drivers of extinction – Page 14 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

Invasive Plants in National parks – Progress?

Japanese stiltgrass in Shenandoah National Park; photo by Jake Hughes, NPS

The recent appearance of a study by National Park Service (NPS) scientists quantifying the threat posed by invasive plants prompted me to seek updates on this issue. In May 2018, I blogged about NPS’ Invasive Plant Program Strategic Plan, which was issued in 2016. At the time, I got the impression that the program was struggling to gain support from NPS leadership in Washington, as well as leaders of individual parks. Has the situation improved since then?

The recent study, by Kathryn Miller and colleagues, focuses on National parks in the East, from Virginia to Maine. (I provide a full reference at the end of this blog.) I look forward to a planned follow-up article that will try to clarify drivers of invasion.

The Miller study appears to have been undertaken to partially fulfill one of the goals of the NPS’ 2016 Invasive Plant Program Strategic Plan. One of the actions under Goal 1 in the Plan was to quantify the invasive plant threat, the effort needed to manage it, and then to communicate the gap between needs and available resources. Miller et al. have quantified the threat to National parks in one region (not the entire country). However, they have communicated the gap between effort and need in only the most general way.

Protecting the forests in eastern National parks is valuable from many perspectives. The forests in these parks are older and have higher stand-level tree diversity than surrounding unprotected forests. Protecting their long-term condition also corresponds to the National Park Service’s (NPS) stated mission, as established in its Organic Act.

The study relied on National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program data from 1,479 permanent forest plots covering 39 eastern NP units located from Virginia to Maine. The data were collected over 12 years, in three survey cycles (2007–2010, 2011–2014, and 2015–2018).

The authors note that in forest ecosystems, invasive plants can reduce native diversity, alter forest structure, suppress tree regeneration, alter nutrient cycling, and modify disturbance regimes. Some – the shrubs and vines – also threaten human health by promoting increases in tick populations and associated Lyme disease risks.

Unsurprisingly, the data showed invasive plants to be widespread, and increasing. In 80% of the park units, there was a significant increase in at least one trend measuring abundance. Any decrease in plant invaders tended to be in herbaceous or graminoid species; that decrease was often counterbalanced by an approximately equivalent increase in invasive shrubs or vines. In 35 of the park units, more than half of the plots had at least one invasive plant species when the 2015-2018 survey began. In 10 parks (a quarter of those surveyed), every plot had at least one.

The most widespread species is Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). It is present in more than 75% of all park units and 30% of all 1,400 plots. This dominance is true despite the fact that stiltgrass does not extend north of Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Site in New York state (41^o N latitude). Stiltgrass is also the most aggressive invader.

The second most widespread invaders are a group of shrubs and vines, including most notably Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and wineberry (Rubus phoenicolasius). I note – although the articles does not – that several of these have been deliberately planted – either to “enhance” ecosystems (multiflora rose) or as ornamentals (barberry). [Lehan et al. 2013 (full reference at end of blog) found that 95% of 125 shrub species introduced to the U.S. were introduced deliberately.] I know of no examples of deliberate planting of Japanese stiltgrass.

The most frequently detected non-grass herbaceous species is garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), which was detected in 20% of plots. Garlic mustard is found throughout the study area (Virginia to Maine). Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is the most common invasive tree. It is found in only 9% of plots and does not grow north of Roosevelt-Vanderbilt NHS. Again, both were intentionally introduced – and not noted as such in the article.

Because they could not identify the source populations for each plot, the study could not directly measure rates of establishment and expansion. The data did allow tracking rough trends in each park.

Parks with the highest abundance tended to be near densely populated areas. However, this pattern was not universal. For example, Prince William Forest Park in the outer Virginia suburbs of the District of Columbia metro area was one of two of the least invaded park units.

(note the prevalence of beech – I fear for the arrival of beech leaf disease!)

Total invasives increased significantly in 21 of the 39 parks for at least one metric. In 10 parks (a quarter of all parks), total invasives increased significantly in two of the three metrics. Antietam National Battlefield experienced the steepest increases.

The authors note that invasive plants continue to establish and expand, even in already heavily invaded forests. Thus they found little evidence of saturation. This finding conflicts with invasion theory. They also found antagonistic interactions between invasive species to be common.

The authors said managers should prioritize efforts to control Japanese stiltgrass and the shrubs and vinesdue to their widespread occurrence, rapid expansion, ability to suppress tree regeneration and understory diversity, and – in the case of the shrubs and vines, link to ticks.

The authors noted the need to better understand the drivers and impacts of invasive plants in eastern forests. They mentioned the overabundance of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), latitude, climate change, fragmentation and urbanization. I have urged them to include analysis of deliberate planting of various species on lands within the park units or nearby. They have said that they will do so in the planned follow-up article.

The authors propose that deferred management of natural resources receive attention and sustained commitment on par with the attention to deferred maintenance of the park units’ infrastructure. The maintenance backlog has been addressed through recent legislation: the Great America Outdoors Act which provided $6.5 billion over five years to address deferred maintenance projects in all 419 national park units. I believe that these projects will not address invasive species, which are managed under the “Natural Resources” budget account, not “Maintenance”. Some “Maintenance” projects probably will include control of invasive plants. A former Interior Department official has suggested that resource management activities might be funded under another section of the legislation, which provides $900 million under the Land and Water Conservation program. I hope this is true.

National Park Service’ Overall Invasive Plant Program Now

In response to the mandate in the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Public Law 116-9), the Department of Interior has issued a department-wide invasive species strategy. Will issuance of the new strategy provide impetus to the NPS to seek funding to implement its 2016 invasive plant strategic plan? Will Congress provide funds for this purpose?

Finding out the current status of National Park Service took a little effort. The NPS’ website has “popular” information about the efforts of individual regional Invasive Plant Management Teams (see links at the end of this blog). These posts provide only the briefest overview of program achievements and do not compare those accomplishments to the goals in the 2016 plan.

However, Terri Hogan, Invasive Plant Program Manager in the Biological Resources Division, provided following information:

NPS leadership now supports the agency’s invasive plant effort. The national Invasive Plant Program (IPP) contributes to the annual Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate (NRSS)’ Biological Resource Division (BRD) work plan. All is guided by the “Four Pillars to Guide Natural Resource Activities and Investments”, adopted in 2016.

It is not clear that invasive species have the highest priority under this regime. The four “pillars” are

Holding the line – includes conserving biodiversity by removing invasive plants
Managing amid Continuous Change – includes conducting risk assessment and taking other actions to contain future exotic species
Leveraging for Conservation at Scale
Enhancing Stewardship and Science Access and Engagement

Cooperation with owners of neighboring private lands has been enhanced by engagement of the Western Governors Association and state and local political leaders. Many parks participate in Partnerships for Invasive Species Management (PRISMs), CISMS, and Cooperative Weed Management areas (CWMAs). This collaboration has been strengthened by adoption of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Act (see above).

In practice, the focus appears to still be on the Invasive Plant Management Teams (IPMTs). There are now 17 teams. Fifteen are funded through the national office. One is funded by an individual park; one funded through a regional office. Annual reports have been published for FYs 2017 and 2018. The FY19 report has been held up but should be posted soon.

