The House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, adopted its version of appropriations for the USDA Forest Service (USFS) for Fiscal Year 2026, which begins October 1st. The bill restores the basic funding levels for the Research and Development and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry accounts. (The Trump Administration had called for cutting nearly all funding for these accounts.)
The Subcommittee provides $301,706,000 for the research account. I am having difficulty determining the funding level for the current year (FY25) since the Administration and Congress have taken several contradictory actions. I am disappointed that $34 million of the research total is allocated to the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. FIA data inform us about changes in the forest, including damage caused by introduced insects and pathogens. But FIA data do not identify or disseminate information about how such threats might best be countered. I had asked Congress to begin increasing the proportion of research funds allocated to studying the invasive forest pests.
Furthermore, the only other topic of research mentioned in the bill is fire research. I fear that might led to decreased attention to non-fire aspects of introduced tree-killing insects and pathogens – the opposite of what I think is appropriate.
one of numerous risk maps for Phytophthora ramorum; many aspects of this pathogen still require research – perhaps especially the likelihood that the three strains present in forests in Oregon & California will reproduce sexually
The Subcommittee provides $280,960,000 for the State, Private, and Tribal forestry program. This is apparently a $23 million cut for the overall SPT program. The bill specifies that this funding “includes forest health management, invasive plants, and conducting international programs and trade activities.” This would seem to restore funding for the Forest Health Management program – both the “cooperative lands” and “federal lands” subprograms. I doubt that the funding will reach the level I suggested: $32 million for the cooperative lands subprogram and $16 million for the federal lands subprogram.
Still, it is a great relief that the Congress has – so far – chosen to maintain these programs, which are so critical to countering invasions by non-native organisms. I hope the full House and the Senate will agree. Please contact your senators and remind them how important these programs are.
(Some other important programs have been sacrificed in the appropriations bill – A 23% cut in the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency; reversing some regulations intended to protect various endangered species …)
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
The Washington Post has summarized data on the number of container ships travelling from China to U.S. west coast ports for the first half of 2025. It compares those numbers to the same period in 2024.
For the first four months, the trips exceeded 2024 levels, often by considerable amounts, as importers sought to get their goods before President Trump imposed high tariffs. Thus, the number of container ships arriving at Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma during each month:
January: 17% increase
February: 32% increase
March: 14% increase
April: 5% increase
In May, landings from China decreased by 33%! Those ships arriving also carried fewer containers.
When measured by the value of imported goods, imports from China fell 20% nationwide when we compare April 2024 to April 2025. This decrease was seen at four of the five west coast ports; the exception was Tacoma.
When President Trump “paused” the 145% increase in tariffs on Chinese goods, the prices shippers charge for transporting containers doubled – from less than $3,000 per container to $6,000. This change probably portends a rebound in import volumes.
I always worry about containers from China (see Haack et al. 2022; full citation at the end of this blog; and this blog). For more than 30 years they have too often been the means by which wood-boring insects are introduced to North American forests. I fret even more when import volumes are rising – especially when importers are in a rush. I suspect that neither exporters nor importers pay much attention to whether the crates and pallets have been treated properly.
ash tree killed by EAB — the risk of woodborers introduced in wood packaging; photo courtesy of John Hieftje, former mayor of Ann Arbor, Michigan
I have asked the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection for comment, but have not yet received a reply.
Please note that these data do not include information about imports from other Asian countries … or shipments destined for U.S. ports in the Gulf or Atlantic (via the expanded Panama Canal) or to Canadian ports.
SOURCE
Haack RA, Hardin JA, Caton BP and Petrice TR (2022) Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117
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
In June I visited Shenandoah National Park (SHNP) (above) for the first time in years. The Park’s forests are mostly mature secondary forests, having recovered over the 90 years since establishment from earlier logging and clearing for small-scale farms and pasture.
While I loved the forest and the vistas, I was aware of which species are missing …
Five years ago I blogged about a study by Anderson-Teixeira et al. (full citation at the end of this blog) that reported on the changes in the forests of SHNP and the neighboring Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI). This is important because, as Fei et al. (2019) (full citation at the end of this blog) documented, nine of the 15 most damaging introduced forest pests grow in eastern forests. In fact, the greatest increase in biomass loss has occurred in Eastern forests. Seven are found specifically in SHNP (Potter et al. 2019; full citation at the end of the blog).
Anderson-Teixeira et al. report that non-native forest pests caused a loss of about a quarter of ecosystem above-ground biomass between 1991 and 2013 across 66 sites. These invasions occurred after the worst impacts of chestnut blight, which entered the country ~120 years ago – before “modern” phytosanitary programs were instituted. Still, total above-ground biomass has largely recovered through germination and growth by trees in other genera. Greatest increases have been by tulip poplar (Liriodendron); oaks (Quercus); ash (Fraxinus) – but see below; birch (Betula); and maples (Acer). And while several taxa were lost from monitoring plots in SHNP and SCBI, a-diversity also remained steady.
So what does that look like on the ground?
