Category: national parks

Funding key agencies – Your help needed!

EMERGENCY:

The Trump Administration proposes (again!) to end all funding for USFS Research and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry programs. The budget document claims that these cuts are necessary “to ensure fiscal responsibility w/ taxpayer dollars & appropriate alignment of resources w/ USFS’s responsibility to appropriately steward National Forest System lands.” Ending the SP&T programs is justified as “better balance[ing] the appropriate roles of federal & State governments. … and [restoring] federalism …] The document claims that the federal component of Forest Health Management [currently receiving $16 million] duplicates programs managed by the National Forest System; yet the actions listed under this second budget category all relate to water management, not insects or pathogens. The document says states should manage pests on non-federal lands [currently receives $42 million]. I think this approach ignores the need for coordinated management for each of hundreds of pest species, from detection to eradication or development of host resistance. Eliminating the Research program will deprive all forest managers of a scientific foundation for management efforts.

The Trump Administration’s proposed budget would hold funding for key APHIS programs steady. This is great news compared to the extreme cuts proposed for the Forest Service. The budget document says that it is essential to continue APHIS programs success; any stoppages or reductions would potentially cause catastrophic consequences for environmental health. Contrary to this statement, holding funding steady actually results in cuts due to continuing introductions of new pests and inflation.

Item2024  Actual2025  Actual2026  Estimated2027  Estimated
Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests (incl cogongrass)………. 12,00012,00011,0009,026
Pest Detection ……………………………………………….. 29,00029,00029,00029,000
Plant Protection Methods Development …………………. 21,50021,50021,50021,500
Specialty Crop Pests ………………………………………… 215,000215,000214,000217,339
Tree & Wood Pests ………………………………………….. 59,00059,00058,65058,650
Subtotal, Plant Health ……………………………………. 387,500387,500385,150386,515

USDA Forest Service

Two USFS programs w/ vital roles in protecting resilience of the Nation’s forests in the face of invasions by non-native pests and plants: R&D program and FHM within SPT division

The many economic & ecological benefits from our forests are under growing threats from a variety of disturbances, ranging from fires & hurricanes to non-native pests. ~ 60% of forests owned by non-feds; USFS must address threats to forests outside NFS to achieve its mission of sustaining “health, diversity, & productivity of the nation’s forests & grasslands to meet the needs of present & future generations.”

Research & Development

The Continuing Resolution for FY26 funded Research at $308 million for the year. Ask Congress to maintain this level. + increase research on invasive species from the current level of 1% to 5%.

The area of our forests & woodlands that is threatened by alien pests is similar to that attributed to fire or western bark beetles. More than 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states is at risk to established non-native pests.[1] If able, add reference to pests on Hawai`i or Caribbean islands. Since additional introductions almost guaranteed, even greater proportion of US’ forest resources at risk in future. If possible, name example, e.g., Phytophthora austrocedri. Forest managers cannot counter these threats without understanding how these P&P kill trees & what actions are effective counter measures. This knowledge is obtained by research.

At least 53 tree species in forests across America are already under attack by non-native pests and pathogens. Yet as of FY23, Research stations spent just 1% of appropriation studying a few of the dozens of NIS pests. Funding for alien pests has decreased 70% since FY2010 even as new pests enter our forests. This inadequate research effort means USFS cannot develop effective programs to prevent, suppress, & eradicate the majority of alien pests. One crucial strategy suffers particularly = efforts to breed trees able to thrive despite NIS pests. R&D currently supports only a few such projects.

Forest Health Management: Supporting the Full Continuum of Pest Management

The Continuing Resolution for FY26 funded State, Private, and Tribal forests program at $310.6 million. I have not found specifics for the FHM program. This was an increase over the $281 million level in FY25.

Non-native pests and pathogens arrive as contaminants or hitchhikers on imported goods, especially on wood packaging and plants. These imports usually arrive in cities or suburbs, so the pests establish there first. They immediately cause enormous damage to urban forests, forcing local governments and property owners to absorb high tree removal costs. They then spread to rural forests, including National forests. Examples include hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, invasive shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, sudden oak death, and beech leaf disease.

