Scott Schlarbaum collecting butternuts; photo by F.T. Campbell
I have blogged several times about the need to enhance efforts to breed trees resistant to the most damaging of the hundreds of introduced insects and pathogens. Others concur – see reports by the National Academy of Sciences in 2018; several publications by USFS scientists Richard Sniezko and Jennifer Koch; a workshop hosted by Purdue w/ USFS support, the creation and efforts of several consortia – Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation, Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative, Forest Restoration Alliance …
Also, Richard J. A. Buggs, of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, recently summarized barriers to tree breeding. It was published as an especially thoughtful editorial in Plants People Planet in anticipation of the International Year of Plant Health in 2020 (see reference at the end of this blog). That issue included several related articles, also noted below.
R.J.A. Buggs’ Perspective on Tree Breeding
Buggs says the need for tree resistance research is greater than ever before. First, damage caused by introduced insects and pathogen is rising. Plus, we now recognize trees’ importance in capturing atmospheric carbon. He sees encouraging signs of growing public awareness of both factors. Also, he thinks citizen science might reduce the cost of some activities … although he doesn’t name which they are.
Dr. Buggs lists six major hindrances to breeding programs, including some aspects that I, at least, have not considered:
1) Trees’ size and long generation times mean research is necessarily slow. One result is it is hard to formulate research proposals that match funding cycles. This in turn means a dependence on long-term institutional commitment from well-funded organizations, and such institutions are rare.
I point out that the U.S. government – especially the USFS – is one such institution. Unfortunately, it has so far been reluctant to take commit major resources to breeding pest-resistant trees. Every year I urge you to lobby Congress on appropriations for the agency. In this context, do you understand that while the USFS Research budget receives approximately $300 million each year, less than $5 million of that total is allocated to researching invasive species (of all taxa)? Some gaps are filled by projects funded by the Forest Health Program. You will have a new opportunity to lobby Congress for Fiscal Year 2023 in the spring!
2) On the other hand, reliance on long-term institutional funding shelters projects from multidisciplinary peer-review that could introduce improved technology or methods. This lack of peer review also contributes to a perception among other scientists that tree resistance research is a scientific backwater.
3) Similarly, studies requiring a long time horizon don’t fit publication schedules. Again, the result is that the findings often appear only in institutional reports or conference proceedings. This means they are hard to find and often lack external peer review at not only the proposal stage but also before publication.
4) The long decades without clear success in dealing with Dutch elm disease (but see recent encouraging developments here) and chestnut blight (see The American Chestnut Foundation here) gave the impression that resistance breeding of forest trees is impossible. Buggs says pest resistance problems are easier to tackle for other trees.
TACF American chestnut; photo by F.T. Campbell
5) Those considering what efforts to fund might demand complete resistance to the pest. This goal is not only unrealistic – it is often unnecessary. Often lower levels of resistance or tolerance can result in trees that can be self-sustaining. Dr. Sneizko concurs; see his article appearing in this issue.
6) Forest stakeholders differ over the goal of developing resistant trees. Some think any human intervention is unwarranted in wilderness areas. Some want a tree as similar as possible to pre-epidemic trees. Others want a tree that produces more timber.
Other Significant Articles
A second article in the same issue of Plants People Planet (Federman and Zankowski) discusses the USDA’s commitment to new approaches in tree resistance research.
I found a third article that discusses British approaches to mitigating tree pests to be more informative than Federman and Zankowski – although somewhat worrying. Spence, Hill and Morris praise the U.K.’s Plant Health Risk Register, which they say has enhanced vigilance on possible new pest introductions. However, the authors describe resistance breeding as a strategy to be considered “when a pest has established such that a tree population is unable to recover, and where a genetic basis for resistance is demonstrable in a proportion of the tree population.” Dr. Sneizko, and others – and I! – call for initiating exploration of the potential for resistance breeding much earlier in an invasion.
A fourth article – by Richard Sniezko and colleagues — describes encouraging levels of partial resistance to white pine blister rust in two western white pines and evidence for both qualitative and quantitative resistance to Phytophtohora lateralis in Port-Orford Cedar.
Port-Orford test seedlings; photo courtesy of Richard Sniezko
A fifth – by Showalter et al. — reports encouraging levels of resistance to both emerald ash borer DMF and ash dieback in European ash. The authors conclude that a breeding program might be a viable solution to both pests.
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
Sean Connery as Hotspur, Shakespeare Henry IV Part I (BBC, “Age of Kings”)
[Starlings – one of the agricultural pests that prompted adoption of the Lacey Act – were introduced to the U.S. because they were mentioned by Shakespeare: Hotspur says “Nay, I’ll have a starling shall be taught to speak nothing but ‘Mortimer,’ and give it him, to keep his anger still in motion.”]
Americans are increasingly aware of the damage caused by invasive species. The law that ostensibly protects our environment from most potentially invasive animals is the Lacey Act – more specifically, the “injurious wildlife” sections of the law, now known as 18 U.S.C. 42 or title 18.
When it was adopted 120 years ago, the Lacey Act was not intended to protect the environment from the full range of possible animal bioinvaders. While Congress amended it several times in the first 60 years of its existence, the law still has many gaps that impede its usefulness for that purpose.
Rep. John F. Lacey via Wikimedia Commons
When first adopted in 1900, the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act prohibited importation only of wild mammals and birds that posed a threat to agriculture and horticulture. The statute was quite broad in that it prohibited importation of any wild bird or mammal without a permit; there was no requirement that a species be designated as “injurious” to be regulated. The Act was then administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [For a detailed discussion of the Lacey Act’s changing provisions, see Jewell 2020; full reference at the end of this blog.]
In 1960 the Act was amended to expand the list of taxa eligible for designation as “injurious” to include fishes, mollusks, crustaceans, reptiles, and amphibians. Congress also expanded the justifications for listing a species as injurious. It added harm to people, to forestry, or to wildlife or US wildlife resources to the law’s original concerns for agriculture and horticulture. This second change brought the purposes of the Lacey Act closer to the mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – which had assumed responsibility for implementing the Act in 1939.
Unfortunately, Congress simultaneously took other action that greatly weakened USFWS’ ability to use the Act to protect the environment from introduced animals. First, it dropped the requirement that the Secretary approve, with a permit, any importation of a wild bird or mammal.
Second, the 1960 amendment clouded the originally clear prohibition of movement of listed species across state lines. The new language prohibits “any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States …”
For the next 57 years, the USFWS and Congress sometimes interpreted that language as continuing to prohibit transport between the states within the continental United States. However, this situation could not last. In 2017, acting in a case that had challenged the 2012 listing of several nonnative constrictor snakes as “injurious,” the D.C. Circuit court found that the plain language of §18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1) does not prohibit the transportation of injurious wildlife between states within the continental United States. So now, transportation of injurious wildlife among the continental states is not prohibited by the statute in most circumstances.
Burmese python; photo by R. Cammauf, Everglades National Park via Flickr
The Law’s Strengths
Some aspects of the law have been strengths. Since the term “injurious” has never been defined, the USFWS has been able to use its discretion to list species that are not necessarily invasive themselves but that might cause harm in some other way. For example, the salmon family and 20 genera of salamanders have been listed because they are vectors of harmful wildlife pathogens.
In addition, USFWS has listed entire genera or families of organisms – as long as each species within the taxon has been shown to possess the “injurious” trait(s). This flexibility has probably helped listings aimed at precluding importers from switching from the species that initially raised concerns to related species.
The Law’s Inherent Weaknesses
1) Legal shortfalls
Due to the confusion created by the 1960 amendment, the USFWS now lacks authority to prohibit interstate transport of species listed as “injurious”. This gap undermines the law’s efficacy in controlling spread of listed species once they are established within the U.S.
Also, the law does not prohibit other human actions that pertain to the presence and spread of species listed as “injurious,” e.g., sale, possession, or intra-state transport. Addressing these other aspects of invasive species policy was left to other players, such as states or resource managers.
2) Funding shortfall
Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress has ever provided specific funding for implementation of the Lacey Act. Only one USFWS staffer has the job of listing species under the Act. This situation might change now, since the American Rescue Plan Act adopted in spring 2021 does provide funding over the next five years for listing species that can vector pathogens harmful to people.
Staff’s Evaluation of Its Implementation of the Lacey Act
Since USFWS took over implementation of the Lacey Act in 1939, 36 taxonomic groups have been added to the “injurious wildlife” list. Seven of these listings comprise multiple species – either as genera or families.
Two mammals have been listed since the late 1960s – brushtail possum in 2002 and raccoon dog in 1983. Recent listings have strongly focused on aquatic organisms. This is because the staff is housed in the Fish and Aquatic Conservation program and their expertise is in these species.
silver carp; photo by University of Illinois
Listing activity appeared to be building in the second decade of the 21st Century, with multi-species listings of fish, snakes, and salamanders between 2012 and 2016. However, there has been only one listing action since 2016 – and that was by an act of Congress (listing of the quagga mussel).
In two peer reviewed papers, the USFWS’ Jewell and Fuller provide a history of the Lacey Act’s injurious wildlife title and analyze the effects of listing of 307 species (those listed since 1952). They conclude that 98% of the species listings were “effective” because the listed species either had not been introduced subsequent to listing [288 species; 94% of the total number of listed species] or had not spread to additional states [12 species, 4% of the total]. Another way to calculate the latter figure is to say that 63% of all established species have remained within the state(s) where they were established at the time of listing. Only three species have been spread to additional states by human actions. In these cases, Jewell and Fuller considered the Lacey Act measures to be “ineffective”. For further details on the Jewell and Fuller evaluations of listing efficacy, see their article – full citation given at the end of this blog.
Jewell and Fuller do not evaluate the impacts of animal species introduced to the U.S. after 1960 that have never been listed under the Lacey Act, or speculate about whether listing those species might have minimized the risk of their introduction.
