Category: conservation priorities

Hundreds of U.S. Tree Species Endangered, Most due to Non-Native Pests

Horton House on Jekyll Island, Georgia before laurel wilt killed the giant redbay trees; photo by F.T. Campbell

Close to four hundred tree species native to the United States are at risk of extinction. The threats come mainly from non-native insects and diseases – a threat we know gets far too little funding, policy attention, and research.

As Murphy Westwood, Vice President of Science and Conservation at the Morton Arboretum, which led the U.S. portion of a major new study, said to Gabriel Popkin, writing for Science: “We have the technology and resources to shift the needle,” she says. “We can make a difference. We have to try.”

Staggering Numbers

More than 100 tree species native to the “lower 48” states are endangered (Carrero et al. 2022; full citation at the end of this blog). These data come from a global effort to evaluate tree species’ conservation status around the world. I reported on the global project and its U.S. component in September 2021. This month Christina Carrero and colleagues (full citation at the end of this blog) published a summary of the overall picture for the 881 “tree” species (including palms and some cacti and yuccas) native to the contiguous U.S. (the “lower 48”).

This study did not address tree species in Hawai`i or the U.S. Pacific and Caribbean territories. However, we know that another 241 Hawaiian tree species are imperiled (Megan Barstow, cited here).

Assessing Threats: IUCN, NatureServe, and CAPTURE

Carrero and colleagues assessed trees’ status by applying methods developed by IUCN and NatureServe. (See the article for descriptions of these methods.) These two systems consider all types of threats. Meanwhile, three years ago Forest Service scientists assessed the specific impacts of non-native insects and pathogens on tree species in the “lower 48” states and Alaska in “Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation). All three systems propose priorities for conservation efforts. For CAPTURE’s, go here.

Analyses carried out under all three systems (IUCN, NatureServe, and CAPTURE) concur that large numbers of tree species are imperiled. Both IUCN and CAPTURE agree that non-native insects and pathogens are a major cause of that endangerment. While the overall number of threatened species remained about the same for all three systems, NatureServe rated threats much lower for many of the tree species that IUCN and CAPTURE considered most imperiled.

This difference arises from the criteria used to rate a species as at risk. IUCN’s Criterion A is reduction in population size. Under this criterion, even extremely widespread and abundant species can qualify as threatened if the population declines by at least 30% over three generations in the past, present, and/or projected future. NatureServe’s assessment takes into account rapid population decline, but also considers other factors, for example, range size, number of occurrences, and total population size. As a result, widespread taxa are less likely to be placed in “at risk” categories in NatureServe’s system.

In my view, the IUCN criteria better reflect our experience with expanding threats from introduced pests. Chestnut blight, white pine blister rust, dogwood anthracnose, emerald ash borer, laurel wilt disease, beech leaf disease, and other examples all show how rapidly introduced pathogens and insects can spread throughout their hosts’ ranges. (All these pests are profiled here . ) They can change a species’ conservation status within decades whether that host is widespread or not.  

Which Species Are at Risk: IUCN

Carrero and colleagues found that under both IUCN and NatureServe criteria, 11% to 16% of the 881 species native to the “lower 48” states are endangered. Another five species are possibly extinct in the wild. Four of the extinct species are hawthorns (Crataegus); the fifth is the Franklin tree (Franklinia alatamaha) from Georgia. A single specimen of a sixth species, an oak native to Texas (Quercus tardifolia),was recently re-discovered in Big Bend National Park.

Franklinia (with Bachman’s warbler); both are extinct in the wild; painting by John Jacob Audubon

The oak and hawthorn genera each has more than 80 species. Relying on the IUCN process, Carrero and colleagues found that a significant number of these are at risk: 17 oaks (20% of all species in the genus); 29 hawthorns (34.5% percent). A similar proportion of species in the fir (Abies), birch (Betula), and walnut (Juglans) genera are also threatened.

Other genera have an even higher proportion of their species under threat, per the IUCN process:

  • all species in five tree genera, including Persea (redbay, swampbay) and Torreya (yews);
  • two-thirds of chestnuts and chinkapins (Castanea), and cypress (Cupressus);
  • almost half (46.7%) of ash trees (Fraxinus).                                                    

Pines are less threatened as a group, with 15% of species under threat. However, some of these pines are keystone species in their ecosystems, for example the whitebark pine of high western mountains.

Carrero et al. conclude that the principal threats to these tree species are problematic and invasive species; climate change and severe weather; modifications of natural systems; and overharvest (especially logging). Non-native insects and pathogens threaten about 40 species already ranked by the IUCN criteria as being at risk and another 100 species that are not so ranked. Climate change is threatening about 90 species overall.

range of black ash

Considering the invasive species threat, Carrero and colleagues cite specifically ash trees and the bays (Persea spp.). In only 30 years, the emerald ash borer has put five of 14 ash species at risk. All these species are widespread, so they are unlikely to be threatened by other, more localized, causes. In about 20 years, laurel wilt disease threatens to cause extinction of all U.S. tree species in the Persea genus.

Carrero and colleagues note that conservation and restoration of a country’s trees and native forests are extremely important in achieving other conservation goals, including mitigating climate change, regulating water cycles, removing pollutants from the air, and supporting human well-being. They note also forests’ economic importance.

As I noted above, USFS scientists’ “Project CAPTURE” also identified species that deserve immediate conservation efforts.

Where Risk Assessments Diverge

All three systems for assessing risks agree about the severe threat to narrowly endemic Florida torreya and Carolina hemlock.

With three risk ranking systems, all can agree (as above), all can disagree, or pairs can agree in four different ways. Groups of trees fall into each pair, with various degrees of divergence.  Generally, only two of the three systems agree on more widespread species:

  • black ash: IUCN and Project CAPTURE prioritize this species. NatureServe ranked it as “secure” (G5) as recently as 2016.
  • whitebark pine: considered endangered by IUCN, “vulnerable” (G3) by NatureServe. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the species as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. https://www.fws.gov/species-publication-action/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-threatened-species-18 However, Project CAPTURE does not include it among its highest priorities for conservation. Perhaps this is because there are significant resistance breeding and restoration projects already under way.
  • tanoak: considered secure by both IUCN and NatureServe, but prioritized by Project CAPTURE for protection.
dead tanoak in Curry County, Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry

Carrero notes the divergence between IUCN and NatureServe regarding ashes. Four species ranked “apparently secure” (G4) by NatureServe (Carolina, pumpkin, white, and green ash) are all considered vulnerable by IUCN. They are also prioritized by Project CAPTURE. I have described the impact of the emerald ash borer on black ash. Deborah McCullough, noted expert on ash status after invasion by the emerald ash borer, also objects to designating this species as “secure” (pers. comm.).

This same divergence appears for eastern hemlock.

Port-Orford cedar is currently ranked as at risk by IUCN and Project CAPTURE, but not NatureServe. Growing success of the restoration breeding project has prompted IUCN to change the species’ rank from “vulnerable” to “near threatened”. IUCN is expected to reclassify it as of “least concern” in about a decade if breeding efforts continue to be successful (Sniezko presentation to POC restoration webinar February 2022).

While these differing detailed assessments are puzzling, the main points are clear: several hundred of America’s tree species (including many in Hawai`i, which – after all – is our 50th state!) are endangered and current conservation and restoration efforts are inadequate.

Furthermore, a tree species loses its function in the ecosystem long before it becomes extinct. It might still be quite numerous throughout its range – but if each individual has shrunken in size it cannot provide the same ecosystem services. Think of thickets of beech root sprouts – they cannot provide the bounteous nut crops and nesting cavities so important to wildlife. Extinction is the extreme. We should act to conserve species much earlier.

YOU CAN HELP!

Congress is considering the next Farm Bill – which is due to be adopted in 2023. Despite its title, this legislation has often provided authorization and funding for forest conservation (for example, the US Forest Service’ Landscape Scale Restoration Program).

There is already a bill in the House of Representatives aimed at improving the US Department of Agriculture’s prevention and early detection/rapid response programs for invasive pests. Also, it would greatly enhance efforts to restore decimated tree species via resistance breeding, biocontrol, and other strategies. This bill is H.R. 1389.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, who has been a solid ally and led on this issue for several years. As of August 2022, the bill has seven cosponsors, most from the Northeast: Rep. Mike Thompson [CA], Rep. Chellie Pingree [ME], Reps. Ann M. Kuster and Chris Pappas [NH], Rep. Elise Stefanik [NY], Rep. Deborah K. Ross [NC], Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick [PA].

Please write your Representative and Senators. Urge them to seek incorporation of H.R. 1389 in the 2023 Farm Bill. Also, ask them to become co-sponsors for the House or Senate bills. (Members of the key House and Senate Committees are listed below, along with supporting organizations and other details.)