The most effective approach is to kill the pests where they first appear – usually in those urban or semi-rural forests. This response is led by FHM Cooperative Lands subprogram. We urge maintain funding for this subprogram at the FY26 level (possibly $42 million) so that the agency’s experts can continue to assist the states and other partners in countering these pests. As these pests spread to rural areas – including to National forests, National parks, and other public lands, responsibility for their management involves FHM Federal Lands subprogram. So much maintain funding for this subprogram at FY26 levels.

A recent analysis[2] determined that the natural resource values of 92 National parks are threatened by forest pests. Western parks are threatened primarily by outbreaks of the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Those in the East face threats from more than a dozen species of non-native pests, including hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, laurel wilt, and – most recently – beech leaf disease.

Again, combatting these pests requires understanding their life histories & traits – understanding gained through the research program mentioned above.  

Funding reductions over the past decade have already shrunk the number of FHM projects & areas treated each year. While 53 tree species are threatened, only four [eastern oaks, loblolly & ponderosa pines, & hemlocks] are targeted by 95% of projects. To counter the threats to 50 additional tree taxa, FHM needs additional resources.[3]

Investing in urban forestry is key to addressing both parties’ priorities & advancing flexible & cost-effective solutions to a wide range of issues impacting American communities, businesses, & families. The USFS SPT division’s Urban & Community Forestry Program efficiently distributes funds to shovel-ready projects for improving communities by maintaining a healthy tree canopy. Federal “seed” money provides resources necessary to initiate & stabilize these local programs.

Breeding Resistant Trees: Critical — & Underfunded

A surprisingly high proportion of the (inadequate) funding for breeding trees to mitigate the damage caused by non-native pests is from FHM or the NFS, rather than R&D. These programs should receive  substantial increases. The model program is the Dorena Genetic Resource Center. It provides decades-long commitment, skilled staff, necessary facilities; these result in breeding successes, i.e., western white pines and Port-Orford cedar.  

Invasive Plants

Invasions of forests by non-native plant species erode forest productivity & provision of the full range of ecosystem services, hinder forest uses, degrade biodiversity & habitat, and impose substantial financial costs. A recent analysis[4] documents that this threat is growing: the number of FIA inventory plots containing invasive plant species rose in 58.9% of surveyed counties. Furthermore, in 73.2% of the counties the plots experienced an increase in species richness of invading plants. Increases occurred in all regions, but were greater in the East: from 46% to 52.3%. In the Rocky Mountains, the proportion of invaded plots rose from 6% to 11%. In Hawai`i, this proportion grew from 70% to 83.2%. Again, USFS Research and FHM programs, working together, are key to making progress in countering these bioinvasions.

[1] Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35  17371–17376

[2] Michalak, J.L., C.E. Littlefield, J.E. Gross, T.G. Mozelewski, J.J. Lawler. 2026. Relative Vulnerability of US National Parks to Cumulative & Transformational Climate Impacts. Conservation Letters, 2026 Vol 19, Issue 1; 19:e70020

[3] Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17

[4] Potter, K.M., B.V. Iannone III, K.H. Riitters, Q. Guo, K. Pandit, C.M. Oswalt. 2026. US Forests are Increasingly Invaded by Problematic NIS Plants. Forest Ecology & Management 599 (2026) 123281

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APHIS is responsible for preventing intro and spread of pests and invasive plants that harm agric, including forests. APHIS policy guides port inspections carried out by the DHS CBP. APHIS inspects imported live plants.

Introductions of pests and pathogens have continued to occur. APHIS funding has remained steady – which means it is not growing to match the rising threat. At minimum, maintain current levels.