Jewell and Fuller consider listing of species not yet established in the U.S. to be most effective for two reasons. First, listing minimizes the probability that the species will be imported intentionally or unintentionally. Second, listing provides states with risk analyses and other information on which to rely in adopting their own restrictions, including possible prohibitions on sale or possession.
Jewell and Fuller also argue that even in the absence of legal authority to regulate interstate transport of listed species among the continental states, it is still worthwhile to list species that are already established in the U.S. They give six reasons. I summarize those reasons (placing them in my order, not Jewell and Fuller’s):
1) Listing can protect the islands of Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean and Pacific territories. All are extremely vulnerable to invasive species.
2) If a species shares the traits of injuriousness with other species, particularly those in the same genus or family, then including the already-invasive species demonstrates why the related species should also be listed.
3) Many imported animals carry parasites and pathogens harmful to native species, and stopping the continued importation can reduce those threats that cause disease.
4) Prohibiting further importation of the invasive species can prevent individuals from being introduced to new areas where the species would not otherwise have arrived and can reduce propagule pressure that could introduce hardier individuals.
5) Listing can provide states and other jurisdictions with the technical information they need to pursue additional restrictions not federally authorized under 18 U.S.C. 42, such as transport into a state, possession, and sale.
6) Listing reduces propagule pressure and might enhance the efficacy of any eradication or control measures.
How to Improve the Lacey Act
1) Amend the Lacey Act to restore authority to regulate interstate movement of listed species – including among the continental states and emergency listing authority. Also establish a more streamlined listing process.
2) Strengthen implementation of the law by providing a specific, adequate appropriation to hire additional staff. Utilize the enhanced resources to assess species proactively using risk assessment tools.
It is not yet clear whether the Biden Administration will initiate a more active listing process, especially beyond the zoonotic disease vectors that are the subject of the American Rescue Plan Act.
Note: The “injurious wildlife” section of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, or title 18) is separate from another part of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378) that is has always been more widely known. This provision regulates wildlife trafficking across State lines. It was later broadened to include plants and trafficking of wildlife and plants from foreign countries.
SOURCES
Jewell S.D. (2020) A century of injurious wildlife listing under the Lacey Act: a history. Management of Biological Invasions. Volume 11, Issue 3: 356–371, https://doi.org/10. 3391/mbi.2020.11.3.01 https://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2020/3/MBI_2020_Jewell.pdf
Alternative view – that Lacey Act implementation has failed to protect the U.S. – presented by the following authors:
Fowler, A.J., D.M. Lodge and J. Hsia. 2007. Failure of the Lacey Act to protect US ecosystems against animal invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
Springborn, M. C.M. Romagosa and R.P. Keller. 2011. The value of nonindigenous species risk assessment in international trade. Ecological Economics
Jenkins, P.T. 2012. Invasive animals and wildlife pathogens in the United States: the economic case for more risk assessments and regulation. Biological Invasions
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.
lodgepole pines killed by mountain pine beetle in British Columbia; photo courtesy of Wikipedia
Natural systems, especially forests, could provide as much as 37% of the near-term mitigation necessary to meet Paris global climate goals. In the US, conservation, restoration, and improved land management could provide carbon sequestration equivalent to an estimated 21% of current net annual emissions.
However, the current U.S. forest carbon sink, which includes soils and standing and downed wood as well as live trees, might be in jeopardy due to increasing levels of disturbance, conversion, and/or declining sequestration rates in old growth stands.
Insects and plant diseases are one such disturbance agent. Acting alone or in combination with other forest stressors, they can damage or kill large numbers of trees in short periods of time, thereby reducing carbon sequestration and increasing emissions of stored carbon through decomposition of wood in dead or injured trees.
Historically, native and introduced insects and diseases have impacted an estimated 15% of the total U.S. forest cover annually. This impact is likely to increase. One study (Feiet al., 2019) found that an estimated 41% of the live forest biomass in the contiguous U.S. could be impacted by the 15 most damaging introduced pests already established in the U.S. Continuing introductions of new pests and exacerbated effects of native pests associated with climate change portend worsening losses of live trees. These rising impact of pests, combined with more frequent and severe fires and other forest disturbances, are likely to negate efforts to improve forests’ carbon sequestration capacity.
Sources of information about introduced pests’ impacts is available from, inter alia Campbell and Schlarbaum Fading Forests II and III, Lovett et al 2016, Poland et al. 2021, many blogs on this site, and pests’ profiles posed here under “invasive species” tab. Chapter 4 of Poland et al. (2021) provides a summary of what is known about interactions between invasive species and climate change – both climate impacts on bioinvaders and bioinvaders’ effect on carbon sequestration.
The United States and other major polluting countries have certain advantages. Their strong economies have the scientific and financial resources needed to implement effective invasive species prevention and forest management strategies. At the same time, many of them receive the most new forest pests – because they are major importers. These introduced pests pose the most serious and urgent near-term ecological threat to their forests and all the ecosystem services forests provide.
So, reducing insect and disease impacts to forests can simultaneously serve several goals—carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and protecting the myriad economic and societal benefits of forests. See the recent IUCN report on threatened tree species.
A Major New Study
A new study by Quirion et al. (2021) takes another step in quantifying the threat to U.S. forests’ ability to sequester carbon by analyzing data from National Forest Inventory plots. Unfortunately, the re-measurement data for the period 2001 – 2019 are not available in the NFI for the Rocky Mountain states, which represents a critical data gap in the NFI program. This gap might not have had a significant impact on the national findings, however, because while the insect damage level (measured by an earlier inventory round) was quite severe in the Rocky Mountain States, the relatively slow growth of trees in that region means carbon sequestration rates are low.
Forest stand productivity – and carbon sequestration — will typically decline immediately after pest outbreaks, then recover or even increase beyond pre-outbreak levels depending on the productivity and maximum achieved biomass of replacement plant species and related soil characteristics. However, when prevalence of the disturbance increases, by, for example, more frequent pest outbreaks, carbon stocks in standing trees and sequestration rates can be reduced for extended periods.
Findings
Nationally, insects and diseases have decreased carbon sequestration by live trees on forest land by 12.83 teragrams carbon per year. This equals ~ 9% of the contiguous states’ total annual forest carbon sequestration and equivalent to the CO2 emissions from over 10 million passenger vehicles driven for one year.
This estimate includes the impacts of both native and introduced insects and diseases, because the NFI database does not distinguish between them.
Insect-caused mortality had a larger impact than disease-caused mortality (see below). Forest plots recently impacted by insect disturbance sequestered on average 69% less carbon in live trees than plots with no recent disturbance. Plots recently impacted by disease disturbance sequestered on average 28% less carbon in live trees than plots with no recent disturbance.
Ecoprovinces in which the greatest annual reductions in live tree carbon sequestration due to pests were the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe, Cascade Mixed Forest, Midwest Broadleaf Forest, and Laurentian Mixed Forest. (Ecoprovinces are outlined – but not named – in Quirion et al. 2021; more complete information is provided in the supplementary material.)
If this study had been carried out in the 1920’s, when chestnut blight and white pine blister rust were spreading across vast areas and killing large trees, the impact of diseases would have been much higher. Today, the most widespread impacts of diseases are on either small trees (e.g., redbay succumbing to laurel wilt) or slow-growing, high-elevation trees (e.g., whitebark and limber pine to white pine blister rust). As long as no equivalents of those earlier diseases are introduced, insects will probably continue to have the larger impacts.
western white pine killed by blister rust; photo from National Archives
Quirion et al. 2021 note that their estimates should be considered conservative. The USFS’s inventory records only major disturbances. That is, when mortality or damage is equal to or exceeds 25% of trees or 50% of an individual tree species’ count on an area of at least 0.4 ha. This criterion largely excludes less severe pest disturbances, including those from which trees recover but which might have temporary negative effects on carbon sequestration.
The study’s authors note that their work has important limitations. The dearth of data from the Rocky Mountain states is one. Other factors not considered include transfers of carbon from live biomass to dead organic matter, soils, and salvaged or preemptively harvested wood products. As trees die from pests or diseases, their carbon becomes dead wood and decays slowly, producing a lag in the carbon emissions to the atmosphere. A small fraction of the carbon in dead wood might be incorporated into soil organic matter, further delaying the emissions. A full accounting of the carbon consequences of pests and diseases would require assessment of these lags, probably through a modeling study.
affects of mountan pine beetle on lodgepole pine in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado photo from Wikimedia
Actions to Maintain Carbon Sequestration
Quirion et al. (2021) outline several actions that would help protect the ability of America’s forests to sequester carbon. These suggestions address both native and introduced pests, since both contribute to the threatened reduction in capacity.
Concerning native pests, the authors call for improved forest management, but warn that measures must be tailored to species and environmental context.
Concerning introduced insects and pathogens, Quirion et al. (2021) call for strengthening international trade policies and phytosanitary standards, as well as their enforcement. The focus should be on the principal pathways: wood packaging (click on “wood packaging” category for on this blog site) and imported plants (click on “plants as vectors” category for on this blog site). Specific steps to reduce the rate of introduction of wood-boring insects include enforcement to increase compliance with the international treatment standard (ISPM#15), requiring trade partners – especially those which have repeatedly shipped infested packaging – to switch to packaging made from alternative materials. Introductions via the plant trade could be reduced by requiring foreign shippers to employ integrated management and critical control point systems (per criteria set by the U.S.) and using emergency powers (e.g., NAPPRA) to further restrict imports of the plants associated with the highest pest risk, especially plant species that are congeneric with native woody plants in North America. See Lovett et al 2016; Fading Forests II & III
As backup, since even the most stringent prevention and enforcement will not eliminate all risk, the authors urge increased funding for and research into improved inspection, early detection of new outbreaks, and strategic rapid response to newly detected incursions.