Details of the Proposed Legislation

The Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act [H.R. 1389]

  • Expands USDA APHIS’ access to emergency funding to combat invasive species when existing federal funds are insufficient and broadens the range of actives that these funds can support.
  • Establishes a grant program to support research on resistance breeding, biocontrol, and other methods to counter tree-killing introduced insects and pathogens.
  • Establishes a second grant program to support application of promising research findings from the first grant program, that is, entities that will grow large numbers of pest-resistant propagules, plant them in forests – and care for them so they survive and thrive.
  • [A successful restoration program requires both early-stage research to identify strategies and other scientists and institutions who can apply that learning; see how the fit together here.]
  • Mandates a study to identify actions needed to overcome the lack of centralization and prioritization of non-native insect and pathogen research and response within the federal government, and develop national strategies for saving tree species.

Incorporating the provisions of H.R. 1389 into the 2023 Farm Bill would boost USDA’s efforts to counter bioinvasion. As Carrera and colleagues and the Morton Arboretum study on which their paper is based demonstrate, our tree species desperately need stronger policies and more generous funding. Federal and state measures to prevent more non-native pathogen and insect pest introductions – and the funding to support this work – have been insufficient for years. New tree-killing pests continue to enter the country and make that deficit larger –see beech leaf disease here. Those here, spread – see emerald ash borer to Oregon.

For example, funding for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection program has been cut by about 50%; funding for USFS Research projects that target 10 high-profile non-native pests has been cut by about 70%.

H.R. 1389 is endorsed by several organizations in the Northeast: Audubon Vermont, the Maine Woodland Owners Association, Massachusetts Forest Alliance, The Nature Conservancy Vermont, the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, Vermont Woodlands Association, and the Pennsylvania Forestry Association.

Also, major forest-related national organizations support the bill: The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF), American Forest Foundation, The Association of Consulting Foresters (ACF), Center for Invasive Species Prevention, Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO), National Association of State Foresters (NASF), National Woodland Owners Association (NWOA), North American Invasive Species Management Association (NAISMA), Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition, The Society of American Foresters (SAF).

HOUSE AND SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE MEMBERS – BY STATE

STATEMember, House CommitteeMember, Senate CommitteeKey members * committee leadership # forestry subcommittee leadership @ cosponsor of H.R. 1389
AlabamaBarry Moore  
ArizonaTom O’Halleran  
ArkansasRick CrawfordJohn Boozman* 
CaliforniaJim Costa Salud Carbajal Ro Khanna Lou Correa Josh Harder Jimmie Panetta Doug LaMalfa  
Colorado Michael Bennet # 
ConnecticutJahana Hayes  
FloridaAl Lawson Kat Cammack  
GeorgiaDavid Scott * Sanford Bishop Austin Scott Rick AllenRaphael Warnock Tommy Tuberville 
IllinoisBobby Rush Cheri Bustos Rodney Davis Mary MillerRichard DurbinNote that the report was led by scientists at the Morton Arboretum – in Illinois!
IndianaJim BairdMike Braun 
IowaCindy Axne Randy FeenstraJoni Ernst Charles Grassley 
KansasSharice Davids Tracey MannRoger Marshall# 
Kentucky Mitch McConnell 
MaineChellie Pingree @  
MassachusettsJim McGovern  
Michigan Debbie Stabenow * 
MinnesotaAngie Craig Michelle FischbachAmy Klobuchar Tina Smith 
MississippiTrent KellyCindy Hyde-Smith 
MissouriVicky Hartzler  
NebraskaDon BaconDeb Fischer 
New HampshireAnn McLane Kuster @  
New Jersey Cory Booker 
New Mexico Ben Ray Lujan 
New YorkSean Patrick Maloney Chris JacobsKristen Gillibrand 
North CarolinaAlma Adams David Rouzer  
North Dakota John Hoeven 
OhioShontel Brown Marcy Kaptur Troy BaldersonSherrod Brown 
PennsylvaniaGlenn Thompson  
South DakotaDusty JohnsonJohn Thune 
TennesseeScott DesJarlais  
TexasMichael Cloud Mayra Flores  
Vermont Patrick Leahy 
VirginiaAbigail Spanberger #  
WashingtonKim Schreir  

SOURCES

Christina Carrero, et al. Data sharing for conservation: A standardized checklist of US native tree species and threat assessments to prioritize and coordinate action. Plants People Planet. 2022;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ppp3

Washington Post: Sarah Kaplan, “As many as one in six U.S. tree species is threatened with extinction” https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/23/extinct-tree-species-sequoias/

Popkin, G. “Up to 135 tree species face extinction—and just eight enjoy federal protection”, Science August 25, 2022. https://www.science.org/content/article/135-u-s-tree-species-face-extinction-and-just-eight-enjoy-federal-protection

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

www.fadingforests.org

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

www.fadingforests.org

Plant Invasions’ Impacts on Wildlife

spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa); photo by Alan Vernon via Wikipedia

Litt and Pearson (full citation at the end of the blog) are trying to improve scientists’ ability to predict the impact of biological invasions. Their goal is to predict which organisms will be winners, which losers, in the face of anthropogenic ecosystem change.

They focus on exotic plant invasions, because they are ubiquitous. Furthermore, plant invasions affect ecosystems by reassembling the plant community in ways that affect the niches used by native animals and hence the animals’ success under the new conditions. After determining the differences between the traits exhibited by invasive plants vs. the native plants they are displacing, scientists can then identify which native animals are most likely to be affected, as well as how and why they might respond to exotic plant invasion. [Note that Doug Tallamy is looking at similar issues.]

Litt and Pearson have developed a framework to assess how plants’ traits might affect associated wildlife. Applying the framework requires certain baseline information about the ecosystem in question.

This knowledge is applied in stepwise fashion:

1) Identify the fauna of interest and their linkage to the native plant community. This association might be food or habitat values such as shelter. Then the researcher determines the relevant plant traits of importance to that animal and approximates the strength of the animal’s dependence on these traits. Note that the focus is on plant traits relevant to the animal users, rather than specific plant species.

2) Determine overall importance of the plant traits for the area under study by (a) averaging dependence of a representative subsample of individuals to obtain a community-level value for each plant species or functional group and (b) quantifying the relative abundance of the plant functional group in the community (e.g., cover or biomass).

3) Plot the way the animal species’ abundance changes with resource abundance.

4) Understand how the invasive plants will alter the distributions of the native plants’ traits and potentially introducing novel traits that might alter the faunal community.

Litt and Pearson reviewed earlier studies to test how well this framework explained the responses of three groups of fauna to plant invasions in different ecosystems.

searching for spotted knapweed; photo by Oregon Department of Agriculture

Spiders in invaded grasslands

Intermountain grasslands of western Montana are heavily invaded; non-native plants already comprise 25–60% of average total plant cover.

One group of native spiders construct their irregular webs entirely within a single plant. A second group – orb weavers – suspend their larger webs from multiple plants. The former depend on the architectural complexity of individual plants; they can build larger webs in plant species possessing greater branching and/or longer branches of the flowering stalks. Orb spiders depend more on the complexity of the overall plant community.

Plant architecture is closely tied to the plant’s functional groups, that is, whether they are grasses or forbs.

These grasslands are generally dominated by perennial grasses. The irregular-web spiders can use grasses, but strongly favor forbs, particularly those with the most complex flowering structures. Orb weavers are generalists, incorporating multiple plant species; but they also tend to favor forbs, presumably because they are more robust.

Invasive plants in the Western Montana grasslands are of two types: an annual grass, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and numerous perennial and annual forbs. Cheatgrass largely replaces the dominant native grasses with a similar architecture – although cheat is shorter. The exotic forbs, which can collectively invade at levels comparable to cheatgrass, tend to be taller and more complex structurally than the native forbs. Thus, invasion by exotic forbs strongly shifts the community-level distribution of the key trait toward greater structural complexity by replacing the dominant, but structurally simplistic, native grasses, and the more diminutive native forbs. These changes increased the abundance of both spider groups, but especially the specialist irregular web weavers. They find the new conditions meet their needs. Both spider groups appeared to expand their realized niches in response to invasion, i.e., they are able to use a broader range of plant architectures than was available in the native system.

Chaetodipus sp. photo by J.N. Stuart

Rodents in semi-desert grasslands invaded by Lehmann lovegrass

In the semi-desert grasslands of the American southwest, native grasses and forbs provide food and habitat for a variety of rodents. This vegetation influences which species of rodents are present in two ways: the size of the plants’ seeds and the density of vegetative cover. Litt and Steidl examined both. They divided the rodents into separate guilds based on diet and preferred vegetative cover. The two sets of guilds did not overlap for all species.

In southern Arizona, the native plant community is dominated by several grass species and herbaceous forbs; most species produce relatively large seeds. Vegetative cover is generally low, but varies in a patchy fashion. The rodent communities in uninvaded native grasslands are dominated by seed-eaters that prefer sparse cover.

Invasion of these grasslands by Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) results in increased vegetative cover but the grass produces very small seeds that probably provide little to no food for  rodents. Another result is a decrease in overall abundance of arthropods. The new conditions favor different rodent species from those most common in uninvaded habitat.