The reports provide brief description of the overall program and vignettes of particular activities. There are more detailed – but still anecdotal – reports for each of the teams. It is difficult to determine whether there has been overall progress. For example, the reported total infested acreage increased from 133,658 acres in FY17 to 301,195 acres in FY18. This presumably reflects more intense monitoring as well as a probable increase in real infections. (The infested acreage figures do not address intensity of invasion on these acres.) The teams cumulatively treated 8,937 acres in FY 2017; 8,331 acres in FY 2018. They carried out inventory and monitoring projects on 169,057 acres in FY17, 210,000 acres in FY18.

Since the Miller article concerns the region from Virginia to Maine, I checked the FY17 and FY 18 reports from the Invasive Plant Management Teams from the Mid-Atlantic, National Capital Area, and Northeastern regions. The Mid-Atlantic team emphasized work on wavyleaf basketgrass and meadows in parks established to protect cultural or historic sites. The National Capital Area team emphasized partnerships and success eradicating Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) on private land neighboring Rock Creek Park. The Northeastern Team serves 25 parks; the report emphasized leveraging resources and testing efficacy of pre-emergent herbicide for control of Japanese stiltgrass. With this exception, the teams do not appear to be prioritizing the species recommended for action by the Miller study.

Brief, “popular” articles about the NPS’ invasive plant effort are available here

Invasive Plant Management Teams – Biological Resources Division (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

NPS 20 Years of Invasive Plant Management

20 Years of Action in 2020: Invasive Plant Management Teams

20th Years of Action – The NPS IPMT Program

SOURCES

Lehan, N.E., J.R. Murphy, L.P. Thornburn, and B.A. Bradley. 2013. Accidental Introductions are an Important Source of Invasive Plants in the Continental United States. American Journal of Botany 100(7): 1287–1293. 2013.

Miller, K. M., B. J. McGill, A. S. Weed, C. E. Seirup, J. A. Comiskey, E. R. Matthews, S. Perles, & J. Paul Schmit. 2020. Long-term trends indicate that invasive plants are pervasive and increasing in eastern national parks. Ecology. 00(00):e02239. 10.1002/eap.2239

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

Bureau of Customs Strengthens Programs Aimed at Preventing Insect Introductions in Wood Packaging

This February marks 15 years since USDA began full implementation of ISPM#15. It is 22 years since the U.S. and Canada began requiring China to treat wood packaging (in response to introductions of the Asian longhorned beetle). Nevertheless, numerous shipments containing wood packaging that does not comply with the international regulations continue to arrive at our borders – and to bring pests. During Fiscal Years 2010 through 2019, CBP detected 7,900 shipments of wood packaging that harbored a pest significant enough to be in a regulated taxonomic group. In 2020, 16.6 million TEU from Asia entered the U.S. (Mongelluzzo Jan 21). If pest approach rates are the same now as 10 years ago, perhaps 6,000 or more of these containers bore wood packaging infested by tree-killing insects.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in the Department of Homeland Security, has taken steps to strengthen its programs aimed at getting insects out of the wood packaging pathway (described here).

I wish USDA APHIS took a similarly active stance. You can help by contacting your Congressperson and senators to urge their support effective actions, such as those I suggested in my blog in January.

CPB’s 2017 Improvement

Until November 1, 2017, CBD allowed importers to escape punishment until they had been caught using wood packaging that did not comply with ISPM#15 five times in one year. On that date, CBD began issuing a penalty under Title 19 United States Code (USC) § 1595a(b) or under 19 USC § 1592 to any party responsible for a shipment with a documented wood packaging violation. At the time, I praised CBP’s action. I have tried to find out how many times over the past three years CBP has used that new provision to issue penalties, but CBP staff have not replied to my question.

CPB’s 2020 Improvement

CBD took another step forward in 2020. The agency incorporated measures to clean up solid wood packing material (SWPM) into its Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program. I had been urging this since 2016. It took a while – but CBP used that time to ensure that its action would be integrated into the program and so stay in effect.

CTPAT is a voluntary public-private sector partnership engaging the principle participants in international supply chains — importers, carriers, consolidators, licensed customs brokers, and manufacturers.

By signing on, they agree to help CBP ensure the highest level of cargo security. Specifically, when an entity joins CTPAT, it agrees to work with CBP to protect the supply chain, identify security gaps, and implement specific security measures and best practices.

CTPAT member companies receive several benefits in return. Because they are considered to be of low risk, their shipments are less likely to be examined and delayed at a U.S. port of entry. When they are subjected to inspection, they go to the front of the line – again, reducing costly delays. The CTPAT web-based Portal system provides a library of training materials. (Information from the CBP website; full citation at end of the blog.)

At present, more than 11,400 certified partners have joined the program. These include U.S./Canada highway and rail carriers and Canadian manufacturers – who are not subject to the U.S.’ wood packaging regulation per se. Thus, CBD’s action seems to extend pest-prevention protection to a group of suppliers previously exempted from this phytosanitary program. Inclusion of many Mexican carriers and manufacturers is also welcome, since Mexican suppliers have always ranked high in numbers of shipments that violate the ISPM#15 requirements.

Specific Minimum Security Criteria

CBP’s action took the form of adding a long list of critical new agricultural components to the Minimum Security Criteria (MSC) it already used. These include:

Having written procedures for both security and agricultural inspections.
Carrying out CTPAT approved security and agricultural inspections of all conveyances and empty Instruments of International Traffic (e.g., shipping tanks, lift vans) prior to loading. The inspection must ensure that they are not contaminated with visible agricultural pests.
If visible pest contamination is found during the inspection, the partner business must wash or vacuum the conveyance to remove such contamination. The company must retain documentation demonstrating compliance for one year.
Vessels that visited Asian Gypsy Moth (AGM) high-risk areas during periods when the moths are flying must present a pre-departure AGM inspection certificate from an approved entity stating that the vessel is free of AGM life stages. The AGM inspections must be performed at the regulated port as close to vessel departure time as possible. CTPAT sea carriers must provide CPB with two-year port-of-call data at least 96 hours before arrival at a U.S. port.
Cargo staging areas, and the immediate surrounding areas, must be inspected on a regular basis to ensure these areas remain free of visible pest contamination.
CTPAT Members must have written procedures designed to prevent visible pest contamination to include compliance with ISPM#15 regulations. Visible pest prevention measures must be adhered to throughout the supply chain.
Members must establish and maintain a security training and awareness program to recognize and foster awareness of the security vulnerabilities to facilities, conveyances, and cargo at each point in the supply chain. The training program must be comprehensive and cover all of CTPAT’s security requirements. Personnel in sensitive positions must receive additional specialized training geared toward the responsibilities that the position holds.
Drivers and other personnel that conduct security and agricultural inspections of empty conveyances and Instruments of International Traffic (IIT) must be trained to inspect their conveyances/IIT for both security and agricultural purposes.
Training must be provided to applicable personnel on preventing visible pest contamination. Training must encompass pest prevention measures, regulatory requirements applicable to wood packaging materials, and identification of infested wood.

The actual Minimum Security Criteria can be found here.

Training Powerpoints are here.

(The summary of these criteria was provided by Stephen Brady, Senior Agriculture Operations Manager, Agriculture Programs and Trade Liaison, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.)

Inclusion of wood packaging in the CTPAT program should result in more efficient efforts to detect infested wood packaging before shipment — before the insect can reach North America. I believe it is fair to importers in that it requires action based on visible pest presence or damage. I applaud Customs and Border Protection for making the effort – internally and with the shipping industry — to add this protection.

I think fairness would be further served by CBP and APHIS adopting a program to inform importers which foreign suppliers of wood packaging have a record of providing “clean” vs. “infested” wood packaging. The U.S. importers would then be better able to avoid both contributing to the pest risk and being exposed to violation-associated delays.