FY2025 enacted            FY26 House                 FY26 Senate

APHIS total                                          $1,148                          $1,146                          $1,168

Plant health subtotal                              $387.5                                                              $388.6

Agric. quarantine                      $35.5                            $35.5                            $35.5

Field crop and rangeland           $12                               $11                               $11.5

Pest detection                           $29                               $28.5                            $29

Methods development               $21.5                            $21.5                            $21.5

Specialty crops                          $206.5                          $216.3                          $208.5

Tree and wood pests                  $59                               $59                               $58.6

Emergency preparedness and response* $44.5                            $44.5                            $44.3

* this fund is apparently for both animal and plant emergencies

Rationale

Already introduced pests threaten the many forest products and services benefitting all Americans. Just 15 of the worst pests threaten 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states – comparable to fire.[1] A significant proportion of the resulting costs are imposed on municipal governments and homeowners. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated[2] that the municipal governments were spending more than $1B / year, primarily on removing and replacing trees on public property killed by these non-native pests. Homeowners faced costs of $1B plus loss of another $1.5B in property value. A more recent study estimated that cities will have to spend $30M per year to remove and replace ~ 1.4M street trees by 2050. Additional trees in parks and on homeowners’ properties also die.[3]

A new pattern has appeared in recent years: more newly-introduced pests are being detected in the Pacific Coast states rather than in the East and Midwest. Two southern California counties are projected to pay $150M – $1B[4] to remove and replace trees killed by invasive shot hole borers. The emerald ash borer threatens 9,000 ash on the streets of Portland, Oregon and millions more in parks and the forested wetlands of Willamette Valley, including in Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge. The Mediterranean oak borer has already killed thousands of oak trees in the San Francisco Bay area; it also threatens urban forests and valued oak savannahs in Oregon.

Additional introductions of highly damaging wood-borers are likely because we continue to receive inadequately treated crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made of wood. For 20 years, all countries shipping goods to North America must treat their wooden packaging per prescribed protocols. To address this risk, we urge a modest $1M increase in APHIS’ “Tree and Wood Pest” account. We also suggest that the Subcommittee inquire of APHIS what steps it will take to improve compliance with the treatment requirement. You should focus your inquiry on China; wood packaging from this country is three times more likely to harbor a tree-killing pest than the global average.[5]

Other pests—especially plant diseases and sap sucking insects—enter on imported plants. Pathogens introduced recently via this pathway include rapid ohia death in Hawai`i (threatening the species that constitutes 80% of the Islands’ forest biomass) and beech leaf disease (thin a dozen years has spread across much of the East).

All assessments of APHIS’ plant import programs’ effectiveness use data from 2009; at that time, plant imports were more than 100 times more likely to transport pests than was wood packaging.[6] APHIS has amended its regulations several times since 2009. We urge the Subcommittee to call for APHIS to facilitate independent analysis of the efficacy of its current phytosanitary programs in order to understand whether the updated regulations have reduced the risk of additional introductions.

Again, pests introduced via this pathway proliferate and spread – often facilitated by movement of firewood, plants, and outdoor household goods. APHIS’ programs have suffered severe failures to prevent such spread, for example in the cases of the emerald ash borer and sudden oak death. We suggest that the Subcommittee inquire of APHIS what steps it will take to improve containment efforts regarding damaging plant pests, including through collaboration with its state partners.

We ask for small increases to the Pest Detection and Methods Development programs. The first enables prompt detection of newly introduced pests … which is critical to successful pest eradication or containment. The second empowers APHIS to improve essential detection and eradication tools.

The current emergency fund of is far below the level needed to respond when a new pest is discovered. We thank both the House and the Senate for clearly recognizing that these appropriations are inadequate by including in their bills language reiterating the Agriculture Secretary’s power to access funds from other Departmental programs (usually the Commodity Credit Corporation) to respond to emergencies.

[1] Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35  17371–17376

[2] Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)

[3] Hudgins, E.J., F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, and B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology

[4] Jetter, K. A. Hollander, B.E. Nobua-Behrmann, N. Love, S. Lynch, E. Teach, N. Van Dorne, J. Kabashima, and J. Thorne. 2022. Bioeconomic modeling of invasive species management in urban forests: final report.