Two more specialized seed-eating rodent species, which seek both lower cover and larger seeds, decreased in abundance. A rodent species which favors lower vegetative cover and feeds on larger invertebrates also declined. In contrast, abundance increased for two other rodent species that prefer more dense cover and are more opportunistic in their feeding. One species surprised the scientists: Dipodomys merriami increased in abundance, despite the fact that this species favors more open environments. Perhaps other functional traits or biotic interactions are important to this species? There was no apparent change in abundance for three other species, suggesting either a lack of statistical power (2 were less abundant) or that these rodents were able to persist through a balance of positive and negative changes in food and habitat characteristics.

Lucy’s warbler [nest in saguaro, not cottonwood); photo by Dominic Sherony

Warblers in Riparian Habitats in the Southwest

Riparian habitats in the same desert region have been aggressively invaded by the exotic shrub saltcedar (Tamarix spp.). Litt and Pearson consider the findings of Mahoney et al. of this invasion’s impact on two ecologically similar warbler species. One, the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), is very widely distributed across North America; it is considered a generalist. The other, Lucy’s warbler (Oreothlypis luciae), is endemic to a small region of the southwest United States and northern Mexico.

The two species have similar feeding behaviors but differ in their nesting requirements. The yellow warbler constructs open cup nests in the branches of shrubs and trees. Lucy’s warbler nests in cavities in larger trees excavated by others. Hence, these species were expected to respond similarly to changes in food resources and foraging habitat, but differ in their responses to changes in nesting substrate.

Native vegetation in the region consists primarily of willows and cottonwoods in the riparian corridors, with oak and mesquite woodlands in the adjacent uplands. Saltcedar invasion rapidly displaces the willows; it takes much longer to displace cottonwoods since are large and long-lived. Upland vegetation is uninvaded and unaffected. While saltcedar is structurally similar to native willows, its leaf architecture allows more light to penetrate in saltcedar stands. This can exacerbate heat stress on nestlings in these hot, arid environments, as well as expose the nestlings to nest predation. These effects are exacerbated by the presence of a biocontrol leaf beetle (Diorhabda spp.), which cause widespread defoliation of saltcedar during nesting season. Meantime, the cavity nests used by Lucy’s warbler are barely affected.

The study by Mahoney et al. showed that in low-invasion riparian sites, the two warblers occur at comparable abundances. When saltcedar invasion replaces willows, yellow warblers decline by ~50% while there is no apparent change in abundance of Lucy’s warblers.

Litt and Pearson point out that their framework is based on two key assumptions that establish the context for its efficacy.

The first is that bottom-up forces fuel ecological processes. Plants are key to making the sun’s energy available to consumer animals and – thence to predators. Consumers’ and predators’ top-down effects are secondary. The authors’ framework thus provides better predictions of community outcomes when systems are predominantly structured by bottom-up forces. As top-down forces increase or when invasive plants differentially affect multiple dimensions of the consumer niche space, it will be more challenging to track and predict outcomes, as our rodent example demonstrates.

The second assumption is that exotic plant invasions will most strongly influence bottom-up processes. Invasive plants displace native plants and their plant traits, thus directly affecting consumers by altering the quality and quantity of food and habitat resources. However, plant community changes caused by plant invasions can also affect predators directly and indirectly via several interactions. These changes in predators’ abundance and/or their per capita effects on prey might create feedbacks that can complicate interpreting and predicting invasion outcomes.

Litt and Pearson concluded that their approach is promising but has inherent limitations linked to the dynamic nature of ecological systems.

[Ecologists continue to evaluate the impacts of saltcedar eradication efforts on another bird species, the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax extimus trailii). See, for example, Goetz, A., I. Moffit and A.A. Sher. 2022. Recovery of a native tree following removal of an invasive competitor with implications for endangered bird habitat. Biological Invasions Vol. 24, pp. 2769-2793.]

SOURCE

Litt, A.R. and D.E. Pearson. 2022. A functional ecology framework for understanding and predicting animal responses to plant invasion. Biol Invasions   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02813-7 

& Supporting Information [warblers in riparian ecosystems invaded by tamarisk]

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

www.fadingforests.org

Tree Planting – Warning from New Zealand

Pinus radiata plantation in New Zealand; photo by Jon Sullivan

As countries and conservation organizations ramp up tree planting as one solution to climate change, I worry that many of the plantings will use species not native to the region – with the risk of promoting more bioinvasions. My second fear is that inadequate attention will be paid to ensuring that the propagules thrive.

Warning from New Zealand

New Zealand has adopted a major afforestation initiative (“One Billion Trees”). This program is ostensibly governed by a policy of “right tree, right place, right purpose”. However, Bellingham et al. (2022) [full citation at end of blog] say the program will probably increase the already extensive area of radiata pine plantations and thus the likelihood of exacerbated invasion. They say the species’ potential invasiveness and its effects in natural ecosystems have not been considered.

Bellingham et al. set out to raise the alarm by evaluating the current status of radiata, or Monterrey, pine  (Pinus radiata) in the country. They note that the species already occupies ~1.6 M ha; the species makes up 90% of the country’s planted forests. Despite the species having been detected as spreading outside plantations in 1904, it is generally thought not to have invaded widely.

The authors contend that, to the contrary, radiata pine has already invaded several grasslands and shrublands, including three classes of ecosystems that are naturally uncommon. These are geothermal ecosystems, gumlands (infertile soils that formerly supported forests dominated by the endemic and threatened kauri tree Agathis australis), and inland cliffs. Invasions by pines – including radiata pine – are also affecting primary succession on volcanic substrates, landslides on New Zealand’s steep, erosion-prone terrain, and coastal sand dunes. Finally, pine invasions are overtopping native Myrtaceae shrubs during secondary succession. Bellingham et al. describe the situation as a pervasive and ongoing invasion resulting primarily from spread from plantations to relatively nearby areas.

kauri; photo by Natalia Volna, iTravelNZ

The New Zealanders cite data from South America and South Africa on the damaging effects of invasions by various pine species, especially with respect to fire regimes.

Furthermore, their modelling indicates that up to 76% of New Zealand’s land area is climatically capable of supporting radiata pine — most of the country except areas above 1000 m in elevation or receiving more than 2000 mm of rainfall per year. That is, all but the center and west of the South Island. This model is based on current climate; a warmer/drier climate would probably increase the area suitable to radiata pine.

These invasions by radiata pine have probably been overlooked because the focus has been on montane grasslands (which are invaded by other species of North American conifers). [See below — surveys of knowledge of invasive plants’ impacts.]

Bellingham et al. recognize the economic importance of radiata pine. They believe that early detection of spread from plantations and rapid deployment of containment programs would be the most effective management strategy. They therefore recommend

1) taxing new plantations of non-indigenous conifers to offset the costs of managing invasions, and

2) regulating these plantations more strictly to protect vulnerable ecosystems.

They also note several areas where additional research on the species’ invasiveness, dispersal, and impacts is needed.

Survey of Awareness of Invasive Plants

A few months later a separate group of New Zealand scientists published a study examining tourists’ understanding of invasive plant impacts and willingness to support eradication programs (Lovelock et al.; full citation at end of the blog). One of the invasive plant groups included in the study are conifers introduced from North America and Europe. These conifers are invading montane grasslands, so they are not the specific topic of the earlier article. The other is a beautiful flowering plant, Russell lupine.  These authors say that both plant groups have profound ecological, economic, and environmental impacts. However, the conifers and lupines are also highly visible at places valued by tourists. Lovelock et al. explored whether the plants’ familiarity – and beauty – might affect how people reacted to descriptions of their ecosystem impacts.

Visitors from elsewhere in New Zealand were more aware of invasive plants’ impacts and more willing to support eradication programs for these species specifically. Asian visitors had lower awareness and willingness to support eradication of the invasives than tourists from the United Kingdom, Europe, or North America. This pattern remained after the tourists were informed about the plants’ ecological impacts. All groups were less willing to support eradication of the attractive Russell lupine than the conifers.

Conifers invading montane grasslands are perhaps the most publicized invasive plants in New Zealand [as noted above]. Lovelock et al. report that New Zealand authorities have spent an estimated $NZ166 million to eradicate non-native conifers over large tracts of land on the South Island. Still, only about half the New Zealand visitors surveyed were aware of the ecological problems caused by wild conifers.

invasive lupines in New Zealand; photo by Michael Button via Flickr

Russell lupine (Lupinus × russellii) is invading braided river systems, modifying river flows, reducing nesting site availability for several endangered birds, and provides cover for invasive predators. While initially planted in gardens, the lupines were soon being deliberately spread along the roads to ‘beautify’ the landscape. Foreign tourists often specifically seek river valley invaded by the lupine because pictures of the floral display appear in both official tourism promotional material & tourist-related social media. It is not surprising, then, that even among New Zealanders, only a third were aware of the lupines’ environmental impacts.

The oldest participants (those over 60) had the lowest acceptance of wild conifers. Participants 50–59 years old were most aware of ecological problems caused by wild conifers. Participants 30–39 years old showed the highest acceptance of wild conifers and lowest awareness of ecological issues.