To reduce impacts of pests established on the continent – both recently and years ago – they recommend increasing and stabilizing dedicated funding for classical biocontrol, research into technologies such as sterile-insect release and gene drive, and host resistance breeding.
Thinning is useful in reducing damage by native bark beetles to conifers. However, it has not been successful in controlling introduced pests for which trees do not have an evolved resistance. Indeed, preemptive harvesting of susceptible species can harm forest ecosystems directly through impacts of the harvesting operation and indirectly as individual trees that may exhibit resistance are removed, reducing the species’ ability to develop resistance over time.
Further research is needed to clarify several more issues, including whether introduced pests’ impacts are additive to, or interact with, those of native species and/or other forest stressors.
SOURCE
Quirion BR, Domke GM, Walters BF, Lovett GM, Fargione JE, Greenwood L, Serbesoff-King K, Randall JM & Fei S (2021) P&P Disturbances Correlate With Reduced Carbon Sequestration in Forests of the Contiguous US. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:716582. [Volume 4 | Article 716582] doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.716582
SOURCES of additional information
Campbell, F.T. and S.E. Schlarbaum. Fading Forest reports at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Lovett, G.M., M. Weiss, A.M. Liebhold, T.P. Holmes, B. Leung, K.F. Lambert, D.A. Orwig, F.T. Campbell, J. Rosenthal, D.G. McCullough, R. Wildova, M.P. Ayres, C.D. Canham, D.R. Foster, S.L. Ladeau, and T. Weldy. 2016. Nonnative forest insects and pathogens in the United States: Impacts and policy options. Ecological Applications, 26(5), 2016, pp. 1437-1455
Poland, T.M., Patel-Weynand, T., Finch, D., Miniat, C. F., and Lopez, V. (Eds) (2019), Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector. Springer Verlag. Available for download at no cost at https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/61982
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
Kew Gardens U.K., home to Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Wikipedia
A massive international effort has completed a “Global Tree Assessment: State of Earth’s Trees”. This is the result of five years’ effort; it aims at a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status of all the Earth’s trees. As a result of their work, the authors issue a call to action and include specific recommendations.
The leads were the Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) and International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC) Global Tree Specialist Group. They were assisted by about 60 cooperating institutions and more than 500 individual experts. The Morton Arboretum was a major U.S. contributor. Here, my focus is on the global assessment. An accompanying blog contains my analysis of reports on the Morton Arboretum report for the U.S.
The Global Tree Assessment is the largest initiative in the history of the IUCN Red List process. (This process is described in Box 3 of the report, on p. 12; and on p. 40.) As of the end of 2020, IUCN Red List assessments evaluated 28,463 tree species, representing half of all known tree species. Organizers hope to complete comprehensive conservation assessments of all tree species for inclusion on the IUCN Red List by 2023. Other sources utilized included draft Red List profiles and national-level assessments of those species that are found in only one country.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Using these sources, the Global Tree Assessment evaluated 58,497 tree species worldwide. The study determined that 30% are threatened with extinction. This number could change significantly if a large proportion of the 7,700 species (13.2%) recorded as “Data Deficient” turn out to be at risk. At least 142 species are recorded as already extinct in the wild. Two-fifths (41.5%) are considered to be not at risk. Detailed species’ evaluations are provided at GlobalTreeSearch or GlobalTree Portal.
Brazilian forest converted to cattle pasture
The principal threats to trees globally are forest clearance and other forms of habitat loss (at least 65% of species) and direct exploitation for timber and other products (27% or more). The spread of non-native pests is said to affect 5% of the species.Climate change is having a measurable impact on 4% of the species and is expected to increase. (The situation in the United States differs significantly. Overexploitation plays almost no role and on-going habitat loss is important for only a few of the at-risk species.)
The authors decry the lack of attention, historically, to tree endangerment given trees’ ecological, cultural and economic importance. They hope that increased attention to the biodiversity crisis — an estimated 1 million animal and plant species threatened with extinction — and trees’ importance as carbon sinks will lead to increased conservation of trees and forests. They warn, however, that tree-planting programs must put the right species in the right place, including utilizing species that are under threat. In other words, tree planting practices need to change. They note that a community of botanists and conservationists is ready to assist.
Centers of tree species diversity – and of species under threat – are in Central and South America, followed by the other tropical regions of Southeast Asia and Africa. Fifty-eight percent of tree species are single country endemics. The highest proportion of endemism is found in New Zealand, Madagascar and New Caledonia. The region with the highest proportion of native tree species under threat is tropical Africa, especially Madagascar. The highest numbers of species “Not Evaluated” or “Data Deficient” are in IndoMalaya (tropical Asia) and Oceania. In those regions, about a third of species fall in one of those categories.
forest in Central America
The assessment authors fear ecosystem collapse caused by major, large-scale disturbance events. Examples are recent unprecedented fires in California, southern Australia, Indonesia, and the Amazon (although they don’t mention Siberia). They also note mass mortality events over large areas of forest caused by other factors, including drought and heat stress and the increased incidence of pests. These events have led to a worrying decline of dominant tree species currently evaluated as “Least Concern.” Citing a 2010 report, they list as examples spruce in Alaska, lodgepole pine in British Columbia, aspen in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and Colorado pinon pine (Pinus edulis) in the American southwest.
The authors emphasize the importance of preventing extinction of monotypic tree families. Such events would represent a disproportionate loss of unique evolutionary history, biological diversity, and potential for future evolution. Of the 257 plant families that include trees, 12 are monotypic. They are scattered around the tropics and former Gondwanaland; none is found in the Neo- or Paleoarctic regions. While extinctions to date have rarely affected plants above the rank of genus, the global assessment authors worry that the on-going sixth extinction wave might result in extinctions at the genus or family level.
In this context, the assessment made a particular effort to evaluate the status of species representing the survival of Gondwanian Rainforest lineages. They found that 29% of these tree species are threatened with extinction. Two case studies focus on Australia. They mention habitat conversion but not two non-native pathogens widespread in Australia, Phytophthora cinnamomi andAustropucciniapsidii.
formerly common, now endangered, Australian tree Rhodamnia rubescens, infected by Austropuccinia psidii; photo courtesy of Flickr
The proportion of total tree diversity designated as threatened is highest on island nations, e.g., 69% of the trees on St. Helena, 59% of the trees on Madagascar, 57% of the trees on Mauritius. Hawai`i is not treated separately from the United States as a whole. According to Megan Barstow of BGCI (pers. comm.), the just updated IUCN Red List includes 214 threatened tree species in Hawai`i.
[For the U.S. overall, the IUCN reports 1,424 tree species, of which 342 (24%) are considered threatened. In the companion U.S. assessment, the Morton Arboretum and collaborators found that 11% of 841 continental U.S. tree species are threatened.]
MAIN THREATS TO TREES
Habitat loss
Over the past 300 years, global forest area has decreased by about 40%. Conversion of land for crops and pasture continues to threaten more tree species than any other known threat. Additional losses are caused by conversion for urban and industrial development and transport corridors, and by changes in fire regimes. In total, these factors cumulatively threaten 78% of all tree species, 84% if one includes conversion to wood plantations.
Caribbean mahogany (Swietenia mahogani); photo by Miguel Vieria
Forest Exploitation
Exploitation, especially for timber, is the second greatest threat globally, affecting 27% of tree species (more than 7,400 tree species). The report focuses on centuries of harvest of valuable tropical timbers and exploitation for fuelwood, with an emphasis on Madagascar, where nearly half of all tree species (117 out of 244 tree species) are threatened.
Pests and diseases
Tree species are impacted by a wide range of pests and diseases that are spread by natural and artificial causes. Invasive and other problematic species are recorded as threats for 1,356 tree species (5%) recorded on the IUCN Red List. This figure might be low because some of the information is outdated (see my discussion of American beech in the companion blog about the North American report, here.) Also, climate change is altering the survival opportunities for many pests and diseases in new environments. The example given is the ash genus (Fraxinus), under attack by not only the emerald ash borer in North America and now Russia and Eastern Europe but also the disease Ash Dieback across Europe. The report refers readers to the International Plant Sentinel Network for early warning system of new and emerging pest and pathogen risks, as well as help in coordinating responses.
black ash (Fraxinus nigra) swamp; Flickr
Climate Change
Climate change is impacting all forest ecosystems and is emerging as a significant recorded threat to individual tree species. In the IUCN Red List assessments, climate change and severe weather is recorded as a threat in 1,080 (4%) cases. Trees of coastal, boreal and montane ecosystems are disproportionately impacted. The authors note that the actual impact of climate change is probably more widespread, as it is also impacting fire regimes and the survival, spread, and virulence of pests.
CURRENT CONSERVATION EFFORTS
In Protected areas
Currently, 15.4% of the global terrestrial surface has formal protection status. The IUCN study authors recognize in situ conservation of trees through protection of existing natural habitats as the best method for conserving tree diversity. It is therefore encouraging that at least 64% of all tree species are included in at least one protected area. However, representation is higher for species that are not threatened – 85% are represented in a conservation area while only 56% of threatened trees species are. Nor does the report assess the effectiveness of protection afforded by the various in situ sites. The authors express hope that the parallel IUCN Red List of Ecosystems will contribute to understanding of the efficacy of conservation efforts targetting forests.
The Global Trees Campaign is a joint initiative of Fauna & Flora International (FFI) and BGCI. Since 1999 the campaign has worked to conserve more than 400 threatened tree species in more than 50 countries. The current focus is on six priority taxa = Acer, Dipterocarps, Magnolia, Nothofagus, Oak, and Rhododendron.
Rhododendron in Cook Forest State Park, PA; photo by F.T. Campbell
In Botanic gardens and seed banks
Especially for species under threat, conservation outside their native habitat – ex situ conservation – is an essential additional component. Currently 30% of tree species are recorded as present in at least one botanic garden or seed bank. Again, representation is higher for species that are not threatened – 45% are represented compared to only 21% of threatened tree species. For 41 species, ex situ conservation provides the only hope of survival, since they are extinct in the wild.