[5] Haack RA, Hardin JA, Caton BP and Petrice TR (2022) Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117

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

Congressional Committees with Jurisdiction … & how to submit testimony

FUNDING APHIS

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Chairman: Andy Harris (R-MD)

Members: Robert Aderholt, David Valadao, John Moolenaar, Dan Newhouse, Julia Letlow, Ben Cline, Ashley Hinson, Scott Franklin

Democrats à Sanford Bishop, Jr., Chellie Pingree, Lauren Underwood, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Marcy Kaptur, Debbie Wasserman Schultz

deadline: May 1; email to ag.approp@mail.house.gov

instructions: 5 pages, double-spaced in Times New Roman, 12 Point Font; single-sided; PDF attachment to your email. At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation (if any); In 1st paragraph, clearly state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request

MUST also send Truth in Testimony form here.

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Chairman: John Hoeven (R-ND)

Members: Republicans à Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Jerry Morn, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds

Democrats à Jeanne Shaheen, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, Martin Heinrich, Gary Peter, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jon Ossof

deadline: not clear; might be 22 May; email to agri@appro.senate.gov

instructions: 4 pages.. At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation; state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request

FUNDING  USFS

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies

Chairman: Mike Simpson (R-WY)

Members: Republicans à Mark Amodei, Guy Reschenthaler, Michael Cloud, Ryan Zinke, Jake Ellzey, Celeste Maloy

Democrats à Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Betty McCollum, Josh Harder, James E. Clyburn

deadline: 22 April; email to IN.Approp@mail.house.gov

instructions: 4 pages, single-spaced in 12 Point Font; single-sided; prefer PDF but other formats OK. At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation (if any); In 1st paragraph, clearly state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request

MUST also send Truth in Testimony form here.

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies

Chairman: Lisa Murkowski (R- AK)

Members: Republicans à Mitch McConnell, Shelly Moore Capito, John Hoeven, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds

Democrats à Jeff Merkley, Chris van Hollen, Martin Heinrich, Tammy Baldwin, Kirsetn Gillibrand, Jon Ossof

deadline: unclear; possibly mid-June; email to int@appro.senate.gov

instructions: 4 pages, single-spaced in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect; do NOT send PDF.  At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation (if any); In 1st paragraph, clearly state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request

EEICAT: improved method for assessing bioinvasion impacts

As bioinvasions and their impacts continue to expand globally, managers and decision-makers charged with developing effective management and mitigation strategies urgently need tools that can assess and rank all impacts. These start with impacts on species’ populations … but go much farther, to the assemblage, ecosystem, and abiotic levels. Impacts at the “species and assemblage” level include species extinction (locally or more broadly), changes in species range, assemblage structure, successional patterns, and the soundscape. Impacts at the “ecosystem function” and “abiotic” levels include changes to primary production, food webs, water quality, and nutrient cycles. The analysis also addresses changes that do not affect native biota directly, although they present no examples.  

For a decade, scientists studying bioinvasions have used the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) framework to standardize categorization of species-level impacts. One group that has not used this methodology is experts on tree pests. Why? Does the approach fail to describe the impacts of non-native arthropods and pathogens on tree species and forest ecosystems more broadly? Or is it simply because of academic silos?

Even more important: are the science and practical management of invasive species and forest pests losing valuable insights, resources, policy choices, … because of this schism? Would both groups gain from closer interactions?