Female participants showed a higher preference for the landscape with wild conifers (45.90%) than males (36.89%). Female participants were also half as aware of ecological problems (25.62% v. 46.12% among male participants).

Nearly all survey participants (96.1%) preferred the landscape with flowering lupine; only 19.4% were aware of associated ecological problems. New Zealand domestic visitors were more aware. After the impacts of lupines were explained, half decided to support eradication. However, the same proportion of all survey participants (42.5%) still wanted to see lupines in the landscape.

Once again, participants older than 50 were more aware of ecological problems arising from lupine invasions.  Both men and women greatly preferred the landscape with Russell lupins.

While the authors do not explore the ramifications of the finding that younger people are less aware of invasive species impacts, I think they bode ill for future protection of the country’s unique flora and fauna. They did note that respondents had a high level of acceptance overall for these species on the New Zealand landscapes.

While the study supported use of simple environmental messaging to influence attitudes about invasive species, also showed that need to consider such social attributes as nationality and ethnicity. So Lovelock et al. call for investigation of how and why place of origin and ethnicity are important in shaping attitudes towards invasives. Conveying conservation messages will be more difficult because tourist materials often contain photographs of the lupines. Much of this information comes from informal media such as social media, which are beyond the control of invasive species managers.

SOURCES

Bellingham, P.J., E.A. Arnst, B.D. Clarkson, T.R. Etherington, L.J. Forester, W.B. Shaw,  R. Sprague, S.K. Wiser, and D.A. Peltzer. 2022. The right tree in the right place? A major economic tree species poses major ecological threats. Biol Invasions Vol.: (0123456789) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02892-6  

Lovelock B., Y. Ji, A. Carr, and C-J. Blye. 2022.  Should tourists care more about invasive species? International and domestic visitors’ perceptions of invasive plants and their control in New Zealand.  Biological Invasions (2022) 24:3905–3918 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02890-8

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

www.fadingforests.org

Invasive Species Costs Point to Inadequate Effort – especially Prevention

EAB-killed ash tree falls before it can be taken down; photo courtesy of former Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje

Concerned by growing impacts of bioinvasion and inadequate responses by national governments worldwide and by international bodies, a group of experts have attempted to determine how much invasive species are costing. They’ve built the global database – InvaCost. See Daigne et al. 2020 here.

Several studies have been based on these data. In two earlier blogs, I summarized two of these articles, e.g., Cuthbert et al. on bioinvasion costs, generally, and Moodley et al. on invasive species costs in protected areas, specifically. Here, I look at two additional studies. Ahmed et al. focusses on the “worst” 100 invasives affecting conservation — as determined by the International Union of Conservation and Nature (IUCN). The second, by Turbelin et al., examines pathways of introduction. Full citations of all sources appear at the end of this blog.

It is clear from all of these papers that the authors (and I!) are frustrated by the laxity with which virtually all governments respond to bioinvasions. Thus more robust actions are needed. The authors and I also agree that data on economic costs influence political decision-makers more than ecological concerns. However, InvaCost – while the best source in existence — is not yet comprehensive enough to generate the thoroughly-documented economic data about specific aspects of bioinvasion that would be most useful in supporting proposed strategies.

Scientists working with InvaCost recognize that the data are patchy. At the top level, these data demonstrate high losses and management costs imposed by bioinvasion. The global total – including both realized damage and management costs – is estimated at about $1.5 trillion since 1960. In fact, these overall costs are probably substantially underestimates (Cathbert et al.). [For a summary of data gaps, go to the end of the blog.] Furthermore, they recognize that species imposing the highest economic costs might not cause the greatest ecological harm (Moodley et al).

citrus longhorned beetle exit hole in bonsai tree; USDA APHIS photo

Comparing estimated management costs to estimated damage, the authors conclude that countries invest too little in bioinvasion management efforts and — furthermore — that expenditures are squandered on the wrong “end” of bioinvasion – after introduction and even establishment, rather than in preventive efforts or rapid response upon initial detection of an invader. While I think this is true, these findings might be skewed by the fact that fewer than a third of countries reporting invasive species costs included data on specifically preventive actions. Cuthbert et al. notes that failing to try to prevent introductions imposes an avoidable burden on resource management agencies. Ahmed et al. developed a model they hope will overcome the perverse   incentives that lead decision-makers to either do nothing or delay.

  1. Why Decision-Makers Delay

Citing the InvaCost data, the participating experts reiterate the long-standing call for prioritizing investments at the earliest possible invasion stage. Ahmed et al. found that this was the most effective practice even when costs accrue slowly. They ask, then, why decision-makers often delay initiating management. I welcome this attention because we need to find ways to rectify this situation.

They conclude, first, that invasive species threats compete for resources with other threats to agriculture and natural systems. Second, Cuthbert et al. and Ahmed et al. both note that decision-makers find it difficult to justify expenditures before impacts are obvious and/or stakeholders demand action. By that time, of course, management of invasions are extremely difficult and expensive – if possible at all. I appreciate the wording in Ahmed et al.: bioinvasion costs can be deceitfully slow to accrue, so policy makers don’t appreciate the urgency of taking action.

Cuthbert et al. also note that impacts are often imposed on other sectors, or in different regions, than those focused on by the decision-makers. Stakeholders’ perceptions of whether an introduced species is causing a “detrimental” impact also vary. Finally, when efficient proactive management succeeds – prevents any impact – it paradoxically undermines evidence of the value of this action!

Ahmed et al. point out that in many cases, biosecurity measures and other proactive approaches are even more cost effective when several species are managed simultaneously. They cite as examples airport quarantine and interception programs; Check Clean Dry campaigns encouraging boaters to avoid moving mussels and weeds; ballast water treatment systems; and transport legislation e.g., the international standard for wood packaging (ISPM#15) [I have often discussed the weaknesses in ISPM#15 implementation; go to “wood packaging” under “Categories” (below the archive list)].

pallet “graveyard”; photo by Anand Prasad
  • Pathways of Species’ Introduction

Tuberlin et al. focus on pathways of introduction, which they say influence the numbers of invaders, the frequency of their arrival, and the geography of their eventual distribution. This study found sufficient data to analyze arrival pathways of 478 species – just 0.03% of the ~14,000 species in the full database. They found that intentional pathways – especially what they categorized as “Escape” – were responsible for the largest number of invasive species (>40% of total). On the other hand, the two unintentional pathways called “Stowaway” and “Contaminant” introduced the species causing the highest economic costs.

Tuberlin et al. therefore emphasize the importance of managing these unintentional pathways. Also, climate change and emerging shipping technologies will increase potential invaders’ survivability during transit. Management strategies thus must be adapted to countering these additive trends. They suggest specifically:

  • eDNA detection techniques;
  • Stricter enforcement of ISPM#15 and exploring use of recyclable plastic pallets (e.g., IKEA’s OptiLedge); [see my blog re: plastic pallets, here]
  • Application of fouling-resistant paints to ship hulls;
  • Prompt adoption of international agreements addressing pathways (they cite the Ballast Water Management Treaty as entered into force only in 2017 — 13 years after adoption);
  • Ensuring ‘pest free status’ (per ISPM#10) before allowing export of goods—especially goods in the “Agriculture”, “Horticulture”, and “Ornamental” trades; and
  • Increasing training of interception staff at ports.

What InvaCost Data say re: Taxa of greatest concern to me

Two-thirds of reported expenditures are spent on terrestrial species (Cuthbert et al.). Insects as a Class constitute the highest number of species introduced as ‘Contaminants’ (n = 74) and ‘Stowaways’ (n = 43). They also impose the highest costs among species using these pathways. Forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database, but constitute 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al., in prep.). Indeed, one of 10 species for which reported spending on post-invasion management is highest is the infamous Asian longhorned beetle (Tuberlin et al.)

ALB pupa in wood packaging; Pennsylvania Dept. of Natural Resources via Bugwood

Mammals and plants are often introduced deliberately – either as intentional releases or as escapes. Plant invasions are reported as numerous but impose lower costs.

Tuberlin et al. state that intentional releases and escapes should in theory be more straightforward to monitor and control, so less costly. They propose two theories: 1) Eradication campaigns are more likely to succeed for plants introduced for cultivation and subsequently escaped, than for plants introduced through unintentional pathways in semi-natural environments. 2) Species introduced unintentionally may be able to spread undetected for longer; they expect that better measures already exist to control invasions by deliberate introductions. I question both. Their theories ignore that constituencies probably like the introduced plants … and the near absence of attention to the possible need to control their spread. This is odd because elsewhere they recognize conflicts over whether to control or eradicate “charismatic” species.