SOURCES:

CBP website

Mongelluzzo , B. US imports from Asia hit record December level. Jan 19, 2021

Posted by Faith Campbell

Decision!! California Department of Food & Agriculture Upgrades Ranking of Phytophthora occultans

In January 2021, the California Department of Food and Agriculture announced the pest rating for Phytophthora occultans, one of two species of Phytophthora it was reviewing. (Once at the website, click on “comment” – next to name Heather Sheck.)

I blogged about this action in December.

Five people or organizations submitted comments. The most comprehensive comments were submitted by Elizabeth Bernhardt, Ph. D. and Tedmund Swiecki Ph.D. of Phytosphere Research. Another scientist was Tyler Bourret, who had been the first to detect P. occultans in California when working as a student in 2015-16. The third scientist was Jennifer Parke, a plant pathologist at Oregon State University who has worked with Phytophthora species in agriculture and wildland settings for 36 years. Additional comments were submitted by the Phytophthoras in Native Habitats Work Group and me.

All commenters raised some issues. First was the lack of information on the true distribution of P. occultans in California. CDFA restated that it that relies on official records and survey information, and that those records support a “low” rating.

Several issues relate to the definitions that CDFA applies in assigning ranks. They are so restrictive that – in my view – they result in underestimates of pathogens’ potential impacts.

One example is how CDFA recognizes first detections of a pathogen. As Bernhardt and Swiecki point out, CDFA’s consideration of only “official” samples prevents timely action to protect California’s agriculture and native vegetation. In the case of P. occultans, CDFA took no action for two years after the pathogen was first reported in the state. This detection had been confirmed by a CDFA laboratory.

A second example is host range. CDFA says it assigns a host range rating of “wide” (rating of “3”) only to pathogens that have host ranges of hundreds of species. This means that pathogens with dozens of known hosts across several plant families are given a ranking of “moderate” (2). Furthermore, the agency considers only “official” samples in defining hosts. This approach precludes consideration of the high probability that additional hosts would be found in future, including federally listed species in the genera Ceanothus and Arctostaphylos. Bernhardt and Swiecki named two additional hosts based on field work. CDFA responded to the second point by adding a reference to the likely expansion of the host range in the “Uncertainty” section of the document.

Similarly, CDFA gives a reproductive potential rating of “3” only to pathogens spread by a vector or that infect seeds.

CDFA staffers who manage specific pests lack authority to change these too stringent ranking criteria. The agency leadership need to adopt more realistic criteria.

CDFA responded by accepting many of the additional factors raised primarily by Bernhardt and Swiecki. This resulted in raising the overall score from 11 to 14, and changing the ranking from “C” to “B”.

Posted by Faith Campbell

APHIS Deregulates Emerald Ash Borer – Now it is up to the States

APHIS formally proposed to stop regulating movement of firewood, nursery stock, and other articles that can transport the emerald ash borer (EAB) in 2018; I blogged in opposition to this proposal at the time. Now APHIS has evaluated the 2018 comments on its proposal and has decided to proceed with its plans.

I recently blogged about the current and probable future status of ash. A study confirmed that robust regeneration of ash seedlings and saplings seen in various invaded areas will not result in recovery of mature ashes that can perform their ecological role.

APHIS received 146 comments on the proposal. Twenty-five supported the proposal as written; 121 raised concerns. Many of the latter were a few sentences without supporting information. These comments and the final rulemaking can be read here.

How has APHIS responded to the serious questions raised? Dismissively.

I certainly concede that EAB has been difficult to manage and has spread rapidly. However, I continue tobelieve that maintaining the quarantine serves important purposes and the analysis APHIS provides does not justify terminating of the regulatory program. I remain concerned.

Neither the proposal nor the final regulation tells us how much money and staff resources have been dedicated to detection or enforcement of the regulations in recent years. Therefore we don’t know how many resources are now available for supporting other activities that the agency thinks are more effective. APHIS also refuses to provide specific information on how it will allocate the freed-up resources among its (minimal) continuing efforts. For example, APHIS has supported resistance-breeding programs. Will it help them expand to additional species, e.g., black and Oregon ash?

How Does APHIS Propose to Curtail EAB Spread?

APHIS states in the final rule that it is ending the domestic quarantine regulation so that it can allocate resources to more effective strategies for managing and containing EAB. The agency wants to reallocate funds “to activities of greater long-term benefit to slowing the spread of EAB … These activities include further development and deployment of EAB biocontrol organisms; further research into integrated pest management of EAB that can be used at the local level to protect an ash population of significant importance to a community; and further research, in tandem with other Federal agencies, into the phenomenon of “lingering ash … ”

However, APHIS has not funded detection efforts since 2019. (Detection methods were only partially effective, but they gave us some information on where EAB had established.) APHIS is now ending regulation of the movement of vectors. APHIS concedes that biocontrol agents cannot be effective in preventing pest spread. So – what efforts – other than continued support for the “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign – will APHIS make to slow the spread of EAB?

Environmental and Economic Impacts: Not Adequately Assessed

Second, APHIS still has not analyzed the economic or environmental impact of the more rapid spread of EAB to the large areas of the country that are not yet infested – especially the West Coast – that are likely to result from deregulation. As even APHIS concedes, the EAB is currently known to occupy only 27% of the range of native Fraxinus species within conterminous US. There are additional large ash populations in Canada and Mexico – although neither country commented on the proposal — unfortunately!

Instead, APHIS largely restates its position from the proposal that it is too difficult to calculate such impacts. Furthermore, that it is APHIS’ “experience that widely prevalent plant pests tend, over time, to spread throughout the geographical range of their hosts …” In other words, APHIS denies the value of delaying invasions – yet that has always been a premise underlying any quarantine program.

The final regulation refers to an updated economic analysis, but no such document is posted on the official website. The rule does not mention costs to homeowners, property owners, municipal governments, etc. I believe it would not be so difficult to estimate costs to these entities by applying costs of tree removal in the Midwest to tree census data from major West Coast cities. Also, it might have been possible to provide some estimate of the ecological values in riparian forests by analogy to data from the Midwest developed by Deborah McCullough and others.

Biological Control: Effective – or Not

In the final regulation, APHIS concedes that the biocontrol agents currently being released have geographic and other limitations. However, APHIS does not address concerns raised by me and others about their efficacy. APHIS does say explicitly that it has not [yet?] begun efforts to find biocontrol agents that might be more effective in warmer parts of the ash range, especially the Pacific Northwest and riparian areas of the desert Southwest. However, APHIS has conceded that these areas are almost certain to be invaded – so should it not take precautionary action?

APHIS states several times that it cannot promise specific funding allocations among program components or strategies – such as resistance breeding – that might be pursued in the future. The agency stresses the value of flexibility.

U.S. Forest Service biologists have higher expectations; see their podcast here.

I wish to clarify that I do not oppose use of biocontrol; I strongly supported then APHIS Deputy Administrator Ric Dunkle’s decision to initiate biocontrol efforts for EAB early in the infestation. My objections are to overly optimistic descriptions of the program’s efficacy.

Firewood: Outreach Only, No National Regulation

As noted, APHIS has promised to continue support for public outreach activities, especially the “Don ‘t Move Firewood” campaign. The program’s message will continue to encourage the public to buy firewood where they burn it and to refrain from moving firewood from areas that are under Federal quarantine for other pests of firewood (e.g., Asian longhorned beetle). This campaign and the new National Plant Board guidelines link stress that firewood is a high-risk pathway for many pests of national or regional concern; they do not focus on any particular species. Leigh Greenwood, director of Don’t Move Firewood, thinks this is a good approach.