In any case, the framework used by many scientists working on “invasive species” is undergoing a revision to better capture cascading and systemic effects from bioinvasion. A group of scientists has created the Extended EICAT (EEICAT) framework. (See the publication reference at the end of this blog to learn the process of development and details of the new system.) The proponents claim that the new system recognizes the functional interdependence of species in ecosystems, which means that alterations in species assemblages inevitably amplify throughout the system. E.g., alterations in physico-chemical characteristics or habitat structure. Impacts can even cross-ecosystem impacts between ecosystems that are often managed separately. An example is a change in the quality, magnitude, and novelty of resource flows between terrestrial and aquatic systems. To address these multifaceted effects, EEICAT integrates 19 impact types into the analysis. The intention is to improve communication about the complex ecological impacts caused by bioinvasions and facilitate prioritization of responses to competing bioinvasions.

While the various outcomes from bioinvasion can be positive or negative for nature and people, the EEICAT does not use value-laden distinctions. These determinations are left to stakeholders, managers, and community members, based on their own perspectives. Instead, it compiles and standardizes information about the measurable changes to species numbers (some decrease, others increase); to ecosystem processes (e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes).

EEICAT incorporates the “reversibility concept”, which addresses the potential for a native sp (including individuals, pops, and assemblages), ecosystem function, or abiotic environmental to recover after removal of the bioinvader.  The system developers distinguish “naturally reversible changes” and “naturally irreversible changes”. In the former case, the affected spp, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought likely to return to their original state within 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer) through natural processes or human-assisted actions that do not exceed what is already being done. This does not include reintroductions or restoration efforts that require new efforts. Instances of “naturally irreversible changes” are those in which the affected species, ecosystem functions, or abiotic conditions cannot return to their original state within that timeframe without significant additional human intervention, or even after intense human intervention. The system has reached a different, stable equilibrium. These “permanent” changes are the result of one or more species’ global extinction, or persistent environmental alterations, e.g., soil modification, altered hydrology, or irreversible changes in nutrient cycling.

The proponents assert that EEICAT allows multiple impacts reported in a single study to be classified independently at each impact level. Furthermore, the EEICAT analysis does not require extensive research on the assessed species or understanding of the mechanisms through which the invasive species affects native species or the environment. EEICAT framework is applicable to any amount of info available in each study. It also explicitly assesses the adequacy / reliability of evidence [data, methods, approach] used in studies of bioinvasions that are included in the analysis.

EEICAT framework enables researchers to evaluate how “ecosystem engineer” species influence key ecological functions by explicitly accounting for changes to ecosystem processes, e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes. For example introduced bivalves increase water clarity in certain systems, triggering cascading effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

The EEICAT framework also allows separation of the mechanisms of impact vs. attribution of impact. For example, when a non-native plant species alters nutrient availability, thereby changing the microbial community, EEICAT assigns separate impact categories to the two impacts.

Regarding cross-ecosystem effects, the proponents cite rats on islands. Their predation suppresses seabird pops; reduced guano alters the nutrient dynamics of adjacent coral reef ecosystems. Thus assign impact categories not only to the changes in nutrients, but also to ecological functioning. This provides a more comprehensive view of interconnected effects.

Proponents of the proposed new framework assert that the fundamental distinction between EEICAT and the earlier EICAT is that the earlier assessment is “species-based”, whereas the new one is “impact-based”. It is broader because it focuses on specific combinations of invading species plus the affected systems. It is better able, they assert, to account for contrasting impacts in different invasions.

EEICAT can be applied to any invasion event (i.e., a specific combination of invasive species, recipient system, and context). It broadens the range of evidence that can be integrated into the assessment. Decision-makers benefit from access to more information. The information can also be provided in more easily understood form through two visualization tools:

  1. An “invasive species profile” aggregates all recorded impacts caused by a single invading species. This facilitates clear communication of the bioinvasion’s impact severity to managers and stakeholders, plus how those impacts vary by context.
  2. An “invaded ecosystem profile” compiles impacts from different species to a site or location. This is particularly useful for synthetic analyses (e.g., meta-analyses), evidence syntheses, and manager assessments.