Geographies of greatest concern to me

  • North America reported spending 54% of the total expenditure in InvaCost. Oceania spent 30%. The remaining regions each spent less than $5 billion. (Cuthbert et al.)
  • North America funded preventative actions most generously than other regions. Cuthbert suggests this was because David Pimentel published an early estimate of invasive species costs. I doubt it. The Lacey Act was adopted in 1905. USDA APHIS was formed in 1972 – based on predecessor agencies — because officials recognized the damage by non-native pests to agriculture. APHIS began addressing natural area pests with discovery of the Asian longhorned beetle in 1996. Of course, most of APHIS’ budget is still allocated to agricultural pests. I conclude that North America’s lead in this area has not resulted in adequate prevention programs.
Oregon ash swamp before attack by EAB (photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Dept. of Forestry)

Equity Issues

Tuberlin et al and Moodley et al. address equity issues of who causes introductions vs. who is impacted. This is long overdue.

  • More than 80% of bioinvasion management costs in protected areas fell on governmental services and/or official organizations (e.g. conservation agencies, forest services, or associations). With the partial exception of the agricultural sector, the economic sectors that contribute the most to movement of invasive species are spared from carrying the resulting costs (Moodley et al.)
  • A lack of willingness to invest might represent a moral problem when the invader’s impacts are incurred by regions, sectors, or generations other than those that on whom management action falls (Ahmed et al.)
  • People are perhaps more inclined to spend money to mitigate impacts that cause economic losses than those that damage ecosystems (Tuberlin et al.)

Data deficiencies

  • Only 41% of countries (83 out of 204) reported management costs; of those, only 24 reported costs specifically associated with pre-invasion (prevention) efforts (Cuthbert et al.).
  • Reliable economic cost estimates were available for only 60% of the “worst” invasive species (Cuthbert et al.)
  • Only 55 out of 266,561 protected areas reported losses or management costs (Moodley et al.).
  • Information on pathways of introduction was available for only three species out of 10,000 (Turbelin et al).
  • Taxonomic and geographic biases in reporting skew examples and possibly conclusions (Cuthbert et al.).

SOURCES

Ahmed, D.A., E.J. Hudgins, R.N. Cuthbert, .M. Kourantidou, C. Diagne, P.J. Haubrock, B. Leung, C. Liu, B. Leroy, S. Petrovskii, A. Beidas, F. Courchamp. 2022. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:1927–1946 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0

Cuthbert, R.N., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P. J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May 2022, 153404

Moodley, D., E. Angulo, R.N. Cuthbert, B. Leung, A. Turbelin, A. Novoa, M. Kourantidou, G. Heringer, P.J. Haubrock, D. Renault, M. Robuchon, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, F. Courchamp, C. Diagne. 2022. Surprisingly high economic costs of bioinvasions in protected areas. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7

Turbelin, A.J., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, D. Moodley, M. Kourantidou, A. Novoa, P.J. Haubrock, C. Bernery, R.E. Gozlan, R.A. Francis, F. Courchamp. 2022. Introduction pathways of economically costly invasive alien species. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:2061–2079 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02796-5

Williams, G.M., M.D. Ginzel, Z. Ma, D.C. Adams, F.T. Campbell, G.M. Lovett, M. Belén Pildain, K.F. Raffa, K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Santini, R.A. Sniezko, M.J. Wingfield, and P. Bonello 2022. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. Submitted

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

www.fadingforests.org

Breeding Tree Resistance: New Science and Call to Action on New Legislation

grafted beech at Holden Arboretum – for resistance breeding tests

Two USFS experts have published a chapter describing the components needed to succeessfully breed trees resistant to threatening pests. [See full citation at end of blog.]

As Sniezko and Nelson note, the threat from non-native pests and pathogens to forest health and associated economic and ecological benefits is widespread and increasing. Further, once such a pest becomes well-established – as some 400 pest species now are — few strategies to save affected species exist except a program to enhance the species’ pest resistance.

From a technical point of view, Sneizko and Nelson find reason for hope. Most tree species have some genetic variation on which scientists can build. It is likely that a well-designed and well-focused breeding program can identify parent trees with some pest resistance; select the most promising; and breed progeny from those parents with sufficient resistance to restore a species.

Furthermore, they say, progress can be made fairly quickly. Scientists can focus on developing genetically resistant populations while postponing studies aimed at understanding details of the mechanisms and inheritance of the obtained resistance.

Fifty years of breeding have revealed the techniques and strategies that work best. As a result, application of classical tree improvement procedures can lead to development of pest-resistant populations within a decade or so in some cases, several decades in others. The time needed depends on the specifics of the pest-host relationship, level of resistance required – and resources available.

In addition, advances in biotechnology can accelerate development of resistance. Tools include improved clonal propagation, marker-assisted selection, and genetic engineering to add resistance gene(s) not present in the tree species.

Port-Orford cedars in controlled breeding stage at Dorena; photo by Richard Sniezko, USFS

Sniezko and Nelson identify basic facilities needed to support successful breeding programs:

(a) growing space (e.g., greenhouses);

(b) seed handling and cold storage capacity;

(c) inoculation infrastructure;             

(d) field sites for testing;

(e) database capability for collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data;

(f) areas for seed orchard development;

(g) skilled personnel (tree breeders, data managers, technicians, administrative support personnel, and access to expertise in pathology and entomology).

Absolutely essential is continuity of higher-ups’ and public’s support.

Sniezko and Nelson note that a resistance breeding program differs from other research projects in its objectives, magnitude and focus. It is an action-oriented effort that is solution-minded—countering the impact of a major disturbance caused by a pest (in our case, a non-native pest).  

See the article for more detailed descriptions of each step in the process.

There are two basic stages:

Phase 1:exploration to assess whether sufficient genetic variation in resistance exists in the species. This involves locating candidate resistant trees, preferably across the affected geographic range impacted by the pest; developing and applying short-term assay(s) to screen hundreds or thousands of candidate trees; and determine the levels of resistance present. In addition to those objectives Phase 1 also begins to evaluate the durability and stability of resistance. It is vital to inform stakeholders of progress and engage them in deciding whether and how to proceed.

Phase 2: develop resistant planting stock for use in restoration. This stage relies on tree improvement practices developed over a century, and applies the knowledge gained in Phase 1. Steps include scaling up the screening protocol; selecting the resistant candidates or progeny to be used; establishing seed orchards or other methods to deliver large numbers of resistant stock for planting; and additional field trials to further validate and delineate resistance.

The authors argue that, at present U.S. forestry programs lack a coordinated, focused resistance breeding program based on the components described above. The Dorena Genetic Resource Center (DGRC) – established in 1966 in Oregon and supported primarily by the USDA Forest Service’s regional State and Private Forestry program and National Forest System — fits the bill. The DGRC has sufficient facilities and resources to screen simultaneously tens of thousands of seedlings from thousands of parent trees belonging to several species. Its staff have built up invaluable experience.

However, the Center is regional in scope and focus. (Staff are pleased to offer advice to colleagues working in other parts of the country.) Who will ensure that we make progress on restoring the dozens of tree species in the East under threat from invasive pests? The ashes, hemlocks, elms, beeches, oaks, Fraser fir, dogwoods, redbay and swamp bays, sassafras all need help (Profiles of these trees’ pest challenges can be found at here. [Chestnut and possibly the chinkapins have the benefit of a well-established charity …]

ash killed by EAB; photo by Nate Siegert, USFS

Three case studies illustrate how the process has worked for three groups of species: 1) five-needle pines (subgenus Strobus);  2) Port-Orford cedar (Chamecyparis lawsonii); 3) resistance to fusiform rust (Cronartium quercuum f. sp. fusiforme – a native pathogen) in southern pines.

New Possibilities

Resistance breeding programs are simplest to undertake when tree improvement facilities and experienced staff are already in place. It is most unfortunate that their number has declined significantly. However, a Congressional mandate to pursue resistance breeding as a strategy can partially retrieve and add needed resources.

Some members of Congress have taken steps to partially restore resistance breeding programs.  H.R. 1389, cosponsored by Reps. Welch (D-VT), Kuster and Pappas (both D-NH), Stefanik (R-NY), Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Thompson, (D-CA), Ross (D-NC) Pingree (D-ME). Then-Rep. Antonio Delgado also co-sponsored, before resigning to become Lieutenant Governor of New York.

The bill would establish separate grant programs to fund work under the two phases outlined by Sniezko and Nelson. It relies on grants rather than setting up Dorena-like facilities in other parts of the country. Scientists are already setting up consortia to provide the needed facilities and long-term stability e.g., Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative. Will that be enough?

The most likely way to create a national tree resistance program is to incorporate these ideas into the next Farm Bill – due to be adopted next year (2023).

You can help by contacting members of the House and Senate Agriculture committees and urging them to include in the bill either H.R. 1389 or a more comprehensive program that does establish centers analogous to Dorena.

Also convey your support to USDA leadership – especially the Forest Service and Agriculture Research Service. (APHIS should be part of the team, but its focus is on strategies with more immediate effect.)

As Sniezko and Nelson state, a key component for success is a core group of stakeholders who

  1. realize the problem (threat to a tree species’ role in the environment);
  2. acknowledge that resistance breeding offers the best avenue for maintaining the species of concern; and
  3. express a willingness to invest in a solution that could take one or more decades.

Will YOU be part of this team?