In 2010, the National Firewood Task Force recommended that APHIS regulate firewood at the national level. APHIS does explain why the agency did not do so. The agency says national regulations would be overly restrictive for some states and that requiring heat treatment would not be feasible in the winter for producers in Northern states. Finally, a Federal regulation would not address a significant non-commercial pathway – campers. [I have serious questions about APHIS’ assertion that it can regulate only commercial movement of vectors across state lines. Contact me directly for details on this.]

Perhaps APHIS is not required to analyze the probable overarching efficacy of the several efforts of 50 states. Given the states’ many perspectives and obvious difficulty in coordinating their actions on phytosanitary and other policies, I fear a scattered approach that will result in faster spread of EAB. I hope the National Plant Board guidelines on firewood regulation and outreach can overcome the history.

Most federally-managed recreation areas adopted an education campaign on firewood in autumn 2016; I blogged about it then.

Imported Wood Will be Minimally Regulated

APHIS clarifies that it will take enforcement actions against imports of ash wood only if inspectors detect larvae but can identify them just to family level and not below. APHIS will allow the importation if the larvae can be identified as EAB specifically. This policy reflects international standards, which do not allow a country to erect restrictions targetting a pest from abroad if that pest is also present inside the country and is not under an official control program. (See my discussion of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3 of Fading Forests II, available here.)

APHIS does not discuss how it will react to pests identified to the genus – several other Agrilus also pose pest risks. (See here and here.)

APHIS recommends that states leery of accepting yet more EAB-infested wood from abroad petition the agency under the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary Program (FRSMP) program, under which APHIS would take action to prevent movement of infested material to that particular state.

Lessons Learned

Finally, one commenter asked whether APHIS would analyze the program to learn what could have improved results. APHIS replies that the agency “tend[s] to reserve such evaluations for particular procedures or policies in order to limit their scope …” I hope APHIS is serious about “considering” doing a “lessons learned” evaluation. It is important to understand what could have been done better to protect America’s plant resources.

My take: the EAB experience proves, once again, that quarantine zones must extent to probable locations – beyond the known locations. The pest is almost always more widely distributed than documented. This has been true for EAB, sudden oak death, ALB, citrus canker … Failure to regulate “ahead” of the pest guarantees failure. I recognize that adopting this stance probably requires a change in the law (or at least understanding of it) and of current international standards adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). However, absent a more aggressive approach, programs are doomed to be constantly chasing the pest’s posterior.

Finally, let us mourn the loss of ash so far, the future losses … and opportunities missed.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Beech leaf disease found in four new states, 31 new counties

On the first day of winter, Daniel Volk, Forest Health Project Coordinator for Cleveland (OH) Metroparks reported that a coordinated survey has confirmed the presence of beech leaf disease link to DMF in four new states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. In all, the disease is now known to be established in 71 counties in the US and Canada. Funding was provided by the USFS Forest Health Management “emerging pest” program.

2021 survey efforts will focus on high risk counties adjacent to affected counties.

Cleveland Metroparks has several resources available on its website and will continue to post updated information there as it becomes available.

I posted a blog urging recipients to participate in these searches last June link I hope you will do so again in 2021.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Urgent!! Send Comments to California on risk from new Phytophthoras

*Arctostaphylos uva-ursi* (bear berry); photo by Sten Porse, Commons.Wikipedia

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is seeking input on proposed pest ratings for two species of Phytophthora: Phytophthora occultans and Phytophthora quercetorum. Each has the potential for being a serious pest in California and being spread throughout the United States. Therefore it is important to weigh in on this process. The first deadlines for comments is December 18.

These risk rating proposals can be found at https://blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/ The website also has instructions for sending comments. This process can be clumsy so, if it doesn’t work, send your comments directly to the webmaster.

In general, the State assigns each potential pest a rating of A, B, or C. Those rated “A” are most likely to cause harm and also most subject to State regulation. Under “B”, the County Agricultural Commissioners have discretion to take regulatory actions. Pests ranked at “C “are not subject to any State enforced regulatory actions. The “C” rating is supposed to be assigned to pests that are widely distributed in the state and are expected to have a “medium” to “low” impact on vegetation (cultivated or wild) in the state.

Phytophthora occultans

Proposed for risk rank “C “. Comments are due December 18^th.

Phytophthora occultans is a recently described species found in nurseries in Europe and in some U.S. states (including Oregon). It was recently detected in the San Francisco area of California.

The State proposes to rate Phytophthora occultans as a level “C” pest. This is insufficient. A rank of “B” is more appropriate, for the following reasons.

1) The data presented in the CDFA proposal are too limited to judge the species’ distribution in California. The proposal refers to only “two detections, two years apart, in San Francisco County.” By ranking it “C”, CDFA seems to assume the pathogen is widespread, based on detections in Europe and other states, without U.S. evidence

The available record does not indicate that CDFA made any attempt to determine the extent of the P.occultans infestations — no survey of other plants at the contractor’s nursery or at other nurseries and no consultation with a larger group of stakeholders.

2) CDFA limits discussion of possible impacts to hosts listed in the literature –which belong to multiple plant families. It makes no mention that additional hosts are likely to be discovered (as has often happened with regard to the host ranges of other pathogens in the Phytophthora genus). If the host range expands, as I expect it will, the impact to restoration activities, rare plants, wildlands and nurseries is more likely to be significant, not medium to low.

Furthermore, several of the known host species are congeners of species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened, i.e., species in the genera Ceanothus and Arctostaphylos. I think it is highly unwise to disregard in risk assessments the probability that listed species will prove to be hosts.

In conclusion, please submit comments to California Department of Food and Agriculture urging it to assign a risk rating of “B” to Phytophthora occultans.

Phytophthora quercetorum

Proposed for risk rank “C “. Comments are due January 9^th. See https://blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/

Instructions are contained in the proposal. If this process doesn’t work (sometimes it is clumsy), send your comments directly to the webmaster.

Over the past 5 years, P. quercetorum has been detected in association with oak trees, primarily coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), in four counties in California, two in the Central Valley (Fresno, Sacramento), two on either side of the San Francisco Bay (Alameda, San Francisco). There have been no interceptions of the species by CDFA border inspectors. The species had earlier been associated with oak roots and rhizosphere soil of oak forests in the eastern and north central US. Its pathogenicity is said to be unknown – and difficult to separate from impacts of other, often co-occuring Phytophthoras. CDFA assigns a rank of “high” with regard to economic impact, although it says there are no reports quantifying economic losses in plant production facilities.

CDFA believes that the species is likely to be able to establish wherever its hosts can grow (a rank of “high”). Hosts include red maple (Acer rubrum), English ivy (Hedera helix), several eastern oaks, and a second California oak, interior live oak (Q. wislizeni). CDFA assigns this a rank of “moderate” host range.

The environmental impact is ranked as “high” since the pest could lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes; and the pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

The overall ranking for the “Consequences of Introduction” is “high”.

However, the recommended ranking is “C”, which – again – means the pest is not subject to any State enforced regulatory actions. “C” rated pests are widely distributed in the state and are expected to have a “medium” to “low” impact on vegetation (cultivated or wild) in the state.