Resulting profiles can help stakeholders prioritize species or ecosystems for responses.

https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/pest_pathogen/phytophthora-root-rot-html/to are ants. No disease agent is discussed or even named. This gap is surprising given the devastating and geographically extensive impacts of e.g., avian malaria, chitrid fungi (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) on amphibians, and Phytophthora cinnamomi on the flora of western Australia.

One example in Table 3 pertains to native Hawaiian forests. The underlying study analyzed changes in ecosystem functions caused by the invasive nitrogen-fixing tree Falcataria moluccana. The EEICAT proponents say their analysis of this study would supports more informed decisions in conservation planning and ecosystem management. Indeed, the principal author of the underlying study has recently published a suggested method to manage the Falcataria moluccana invasions by replacing these trees with either native species or valued crops under an agroforestry program. Neither of the articles mentions that exactly this same area (the Puna District on the “Big Island) has suffered widespread death of the native tree ʻōhiʻa lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) as a result of the invasive disease rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD). The more recent article does address the fact that native plant species are extremely rare in this region.

Would integrating studies of tree-killing arthropods and pathogens into the EEICAT system provide benefits? First, let’s consider analytical methodology. Many analyses of forest pests’ impacts already discuss at least some of the wider ecological (and economic) outcomes. (To explor this, visit www.dontmovefirewood.org and read some of the species profiles under the “invasive species” tab.) Would comparing these findings to an EEICAT analysis confirm the proposed methodology? Or would it instead suggest needed adaptations? In either case, the results should improve scientists’ work.

Second, would the science and practice of managing invasive species be strengthened by bridging the differences in methods and terminology between those focused on plants and vertebrates and those focused on tree-killing invertebrates and microbes? Would greater unity result in more attention to bioinvaders from policy-makers and/or conservation practitioners and advocates? Especially since (nearly) all the major forest pest invasions would qualify as “naturally irreversible changes” or even “permanent”: the affected species, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought unlikely to return to their original state within 10 years or 3 generations (whichever is longer) in the absence of intense human-assisted actions. If joining forces might bring about greater societal efforts, is the EEICAT methodology a promising tool to achieve this goal?

Finally, would applying the EEICAT system improve the analyses of tree-pest impacts? Would this approach result in incorporation of types of effects that would otherwise be missed – either often or in specific cases? Are there relationships among forest species, or between species and ecological functions, that might be discovered? Might preparation of “invaded ecosystem profiles” that include bioinvaders from earthworms to canopy foliage feeders provide an informative perspectives that is now lacking?

SOURCE

Carneiro, L., Pincheira-Donoso, D., Leroy, B., Bertolino, S., Camacho-Cervantes, M., Cuthbert, R.N., et al. (2026) Expanding invasive species impact assessments to the ecosystem level with EEICAT. PLoS Biol 24(3): e3003665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003665

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

Or https://fadingforests.org/

Tree-Killing Pests = Existential Threats to U.S. National parks

black bears in a whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in Yellowstone National Park; tree species is vulnerable to white pine blister rust. Public image

America’s national parks protect some of Earth’s most unique and valued species, ecosystems, geologic features, and cultural sites. These values are under threat from multiple interacting climatic changes. Over the last 100 years, national park units have experienced a disproportionate degree of warming and precipitation change relative to the United States in general. These changes are projected to continue.

The types of change are not limited to temperature and precipitation. These alterations bring multiple cascading impacts such as extreme weather events, forest insect outbreaks, more frequent and severe wildfires, and other novel disturbance regimes. Furthermore, the new events occur both individually and simultaneously. Michalak et al. (2026) fear that these disturbances and stressors might trigger irreversible ecological transformations in our national parks. The authors hope to prompt park managers to evaluate park-specific threats and plan how to respond.

Michalak et al. (2026) analyzed threats from the multiple interacting forces to determine which parks are greatest at risk. They limited their analysis to 259 parks in the continental states (including Alaska) and to parks recognized by the agency as possessing natural resource values. Some historic or cultural sites are included; I am somewhat confused about the criteria applied.  I regret that they lacked sufficient data to include parks on the Hawaiian and Caribbean islands.