I note that Bonello et al., 2020 (citation below) suggested a new structure to provide the needed focus and coordination. Adoption of H.R. 1389 would partially realize this. The bill calls for a study to examine the benefits of establishing a more secure foundation within USDA for addressing tree-killing pests.

Scott Schlarbaum made similar points in Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III, published in 2014. See links below.

SOURCES

Bonello, P., F.T. Campbell, D. Cipollini, A.O. Conrad, C. Farinas, K.J.K. Gandhi, F.P. Hain, D. Parry, D.N. Showalter, C. Villari, K.F. Wallin. 2020. Invasive tree Pests Devastate Ecosystems – A Proposed New Response Framework. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. January 2020. Volume 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00002/full

Sniezko, R.A. and C.D. Nelson.  2022. Chapter 10, Resistance breeding against tree pathogens. In Asiegbu and Kovalchuk, editors. Forest Microbiology Volume 2: Forest Tree Health; 1st Edition. Elsevier

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

www.fadingforests.org

Urgent Update on Beech Leaf Disease

banding symptoms of beech leaf disease; photo by Dr. Chagas de Freitas, Ohio State

Experts on beech leaf disease (BLD) hold conference calls every two months. I reported on the May meeting earlier in July. The July conference call of the experts emphasized not only the alarming spread of the disease but also the dilemmas frustrating efforts to slow its spread and protect beech.

Jerry Carlson, chief of forest health protection for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation called beech leaf disease “the next chestnut blight”.

Yet forestry, plant health, and conservation entities have been slow to support research needed to develop protective measures.

As was noted by participants, 10 years after scientists from Lake MetroParks (in Cleveland) first detected disease symptoms, scientists still are unsure about all aspects of BLD and how it spreads. Experts agree that the nematode (Litylenchus crenatae ssp mccannii) must be present to initiate the disease. Other possible factors, especially fungi in the genus Colletotrichum, appear to play important roles in causing the symptoms.

The lack of clarity about the causal agent means that USDA APHIS has not recognized the disease as a priority species for tracking. APHIS has provided some funds. However, scientists seeking to obtain funding through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program [laid out in the Plant Protection Act’s Section 7721] can’t get traction. Other funding sources also don’t quite fit. For example, the National Science Foundation funds basic, hypothesis-driven, research – not the more applied science needed to address BLD. Some participants wondered whether funding might be sought from wildlife-oriented sources, since beech are so important in providing hard mast, den and nest sites, etc., for a variety of wildlife.

Participants discussed ways to raise awareness – and alarm – in order to build a broader coalition. This effort should include Europe. Although the disease has not yet been detected in Europe, the native beech is vulnerable.

European beech in Rhode Island infected by BLD; photo by Dr. Nathaniel A. Mitkowski, University of Rhode Island

Data indicate that the disease is now significantly more widespread than was known last year. That is, BLD is more widespread from New York to Maine, with New Hampshire reporting its first detection. To the west, BLD has been detected in Michigan and in a forest fragment in western Ohio (near Toledo). Disease severity has also intensified. Of course, the disease is present at least a year before it is detected because leaf symptoms appear in the spring following infection. Therefore its presence is probably wider.

map of BLD presence as of early July 2022 (some states have not yet reported); note the many counties in fuschia – 2022 detections

While mortality of mature beech is still rarely documented, this might be related to difficulties determining the cause of mortality during standard forest health surveys. Participants discussed how to rectify this situation.

Meanwhile, concern is rising – as reflected in Dr. Carlson’s statement.

You can help by asking your state and national officials and conservation organizations to support applied research aimed at clarifying how the disease spreads, what ecological conditions are conducive to disease, improved detection and prediction tools, and possible containment strategies. Let’s overcome the roadblocks impeding protection of this magnificent and ecologically vital tree species.

Is this not worth protecting?

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

www.fadingforests.org

Search for Asian giant hornet

Asian giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia); photo by University of Florida Dept. of Entomology

Washington State’s “Giant Hornet – Hornet Herald” for June asks people to help with detecting this pest by monitoring paper wasp nests (hornets attack them). Hornet visits last 5 – 10 minutes while the hornet removes paper wasp larvae.  How to help:

  • Locate paper wasp nests that you have access to and can monitor through October. Then log the nest locations using the form here
  • Visit the nests each week, observe them, and then log your nest activity on a different form – here. Please monitor the nests for at least 5 minutes during the day once per week, but you can check the nests for as long and as often as you would like.

If you would like guidance on how to become a citizen-science monitor or trapper of Asian giant hornets – or presumably other bioinvaders – go here

Meanwhile, Washington State Department of Agriculture entomologists are in South Korea testing several hornet attractants and studying hornet foraging behavior. The goal  is to improve Washington’s trapping and tracking techniques.

Of course, 2022 is only half over, but so far neither Washington nor British Columbia has confirmed any detections.

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

www.fadingforests.org

Boxwood Blight – Another Failure of the Global Phytosanitary System

boxwood garden at Gunston Hall – home of founding father George Mason; Virginia; photo by Roger 4336 via Wikimedia

Boxwood blight is a disease caused by a group of fungal pathogens. While boxwoods are horticultural plants in the U.S. – important ones! – they are keystone forest species in several regions of the tropics and subtropics.

The situation with boxwood blight is yet another example of a too-frequent pattern for plant pathogens. This pattern applies even to plant taxa that are important to the ornamental horticulture industry – not only plants that are important in natural ecosystems. [See other blogs posted here under the category “plants as pest vectors”, e.g., here. The boxwood blight pathogens:  

  • are of unknown origin;
  • have a wide range of known hosts; additional hosts probable;
  • have been introduced to many new sites over about 30 years;
  • have caused considerable economic, aesthetic, and ecological harm;
  • are a threat to centers of endemism;
  • have no known methods to treat plants in forests;
  • are spread by international plant trade;
  • complicate detection by having hosts that sometimes are asymptomatic; or symptoms can be suppressed by fungicides;
  • apparently few efforts to apply phytosanitary measures to prevent further spread.

Also typical: concerned scientists are trying to promote adoption of phytosanitary measures. This takes the form of a study by Barke, Coop and Hong (full citation at the end of the blog; unless otherwise stated, information in this blog is from this source). They use several models based largely on climatic factors to predict additional geographic areas where else boxwood blight might establish.

I think it is most unfortunate that the U.S. horticultural industry prefers to avoid federal regulation despite the significant costs to its members. Instead, it has advocated for a primarily voluntary response (see below). This undermines efforts to restructure regulatory programs to improve phytosanitary agencies’ management of pathogens. Since the U.S. is such a powerful player on this issue, reducing pressure on APHIS to find more effective measures has global implications. I recognize that preventing transmission of unknown and cryptic pathogens is an intrinsically difficult task. However, tackling this problem should be a top priority for people concerned about retaining healthy floral communities.

Specifics About Boxwood Blight

Boxwood blight is caused by two ascomycete fungi, Calonectria pseudonaviculata [synonym Cylindrocladium buxicola] and Calonectria henricotiae. Both can infect and blight boxwood foliage, resulting in rapid plant death. C. henricotiae is known from only five countries in Europe; C. pseudonaviculata is currently established in 24 countries in three geographic areas: Europe and western Asia; New Zealand; and North America (30 US states and British Columbia). The disease caused by C. pseudonaviculata could spread well beyond its currently invaded range in these regions.

range of Buxus sempervirens; via Wikimedia

Native plants in the family Buxaceae grow in tropical or subtropical areas around the world. Plants in the genera Buxus, Didymeles, Haptanthus, Pachysandra, Sarcococca, and Styloceras are found in some areas of western and southern Europe; Turkey and the Caucuses into Iran; several countries in southeast and east Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia); coastal Australia; high elevation areas of Africa, including Madagascar; parts of South America (southern Brazil, Uruguay, northern Argentina, and southern Chile, and foothills of the Andes); parts of Central America and the Caribbean. Asia is home to about 40 species of Buxus, four species of Pachysandra, and 11 species of Sarcococca.  In the Andes region, all five species of Styloceras are endemic. Central America and the Caribbean are home to about 50 species of Buxus; there are 37 species endemic to Cuba! Madagascar has nine endemic Buxus species.

Many Buxus species occur in small and isolated distributions resulting from both natural causes (e.g., island endemism) and anthropogenic disturbances (including deforestation and invasions of by other non-native pests, such as the box tree moth Cydalima perspectalis in Europe and western Asia).

In native stands of Buxus sempervirens in Georgia and northern Iran, where C. pseudonaviculata was detected in 2010, the disease has caused rapid and intensive defoliation of boxwood plants of different ages. [See also Lehtijarvi, Dogmus-Lehtijarvi and Oskay. Boxwood Blight in Turkey: Impact on Natural Boxwood Populations and Management Challenges. Baltic Forestry 2017, vol. 23(1)] Infected plants are also vulnerable to attacks by secondary opportunistic pathogens that can lead to eventual death. Damage to these forests could lead to reductions in soil stability and subsequent declines in water quality and flood protection, changes in forest structure and composition, and declines in Buxus-associated biodiversity (at least 63 species of lichens, fungi, chromista and invertebrates might be obligate).

