and preceding years – has a significant impact on tree growth rates.

Stern et al. also found that the rapid rise in winter minimum temperatures was associated with slower growth by sugar maple, beech, and yellow birch, as well as red maple at lower elevations. Still, temperature had less influence than moisture metrics.

Stern et al. discuss specific responses of each species to changes in temperatures, moisture availability, and pollutant deposition. Of course, pollutant levels are decreasing in New England due to implementation of provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1990.

They conclude that red maple will probably continue to outcompete the other species.

In their paper, Stern et al. fill in some missing pieces about forests’ adaptation to the changing climate. I am disappointed, however, that these authors did not discuss the role of biotic stressors, i.e., “pests”.

They do report that growth rates of American beech increased in recent years despite the prevalence of beech bark disease. They note that others’ studies have also found an increase in radial growth for mature beech trees in neighboring New Hampshire, where beech bark disease is also rampant.

For more specific information on pests, we can turn to Ducey at al. – also published in 2023. These authors expected American beech to dominate the Bartlett Experimental Forest (in New Hampshire) despite two considerations that we might expect to suppress this growth. First, 70-90% of beech trees were diseased by 1950. Second, managers have made considerable efforts to suppress beech.

Stern et al. say specifically that their study design did not allow analysis of the impact of beech bark disease. I wonder at that decision since American beech is one of four species studied. More understandable, perhaps, is the absence of any mention of beech leaf disease. In 2014, the cutoff date for their growth analysis, beech leaf disease was known only in northeastern Ohio and perhaps a few counties in far western New York and Pennsylvania. Still, by the date of publication of their study, beech leaf disease was recognized as a serious disease established in southern New England.

counties where beech leaf disease has been confirmed

Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and northern red oak (Quercus rubra) are described as common co-occurring dominant species in the plots analyzed by Stern et al. Although hemlock woolly adelgid has been killing trees in southern Vermont for years, Stern et al. did not discuss the possible impact of that pest on the forest’s regeneration trajectory. Nor did they assess the possible effects of oak wilt, which admittedly is farther away (in New York (& here) and in Ontario, Canada, west of Lake Erie).

In contrast, Ducey at al. (2023) did discuss link to blog 344 the probable impact of several non-native insects and diseases. In addition to beech bark disease, they addressed hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, and beech leaf disease.

Non-native insects and pathogens are of increasing importance in our forests. To them, we can add overbrowsing by deer, proliferation of non-native plants, and spread of non-native earthworms. There is every reason to think the situation will only become more complex. I hope forest researchers will make a creative leap – incorporate the full range of factors affecting the future of US forests.

I understand that such a more integrated, holistic analysis might be beyond any individual scientist’s expertise or time, funding, and constraints of data availability and analysis. I hope, though, that teams of collaborators will compile an overview based on combining their research approaches. Such an overview would include human management actions, climate variables, established and looming pest infestations, etc. I hope, too, that these experts will extrapolate from their individual, site-specific findings to project region-wide effects.

Some studies have taken a more integrative approach. Reed, Bronson, et al. (2022) studied interactions of earthworm biomass and density with deer. Spicer et al. (2023) examined interactions of deer browsing and various vegetation management actions. Hoven et al. (2022) considered interactions of non-native shrubs, tree basal area, and forest moisture regimes.

See also my previous blogs on studies of regeneration in New Hampshire, North Carolina, National parks in the East, Allegheny Plateau and Ohio, and the impact of deer.

SOURCE

Stern, R.L., P.G. Schaberg, S.A. Rayback, C.F. Hansen, P.F. Murakami, G.J. Hawley. 2023. Growth trends and environmental drivers of major tree species of the northern hardwood forest of eastern North America. J. For. Res. (2023) 34:37–50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01553-7

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Good News!!!! Treatments to Counter Beech Leaf Disease — at least for indidividual trees

beech leaf disease symptoms; photo by Matthew Borden via Flickr

Beech leaf disease (BLD) came to attention in 2012 near Cleveland. It has since spread to the Atlantic – Maine to New Jersey and northern Delaware; south into Virginia; north in Ontario; and west to eastern Michigan.

Scientists have scrambled to understand the disease – how it hijacks the tree’s metabolism; & here its impacts on seedlings, saplings, and mature trees; how it spreads, locations at greatest risk.

(Maryland detections too recent to be shown)

Many of us have despaired.

Now Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories – the research arm of Bartlett Tree Experts – has announced development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies to treat individual trees – sadly not yet beech in the forest. The project is led by Dr. Andrew Loyd and Dr. Matthew Borden.

Seeing the disease’s impacts on a tree species with aesthetic and ecological values not easily replaced, and its rapid spread, scientists at Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories began testing fungicides and nematicides registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether they might be effective against the causal nematode Litylenchus crenatae ssp mccannii.