Hawaiian birds threatened by avian malaria; picture via Flickr

Their analysis defined potentially transformative impacts as heightened risk of fire, drought, sea-level rise, and forest insects and pathogens (not limited to non-native species). An example of such impacts is a prediction that a significant proportion of the park’s area would be inundated during storm surge.

Michalak et al. (2026) identified 174 parks (67% of the units analyzed) as most exposed to one or more of these potentially transformative impacts.  The number of parks facing cumulative vulnerability across multiple dimensions was highest in the Midwest and East. Their peril is due to high physical exposure to the transformational change, exacerbation of existing stressors, and high surrounding land-use intensity. Parks in the West were partially protected by less intense human land-use and the varied topography, which might provide climate refugia. However, those western parks tended to be the most exposed to multiple transformative impacts (as defined above).

At the national level (excluding the islands), 28% of the parks have a high fire hazard now; this rises to 38% of parks by an unspecified future time. They provided no estimate of the proportion of parks facing a risk in the future from the other factors. Current levels of risk are 25% at risk to summer drought; 36% (92 parks) at risk to forest pests; and 11% to sea-level rise. Again, across all parks analyzed, 174 – or 67% of the total – face one or more of these threats.

The authors conclude that the 60-old goal of conserving National parks as a “vignette of primitive America” – as stated by Leopold et al. (1963) – is no longer possible. Instead, park managers should now seek to steward resources “for continuous change that is not yet fully understood” as advocated by Colwell et al. (2014).

Michalak et al. (2026) found that the National parks are not prepared. Only 10% have had park-specific assessments; 37% had no assessment at any level. For individual National parks, likelihood of climate impacts and potential transformational changes remains uncertain. Determining where more in-depth, park- specific assessments are warranted is essential for allocating resources.

Michalak et al. (2026) define climate change vulnerability as the combined effects of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Exposure is the intensity of changes a location might experience. This includes changes in the climate itself (e.g., temperature or precipitation) plus changes in climate-exacerbated disturbances (e.g., fire, drought, and sea-level rise). Sensitivity is the extent to which a location or resource is affected – or existing stressors are amplified – by the changing climate, which can be either adversely or beneficially. For example, imperiled species might be further threatened if new conditions are more conducive to bioinvasion. Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adapt to the climate change impacts. For example, does human development impede species’ dispersal to new regions that support more suitable climate regimes. I appreciate that the authors note the importance of ensuring continuation of evolutionary processes.

A Subset of Threats: Invasive Species and Forest Pests

 According to Michalak et al. (2026), National parks with the highest cumulative vulnerability scores were in the Midwest, Washington, DC, and along the Gulf Coast. The threats were high levels of human development, poor air quality, high proportions of non-native species, and low environmental diversity.

mountain pine beetle in Rocky Mountain National Park; photo by Bchemicoff via Wikimedia

National parks that scored high for forest pest risks are concentrated in the mountainous West and Northeast. While Michalak et al. (2026) do not say so, I assume this refers to widespread mortality of pines due to outbreaks of the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Thirteen parks in the West scored high for a “trifecta” of fire, drought, and forest pests. The consequences for these parks’ natural resources might be rapid, dramatic, and irreversible transformation of ecosystems. Michalak et al. (2026) mention specifically Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone National parks. Other parks facing a threat from forest insects or pathogens include all the crown jewels of the West: Grand Teton National Park, Crater Lake National Park, Glacier National Park, Great Basin National Park, Kings Canyon-Sequoia National Park, Yosemite National Park, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

limber pine (Pinus flexilis) at Haiyaha Lake, Rocky Mountain National Park. Species is vulnerable to white pine blister rust. Photo by F.T. Campbell

Another example is Mojave National Preserve, which has experienced increased fire risk linked to the presence of invasive annual grasses.