AN URGENT CALL FOR ACTION
The authors and collaborators who prepared the Global Tree Assessment hope that this report will help prompt action and better coordination of priorities and resources to better ensure that all tree species are supported by in situ conservation sites and by appropriate management plans. They state several times the importance of restoration plantings relying on native species. The purpose of plantings needs to include conservation of biological diversity, not just accumulation of carbon credits. The Ecological Restoration Alliance of Botanic Gardens (https://www.erabg.org/) is demonstrating that forest restoration can benefit biodiversity conservation. In many cases, propagation methods need to be developed. Also, projects must include aftercare and monitoring to ensure the survival of planted seedlings.
The IUCN assessment notes that ex situ conservation is an important backup. Education, capacity-building and awareness-raising are needed to equip, support, and empower local communities and other partners with the knowledge and skills to help conserve threatened trees.
Policy
The report say it does not address policy and legislation – a gap that fortunately is not quite true. The report both summarizes pertinent international agreements but also provides specific recommendations.
The international agreements that pertain to tree and forest conservation include:
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and several specific programs: the Forestry Programme, Protected Area Programme and Sustainable Use Programme.
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), which is now developing post-2020 targets.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and countries’ implementing pledges to conserve carbon sinks, e.g., REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation)
United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030
Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Genetic Resources
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which currently protects 560 tree species, including 308 of the most threatened timbers
The report also mentions the voluntary New York Declaration on Forests, under which more than 200 entities – including governments, businesses, and Indigenous communities — have committed to eliminating deforestation from their supply chains. The supply chains touched on include those for major agricultural commodities, production of which is one of the greatest threat to trees.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Strengthen tree conservation action globally through the formation of a new coalition that brings together existing resources and expertise, and applies lessons from the Global Trees Campaign to radically scale up tree conservation.
2. Use information in the GlobalTree Portal on the conservation status of individual tree species and current conservation action to plan additional action at local, national, and international levels, and for priority taxonomic groups. Build on the Portal by strengthening research on “Data Deficient” tree species, and collating additional information threatened species to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure conservation action is directed where it is needed most.
3. Ensure effective conservation of threatened trees within the protected area network by strengthening local knowledge, monitoring populations of threatened species and, where necessary, increasing enforcement of controls on illegal or non-sustainable harvesting of valuable species. Extend protected area coverage for threatened tree species and species assemblages that are currently not well-represented in protected areas.
4. Ensure that all globally threatened tree species are conserved in well-managed and genetically representative ex situ living and seed bank collections, with associated education and restoration programs.
5. Align work with the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030, engaging local communities, government forestry agencies, the business community, and other interested parties to ensure that the most appropriate tree species, including those that are threatened, are used in tree planting and restoration programs.
6. Improve data collection for national inventory and monitoring systems and use this information to reduce deforestation in areas of high tree diversity in association with REDD+ and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
7. Increase the availability of government, private and corporate funding for threatened tree species, and ensure that funding is directed to species and sites that are in greatest need of conservation.
SOURCE
Global Tree Assessment State of Earth’s Trees September 2021 Botanic Gardens Conservation International available here
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
habitat of the Florida torreya tree; photo via Creative Commons
In August, the Morton Arboretum announced completion of a series of reports on the conservation status of major tree genera native to the continental United States. It is available here. The series of reports provides individual studies on Carya, Fagus, Gymnocladus, Juglans, Pinus, Taxus, and selected Lauraceae (Lindera, Persea, Sassafras). (Links to the individual reports are provided at the principal link above.)
The project was funded by the USDA Forest Service and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, The Morton Arboretum and Botanic Gardens Conservation International U.S.
Each report provides a summary of the ecology, distribution, and threats to species in the genus, plus levels of ex situ conservation efforts. The authors hope that the data in these reports will aid in setting conservation priorities and coordinating activities among stakeholders. The aim is to further conservation of U.S. keystone trees.
These reports are part of the overall “Global Tree Assessment: State of Earth’s Trees” compiled under the auspices of Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) and IUCN SSC Global Tree Specialist Group. I discuss the global assessment in a separate blog to which I will link. The global report evaluates species’ status according to both the International Union of Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List and NatureServe. The process used is explained in each both the international and U.S. reports. For the U.S. overall, the global assessment identifies 1,424 species of tree, of which 342 (24%) are considered threatened. Hawai`i specifically is home to 241 endangered tree species (Megan Barstow, BGCI Conservation Officer, pers. comm.). See my blogs about threats to Hawaiian trees.
Quercus lobata (valley oak) at Jack London State Park, California
Like the global assessment, these individual studies of nine genera–carried out by the Morton Arboretum–are a monumental accomplishment. They vary in size and format. The report on oaks was completed first and is the most comprehensive. It is 220 pages, incorporating individual reports on 28 species of concern. The report on pines is 40 pages. It contains summary information and tables on all 37 pine species native to the United States, but lacks write-ups on individual species. The report on Lauracae is 25 pages; it evaluates the threat to five species in three genera from laurel wilt disease. The report on walnuts is 23 pages. It includes brief descriptions of six individual species, including butternut. The report on hickories (Carya spp.) is 20 pages. It provides brief description of 11 species. The report on yews is 18 pages. It covers three species. The report on Fagus addresses the single species in the genus, American beech. It is 17 pages. The shortest report is on another single species, Kentucky coffeetree; it is 15 pages.
Coverage of Threats from Non-Native Insects and Diseases in the Morton Arboretum Reports
In keeping with my focus, I concentrated my review of these nine reports on their handling of threats from non-native insects and pathogens. Six of the reports make some reference to pests – although the discussion is not always adequate, in my view. There are puzzling failures to mention some pathogens.
Genera subject to minimal threats from pests (native or non-native) include the monotypic Kentucky coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioicus), whichis considered by the IUCN to be Vulnerable due habitat fragmentation, rarity on the landscape, and population decline.
A second such genus is Carya spp., the hickories. The entire genus is assessed by the IUCN as of Least Concern. The Morton study ranked two species, C. floridana and C. myristiciformis, as of conservation concern.
Three evaluators – the IUCN, the Morton Arboretum, and Potter et al. (2019) – agree that one of the three U.S. yew species, Florida torreya (Taxus floridana or Torreya taxifolia), is Critically Endangered because of its extremely small range, low population, and deer predation. Indeed, Potter et al. (2019) ranked Florida torreya as first priority of all forest trees in the continental United States for conservation efforts. However, the Morton Arboretum analysis makes no mention of the canker disease reported by, among others, the U.S. Forest Service.
A third of the 28 oak (Quercus spp.) species considered to be of conservation concern per the Morton study criteria are reported to be threatened by non-native pests. Pest threats to oak species not considered to be of conservation concerned were not evaluated in the report.
The Morton report records 37 pine species (Pinus spp.) as native to the U.S. Native and introduced insects and pathogens are a threat to many, especially in the West.
Two reports – those on the Lauraceae and beech – focus almost exclusively on threats from non-native pests. The report on walnuts (Juglans spp.) divides its attention between non-native pests and habitat conversion issues. This approach comes into some question as a result of the recent decision by state plant health officials to that thousand cankers disease does not threaten black walnut (J. nigra) in its native range.
black walnut (J. nigra) photo by F.T. Campbell
Here I examine five of the individual genus reports in greater detail.
Oaks
The Morton report says that more than 200 oak species are known across North America, of which 91 are native in the United States. The study concludes that 28 of these native oaks are of conservation concern based on extinction risk, vulnerability to climate change, and low representation in ex situ collections. [The IUCN Red List recognizes 16 U.S. oak species as globally threatened with extinction.] Nearly all of the Morton’s report 28 species are confined to small ranges. In the U.S., regional conservation hotspots are in coastal southern California, including the Channel Islands; southwest Texas; and the southeastern states.
The summary opening section of the Morton report says 10 (36%) of the threatened oaks face a threat by a non-native pathogen. It admits that lack of information probably results in an underestimation of the pest risk. I found it difficult to confirm this overall figure by studying the detailed species reports because in some cases the threatening pathogen is not currently extant near the specific tree species’ habitat. I appreciate the evaluators’ concern about the potential for the pathogen, e.g., Phytophthora ramorum or oak wilt, to spread from its current range to vulnerable species growing on the other side of the continent. However, I wish the overview summary at the beginning of the report were clearer as to which species are currently being infected, which face a potential threat.
The report emphasizes the sudden oak death pathogen (SOD; Phytophthora ramorum), stating that it which currently poses a significant risk to wild populations of Q. parvula. However, the situation is more complex. As I note in my blog on threats to oaks, Q. parvula is divided into two subspecies. In the view of California officials, one, Q. p. var. shrevei, is currently threatened by SOD but the other, Q. p. var. parvula, (Santa Cruz Island oak) is currently outside the area infested by the pathogen. Perhaps the Morton Arboretum evaluators consider the potential risk to the second subspecies to be sufficient to justify stating that the pathogen poses a significant threat to the entire species; but I would appreciate greater clarity on this matter.
The report also mentions the potential threat to several rare oak species in the Southeast if SOD spreads there. While the Morton report rarely discusses species that have not been assessed as under threat, it does note that two species ranked as being of Least concern – coast live oak (Q. agrifolia) and California black oak (Q. kelloggii) – have been highly affected by SOD.
The Fusarium disease vectored by the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers is mentioned as a threat to Engelmann (Q. engelmannii)and valley (Q. lobata) oaks. The latter, in particular, is considered by the Morton Arboretum assessors to be already much diminished by habitat conversion.
In the East, hydrological changes have facilitated serious damage to Ogelthorpe oak (Q. oglethorpensis) by the fungus that causes chestnut blight–Cryphonectria parasitica.