As Drs. Loyd and Borden note, managing BLD presents numerous challenges:

1. The disease was discovered recently, so there were many unknowns, including how it spreads and the causal organism’s novel life cycle.

2. The damage occurs in leaf buds during winter dormancy. There has been little previous research on such a system. It is difficult for chemicals to reach the tissues.

3. Mature trees are large, so reaching the vulnerable leaves in the canopy is difficult.

4. Treatment efficacy cannot be evaluated until nearly a year after application.

5. Few chemicals are registered for use against foliar nematodes or for trees in forest, nursery, or landscape settings.

6. Obtaining funding is difficult because protecting beech is a low priority among many of the usual sources.

Fortunately, the leadership at Bartlett – the company’s research department, the New England Division leadership, and especially Robert A. Bartlett, Jr. (head of the family-owned company) – saw the importance of protecting beech and have supported this research. The USDA Forest Service has also funded some of studies exploring soil drenches. Cameron McIntire reports that these studies do not yet have results.

Furthermore, Bartlett has chosen to make the science easily available to all interested parties. Three posters explaining experiments to date are available at ResearchGate. They have also published a study on the early tests of Fuopyram as a foliar spray. It is open-access. Additional publications presenting data on experiments with both spray (Fluopyram) and injection (Thiabendazole/Arbotect) are in preparation.

I summarize briefly here their findings as of August 2024.

In all the trials, the scientists judged efficacy of treatments by counting the number of viable nematodes in leaves, viable nematodes in overwintering buds, and BLD symptom severity at appropriate times before and after treatment (spray or injection).

Tests of foliar sprays on small to medium sized trees

The first tests of foliar applications that resulted in BLD suppression were carried out in Ohio starting in 2021, then expanded to other field sites in Ohio and several states in New England in 2022 and 2023 seasons. In early trials, trees were sprayed four times starting in mid to late July at 21-day intervals. The scientists say that recent trials focus on application timing and rate. They hope that optimizing these factors will help generate new recommendations that are more sustainable while maintaining efficacy.

At the annual meeting of the American Phytopathological Society in July 2023, Bartlett announced that Fluopyram is an effective management tool to combat BLD – on smaller trees that can be treated using foliar application. There are several EPA-registered products, though only one, Broadform, has been so far been granted a section 2(EE) recommendation “For Control of Beech Leaf Disease on Beech Trees.”

Treatments are less effective in situations where the inoculum load is very high (for example, a very dense stand of infected trees); or where mature, untreated canopies hang over treated understory beech.

They suggest that managers focus treatments on high-value specimen beech, collection preservation, and potentially uncrowded mixed natural stands.

Treatments should be made by certified pesticide applicators who are familiar with the disease and treatment specifications. For the injection treatment, technical training and specialized equipment is needed. Bartlett arborists and plant health care specialists in locations affected by BLD have all been trained to perform the treatments, and some other arborists are doing BLD treatments as well using the same products.

Soil drench

Matt Borden said that they tested drenches with three different chemicals. The approach did not reduce nemtatode numbers sufficiently. However, as noted above, the Forest Service is funding additional tests exploring possible combinations of drenches with other actions, such as thinning. Discovering management options across a range of application methods (e.g., foliar, injection, drench) and modes of action is vital for a disease that covers such a broad range of locations and tree sizes and forms.

a macroinjection demonstration; photo by Matthew Borden via Flickr

Injections

Scientists injected Thiabendazole (TBZ) into beech on private land in three locations in Ohio and New Jersey. They tested two application rates and three application timings. They have two years of follow-up data for one site, one year for the others.

Key findings:

nematode numbers in buds in late winter consistently reflected foliar symptoms when the leaves opened.
Injections made before mid-July provided the greatest reduction in nemtatode numbers and best canopy improvement. Trees injected late in the season (30 August), after the nematode has begun dispersing from leaves to buds, exhibited some BLD symptoms the next year, but suffered less canopy dieback than controls.

Margery Daughtrey of Cornell said during a discussion of these finding that the trees’ persistence suggests that trees can tolerate some level of symptoms. Among other things, it might be possible to treat the trees less frequently than annually.

TBZ appears to provide at least two seasons of nematode suppression

Bartlett continues to monitor these trees to see how long the injected chemical suppresses nematode numbers and how long the tree remains healthy. They are also establishing new field sites to further optimize rate and timing.

TBZ – in a product called Arbotect 20-S – has been used to manage Dutch elm disease and sycamore anthracnose since the 1970s. However, it is also a well-known nematicide, previously used as an anti-parasitic drug in human and veterinary medicine. Once injected, TBZ protects the tree for more than one season. The injection technology (MACRO-Injection) has also been used for decades. It infuses the chemical directly into the tree’s vascular system; it does not rely on root uptake. Matt says injection does require take technical skill and the right equipment. To minimize the risk of the wound cracking and weeping, the injection should be done low on the side of the root flare, not on top.