Why would CDFA recommend “no action” for yet another Phytophthora species that is known to attack two of the state’s most ecologically important oaks and possibly many more species? Even when the exact impacts are unclear … Especially when the principal means of spread is planting trees in restoration areas – a deliberate human action.

According to the USDA Forest Service, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is a conspicuous tree in lower-elevation oak woodlands of California, which collectively occupy about 10 million. It is co-dominant in the southern oak woodlands. CLO trees generally occur on mesic sites such as north slopes, alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, or upper streambanks. Coast live oak woodlands are some of the most important habitats to wildlife in California; they provide habitat for black bear, black-tailed deer, rodents and lagomorphs, and various upland game and nongame birds – including those that feed on acorns and cavity nesters. The birds including the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo and least tern.

Coast live oak is more fire resistant than other California oak species.

Coast live oak is favored for use in rehabilitation projects throughout its range. It is used in watershed improvement, restoration, and wildlife habitat rehabilitation projects.

CLO is already under pressure by predation by deer and cattle; sudden oak death (SOD; causal agent Phytophthora ramorum); goldspotted oak borer (GSOB – Agrilus auroguttatus); and sometimes the polyphagous shot hole borer (PSHB; Euwallacea whitfordiodendrus) and its associated Fusarium fungus. [These three non-native organisms are described here.]

range of Q. wislizeni; USDA Forest Service map

According to the USDA Forest Service, interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni) occurs over about 16% of California’s landscape, especially in the Inner Coast Ranges, the foothills of the southern Cascade Range, and the Sierra Nevada. Among California’s red oaks, interior live oak has the highest tolerance for xeric conditions. It usually dominates the “scrub” or “live oak” chaparral vegetation types in the Inner Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada.

CNPS Calscape lists several insects associated with the species.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Projection: Alien Species Introductions Will Keep Going Up! Especially Arthropods!

In 2017 I blogged about a study by Hanno Seebens and 44 coauthors that showed that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and showed no sign of slowing down (a reference to the full article is at the end of this blog). Here’s a brief recap, followed by a 2020 update by Seebens and colleagues.

In 2017, Seebens et al. analyzed a database covering 45,813 first records of 16,926 alien species established in 282 distinct geographic regions. The year with the highest number of reported new detections was 1996 – 585, or an average of more than 1.5 sightings per day.

The authors found that the adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th Century had slowed introductions – but not sufficiently. Numbers of reported new introductions of fish and mammals had decreased since the early 1950s. However, first recorded introductions of vascular plant species remained high, and introductions of birds and reptiles also continued to rise, largely as pets in countries with strengthening economies.

For taxa introduced primarily accidentally on transport vectors or as contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates), they found a strong correlation between their spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest – existing biosecurity regimes had not slowed down the accumulation of these alien taxa.

As a consequence, the authors expected that the numbers of new alien species would continue to increase.

As you are aware, since 2015 I have posted 15 blogs about the continued detections of tree pests in wood packaging, which remains one of the major pathways despite the international regulation ISPM#15. I have found it harder to track insect and pathogen introductions on imported plants, but it surely continues apace.

2020 Study Projects Continuing Rise in Introductions, Especially Arthropods

Hanno Seebens and a smaller set of coauthors (see full reference at the end of this blog) have now produced an estimate of probable introduction rates in the future. They looked at taxon–continent combinations for seven major taxonomic groups and eight continents (excluding Antarctica).

They found an overall increase in established alien species between 2005 and 2050 of 36%.

The study predicted that by the mid-21st Century, there will be distinct increases in alien species numbers, particularly for Europe, but also for Temperate Asia and North America, and for invertebrates in all regions. Europe ranked highest in absolute numbers of new alien species (~2,543; a 64% increase). Temperate Asia was projected to receive about 1,597 species (a 50% increase); North America about 1,484 (a 23% increase); South America about 1,391 (a 49% increase); and the Pacific Islands about 132. Only Australasia could expect a slower rise in introductions. The predicted trajectories of alien species numbers were surprisingly similar for mainland and island regions across taxonomic groups.

Invertebrates showed the highest relative increases. Rates of new detections of alien species were projected to accelerate for arthropods other than crustaceans worldwide, especially for North America (!). The study also projected higher relative increases for aquatic vascular plants and terrestrial insects

All drivers of introduction and invasion are predicted to intensify in the future. This is despite adoption of increasing numbers of countermeasures in recent decades. Most countries’ capacity to proactively counter the rising tide of invasive species is still poor. Furthermore, the principal drivers – intensification of trade and transport, land-use change, and access to new source pools – is expected to continue operating as now – “business as usual”.

spotted lanternfly Holly Ragusa, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

Current Status of “New” Detections

Seebens et al. (2020) relied on the Alien Species First Records Database for first detection records up to 2005. More than half (54%) of the first-detection records in the database are vascular plants. Arthropods other than crustaceans made up 28% of the total, birds 6%, fishes 4%, mammals 3%, molluscs 2%, and crustaceans 2%. The 2020 study confirmed the earlier finding that the observed first-record rates of mammals changed at around 1950 from an increasing to a decreasing trend. Finally, the total numbers of non-native species in the Database is much lower in aquatic habitats. (The authors do not discuss whether this reflects actual introductions or gaps in reporting.)

In the database, Europe recorded 38% of all first records, North America 16%, Australasia 15%, South America 9%, Temperate Asia 9%, Africa 6%, Pacific Islands 5% and Tropical Asia 2%.

A comparison to the immediate past (1960-2005) showed that the rates of emerging non-native species were projected to accelerate during 2005-2050, especially for arthropods. As I noted above, North America is predicted to have high increases in absolute numbers. Increases are also predicted for birds. Declines are predicted for mammals and fishes.

Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology

Projected increases for Australasia were consistently lower than in the past.

Caveats:

1) The authors assumed that past patterns of alien species accumulation will continue in the future. They did not attempt to predict efforts to strengthen biosecurity regulations and mitigation strategies.

2) Projections were calculated in the absence of data on many underlying drivers for the historic periods and some taxonomic groups. However, observed trends of newly-detected alien species numbers during the 20th century were surprisingly stable despite distinct political and socio-economic changes.

Seebens and colleagues conclude that implementation of targeted biosecurity efforts can reduce the numbers of new alien species becoming established. However, a significant decrease in rates of alien species numbers on a large scale can only be achieved by a coordinated effort that crosses political borders.

SOURCES

Seebens et al. 2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide available (free access!) at https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14435

Seebens, H., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, C. Capinha, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, M. van Kleunen, I. Kühn, J.M. Jeschke, B. Lenzner, A.M. Liebhold, Z. Pattison, J. Perg, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, F. Essl. 2020. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology. 2020;00:1 -13 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15333

Posted by Faith Campbell

Ash Mortality Accelerates – Population Regeneration Will Not Reverse Collapse

dead ash along Accotink Creek, Fairfax County, Virginia photo by F.T. Campbell

As we all know, the emerald ash borer (EAB) has killed millions of ash trees in its invaded range across eastern North America. However, field studies have detected robust regeneration of ash seedlings and saplings in various invaded areas. Ward et al. 2021 (full citation at end of blog) set out to determine whether this regeneration will result in recovery of mature ashes that can perform their ecological role. They conclude that it will not. Instead, they say, the EAB invasion will probably alter successional patterns and composition of large areas of naturally regenerating forests, causing a cascade of ecological impacts in ash-containing ecosystems

Ward and colleagues used USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA data) to quantify ash recruitment and regeneration across the entire eastern United States. Theirs is the first study to evaluate trends across the region, rather than specific locations or stands. They related the FIA recruitment data to EAB spread, as measured by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’ (APHIS) record of the first EAB detection in each county.