The Morton study mentions oak wilt (Ceratocystis or Bretziellafagacearum) as an actual or potential factor in decline of oaks in the red oak clade (Sect. Lobatae). Only one of the oak species discussed – Q. arkansana – is in the East, were oak wilt is established. The rest are red oaks in California, where oak wilt is not yet established. Again, there is no discussion of the impact of oak wilt on widespread species not now considered to be of conservation concern.
In the individual species profiles making up the bulk of the Morton report on oaks, but not in the summary, the Morton report also mentions the goldspotted oak borer (Agrilus auroguttatus) as an actual or potential factor in decline of the same oaks in the red oak group. The following species – Q. engelmanni, Q. agrifolia, Q. parvula, Q. pumila — are in California and at most immediate threat.
The Morton study also mentions several native insects that are attacking oaks, and oak decline. It calls for further research to determine their impacts on oak species of concern.
For analyses of the various pests’ impacts on oaks broadly, not focused on at-risk tree species, see my recent blog updating threats to oaks, posted here, and the pest profiles posted at www.dontmovefirewood.org
Pines
The Morton report lists 12 pine species as priorities out of the total of 37 species native to the United States. The report notes that the majority of the at-risk species in the West are threatened primarily by high mortality from one or more pests, in particular native bark beetles.
Six of the 12 priority species are five-needle pines affected by white pine blister rust (WPBR; Cronartium ribicola). The report contains maps showing the distribution of WPBR. In some cases, the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) contributes to immediate mortality. Presentation of recommendations is scattered and sometimes seems contradictory. Thus, P. longaeva (bristlecone pine) is said by the IUCN to be stable and is not listed among the 12 threatened species, but the Morton Arboretum assessors called for its receiving high conservation priority. P. albicaulis (whitebark pine) is a candidate for listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but the Morton Arboretum authors did not single it out for priority action beyond listing it among the dozen at-risk species.
P. albicaulis (whitebark pine) at Crater Lake National Park; photo courtesy of Richard Sniezko, USFS
The report also notes impacts by Phytopthora cinnamomi on pines; a maps shows the distribution of this non-native pathogen. A third non-native pathogen — pitch canker (Fusarium circinatum) — is mentioned as affecting Monterrey pine (P. radiata). Torrey pine (Pinus torreyana) is also affected by pitch canker, but this pathogen is ranked by the Morton study as causing only moderate mortality in association with other factors. Torrey pine is ranked as critically endangered and decreasing in populations.
The report also publishes the rankings developed by Potter et al. (2019). P. torreyana was the top-ranked pine, ranked at 18 (less urgent than, eastern hemlock).
The Morton study authors concluded that native U.S. pines are under serious threat. However, their economic, ecological, and cultural importance makes them obvious targets for continued conservation priority.
For my analysis of the various pests’ impacts on pines broadly, see the pest profiles posted at www.dontmovefirewood.org
Lauraecae
The Morton group analyzed five of the 13 species native to the United States, chosen based on three factors – tree-like habit, susceptibility to laurel wilt disease, and distribution in areas currently affected by the disease. They note the importance of Sassafras as a monotypic genus.
Horton House before death of the redbay trees; photo by F.T. Campbell
The Morton study notes the conservation status of several species needs changing due to the rapid spread of laurel wilt disease. I applaud this willingness to adjust, although I would be inclined to assign a higher ranking based on the most recent data from Olatinwo et al. (2021), cited here.
Redbay (Persea borbonia) was assessed in 2018 as IUCN Least Concern; it is now being re-assessed, with a probable upgrade to Vulnerable. The Morton study says that recent evidence points towards the ecological extinction of P. borbonia from coastal forest ecosystems. Potter et al. (2019) ranked redbay as fifth most deserving of conservation effort overall.
Silk bay (Persea humilis), endemic to Florida, is currently being assessed for the IUCN; it is recommended that it be designated as Near Threatened.
Swamp bay (Persea palustris) is widespread. It is being assessed for the IUCN; it is recommended for the Vulnerable category.
Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) is widely distributed. Sassafras had been assessed as of Least Concern as recently as the 2020 edition of the IUCN Red List. The Morton study notes that the current distribution of laurel wilt disease spans only a small percent of its range, so it does not pose an imminent threat to sassafras. However, cold-tolerance tests for the disease’s vector indicate the possibility of northward spread into more of the sassafras’ distribution. I note that laurel wilt is currently present in northern Kentucky and Tennessee.
American Beech
The Morton report notes that beech (Fagus grandifolia) is very widespread and a dominant tree in forests throughout the Northeastern United States and Canada. It is the only species in the genus native to North America, so presumably of high conservation interest. The report also notes its ecological importance (see also Lovett et al. 2006).
Beech bark disease is reported by the Morton Arboretum to have devastated Northeastern populations. The disease is well established in all beech-dominated forests in the United States, though it occurs on less than 30% of American beech’s full distribution. After mature beech die, thickets of young, shade-tolerant root sprouts and seedlings grow up, preventing regeneration of other tree species. Nevertheless, American beech was listed as of Least Concern by the IUCN in 2017.
The report makes no mention of beech leaf disease, which came to attention after the Morton assessment project had been almost completed. I think this is a serious gap that undermines the assessment not just of the species’ status in the wild but also of the efficacy of conservation efforts.
healthy American beech; photo by F.T. Campbell
Walnuts
The Morton team evaluated five species of walnut (Juglans californica, J. hindsii, J. major, J. microcarpa, and J. nigra); and butternut (J. cinerea). Thousand cankers disease – caused by the fungus Geosmithia morbida, which is vectored by the walnut twig beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis) – is reported by the Morton team as second in importance to butternut canker. However, as I noted in a recent blog, the states that formerly considered the disease to pose a serious threat no longer think so and are terminating their quarantine regulations. This decision too recent for consideration by the Morton team.
One of the walnuts — Juglans californica (Southern Calif walnut) — is considered threatened by habitat loss. The rest of the walnuts are categorized by the IUCN as of Least Concern.
cankered butternut in New England; photo by F.T. Campbell
Butternut (Juglans cinerea), however, is considered by the IUCN to be Endangered. Although present across much of the Eastern deciduous forest, it is uncommon. It has suffered an estimated 80% population decline as a result of the disease caused by the butternut canker fungus Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum.
SOURCES
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Am beech. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum. August 2021
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Hickories. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum.
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Kentucky Coffeetree. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum.
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Denvir, A., Gill, D., Man, G., Pivorunas, D., Shaw, K., & Westwood, M. (2019). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum.
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Pines. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum.
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Laurels. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum. August 2021
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Walnuts. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum. August 2021
Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Yews. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum.
Lovett, G.M., C.D. Canham, M.A. Arthur, K.C., Weathers, and R.D. Fitzhugh. 2006. Forest Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and Pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56 No. 5 May 2006)
Olatinwo, R.O., S.W. Fraedrich & A.E. Mayfield III. 2021. Laurel Wilt: Current and Potential Impacts and Possibilities for Prevention and Management. Forests 2021, 12, 181.
Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, G. Man, B.S. Crane. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of United States tree species: Evaluating vulnerability to forest insect and disease threats. Global Ecology and Conservation (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
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
Quercus lobata in Alameda County, California; photo by Belinda Lo via Flickr
Five years ago I posted a blog about the threat to oak trees from non-native insects and pathogens. I am prompted to update what I said then by the publication of a monumental new analysis of endangered oak species (Beckman et al. 2021; full citation at end of blog). This report is packed with maps and graphics displaying centers of endemism, geographic areas with highest threat levels, etc., and individual profiles of all species it deems at risk.
The new study, led by the Morton Arboretum, says there are more than 200 oak species in North America – including Mexico; but only 91 species native to the United States. Of these, 28 species qualify as “of conservation concern” – defined as facing a moderate or greater threat. The principal threats to oak species are small populations or ranges and conversion of habitats for human use. Overall, 10 (36%) of the oak species “of conservation concern” have some actual or potential exposure to established non-native pests.
The report states that two species are significantly threatened by a non-native pathogen: Shreve oak (Quercus parvula) by the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum and Ogelthorp oak (Q. ogelthorpensis) by the chestnut blight pathogen Cryphonectria parasitica.
Several other California oaks are under some level of attack by the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers. The goldspotted oak borer (GSOB) is mentioned only in the individual species’ profiles, and largely as a potential or undetermined threat. For example, Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) is reported to have suffered some damage from GSOB but that mortality is “likely a result of a complex of factors (e.g., drought and root diseases).” The potential threat from both SOD and oak wilt is mentioned for several of the oaks that are in the red oak subgenus (Erythrobalanus).
The Morton Arboretum’s determination is based on the fact that the non-native insects and pathogens that I described five years ago are attacking primarily widespread species and have not – to date – caused sufficient damage to imperil those species. This situation contrasts sharply with certain Lauraceae (e.g., redbay) threatened by laurel wilt disease; five-needle pines killed by white pine blister rust; eastern or Canadian hemlock killed by hemlock woolly adelgid; and American beech, which now faces threats from beech bark disease, beech leaf disease, and possibly European beech leaf weevil.
Meanwhile, the non-native pests of oaks that I described five years ago continue to spread.
My Update Incorporating Morton Arboretum’s Analysis: Threats in the East
In the East (from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Plains), oaks are under serious attack from two non-native pests; a third pest has been suppressed by biological control.
oaks killed by European gypsy moth, Shenandoah National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell
The European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). The APHIS quarantine map shows its spread to be largely contained. The moth is currently present throughout the Northeast as far west as Wisconsin and neighboring parts of Minnesota and Illinois; and as far south as Currituck and Dare counties in North Carolina. The European gypsy moth continues to be the target of major containment and suppression programs operated by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the US Forest Service and the states. For years US Forest Service spent half of its entire budget for studying and managing non-native pests on the European gypsy moth. By FY2021, this allocation had been reduced to a quarter of the total budget. The European gypsy moth is the most widespread non-native pest (see map, linked to above) and attacks a wide range of tree and shrub species. Still, it rarely causes death of the trees.