I know that in the Northeast, more than a dozen species of introduced insects and pathogens threaten forest resources in the parks, including hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, and – most recently – beech leaf disease. Parks mentioned in  supplementary material provided by Michalak etal. (2026) include Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New River Gorge National River, Harpers’ Ferry National Historical Park, and the homes of Eleanor and Franklyn Roosevelt. See blog 356a and underlying article by Miller et al. (2023).

mature Fraser fir killed by balsam woolly adelgid in Great Smoky Mountains; photo by F.T. Campbell

Many other National parks in the East and Midwest also are reported to be impacted by introduced forest pests, among them Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Blue Ridge Parkway, Shenandoah National Park, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Prince William Forest Park, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, Gauley River National Recreation Area, Mammoth Cave National Park, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Sleeping Bear Dunes, St Croix National Scenic Riverway, and Big Thicket National Preserve.          

There are some odd omissions. The supplementary data list the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park as facing a threat from tree pests, but does not so list Rock Creek Park. The two parks are a few miles apart and share the same invasive forest pests! The supplementary data do not mention Gettysburg National Military Park, although Miller et al. (2023) say that more than half of the seedlings and a quarter of the saplings in the park are ashes. These trees are likely to be killed by the emerald ash borer. Perhaps the explanation is that canopy trees threatened by pests in these parks do not occupy more than 80% of the parks’ cover.

I appreciate the effort to compile a nationwide analysis of threats to our national treasures. By focusing on one of those threats, I do not intend to downplay the others. Specific to climate changes, the Trump Administration has told the National Park Service to remove educational signs describing the impact of climate change on, for example, the glaciers at Glacier National Park. An earlier Executive Order https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/trump-issues-executive-order-climate-change-0 reversed President Obama’s 2015 memorandum that required Interior and other departments to “avoid and then minimize harmful effects to land, water, wildlife, and other ecological resources (natural resources) caused by land- or water-disturbing activities, and to ensure that any remaining harmful effects are effectively addressed, consistent with existing mission and legal authorities.” In February 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency revoked the “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gases, which is the foundation for all regulations governing emissions of those substances. Clearly we cannot hope for federal efforts to address these threats to the National parks during this Administration’s tenure.

I hope, nevertheless, that this study gets wide attention and stimulates renewed campaigns to counter all threats to our natural heritage.

shrunken glacier in Glacier National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

SOURCES

Colwell, R. S. Avery, J. Berger, G.E. Davis, H. Hamilton, T. Lovejoy, S. Malcom, A. McMullen, M. Novacek, R.J. Roberts, R. Tapia,  and G. Machlis. Revisiting Leopold: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks. Parks 2014 Volume 20.2

Leopold, A. et al. 1963. Wildlife Management in the National Parks. available here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static-gcs.edit.site/users-files/30eb6df2212095e14d89a611f0f8f0f1/leopold-report-wildlife_management_in_the_national_park-1963.pdf?dl=1

Michalak, J.L., C.E. Littlefield, J.E. Gross, T.G. Mozelewski, J.J. Lawler. 2026. Relative Vulnerability of US National Parks to Cumulative and Transformational Climate Impacts. Conservation Letters, 2026 Vol 19, Issue 1; 19:e70020

Miller, K.M., S.J. Perles, J.P. Schmit, E.R. Matthews, M.R. Marshall. 2023. Overabundant deer and invasive plants drive widespread regeneration debt in eastern United States national parks. Ecological Applications. 2023; 33:e2837. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/r/eap

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

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.
areas vulnerable to GSOB

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

Or

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.  

brown tree snake; photo via Wikimedia

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

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

Or

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

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

Or

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 15th 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.

APHIS inspecting imported plants

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

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

Or

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

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We lack data on which to base a rigorous analysis

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

Leigh has identified the following data gaps:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two issues need to be resolved.

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

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

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

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

•Understand, account for, and communicate data realities

•Work collectively to increase useable data quality

•Use additional research to validate, or to demonstrate disparities

Why Wait for the Science?

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

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

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org