FIA inventories in 2002-2007 and 2013-2018 show large numbers of ash seedlings and saplings in counties invaded in the first wave of invasion, 2002–2006. These areas had higher densities of both seedlings and saplings than plots in other counties. The earliest-invaded counties were in areas that had extraordinarily high densities of ash before the EAB invasion, so the numbers of seedlings and saplings probably reflected that abundant seed source.

However, by the 2013-2018 inventory ash trees in the smallest overstory class (12.7 cm dbh) were dying at faster rates than they were recruited from seedlings or saplings in all 362 counties recorded by APHIS as EAB-infested before 2013. Ward and colleagues found these negative population trajectories on plots that have been invaded for more than about 10 years. This trend suggests that ash will continue to decline in abundance and may become functionally extinct across the invaded range.

Some U.S. Forest Service biologists are more optimistic about ash recovery in response to biocontrol of the EAB. See their podcast here.

In the risk of functional extinction, ash trees are unfortunately not unique. The authors note similar impacts from the invasion of the hemlock woolly adelgid and beech bark disease.

Data Reveal History of Invasion (spread)

Ward and colleagues focused on the risk of mortality for young ashes as they developed from seedlings to saplings, and, eventually, to overstory trees. The youngest “overstory” trees are 12.7 to 17 cm dbh. FIA data show that even the largest trees in this class are 3 cm smaller than trees that produce seeds.

Mortality was initially uniformly low – less than 2.1% — as measured by the first FIA inventory (2002–2007). This is not surprising because EAB was detected only in 2002, and then in only few counties. (EAB had probably been present for a decade before it was detected.)

By the 2013-2018 FIA inventory, mortality had quadrupled to 8–11% in counties invaded during the 2002–2006 period. In the counties invaded during the 2007–2012 period, morality also rose to 3-5%. Both measurements included all diameter classes. Annual mortality rates in the FIA 2013-2018 inventory were still highest for the counties invaded during 2002–2006 except for the largest trees (those greater than 40 cm dbh). By the time of the 2013-2018 FIA survey, overstory ash densities near the epicenter had since declined substantially. They had been nearly eliminated in some counties in southeastern Michigan. There were still sufficient numbers of smaller trees in the region to exhibit an elevated mortality rate – more than 10% per year in several counties in Michigan, Indian, and Ohio. By contrast, in the most recently invaded areas – those counties recorded by APHIS as infested after 2013 – there was very little change in ash densities compared to the 2002-2007 period. This is hardly surprising since it takes years for mortality to reach levels observable by the FIA process.

dead ash on edge of Pohick Bay, Fairfax County, Virginia photo by F.T. Campbell

Considering trees just entering the overstory category (those with diameters of 12.7 cm dbh), annual mortality increased substantially across the region. Between the first FIA inventory (conducted in 2002-2007) and the second inventory (conducted in 2013-2018), their average annual mortality rose more than four-fold, from 0.08 trees per ha to 0.37 trees per ha. By 2013-2018, recruitment in the 2002–2006 invasion cohort was about 50% less than tree mortality levels; recruitment and mortality were about equivalent for the counties invaded in the 2007–2012 period. Recruitment was [still] significantly higher than mortality for the counties recorded as invaded in 2013–2018. However, Ward and colleagues expect mortality rates of this cohort to accelerate over the next five to 10 years – even in areas with lower ash densities.

Ward and colleagues note that many of the young ash trees were dying before they could reach reproductive age – which they estimated to be about 20 years with a dbh of about 20 cm.

As the invasion progresses and hosts are depleted, mortality rates could slow, but, for ash to persist, it is critical that sufficient numbers of trees reach reproductive age before succumbing to residual EAB populations.

Other factors that might influence ash include competition with trees in other genera. The biocontrol agents now becoming established in young ash forests might increase the likelihood of ash persistence. Still, seed production and seedling survival will need to be frequent and widespread if they are to offset expected mortality. Resilience might also vary depending on individual species’ vulnerability to changes in the climate and to EAB (green and black ash are more vulnerable than white ash).

SOURCE

Ward, S.F., A.M. Liebhold, R.S. Morin, S. Fei. 2021. Population dynamics of ash across the eastern USA following invasion by emerald ash borer. Forest Ecology and Management 479 (2021) 118574

Posted by Faith Campbell

Asian giant hornet – US & Canada Differ – What are the Implications? – Updated!

Asian giant hornet (AGH) (Vespa mandarinia) is the world’s largest hornet, reaching sizes of 1.5 – 2 inches long. Its native range includes much of Asia. While media attention has focused on the hornet’s frightening size, the real threat is to honey bees (Apis spp.) and – especially – to the many important crops that bees pollinate.

Over the past year or so, several detections of the Asian giant hornet have been found in the Pacific Northwest – in British Columbia and Washington State. Four of the sites are within a few miles of each other. Two others are separated by miles of open water from the mainland sites. As of mid-October, 18 hornets had been detected in Washington State.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has partnered with the Washington Department of Agriculture to try to eradicate the hornet – which will not be easy! However, the Canadian Food Inspection Service (CFIA) has decided not to designate the hornet as a quarantine pest. This decision seems to threaten divergent approaches to the bioinvader. Fortunately, the Province of British Columbia is trying to eradicate its populations – so perhaps the diverging federal approaches will not result in facilitating the hornet’s establishment and spread.

Where the Hornet Is Known to Be

The first detected outbreak of the Asian giant hornet was in Nanaimo, British Columbia – on Vancouver Island. A single hornet was detected in August 2019. [A Canadian commenter said in March 2021 that this turned out to be a different species, V. soror.] A nest was detected in September and destroyed by local beekeepers and BC government officials. However, another hornet was found on the mainland – in White Rock, B.C. – in November 2019 [CFIA Decision Document]. In 2020, there have been several unconfirmed sightings in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island (van Westendorp, pers. comm.).

Meanwhile, beekeepers discovered two AGH outbreaks in Whatcom County, WA, on the U.S. side of the border. These discoveries were in December 2019 and May 2020. There were other, unconfirmed reports in both Washington and British Columbia. [USDA APHIS Environmental Assessment (EA)] Indeed, later in 2020, Washington reported a few more sightings — in the Birch Bay area, just south of Blaine and at a site about eight miles east of Blaine (van Westendorp, pers. comm.)

Three of the hornets found in spring 2020 were mated queens (Zhu et al. 2020), which means at least one colony successfully reproduced last year. One of the mated queens was the second detection in Whatcom County – in Custer, Washington. One article said that the locations of this spring’s queens meant either that the new queens travelled up to 35 kilometres (about 22 miles) before founding their nests or that they came from more than one colony. Either way, it probably means that giant hornets could spread faster than initially thought.

White Rock, BC and Blaine, Washington are a few miles apart on the Canada-U.S. border. Langley is 12 miles to the northeast of White Rock – in the Fraser Valley. Custer is 7 miles southeast of Blaine. Birch Bay is 5 miles south of Blaine. The most recent detection is 8 miles east of Blaine. So all these detections are in close proximity and might represent spread from a single introduction site – or maybe not!

Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley are on Vancouver Island, which is separated from the other locations by a significant distance and open water. The two island sites are about 30 miles apart. They surely represent one or more separate introductions.