Oak wilt (caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum) is widespread from central Pennsylvania to eastern Minnesota and across Iowa, down the Appalachians in West Virginia and North Carolina-Tennessee border, in northern Arkansas and with large areas affected in central Texas. There are several outbreaks in New York State. The most recent map I can find is from 2016 so it is difficult to assess more recent status. In that year, the US Forest Service called oak wilt one of the most serious tree diseases in the eastern U.S. It attacks primarily red oaks and live oaks. It is spread by both bark-boring beetles and root grafts.
In 2016 I also listed the winter moth (Operophtera brumata) as a threat. Now, its presence in coastal areas of New England and Nova Scotia (and British Columbia) has been reduced to almost nuisance levels by action of the biological control agent Cyzenis albicans. (See this report.)
SOD-infested rhododendron plant; photo by Indiana Department of Natural Resources
The most significant potential threat to eastern oaks identified to date is the sudden oak death (SOD) pathogen, Phytophthora ramorum. Several oak species have been shown in laboratory studies to be vulnerable to infection by this pathogen. Furthermore, the climate in extensive parts of the East is considered conducive to supporting the disease. SOD has not been established in the East. However, too frequently SOD-infected plants have been shipped to eastern nurseries, where some are sold to homeowners before regulatory officials learn about the situation and act to destroy the plants.
My Update Incorporating Morton Arboretum’s Analysis: Threats in the West
In the West, millions of oaks have been killed by several pathogens and insects that are established and spreading. Another has been introduced since my earlier blog (see Mediterranean oak beetle, below). Additional threats loom, especially Asian species of tussock moths.
Coast live oaks, canyon live oaks, California black oaks, Shreve’s oaks, and tanoaks growing in coastal forests from Monterey County north to southern Oregon that catch fog/rain are being killed by sudden oak death (SOD). In this region, SOD has killed an estimated 50 million trees. While the preponderance of dead trees are not true oaks, but tanoaks (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), significant numbers of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Shreve oak (Q. parvula var. shrevei), and California black oaks (Q. kelloggii) have also been killed. SOD continues to intensify in this region, and to expand. Sixteen California counties are now infected, and the infection in Curry County, Oregon has spread farther North. More worrying, two additional strains of the pathogen have been detected in forests of the region.
The Morton Arboretum analysis singled out Q. parvula as particularly threatened by SOD. Californians note that it is the subspecies Q. parvula var. shrevei that is threatened by SOD; the other subspecies, Q. parvula var. parvula (Santa Cruz Island oak) is – so far – outside the area infested by SOD.
California black oak killed by GSOB; photo by F.T. Campbell
Also in California, coast live oaks, black oaks, and canyon oaks in the southern part of the state are being killed by goldspotted oak borer. Confirmed infestations are now in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties. See the map here. At least 100,000 black oaks have been killed in less than 20 years. Neither the State of California nor USDA APHIS has adopted regulations aimed at preventing spread of the goldspotted oak borer.
The Morton Arboretum analysis considers California black oak (Q. kellogii) to be secure.
Two more wood-boring beetles threaten oaks in southern California – the Polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers. One or both of the invasive shot hole borers are known to be present in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Santa Barbara counties. The beetles feed on coast live oaks, canyon live oaks, Engelmann oaks, and valley oaks – as well as many other kinds of trees. In the process, the beetles transmit a fungus that kills the tree. Many of the vulnerable tree species anchor the region’s riparian areas and urban plantings. See a map of the shot hole borers’ distribution here.
In November 2019, scientists discovered a new ambrosia beetle in symptomatic valley oaks (Quercus lobata) trees in Calistoga, Napa County. The insect was determined to be a European species, Xyleborus monographus. The common name is Mediterranean oak borer, or MOB. Within a few months it was known that this beetle is fairly widespread in Napa and neighboring Lake counties. The beetle had never been intercepted at ports in California or found in traps designed to detect bark beetles deployed in the San Francisco Bay area but not including Napa or Sonoma. Like other beetles in the Scolytinae subfamily, MOB can transmit fungi. One of the fungal species detected in the Calistoga infestation is Raffaelea montetyi, which is reported to be pathogenic on at least one European oak species.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture proposed assigning a pest rank to the beetle in December 2020. In their draft document ranking risk, state officials note that a proven host — Q. lobata — is widespread in California and the insect is probably capable of establishing over much of the state. The possible economic impact was described as possibly affecting production of oaks in California nurseries and triggering quarantines.
Therefore, X. monographus could exacerbate the effects of SOD on California oaks.
The Morton Arboretum has singled out Q. lobata as at risk because of conversion of more than 90% of its habitat to agriculture.
Asian gypsy moths swarm a ship in Nakhodka, Russian Far East; USDA APHIS photo
A looming potential threat to oaks on the West coast is the risk that tussock (gypsy) moths could be introduced to the area. The risk is two-fold – the Asian gypsy moth continually is carried to the area on ships bearing imports from Asia (as discussed in my blog in April). The European gypsy moth is sometimes taken across the country from its widespread introduced range in the East on travellers’ vehicles, outdoor furniture, or firewood. Both the West Coast states and USDA search vigilantly for any signs of gypsy moth arrival.
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
In February the USFS published a lengthy analysis of invasive species: Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector (Poland et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog). More than 100 people contributed to the book; I helped write the chapters on legislation and regulations and international cooperation. The book is available for download at no cost here.
Chapters address impacts in terrestrial and aquatic systems; impacts on ecosystem processes; impacts on various sectors of the economy and cultural resources; interactions with climate change and other disturbances; management strategies for species and landscapes; tools for inventory and management. Each chapter evaluates the current status of knowledge about the topic and suggests research needs. There are also summaries of the invasive species situation in eight regions.
Miconia – one of many invasive plants damaging ecosystems in Hawai`i
I greatly appreciate the effort. Authors first met in 2015, and most chapters were essentially written in 2016. The long delay in its appearance came largely from negotiations with the publisher. The delay means some of the information is out of date. I am particularly aware that several experts – e.g., Potter, Guo, and Fei – have published about forest pests since the Aukema source cited. I wonder whether inclusion of their findings might change some of the conclusions about the proportion of introduced pests that cause noticeable impacts.
Since the report’s publication in February I have struggled with how to describe and evaluate this book. What is its purpose? Who is its audience? The Executive Summary says the report is a sector-wide scientific assessment of the current state of invasive species science and research in the U.S.
However, the Introduction states a somewhat different purpose. It says the report documents invasive species impacts that affect ecosystem processes and a wide range of economic sectors. This would imply an intention to enhance efforts to counter such effects– not just to shape research but also to change management. Indeed, the Conclusion of the Executive Summary (pp. xvi-xvii) is titled “An Imperative for Action”.
Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture
I am not the author to evaluate how effectively the book sets out research agendas. Regarding its usefulness in prompting policy-makers to do more, I regretfully conclude that it falls short.
Getting the balance right between an issue’s status and what needs to be done is difficult, perhaps impossible. I appreciate that the report makes clear how complex bioinvasion and ecosystem management and restoration are. Its length and density highlight the difficulty of making progress. This daunting complexity might well discourage agency leadership from prioritizing invasive species management.
On the other hand, summary sections sometimes oversimplify or bury important subtleties and caveats. The question of whether some key questions can ever be resolved by science is hinted at – but in detailed sections that few will read. The same is true regarding the restrictions imposed by funding shortfalls.
The Report Would Have Benefitted from Another Round of Editing
Editing this tome was a Herculean task. I feel like a curmudgeon suggesting that the editors do more! Nevertheless, I think the report would have been improved by the effort. One more round of editing – perhaps involving a wider range of authors – could have pulled together the most vital points to make them more accessible to policymakers. It could also have tightened the ecosystem-based descriptions of impacts, which are currently overwhelmed by too much information.
A precis for policymakers
A precis focused on information pertinent to policymakers (which the current Executive Summary does not) should contain the statement that the continued absence of a comprehensive investigation of invasive species’ impacts hampers research, management, and policy (mentioned only in §16.5, on p. 332). It should note situations in which insufficient funding is blocking recommended action. I note three examples: programs aimed at breeding trees resistant to non-native pests (resource issues discussed only in §§8.3.1 and 8.3.2, p. 195); sustaining “rapid response” programs (§6.4.3, p. 125); costs of ecosystem restoration, especially for landscape-level restoration (§16.4). I am sure there are additional under-funded activities that should be included!
cross-bred ash seedlings being tested for vulnerability to EAB; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch
Other important information that should be highlighted in such a precis includes the statement that many ecosystems have already reached a point where healthy functions are in a more tenuous balance due to invasive species (p. 51). Effective carbon storage and maintaining sustainable nutrient and water balance are at risk. Second, costs and losses caused by invasive forest pests generally fall disproportionately on a few economic sectors and households. They cannot be equated to governmental expenditures alone (p. 305). Third, even a brief estimate of overall numbers of invasive species appears only in §7.4. Information about individual species is scattered because it is used as example of particular topic (e.g., impacts on forest or grassland ecosystems, or on ecosystem services, or on cultural values).
Ecosystem Impacts Overwhelmed
As noted above, the report laments the absence of a comprehensive investigation of invasive species’ impacts. Perhaps the editors intended this report to partially fill this gap. To be fair, I have long wished for a “crown to root zone” description of invasive species’ impacts at a site or in a biome. Concise descriptions of individual invasive species and their impacts are not provided by this report, but they can be found elsewhere. (The regional summaries partially address the problem of too much information – but they do not provide perspective on organisms that have invaded more than one region, e.g., emerald ash borer or white pine blister rust.) Another round of editing might have resulted in a more focused presentation that would be more easily applied by policymakers.