While Arbotect 20-S has been registered for use in 48 states for many years, new labeling is required for its use in beech trees and against BLD. Special Local Needs labels, 24(C)s, have been granted by eight states – Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Registration in a ninth – Maryland – is in progress and Bartlett scientists are prepared to apply for several more. The problem is that only a limited number of these “special needs” labels may be issued, and BLD has expanded so far, and so rapidly, that it is already infesting beech in more states than may be covered by 24(C)s. Furthermore, 24(C) labels expire if not renewed. Most current 24(C)s will be active through 2028 – not ideal for a disease that will likely be with us long into the future. The product manufacturer (Syngenta) and distributor (Rainbow Ecoscience) are drafting a change to the main Arbotect 20-S label to add beech and the new nematode pest, but warn that EPA review and approval of amendments can take a very long time. Until then, we must resort to limited special local needs labels, and some states will miss out.

contrasting canopy transparency in beech treated with TBZ v. untreated controls; photo by Matthew Borden

One of the key scientists who developed these treatments for Dutch elm disease, R. Jay Stipes, professor emeritus at Virginia Tech, is quoted by Bartlett rejoicing that his work might help protect another tree species.

Matt believes the treatments will be effective if applied every 2-3 years. This approach would also spread out the cost – which will depend on the arborist but Dave Anderson of Rainbow Ecoscience estimated to be about $25 / inch of dbh.

It is always best to obtain an accurate diagnosis before treatment. The next step is talking through your options with a certified arborist or tree disease specialist. The “good” thing about BLD is that it is a progressive disease and will not kill a tree in a single year. Therefore, waiting until you know the disease is present or active locally is generally recommended.

Tree injection is better than foliar application where the latter is impractical (e.g., the tree is tall) or to reduce runoff, particularly near streams. Bartlett recommends treating any beech larger than 10 cm dbh by injection; smaller trees by foliar spray.

Treated trees should be sound, without serious decay, girdling roots, or other conditions that curtail uptake. Based on research results to date, they recommend treating the tree before mid-July. Bartlett is testing the results of injecting the shortly after full leaf expansion – early to mid-June. Bartlett scientists are testing several application rates to determine how long a single injection will suppress BLD. So far they have had good results from both low and moderate label rates (0.4-1.6 fl oz/inch DBH).

All the technical information re: research into treatments and recommendations for applying either the foliar or injection treatments has been provided by Dr. Matthew Borden of Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. He can be reached at

mborden@Bartlett.com

https://www.bartlett.com/staff/matthew-borden-dpm

Dr. Borden says he is immensely grateful for the support that allows him and Dr. Loyd to travel widely to establish the BLD research sites and spend weeks collecting data each year with their team. Company founder Francis A. Bartlett established the Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories as a separate entity within the company, where capital is reinvested directly into stable, long-term support of scientific tree research and preservation. The model is well-suited to provide the flexibility and freedom needed to rapidly respond to emerging invasive species issues.

Posted by Faith Campbell

www.fadingforests.org

Too Many Deer; Too Few Forest Seedlings & Wildflowers

white flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum); via PICRYL One of the “charismatic wildflowers” mentioned by Blossey and colleagues

Bernd Blossey, Darragh Hare, and Don Waller have published a plea that America’s federal government take the lead in formulating a new national program on managing deer. Otherwise, they fear that deer populations will not be reduced to ecologically sustainable levels. I find their argument convincing and well-sourced. I agree that Americans need to figure out how to address this threat. (The full citation is at the end of this blog).

First, Blossey and colleagues describe the damage caused by overabundant deer:

severe declines in populations of many native forest herbs and shrubs, probably including disappearing wildflowers;
their replacement by non-native species that are less palatable;
poor regeneration of many canopy hardwood species;
decreased forest resilience, lowering forests’ ability to adapt to stressors, especially climate change;
decreased ability of forests to deliver benefits that are of increasing value to many people;
increased prevalence of wildlife and human diseases associated with the spread and size of growing tick populations; and
people – and deer — killed vehicle accidents on roads.

The widespread impacts of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in forests of the East are well-documented (see my previous blogs for a few examples; scroll below the “Archives” to find “Categories”). Blossey and colleagues note examples of similar impacts in the West, attributed to elk (Cervus elaphus) and black-tailed and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).

The authors review the decimation of deer populations in earlier centuries and the efforts of state wildlife agencies to rebuild their populations during the 20^th Century. The problem, in their view, is that federal and — especially — state wildlife agencies have retained their traditional focus on managing wildlife for recreational hunters. However, recreational hunters make up a small and shrinking proportion of all Americans. Many more people now engage in “non-consumptive” enjoyment of wildlife.

lack of regeneration in Rock Creek Park, Washington D.C.; photo by Sam Sheline, NatureServe, via Flickr

State agencies’ narrow focus might partly arise from fragmented authorities. Agencies other than wildlife departments are responsible for addressing some repercussions of overabundant deer. These include threats to human health, loss of agricultural crops.