One study found that a single hornet collected from Blaine, Washington differed genetically from a single hornet collected at Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. This suggests separate introductions. However, too little is known about the hornet’s genetic variability across Asia to allow conclusions about possibly separate origins (van Westendorp, pers. comm.; Wilson et al. 2020).

Areas at Risk

The area at risk is potentially much broader than the Pacific Northwest. APHIS’ initial analyses, based on plant hardiness zones, indicated that the hornet could thrive in virtually all the lower 48 states. APHIS’s Environmental Assessment did not address vulnerable areas in Canada or – apparently – in Hawai`i.

Zhu et al. (2020) carried out an assessment of areas most at risk and the hornet’s potential rate of spread. They found that areas with warm to cool annual mean temperature, high precipitation, and high human activity were most likely to be suitable for the hornet. Areas meeting these criteria are found across western and eastern North America, Europe, northwestern and southeastern South America, central Africa, eastern Australia, and New Zealand. Most of central North America and California are less suitable.

Spread could be rapid in the Pacific Northwest: they predicted that the hornet could reach Oregon in 10 years, eastern Washington and British Columbia within 20 years. This prediction is based in part by experience with the invasive congener V. velutina in Europe; it has expanded by 78 km/year in France, 18 km/year in Italy.

Oregon is relying on beekeepers to detect the hornet, which they expect will arrive even earlier than 10 years from now. The Oregon Department of Agriculture has suffered severe budget cuts because of the Covid-19 crash in state tax collections, so the program is trying to save money. As of the beginning of October, none of the hundreds of citizen reports has been a Vespa of any species (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).

Pathways of Introduction

It is not known how the hornet reached North America. Reports from other countries indicate that they can hitchhike in shipments of empty plant containers, or in the straw in which the containers are packed. In addition, some Asian cultures regard the hornets as delicacies, so deliberate importation is possible. Both APHIS and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have intercepted such shipments (CFIA Decision document; USDA APHIS PPQ New Pest Response).

The Threat

The AGH typically feeds on a variety of terrestrial invertebrates including beetles, mantids, caterpillars, and spiders (EA). During the spring and summer, hornets attack their prey singly. However, in the Aautumn, hornet workers carry out mass attacks against other social Hymenoptera – including other species of Vespa, yellowjackets (Vespula spp.), various paper wasps (Polistes spp.), and honey bees (Apis spp.). Commercial honeybee colonies are typically lost when attacked en masse. They are especially vulnerable because they are more concentrated than wild bee colonies. [EA]

Commercial honeybee colonies pollinate a wide variety of crops, including tree fruits, cane fruits (berries), tree nuts, tomatoes, and even potatoes. Supplies of beef and milk might also be at risk because alfalfa hay is pollinated by bees. Of course, honey production would also be threatened. As USDA APHIS has stated, if the Asian giant hornet spreads it would become a new stress on top of the multiple existing causes of honeybee decline.

Also, there is a direct threat to people. The AGH has a painful sting that can result in anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, and other complications in susceptible people. Officials emphasize that most people will not be at risk of stings. However, beekeepers are – their usual Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is not adequate to ward off the hornet’s sting [APHIS EA & New Pest .

APHIS’ programmatic Environmental Assessment notes that the hornet might also pose a threat to vertebrates that nest in ground burrows and decayed trunks and roots near the ground. Burrows chosen by female hornets for nest construction can be surprisingly large, up to 60 cm (24 inches) in diameter. The EA notes that, in Washington State, badgers, marmots, ground squirrels, and other small mammals use dens or burrows. Among these, four pocket gophers and the American wolverine are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act in Washington State. [For a list, see the environmental assessment.] The EA does not discuss whether cavity-nesting birds might also be affected – although the hornets do prefer hollows near or at ground level. The authors of the EA expect vertebrates to abandon any burrows used by the hornet, so they would be displaced rather than harmed by pesticides applied by the program described below.

APHIS program

APHIS and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) have begun an eradication program. I think eradication will be challenging because it will be very difficult both to find nests and to destroy them.

Hornets nest typically in forested areas or urban green spaces. There are lots of suitable places in the Pacific Northwest! These wooded areas are interspersed with farms, orchards, and settlements that will provide vulnerable insects as food sources.
Nest destruction involves excavating a hole two meters by two meters. This digging must be in woodlands, often right next to trees.

The key to successful eradication is finding and destroying the nests before they produce reproductive females and males – in autumn. Nest detection will be carried out as follows [EA]:

Starting in April, the agencies bottle traps in trees near the 2019 detection points. The traps are baited with a solution of rice cooking wine and orange juice to attract the worker bees. (The rice wine is added to discourage honeybees from visiting the trap.) Traps catches help define areas where nests are located.

WSDA successfully tracked radio-tagged workers to a nest in mid-October. That nest was in a tree hollow, not underground.

WSDA scientists think there were approximately 200 queens in that single nest. Two were vacuumed out during the initial extraction. Inside the nest they found 76 emergent queens and 108 capped cells with pupae that they believe were also queens. Three more queens were trapped in a bucket of water. This nest had approximately 776 cells; large nests can have up to 4,000. WSDA believes there are other nests in the area; they continue to search.

APHIS’ original plan to use pesticides to kill hornets in the nest has been dropped. Washington plans now to use vacuum extraction followed by introduction of CO₂ and excavation of the nest. Washington has also not decided whether to deploy traps with the pesticide fipronil (S. Spichiger, pers. comm.)

WSDA has also asked members of the public to set out homemade hornet traps, and to report any suspicious sightings.

Canada Takes Opposite Tack

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announced in February 2020 (CFIA Decision Document) that it will not attempt to regulate the Asian giant hornet as a quarantine pest for Canada. Therefore, CFIA will place no restrictions on the import or movement of any commodities that may harbor the Asian giant hornet. CFIA will, however, require permits for deliberate importation of the hornets.

CFIA’s reasoning appears to focus on two factors:

The hornet is an indirect threat to plant health (since AGH attacks pollinators. CFIA has traditionally regulated quarantine pests based primarily on significant direct threats to plant health.
Under the international phytosanitary system, countries that designate an organism to be a quarantine pest must put in place the necessary measures to prevent its entry into the country, as well as officially control the pest when present. CFIA states that “High uncertainties about the pathways of entry puts into question the ability to manage this risk, and ultimately the ability and feasibility of regulating V. mandarinia as a quarantine pest.”

Neither APHIS nor CFIA has authority to regulate threats to human health.

Detection and Eradication Efforts in British Columbia (information from van Westendorp, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture)

In 2020, British Columbia has focused on detection surveillance. Target areas include vicinity of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island; Fraser Valley from White Rock in the West to Langley/Aldergrove in the East (along the US border); and after several credible (but non-verified) sightings, the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island. Because of resource limits, the surveillance effort has sought to engage local governments, border agencies, First Nations, forestry & mining companies, farmers, and beekeepers. The ministry also placed numerous bottle traps and encouraged 170 beekeepers in the Fraser Valley to install and monitor traps in their apiaries.

So far, only one AGH specimen has been sighted or collected in the three British Columbia survey areas during 2020 – the single specimen at Langley detected in May. However, the several detections along the U.S. side of the border (see above on recent detections) has spurred BC officials to intensify survey efforts in the Fraser Valley (van Westendorp). A specimen was collected adjacent to the US border in mid-October just north of the multiple detections in the US, and South of the Langley detection last spring (S. Spicher, pers. comm.).