Welcome Straightforward Discussion of Conceptual Difficulties
I applaud the report’s openness about some important overarching concepts that science cannot yet formulate. If supportable theories could be conceived, they would assist in the development of policies:
Despite decades of effort, scientists have not established a clear paradigm to explain an ecosystem’s susceptibility to invasion (p. 85). Invasibility is complex: it results from a dynamic interplay between ecosystem condition and ecological properties of the potential invader, especially local propagule pressure.
Scientists cannot predict how climate warming will change distributions of invasive species [see Chapter 4] and alter pathways. This inability hampers efforts to develop effective prevention, control, and restoration strategies (p. xi). Climate change and invasive species need to be studied together as interactive drivers of global environmental change with evolutionary consequences.
The Report’s Recommendations
Policy-oriented recommendations are scattered throughout the report. I note here some I find particularly important:
Measures of progress should be based on the degree to which people, cultures, and natural resources are protected from the harmful effects of invasive species.
Managers should assess the efficacy of all prevention, control, and management activities and their effect upon the environment. Such an evaluation should be based on a clear statement of the goals of the policy or action. [I wish the report explicitly recognized that both setting goals and measuring efficacy are difficult when contemplating action against a new invader that is new to science or when the impacts are poorly understood. Early detection / rapid response efforts are already undermined by an insistence on gathering information on possible impacts before acting; that delay can doom prospects for success.]
Risk assessment should both better incorporate uncertainty and evaluate the interactions among multiple taxa. Risk assessment tools should be used to evaluate and prioritize management efforts and strategies beyond prevention and early detection/rapid response.
Economic analyses aimed at exploring tradeoffs need better tools for measuring returns on invasive species management investments (§16.5).
Actions that might be understood as “restoration” aim at a range of goals along the gradient between being restored to a known historic state and being rehabilitated to a defined desired state. The report stresses building ecosystem resilience to create resistance to future invasions, but I am skeptical that this will work re: forest insects and disease pathogens.
Propagule pressure is a key determinant of invasion success. Devising methods to reduce propagule pressure is the most promising to approach to prevent future invasions (p. 115). This includes investing in quarantine capacity building in other countries can contribute significantly to preventing new invasions to the US.
Resource managers need additional studies of how invasive species spread through domestic trade, and how policies may differ between foreign and domestic sources of risk.
I appreciate the report’s attention to such often-ignored aspects as non-native earthworms and soil chemistry. I also praise the report’s emphasis on social aspects of bioinvasion and the essential role of engaging the public. However, I think the authors could have made greater use of surveys conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy’s Don’t Move Firewood program.
Lost Opportunities
I am glad that the report makes reference to the “rule of 25” rather than “rule of 10s”. I would have appreciated a discussion of this topic, which is a current issue in bioinvasion theory. As noted at the beginning of this blog, the long time between when the report was written and when it was published might have hampered such a discussion
Also, I wish the report had explored how scientists and managers should deal with the “black swan” problem of infrequent introductions that have extremely high impacts. The report addresses this issue only through long discussions of data gaps, and ways to improve models of introduction and spread.
I wish the section on the Northwest Region included a discussion of why an area with so many characteristics favoring bioinvasion has so few damaging forest pests. Admittedly, those present are highly damaging: white pine blister rust, sudden oak death, Port-Orford cedar root disease, balsam woolly adelgid, and larch casebearer. The report also notes the constant threat that Asian and European gypsy moths will be introduced. (The Entomological Society of America has decided to coin a new common name for these insects; they currently to be called by the Latin binomial Lymatria dispar).
And I wish the section on the Southeast and Caribbean discussed introduced forest pests on the Caribbean islands. I suspect this reflects a dearth of research effort rather than the biological situation. I indulge my disagreement with the conclusion that introduced tree species have “enriched” the islands’ flora.
SOURCE
Poland, T.M., P. Patel-Weynand, D.M Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M Lopez, editors. 2021. Invasive species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector. Springer
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
Protea repens and fynbos vegetation near Table Mountain; photo by Mike Wingfield
South Africa is a country of immense biological diversity. It is also one that recognizes the threat invasive species pose to its natural wealth – and to the economy and livelihoods of ordinary people.
Also, South Africans are trying hard to improve the country’s invasive species program. It recently released the second national report assessing how well it is curtailing introductions and minimizing damage. As I describe in a companion blog, I find these reports to contain exceptionally thorough and honest appraisals of South Africa’s invasive species programs. I address that value in the companion blog, where I compare the South African report — and its findings — to U.S. government reports on our invasive species programs.
In South Africa, bioinvasion ranks third – after cultivation and land degradation – as a threat to the country’s impressive biodiversity. Invasive species are responsible for 25% of all biodiversity loss. Certain taxa are at particular risk: native amphibians and freshwater fishes, and some species of plants and butterflies.
Particularly disturbing is the bioinvasion threat to the Fynbos biome. The report notes that 251 non-native species have been identified in this system. This finding causes concern because the Fynbos is a unique floral biome. In fact, it constitutes the principal component of one of only six floral kingdoms found on Earth: the Cape Floral Kingdom (or region). For more information, go here.
map of South Africa showing fynbos biome
Not surprisingly, invasive bird and plant species are most numerous around major urban centers. The report concludes that this is probably because most non-native birds are commensal with humans; most birds and plants were first introduced to urban centers; and there is greater sampling effort there. Indeed, the patterns of (detected) invasive plant richness are still highly sensitive to sampling effort.
South Africa is considered a leader on invasive species management. However, its record is spotty.
Successes
Biocontrol interventions are considered a success. South Africa has approved release of 157 biocontrol agents, including seven since 2016. All the recent agents (and probably most others) target invasive plants. The South African biocontrol community conducts a comprehensive review of their effectiveness at roughly 10-year intervals. The fourth assessment is currently under way. Also, the report considers eradication of non-native fish (primarily sport species) from several wetlands and river reaches to have been successful. (However, opposition by sport fishermen has delayed listing of some trout species as invasive.)
Failures
On the other hand, strategies to combat invasive plants, other than by biocontrol, appear to be having little success. Even the extent of plant invasions in national parks is poorly documented. Also, the report highlights ballast water as an inadequately managed pathway of invasion.
The report estimates that three new non-native species arrive in South Africa accidentally or illegally every year. Interestingly, reported species arrivals have declined in the current decade compared to the preceding one. The report’s authors consider this to probably be an underestimate caused by the well-known lag in detecting and reporting introductions. The apparent decline also is contrary to global findings. Table 1 in Seebens et al. 2020 (full citation at end of blog) projected that the African continent would receive approximately 767 new alien species between 2005 and 2050.
Even the introductory pathways are poorly known: the pathway for 54% of the taxa introduced to South Africa are unknown. Of the species for which the introductory pathway is known, horticultural or ornamental introductions of plants dominate – 15% of that total. A second important pathway – for accidental introductions – is shipping (5% of all introductions). Other pathways thought to be prominent during 2017–2019 are the timber trade, contaminants on imported animals, and natural dispersal from other African countries where they had previously been introduced.
PSHB symptoms on Vachellia sieberiana; photo by Trudy Paap
Polyphagous shothole borer
The report highlights as an example of a recent introduction that of the polyphagous shothole borer (PSHB, Euwallacea fornicatus). https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/pest_pathogen/polyphagous-shot-hole-borer-html/http://nivemnic.us/south-africas-unique-flora-put-at-risk-by-polyphagous-shot-hole-borer/ See Box 3.1 in the report. This species is expected to have huge impacts, especially in urban areas. While most of the trees affected so far are non-native (e.g., maples, planes, oaks, avocadoes), several native trees are also reproductive hosts. https://www.fabinet.up.ac.za/pshb In response to the introduction, the government established an interdepartmental steering committee, which has developed a consolidated strategy and action plan. However, as of October 2020 the shot hole borer had not been listed under invasive species regulations, even on an emergency basis. It had been listed as a quarantine pest of agricultural plants (e.g., avocado) per the Agricultural Pests Act 1983.
As note in my blog assessing the report, the report bravely concludes that the government’s regulatory regime is only partially successful (whereas three years ago it graded it as “substantial”). The downgrade is the result of a more thorough evaluation of the regulatory regime’s effectiveness.
SOURCES
SANBI and CIB 2020. The status of bioinvasions and their management in South Africa in 2019. pp.71. South African National BD Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3947613
Seebens, H., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, C. Capinha, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, M. van Kleunen, I. Kühn, J.M. Jeschke, B. Lenzner, A.M. Liebhold, Z. Pattison, J. Perg, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, F. Essl. 2020. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology. 2020;00:1 -13 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15333
Posted by Faith Campbell
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
If you have not communicated to your Representative and senators your support for adequate funding of U.S. government programs to address non-native insects and pathogens threatening our forests, please do so now!
If political leaders do not hear from us that expanding these programs is important, these programs will continue to languish. It is easiest – and most direct – to inform your representative and Senators of your support. Please do so! If you do not agree that these programs should be expanded & strengthened, I ask that you send a comment outlining what approach you think would be more effective in curtailing introductions, minimizing impacts, and restoring affected tree species. I can then initiate a discussion to explore these suggestions. [I already have endorsed the suggestion to create a CDC-like body to oversee management of non-native forest pests.] You can find your member of Congress here. Your Senators here.
Last week the Biden Administration sent to Congress its proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021. I find it falls short in key areas. Next, the House and Senate will pass a package of appropriations bills to set actual funding levels. This is the moment to press for boosted funding. In an earlier blog I explained my reasons for seeking specific funding levels.
Asian longhorned beetles – introduced in wood packaging (USDA photo)
Two USDA agencies lead efforts to protect U.S. wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and pathogens. Their funding is set by two separate – and critical — appropriations bills:
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has legal responsibility for preventing introduction of tree-killing pests; detecting newly introduced pests; and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize their damage. Funding for APHIS is contained in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
USDA Forest Service (USFS)
The Forest Health Management (FHM) program provides funding and applied science to help partners manage pests. The program has two sides: the Cooperative component helps states and private forest managers, so it can address pests where they are first found – usually near cities – and when they spread. The federal lands component helps the USFS, National Park Service, and other federal agencies counter pests that have spread to the more rural/wildland areas that they manage.