For several reasons, Blossey and colleagues call for federal leadership. They think that only a national strategy can address, in a holistic way, the interrelated deer, human health, forest, and biodiversity crises. The strategy’s goal should be to protect species that are in decline because of over-browsing by deer and to avoid further declines in environmental and human health.

The authors reason that states are tied to traditional constituencies. Also, they have difficulty acting across jurisdictional boundaries. Second, few state wildlife agencies have authority to protect plant and invertebrate species. Yet these are the taxa most directly affected by overabundant deer. Blossey and colleagues point out that, of the ~1,300 species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, 942 are plants and 287 are invertebrates.

They point out that deer also suffer the effects of overpopulation. Chronic wasting disease is spreading. It causes a slow, agonizing death of affected animals. Another 2.1 million deer are killed each year in vehicle crashes. [According to the World Animal Foundation, the current number of deer killed in traffic crashes is 1.8 million — 300,000 fewer.) Again, these deaths are often gruesome. Finally, the principal population “control” now is death by starvation in winter. This, too, is cruel.

Blossey and colleagues say that return of large predators, even where feasible, will not result in sufficient reduction in deer populations. Nor will encouragement of greater hunting pressure on does.

They note that the federal government owns nearly 30% of the United States’ terrestrial surface area. Management is divided among many agencies – National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, Department of Defense, and many smaller agencies. Management approaches vary. However, it would be possible to bring them into agreement – although, in some cases, this would require new legislation.

Another issue requires resolution: federal agencies’ authority to manage wildlife on federal land.. The states have repeatedly claimed constitutional and legal authority to manage (vertebrate) wildlife on the federal lands within their borders. This assertion was countered years ago by Nie et al. (2017):

‘Federal land management agencies have an obligation, not just the discretion, to manage and conserve fish and wildlife on federal lands. … [M]ost states have not addressed the conservation obligations inherent in trust management; rather, states wish to use the notion of sovereign ownership as … a source of unilateral power but not of public responsibility. Furthermore, the states’ trust responsibilities for wildlife are subordinate to the federal government’s statutory and trust obligations over federal lands and their integral resources.’

Blossey and colleagues assert that managing wildlife (typically defined as mammals, birds, and fish) is much broader than establishing hunting seasons or methods. Furthermore, the concept of “public trust resources” means resources should be managed for all citizens, not just the fewer than 10% of US residents who hunt. A growing proportion of society expects this management to support healthy and diverse environments.

The authors stress that reducing deer overpopulations is necessary to meet numerous policy goals. These include fulfilling obligations under international treaties related to climate change, invasive species, and threatened species; restoring and conserving the nation’s forests to provide habitat; and adopting “nature-based” climate adaptations, such as carbon sequestration. They express the hope that recent presidential mandates to better quantify and value natural assets will increase awareness of the harm caused by deer overpopulation. Their proposed national strategy would develop goals and metrics to match specific environmental and human health outcomes.

Of course, management of deer must extend beyond federal property lines. This will require cooperation among states, Tribes, and private landowners.

The paper proposes the North American Waterfowl Management Plan as a model. Under this scheme the US Fish and Wildlife Service works with states, tribal governments, Mexico, and Canada to ensure accurate information on waterfowl populations a to calculate harvest levels. States implement their assigned quotas through their own regulations. Waterfowl hunters purchase Duck Stamps to fund the monitoring efforts. This program has worked well for most species covered by the program. Waterfowl are one of the few bird groups that have not declined dramatically.

Reducing deer populations will probably require lethal control. Studies indicate that at least 60% of does must be removed from a population to reduce herd sizes over time. Other means have been attempted at regional or larger landscape levels, such as sterilization, fertility control. These methods have failed even when paired with recreational hunting. Lethal approaches will probably distress many people. However, Blossey, Hare, and Waller believe the program would be supported if it is understood to be undertaken with the goal of improving the health of both humans and also the environment.

In the end, Blossey, Hare, and Waller say they are not willing to leave the killing to cars, disease, and starvation. They emphasize our moral responsibility to protect humans and the many other species that rely on diverse ecosystems. Our policies and choices created the problem, so we must try to correct it.

SOURCES

Blossey. B., D. Hare, and D.M. Waller, 2024. Where have all the flowers gone? A call for federal leadership in deer management in the US. Front. Conserv. Sci. 5:1382132. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2024.1382132

Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt and S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands: Debunking State Supremacy. Environmental Law, Vol. 47, no. 4 (2017).

Posted by Faith Campbell