Barke, Coop and Hong expect excessive heat and seasonal dryness at one extreme and excessive cold at the other to limit areas in North America and Europe/central Asia where the disease can establish. Areas with oceanic rather than continental climates are probably more vulnerable. However, heat and aridity barriers could be overcome by artificial irrigation of horticultural plantings.

Indeed, the conditions favoring C. pseudonaviculata establishment – warm temperatures and high humidity or water on the leaves – are commonly found in production nurseries. Overhead irrigation exacerbates the risk. Production nurseries also have large numbers of host plants in close proximity – so it is easy for disease to spread (Douglas). 

I am reminded that the causal agent of sudden oak death, Phytophthora ramorum,  has been spread from production nurseries located in hot, dry areas that were considered unsuitable to the pathogen – because conditions inside the nursery were suitable.

wild Buxus on island of Corsica; photo by Sten Porse via Wikimedia

As I noted, the origin of C. pseudonaviculata is unknown. Barke, Coop and Hong think it is most likely in eastern Asia, which is thought to be the likely native region of box tree moth. However, they cannot rule out some other center of diversity for Buxaceae species e.g., the Caribbean or Madagascar.

Barke, Coop and Hong call for additional studies to

  1. Explore potential effects of climate change on establishment risk, especially higher latitude areas expected to see increasing humidity, precipitation, and rising temperatures.
  2. Determine ability of C. pseudonaviculata microsclerotia to survive higher temperatures, e.g. in parts of the U.S. Deep South that may have ideal growing conditions during cool seasons.
  3. Modify the CLIMEX model developed for this study to predict the potential distribution of C. henricotiae, a closely related but genetically distinct species with greater tolerance of higher temperatures.

They call for a strict phytosanitary protocol for risk mitigation of accidental intro, with effective surveillance for early detection, and development of a recovery plan.

Regulatory (non) Response

Boxwood blight was first detected in the United Kingdom in mid-1990s; then in New Zealand in 2002. Only then was the causal agent determined. It was first detected in the U.S. in October 2011 (in Connecticut). It was quickly determined to be established in the mid-Atlantic region. Apparently the British, other European countries, and APHIS all decided the pathogen was too widespread to regulate (Douglas).

The U.S. is relying on a voluntary program. The nursery industry, through its Horticultural Research Institute (HRI), and the National Plant Board developed guidance for best management practices – updated as recently as 2020. 

boxwood blight symptoms; Oregon State University; via Flickr

In contrast, APHIS has acted to regulate the boxwood tree moth, Cydalima perspectalis. The moth was first detected in North America near Toronto in 2018. U.S. nurseries in six states received infected plants in spring 2021. On May 26, 2021, APHIS prohibited importation of host plants from Canada, including boxwood (Buxus spp), Euonymus (Euonymus spp), and holly (Ilex spp).

In July 2021, the moth was detected in Niagara County, New York. It was thought that the moths had flown or been blown into the area from Canada.  New York adopted an intrastate quarantine of three counties (Erie, Niagara, and Orleans) in December 10, 2021. APHIS followed with an interstate quarantine on March 23, 2022.

SOURCES

Barke, B.S., L. Coop and C. Hong. 2022.  Potential Distribution of Invasive Boxwood Blight Pathogen (Calonectria pseudonaviculata) as Predicted by Process-Based and Correlative Models. Biology 2022, 11, 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11060849 www.mdpi.com/journal/biology

Douglas, S.M. Fact sheet; Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CAES/DOCUMENTS/Publications/Fact_Sheets/Plant_Pathology_and_Ecology/2020/Boxwood-Blight-(1).pdf?la=en&hash=A4C6AF39765F27FDDEB5B4DC3FD3B6F3

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

www.fadingforests.org

Invasions cost protected areas more than $22 billion in 35 years

Burmese python in Everglades National Park; photo by Bob Reed, US FWS

Scientists continue to apply data collected in an international database (InvaCost; see “methods” section of Cuthbert et al.; full citation at end of this blog) to estimate the economic costs associated with invasive alien species (IAS). These sources reported $22.24 billion in economic costs of bioinvasion in protected areas over the 35-year period 1975 – 2020. Because the data has significant gaps, no doubt invasions really cost much more.

Moodley et al. 2022 (full citation at end of this blog) attempt to apply these data to analyze economic costs in protected areas. As they note, protected areas are a pillar of global biodiversity conservation. So it is important to understand the extent to which bioinvasion threatens this purpose. 

Unfortunately, the data are still too scant to support any conclusions. Such distortions are acknowledged by Moodley et al. I will discuss the data gaps below a summary of the study’s findings.

The Details

Of the estimated $22.24 billion, only 4% were observed costs; 96% were “potential” costs (= extrapolated or predicted based on models). Both had generally increased in more recent years, especially “potential” costs after 1995. As is true in other analyses of InvaCost data, the great majority (73%) of observed costs covered management efforts rather than losses due to impacts. The 24% of total costs ascribed to losses, or damage, exceeded the authors’ expectation. They had thought that the minimal presence of human infrastructure inside protected areas would result in low records of “economic” damages.

The great majority (83%) of reported management costs were reactive, that is, undertaken after the invasion had occurred. In terrestrial environments, there were significantly higher bioinvasion costs inside protected areas than outside (although this varied by continent). However, when considering predicted or modelled costs, the importance was reversed: expected management costs represented only 5% while these “potential” damages were 94%.

Higher expenditures were reported in more developed countries – which have more resources to allocate and are better able to carry out research documenting both damage and effort. 

More than 80% of management costs were shouldered by governmental services and/or official organizations (e.g. conservation agencies, forest services, or associations). The “agriculture” and “public and social welfare” sectors sustained 60% of observed “damage” and 89% of “mixed damage and management” costs respectively. The “environmental” and “public and social welfare” sectors together accounted for 94% of all the “potential” costs (predicted based on models) generated by invasive species in protected areas; 99% of damage costs. With the partial exception of the agricultural sector, the economic sectors that contribute the most to movement to invasive species are spared from carrying the resulting costs.

Lord Howe Island, Australia; threatened by myrtle rust; photo by Robert Whyte, via Flickr

Invasive plants dominated by numbers of published reports – 64% of reports of observed costs, 79% of reports of “potential”. However, both actual and “potential” costs allotted to plant invasions were much lower than for vertebrates and invertebrates. Mammals and insects dominated observed animal costs.

It is often asserted that protected areas are less vulnerable to bioinvasion because of the relative absence of human activity. Moodley et al. suggest the contrary: that protected areas might be more vulnerable to bioinvasion because they often host a larger proportion of native, endemic and threatened species less adapted to anthropogenic disturbances. Of course, no place on Earth is free of anthropogenic influences; this was true even before climate change became an overriding threat. Plenty of U.S. National parks and wilderness areas have suffered invasion by species that are causing significant change (see, for example, here, here, and here).

Despite Best Efforts, Data are Scant and Skewed

Economic data on invasive species in protected areas were available for only a tiny proportion of these sites — 55 out of 266,561 protected areas.

As Moodley et al. state, their study was hampered by several data gaps:

  1. Taxonomic bias – plants are both more frequently studied and managed in protected areas, but their reported observed costs are substantially lower than those of either mammals or insects.
  2. The data relate to economic rather than ecological effects. The costliest species economically might not cause the greatest ecological harm.
  3. Geographical bias – studies are more plentiful in the Americas and Pacific Islands. However, studies from Europe, Africa and South America more often report observed costs. The South African attention to invasive species (see blogs here, here, and here), and economic importance of tourism to the Galápagos Islands exacerbate these data biases.
  4. Methodological bias – although reporting bioinvasion costs has steadily increased, it is still erratic and dominated by “potential” costs = predictions, models or simulations.

I note that, in addition, individual examples of high-cost invasive species are not representative. The highest costs reported pertained to one agricultural pest (mango beetle) and one human health threat (mosquitoes).

Great Smokey Mountains National Park; threatened by mammals (pigs), forest pests, worms, invasive plants … Photo by Domenico Convertini via Flickr

As these weaknesses demonstrate, a significant need remains for increased attention to the economic aspects of bioinvasion – especially since political leaders pay so much greater attention to economics than to other metrics. However, the reported costs – $22.24 billion over 35 years, and growing! – are sufficient in the view of Moodley et al. to support advocating investment of more resources in invasive species management in protected areas, including – or especially – it is not quite clear — preventative measures.

SOURCES

Cuthbert, R.N., C Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P.J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion cost reveals insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May, 2022, 153404

Moodley, D., E. Angulo, R.N. Cuthbert, B. Leung, A. Turbelin, A. Novoa, M. Kourantidou, G. Heringer, P.J. Haubrock, D. Renault, M. Robuchon, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, F. Courchamp, C. Diagne. 2022.  Surprisingly high economic costs of bioinvasions in protected areas. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7

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 www.fadingforests.org

Trees’ Value – High Although Major Benefits Not Addressed

loblolly pine – tree species showing highest value in this study; via Flickr

More scientists are examining the importance of American forests in providing ecosystem services – and the threat to those values raised by non-native pests and other factors. This is a broader perspective than used in the past – and it includes climate change.   also here  

Jeannine Cavender-Bareu and colleagues (full citation at the end of this blog) found that changes in the abundance and composition of US trees have the potential to undermine the benefits and societal values derived from those forests now. They examined threats associated with increasing invasive pests and pathogens, greater frequency of major fires, and climate change. Together, these constitute a complex set of global change drivers – and the impact of each is accelerating.