The Research and Development (R&D) program supports research into pest-host relationships; pathways of introduction and spread;; management strategies (including biocontrol); and host resistance breeding
Forest Service funds are appropriated through the Interior Appropriations bill.
APHIS – the Administration’s official budget proposal, and justification, is here.
The Administration proposes a small increase for three of four APHIS programs that are particularly important for preventing introductions of forest pests or eradicating or containing those that do enter. The Administration proposed significant funding for a fourth program that plays a small but important role in managing two specific forest pests.
APHIS Program
Current (FY 2021)
FY22 Administration proposed
FY 2022 Campbell recommended
Tree & Wood Pest
$60.456 million
$61 million
$70 million
Specialty Crops
$196.553 million
209 million
$200 million
Pest Detection
$27.733 million
No change
$30 million
Methods Development
$20.844 million
No change
$25 million
Tree and Wood Pests: It will be a major challenge for APHIS to eradicate the current outbreak of Asian longhorned beetles (ALB) in the swamps of South Carolina. APHIS should also address other pests. Even after cutting spending on the emerald ash borer (EAB), I think APHIS needs significantly more money in this account.
The Specialty Crops program is supported by such traditional USDA constituencies as the nursery and orchard industries, which probably explains the proposed increase. APHIS’ program to curtail spread of the sudden oak death (SOD) pathogen through interstate nursery trade receives funding from this program – about $5 million. I believe this program also now funds the agency’s efforts to slow spread of the spotted lanternfly.
SOD-infected rhododendrons in Indiana nursery in 2019
I would like the Pest Detection program to receive a small increase so the agency and its cooperators can better deal with rising trade volumes and associated pest risk. Similarly, Methods Development should receive a boost because of the need for improved detection and management tools.
USDA Forest Service – the Administration’s official budget proposal is here.
While the Forest Health Management (FHM) and Research and Development (R&D) programs are the principal USFS programs that address introduced forest pests, neither has non-native pests as the principle focus. Non-native forest pests constitute only a portion of the programs’ activities. In the case of Research, this is a very small portion indeed.
President Biden’s budget proposes to spend $59.2 million on the Forest Health Management program and $313.5 million for Research. Both represent significant increases over spending during the current fiscal year. However, the FHM level is still below spending in recent years, although both the number of introduced pests and the geographic areas affected have been rising for decades.
In my earlier blog I suggested the funding levels:
USFS PROGRAM
Current (FY21)
FY22 Administration
FY22 my recommendation
FHP Coop Lands
$30.747 million
$36.747 million
$51 million (to cover both program work & personnel costs)
FHP Federal lands
$15.485 million
22.485 million
$25 million (ditto)
Research & Develop
$258.7 million; of which about $3.6 million allocated to invasive species
$313.560 million
$320 million; I seek report language instructing the USFS to spend more on invasive species
Under the FHM program, a table on pp. 46-47 of the budget justification lists existing and proposed spending on 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites). Spending on these 14 species is proposed to total $30.3 million. Of this amount, less than half – $14.9 million – is allocated to such high-profile invasive species of forests as the emerald ash borer (EAB), hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), sudden oak death (SOD), and threats to whitebark pine (recently listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act). (The USFS does not engage in efforts to eradicate Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) outbreaks; it leaves that task to APHIS.) And of the nearly $15 million allocated to invasive non-native pests, more than half – $8 million – is allocated to European gypsy moths. While I agree that the gypsy moth program has been highly successful, I decry this imbalance. Other non-native pests cause much higher levels of mortality among hosts than does the gypsy moth.
dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake National Park; photo by FT Campbell
I applaud the modest increases in the Administration’s budget for other non-native forest pests. These range from tens to a few hundred thousand dollars per pest. FHM also supports smaller programs targetting rapid ohia death, beech leaf disease, the invasive shot hole borers in southern California, Mediterranean oak beetle, etc. Budget documents don’t report on these efforts.
The imbalance of funding allocated to damaging non-native pests compared to other forest management concerns is even worse in the Research program. Of the $313.5 million proposed in the budget for the full research program, only $9.2 million is allocated to the 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites) specified in the table on pp. 46-47. Of this amount, less than half — $4.5 million – is allocated to the high-profile invasive species, e.g., ALB, EAB, HWA, SOD, and threats to whitebark pine. The budget does provide extremely modest increases for several of these species, ranging from $12,000 for ALB to $114,000 for EAB. Again, some smaller programs managed at the USFS regional level might address other pests. Still – the budget proposes that USFS R&D allocate only 1.4% of its total budget to addressing these threats to America’s forests! This despite plenty of documentation – including by USFS scientists – that non-native species “have caused, and will continue to cause, enormous ecological and economic damage.” (Poland et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog). Poland et al. go on to say:
Invasive insects and plant pathogens (or complexes involving both) cause tree mortality, resulting in canopy gaps, stand thinning, or overstory removals that, in turn, alter microenvironments and hydrologic or biogeochemical cycling regimes. These changes can shift the overall species composition and structure of the plant community, with associated effects on terrestrial and aquatic fauna. In the short term, invasive insects and diseases can generally reduce productivity of desired species in forests. Tree mortality or defoliation can affect leaf-level transpiration rates, affecting watershed hydrology. Tree mortality … also leads to enormously high costs for tree removal, other management responses, and reduced property values in urban and residential landscapes.
eastern hemlock in Shenandoah National Park; photo by FT Campbell
I seek report language specifying that at least 5% of research funding should be devoted to research in pathways of invasive species’ introduction and spread; their impacts; and management and restoration strategies, including breeding of resistant trees. Several coalitions of which the Center for Invasive Species is a member have agreed to less specific language, not the 5% goal.
Two other USFS programs contribute to invasive species management. The Urban and Community Forest program provided $2.5 million for a competitive grant program to help communities address threats to urban forest health and resilience. Of 23 projects funded in FY2020, 11 are helping communities recover from the loss of ash trees to EAB. (On average, each program received $109,000.)
The Forest Service’ International Program is helping academic and other partners establish “sentinel gardens” in China and Europe. North American trees are planted and monitored so researchers can identify insects or pathogens that attack them. This provides advance notice of organisms that could be damaging pests if introduced to the United States.
REFERENCE:
Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. Editors T.M. Poland, T. Patel-Weynand, D.M. Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M. Lopez Open access!
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
Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont has reintroduced his bill to improve programs intended to prevent introduction of non-native forest pests and enhance efforts to reduce their impacts. The latter provisions include support for breeding trees resistant (or tolerant) to the pest. I hope H.R. 1389 will be adopted – then spur new efforts to conserve and restore forest trees! Please follow my suggestion below.
The Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act H.R. 1389 is co-sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Annie Kuster & Chris Pappas (NH), and Elise Stefanik (NY).
“Invasive species are devastating to forests which are a central part of Vermont’s economy and our way of life. This bill will fund efforts to revitalize damaged forests and highlight the need for making this a priority within the federal government.”
Major provisions of 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 institutions focused on researching methods to restore native tree species that have been severely damaged by invasive pests.
Authorizes funding to implement promising research findings on how to protect native tree species.
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.
As I have described in earlier blogs, the measures adopted by federal and state governments to prevent non-native pathogen and insect pest introductions – and the funding to support this work – have been insufficient to meet the growing challenges. In just the past decade, several new tree-killing pests have been detected: polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, two rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogens, Mediterranean oak beetle, velvet longhorned beetle. Over the same period, the Asian longhorned beetle has been detected in Ohio and South Carolina; the emerald ash borer expanded its range from 14 to 35 states; the redbay ambrosia beetle and its associated fungus spread from five states to 11; a second strain of the sudden oak death fungus appeared in Oregon forests; and whitebark pine has been proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
During this same period, funding for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection program has been cut by about 50%; funding for USFS Research projects targetting 10 high-profile non-native pests has been cut by about 70%.
One reason for this disconnect between need and resources is that the non-native tree pest problem is largely out of sight and therefore does not lend itself to the long-term public attention needed to remediate the threats. It is up to us to raise the political profile of these issues.
On the positive side, the passage of time has brought forth new solutions, a deeper understanding of the genetics of plants and animals, new measures for igniting public awareness and invasive identification, new technologies and strategies for helping trees adapt, and a recognition of what resources and organization it will take to mount a proper solution to the problem.
“Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation) has proposed priority species for enhanced conservation efforts. Top priorities in the continental states are listed below. A separate study is under way for forests in Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
dead redbay on Jekyll Island, Georgia
Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia)
American chestnut (Castanea dentata)
Allegheny chinquapin (C. pumila)
Ozark chinquapin (C. pumila var. ozarkensis)
redbay (Persea borbonia)
Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
pumpkin ash (F. profunda)
Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana)
Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus)
butternut (Juglans cinerea)
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
white ash (Fraxinus americana)
black ash (F. nigra)
green ash (F. pennsylvanica).
For a brief explanation of Project CAPTURE, see my earlier blog here. For an in-depth description of the Project CAPTURE process and criteria for setting priorities, read Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, and G. Man. 2019. Important Insect and Disease Threats to United States Tree Species and Geographic Patterns of Their Potential Impacts. Forests 2019, 10. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/58290
Please ask your representative to co-sponsor H.R. 1389. Please ask your senators to sponsor a companion bill. For more information, contact Alex Piper at Alex.Piper@mail.house.gov or 202-306-6569 .
H.R. 1389 is endorsed by Vermont Woodlands Association, American Forest Foundation, Center for Invasive Species Prevention, the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition,, Entomological Society of America, and North American Invasive Species Management Association.
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