British Columbia will continue to monitor well into the fall season and resume our surveillance in 2021 and 2022 (van Westendorp).

Hornets are clearly able to be transported and introduced. Vespa ducalis was detected in Vancouver, BC in 2019 and in Texas in 2020. Vespa velutina has become established in Europe (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).

SOURCES

CFIA Decision document: Vespa mandarinia (Asian giant hornet) February 2020. https://www.inspection.gc.ca/plant-health/plant-pests-invasive-species/insects/asian-giant-hornet/decision-document/eng/1593718645505/1593718645899

USDA APHIS Asian Giant Hornet Control Program in Washington State Final Environmental Assessment—July 2020

USDA AHIS PPQ New Pest Response

van Westendorp, Paul. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, pers. comm.

Wilson, T.M., J. Takahashi, S-Erik Spichiger, I. Kim, and P. van Westendorp. 2020. First Reports of Vespa mandarinia (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in North America Represent Two Separate Maternal Lineages in WA State, US, and BC, Canada. Annals of the Entomological Society of America · October 2020

Zhu, G., J. Gutierrez Illan, C. Looney, and D.W. Crowder. 2020. Assessing the ecological niche and invasion potential of the Asian giant hornet. PNAS Latest Articles ECOLOGY

Trade, Pests, Inspections … & China

Recent information raises several troubling/worrisome issues:

1. The overall collapse in trade and travel has severely cut into the collection of user fees. These fees pay for Agriculture Quarantine Inspectors, putting jobs at risk. Their inspections provide important incentives for importers to follow U.S. and international rules to limit pests.

2. The list of imports from China in 2020 includes $1 billion worth of nursery stock. This is down about 7% from 2019. However, from the perspective of preventing plant diseases and pests, these imports continue to be high risk and still not adequately addressed by U.S. policy.

3. Other Asian regions are gaining in import share. Thus we can expect to see more pests arriving from countries other than China, like Vietnam.

Loss of User Fees Could Mean Loss of Inspectors

The collapse of trade and travel has a more troubling result: severe reductions in user fees collected from travelers and importers to fund DHS/Customs and Border Protection Agriculture Quarantine Inspectors. In a recent opinion piece, several former administrators of APHIS warn that current user fee collections are insufficient to sustain inspectors’ employment. A reserve fund will also be depleted this month. APHIS estimates that it will require an appropriation of $630 million to fund these agricultural inspections through the next fiscal year (October 2020 – September 2021).

Agricultural inspectors focus on plant and animal imports – including horticultural stock, seeds, fruits, and vegetables – both in commercial shipments and in passengers’ baggage. They are also called in when CBP inspectors suspect pests are present in wood packaging.

I do not consider inspection to be the most effective strategy to prevent introductions. That is, I think inspections are less effective than regulations requiring treatments and pre-shipment pest-mitigation measures. However, losing inspectors – even temporarily – will undermine detection and enforcement as an incentive for importers to comply with U.S. and international rules. This funding crisis is therefore a serious concern. Please ask your senators and member of Congress to support increasing the appropriation for DHS CBP by $650 million to keep these inspectors on the job.

Imports from Asia Skyrocket

New data show that containerized US import volumes from Asia rocketed 91% between March and August. During the same five-month period a year ago, import volumes rose only 36% — so the 2020 increase is more than double the earlier pace. Numbers of incoming containers from Asia nearly doubled at the ports New York/New Jersey; Los Angeles/Long Beach, California; and Savannah, Georgia. The California ports are reported to be working nearly at capacity. This has resulted in higher handling costs and delays in trucking imports out of the port to their destinations.

Import volumes from Vietnam and India continue outpace the market generally.

Update: Imports from China Continue to Decline Relative to Other Source Regions

In August I posted a blog reporting a significant reduction in imports from China recently – first as a result of new tariffs in 2019, and second, as a result of the global economic crash associated with the Covid-19 virus.

Imports from China decreased by 16% in 2019 compared to 2018, then rose slightly in the first months of 2020. My focus then – and now – is on declining imports of heavy goods — the types of imports most likely to be packaged in wooden crates or on wooden pallets that can transport pests.

Import volumes from China rose later in the year, as the U.S. economy began to rebound. Official data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census shows US imports from China had more than doubled (by value) since March — from $19.8 billion in March to $40.7 billion in July. Still, imports of heavy items and most consumer items – other than computers – have decreased in 2020 compared to 2019.

Included in this list of imports is $1 billion worth of nursery stock – down about 7% from 2019. Nursery stock imports are rarely included in Census reports, so I value this information. Of course, these imports – even ‘though declining – still represent a series plant pest risks. One study showed that imported plants carry a pest risk 12 times higher than wood packaging material (Liebhold et al. 2012; see full reference at end of blog).

rhododendron infected by sudden oak death – photo courtesy of Jennifer Parke

Important Shifts in Sources of U.S. Imports

Data show a broad and years-long decline in the share of U.S. imports that come from China. This decline is best seen in declining volumes of imports arriving at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Northwest Sea Alliance and another port in the region. Imports arriving at these ports declined 5.3% in May 2019 compared to May 2018. At that time, this decline was blamed on importers having stocked up in advance of threatened US tariffs on goods from China. Bureau of the Census data show a 2% reduction in loaded twenty-foot-long containers (TEUs) entering Long Beach in calendar year to date 2019 compared to calendar year to date 2020 (through August).

Commercial data sources indicate even larger declines. According to the Journal of Commerce, the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handled 37.7% of the loaded TEUs entering the United States in 2018. This fell to 33.5% in July 2020 — a drop of 4.2 percentage points in just 18 months. The author of this article said the reason was a fall in imports from East Asia (including China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan) compared to Southeast Asia, Europe, then South America and, finally, South Asia (primarily India). The article provides a table quantifying shifting sources of U.S. imports:

Total US Market Share Imports by Source Region

SOURCE 2018 2019 2020YTD 2018-2020 change

East Asia 61.6% 58% 54.5% -7.1%

Europe 14.9% 15.8% 16.9% +1.9%

Southeast Asia 8.3% 10.5% 11.9% +3.6%

South America 8.2% 10.5% 11.9% +3.6%

South Asia 2.7% 3.1% 3.1% +0.5%

Other source regions – e.g., the Caribbean, Middle East, Pacific, Africa, and Atlantic – were all below 2% of total numbers of TEU in all three years, and changed not at all or minimally over this period.

As I noted in the earlier blog, the pest risk persists. First, imports from China continue, and the most recent data (for the period 2011-2016) indicate significant numbers of shipments continue to be in violation of requirements for wood packaging (APHIS database / pers. comm). Remember, USDA passed up an opportunity to raise the issue of non-compliant wood packaging with Chinese phytosanitary officials.

Plus other regions also are the source of pests. I wrote about the risk from Mexico in the previous blog. The region of Southeast Asia has already been the source of highly damaging pests, e.g., redbay ambrosia beetle and polyphagous shot hole borer.

distribution of laurel wilt, carried by redbay ambrosia beetle

Scientists have also detected numerous known and previously unknown species of the brown alga genus Phytophthora in Vietnam and Taiwan. Of course, this is the genus that includes the pathogens that cause sudden oak death, black ink disease, potato blight, and numerous other plant diseases. APHIS has not accepted my urging to undertake rapid assessments of the vulnerability of North American trees to these newly discovered microbes.

SOURCE

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

Posted by Faith Campbell