The authors tried to measure the impact of these forces on forests’ ability to provide five key ecosystem services. Two are “regulating” services—regulation of climate and air quality. The other three are “provisioning” services—production of wood products, food crops, and Christmas trees.

Unfortunately, they could not find sufficient data to analyze five other ecosystem services, which are equally or more important. They include both regulatory and provisioning services: water management, such as erosion control, flood and storm surge regulation; urban heat island regulation and energy savings; providing habitats for species (biodiversity); recreation; or ornamental, spiritual, and aesthetic values.

Cavender-Bareu and colleagues concluded that the value of the five analyzed services provided by 400 tree species across the contiguous United States over the years 2010-2012 is $114 billion per year. The non-market “regulatory” values far exceeds their current commercial value. 

  • Climate regulation via carbon storage in tree biomass provides 51% of this net annual value;
  • Human health improvements linked to trees’ filtering of air pollution provide an additional 37% of the annual net value.
  • Provisioning services, such as wood products, fruit and nut crops, and Christmas trees, provide only 12% of the net annual value. (By my calculation, wood products constituate almost three-quarters of this sum.)

The authors then tried to identify which tree lineages, e.g., taxonomic families, genera, or species, provide the greatest proportion of each of these ecosystem services. They also identified threats to these lineages. Together, this knowledge allows managers to target forestry management practices to the specific lineages within a landscape where ecosystem service are most at risk.

Table 1 in the article ranks 10 tree genera by the aggregate net value they provide: pine, oak, maple, Douglas-fir, hemlock, cherry/almond, spruce, hickories, yellow or tulip poplar, and ash. The table also provides separate dollar values for each of the five benefits.

Two lineages—pines and oaks — provide 42% of the value of these services (annually, pines = $25.4 billion; oaks = $22.3 billion). They note that these high values result from the large number of pine and oak species occupying diverse ecological niches. Oaks have the highest annual values for climate moderation or carbon storage ($10.7 billion) and air quality regulation ($11 billion). Oaks’ air quality regulation value reflects three factors: the genus’ abundance, the trees’ size, and the large numbers planted in cities and suburbs, that is, near human populations affected by pollution. Other than this issue of location, closely related tree species tend to have similar air quality regulation values.

Many lineages provide wood products, but the amounts vary widely among related species. Pines dominate annual net revenues from wood products at $7.4 billion, due in part to their high volume and higher than average price. The most valuable species in the context of this study’s set of ecosystem services are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).

Edible fruits are concentrated in two lineages — family Rosaceae, especially genera Prunus and Malus; and family Rutaceae, genus Citrus. This category demonstrates the impact of disease: annual net returns from citrus products were actually negative during the 2010 – 2012 period due to abnormally low market prices and the prevalence of citrus greening disease in Florida, Arizona and California.

northern red oak – high value for timber & carbon sequestration; photo by dcrjsr via Wikimedia

Trees at Risk

As climate change progresses, the mix of tree species that provide critical ecosystem services will be altered—with unknown consequences. There could be increases in some services but also widely-expected losses in ecosystem benefits and human well-being.

An estimated 81% of tree species are projected to have at least 10% of their biomass exposed to climates outside their current climate envelope, impacting nearly 40% of total tree biomass in the contiguous U.S. An estimated 40% of species are projected to face increasing fire frequency. In both cases, individual species’ vulnerability depends more on where that species grows than on its genetic lineage. This analysis demonstrates a threatening interaction between these two disturbance agents: the species most valuable for carbon storage are also the most at risk from the increasing fire threat.

Known (established) pests threaten 16% of tree species and potentially affect up to 40% of total tree biomass. At greatest risk are the oak and pine genera (due to mountain pine beetle and oak wilt) plus most of the crop species. The authors cite chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease as examples of pests decimating once-dominant tree species — ones provided many services. In contrast to climate and fire risks, genetic relationships explain much of the risk of pest damage because most pests attack individual species, genera, or families.  (There are exceptions – sudden oak death and the Fusarium fungi vectored by invasive shot hole borers attack species across a wide range of families.)

Cavender-Bareu and colleagues conclude that major losses to pest attack of dominant species and lineages that currently provide high-value ecosystem services would undermine forest capacity to provide important benefits—at least for decades. They note that pest threats appear to be increasing partially as a consequence of climate change, demonstrating that multiple threats can interact and exacerbate outcomes. They say policy interventions aimed at slowing pests’ spread will probably be necessary to preserve the ecosystem service of climate and air quality regulation.

The high diversity of tree taxa in U.S. forests might buffer losses of ecosystem service if the most valuable lineages (oaks and pines) are compromised. However, other species will be needed to fill the voids their loss creates. Ensuring this possibility will require intentional management of forests and trees in the face of myriad and simultaneous threats.

The authors also show how tree-provided ecosystem services are distributed across the U.S. depending largely on the locations of forests, tree plantations, and orchards. Climate and air quality regulation occurs everywhere forests grow. Timber production is concentrated in a subset of the regions that also produce high climate regulation and air pollution removal, including the Southeast, Pacific Northwest, Northeast, and Upper Midwest.

The most valuable tree crops are grown on the coasts, often where forests do not grow—e.g., California; and in several Southwestern, Southern, and Eastern states.

Cavender-Bareu and colleagues found that climate change threatens species in all parts of the continent. Wildfires are expected to increase especially in California and the Intermountain West, which they say coincides with high annual storage of carbon. (This finding is opposite from those of Quirion et al. (2021) which pointed to the slow growth of pines in this region as reducing carbon storage potential.)

Cavender-Bareu and colleagues found that pest threats are highest in the Southwest and Southeast. These pests (native and non-native) are predicted to disproportionally affect species that generate high annual net values for climate regulation, air quality regulation, and wood products – e.g., pines and oaks. As noted above, these values are driven by their abundance. They note that mountain pine beetle and oak wilt have not yet reached areas with high wood product production in Northeast and Southeast.

Other studies (see Aukema et al. 2010) and here & here show that the greatest threats from non-native pests are to the Northeast/Midwest, and the Pacific coast – and Hawai`i & here.

Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C. – an urban forest! photo by Bonnachaven

Cavender-Bareu and colleagues’ analysis advances our understanding of the threat several change drivers pose to benefits Americans receive from our forests. However, we must remember that some of the most important ecosystem services were not included because of insufficient data. Missing services:

1) most urban ecosystems. Inclusion of urban trees in the analysis would significantly increase the value of avoided health damage due to tree-based removal of air pollution. Urban trees also help regulate climate change (Nowak et al. estimate 643 M Mg of carbon are stored in urban areas, at a value of $2.31 billion annually).

2) many other regulating ecosystem services, such as erosion control, flood regulation, storm surge regulation, urban heat island regulation, energy savings due to shade, and species habitat / biodiversity.

3) recreation, ornamental, spiritual, and aesthetic values.

A complete accounting would also require estimates of the damage trees cause and the cost of their maintenance. For example, the full cost of irrigating almond trees; allergies and irritations due to tree pollen and sap; injuries to people and property caused by falling trees and limbs; trees’ role in spreading fires; trees’ contribution to volatile organic compounds (a pollutant).

The estimated annual values of the climate and air quality regulation have large uncertainty. These arise from uncertainty re: the social cost of carbon, the value of a statistical life, and uncertainty in the air pollution dose–mortality response function. The estimated annual values of the provisioning services are more precise because they are calculated from the market price for the per unit value of tree crops, wood products, and Christmas trees, as well as reliable data on production volume.

SOURCES

Aukema, J.E., D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle, A.M. Liebhold, K. Britton, & S.J. Frankel. 2010. Historical Accumulation of Nonindigenous Forest Pests in the Continental United States. Bioscience. December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11

Cavender-Bareu, J.M., E. Nelson, J.E. Meireles, J.R. Lasky, D.A. Miteva, D.J.Nowak, W.D. Pearse, M.R. Helmus, A.E. Zanne, W.F. Fagan, C. Mihiar, N.Z. Muller, N.J.B. Kraft, S. Polasky. 2022. The hidden value of trees — Quantifying the ecosystem services of tree lineages and their major threats across the contiguous. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation April 5, 2022.  

Quirion BR, Domke GM, Walters BF, Lovett GM, Fargione JE, Greenwood L, Serbesoff-King K, Randall JM & Fei S (2021) Insect and Disease Disturbances Correlate With Reduced Carbon Sequestration in Forests of the Contiguous United States. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:716582.  Volume 4 Article 716582  doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.716582