American chestnut used to dominate many Eastern forests, composing more than one-third of the pollen assemblage in some stands (Fei et al.) According to Anderson-Teixeira et al., chestnut trees larger than 10 cm DBH disappeared by 1910, killed by chestnut blight. In past decades I frequently saw chestnut root sprouts when hiking. The National Park Service now urges visitors to hike to low elevation sections of the South River Trail to see such sprouts.
In the 1980’s, groves of eastern hemlocks occupied about 9,800 acres in SHNP, primarily in shaded valleys and along streams. Invasion by the hemlock woolly adelgid killed 95% of these hemlocks. Anderson-Teixeira et al. document the species’ disappearance from their study plots by 2007. Park staff treated more than 20,000 hemlocks using injections of imidacloprid. In 2015, the Park began partnering with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in releasing predatory biocontrol beetles (Laricobius spp.) While the beetles have shown promising establishment and spread, it is now recognized that additional biocontrol agents will be needed to suppress the adelgid. The Park plans to allow releases of predatory silver flies (Leucotaraxis spp.) in remaining hemlock sites and will begin to phase out the imidacloprid treatments.
I remember the hemlocks! But this year, at least in the creek valleys where I hiked, I saw almost no remnants – not even fallen logs.
fallen hemlock; all photos by F.T. Campbell in Shenandoah NP in June 2025
And I remember the flowering dogwoods. They are almost gone now from the Appalachian chain, killed by dogwood anthracnose. Their status in SHNP is unclear. Anderson-Teixeira et al. report flowering dogwoods only from the Smithsonian property. There, they declined by almost 90% from the study plots from 2008 to 2019. The Park’s list of tree and shrub species reports that flowering dogwood is still “abundant”; my visit was too late in the season to observe how visible flowering dogwoods still are. Certainly the species survives the disease better in open settings, e.g., meadows and roadsides. I don’t know how the three other native Cornus species were affected.
Dead ash are still visible. Ash trees made up about 5% of the Park’s forest cover. Anderson-Teixeira et al. report that ash aboveground biomass was increasing in SHNP and stable on the SBCI property before arrival of the emerald ash borer (EAB). EAB-caused mortality was first detected in 2016. In just three years — by 2019 – 28% of green, white, and black ash had died; this meant a loss of 30% of ashes’ aboveground biomass. Ninety-five percent of remaining live trees were described as “unhealthy’’. In an effort to retain ash trees for visitor enjoyment, reduce threats to visitors from hazard trees, and to preserve a portion of the park’s ash tree communities until host-specific biological controls become available, SHNP staff – supported by specially trained volunteers and interns, Virginia Department of Forestry and Fairfax County – began treating high-value ash with emamectin benzoate. They began at Loft Mountain Campground, a location (elevation 3,300 feet) where ash trees make up most of the forest. Three hundred forty three trees were treated there — exceeding expectations for what could be accomplished in a single year. The park hopes to treat an additional 200-400 trees. They will target ash trees around campgrounds, picnic areas, overlooks and other areas frequently used by visitors. These efforts were supported by the Shenandoah National Park Trust and here.
I saw many dead oaks – probably the result primarily of repeated attacks by the spongy moth link beginning in 1982. Oak-dominated study plots in SHNP lost on average 25% of individuals and 15% of above-ground biomass. After 1995, when spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis var. curstaki improved control efforts (at the expense of native moths), oak aboveground biomass increased gradually, driven by individual tree growth rather than recruitment. Oak abundance continues to decline due to oak decline and absence of management actions to promote regeneration (Anderson-Teixeira et al.). These authors do not mention oak wilt although a decade-old map shows the disease to be present just to the west of the Blue Ridge (visible here).
Fortunately Shenandoah National Park has relatively few American beech, so it will be less affected by beech leaf disease (BLD). The Blue Ridge is also far from large waterbodies — which promote the disease. However, I did see some beech sprouting in creek valleys – probably in gaps opened when the hemlocks died. These valleys with higher humidity are the type of ecosystem most conducive to the disease! Anderson-Teixeira et al. note that they did not analyze the impact of beech bark disease – which was the disease of concern before arrival of BLD and continues to be present.
They also did not evaluate the impacts of balsam woolly adelgid, described as having decimated high-elevation populations of firs (Abies balsamea); white pine blister rust on eastern white pine; or EAB on fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) in SCBI. Nor did they document the impact of thousand cankers disease (TCD) on walnuts or butternuts. This concerns me because they report that the disease “appears to be affecting Juglans spp. in our plots.” Furthermore, butternut (J. cinera) had been ‘‘common’’ in 1939, but had disappeared from SHNP by 1987. On the Smithsonian property, the four individuals found originally had declined by half – to two living individuals. Butternut has suffered high levels of mortality throughout its range from butternut canker.
The understory tree redbud (Cercis canadensis) also declined precipitously – by almost76% from 1995 to 2018 in SCBI plots. While Anderson-Teixeira et al. do not speculate why, a few years ago a wider decline was reported.
Of course, Shenandoah also has been invaded by non-native plants! So I saw some plants that should not be there. At least the mid- and high-elevations that I visited appear to be much less abundant in the Park than in coastal and piedmont regions of Virgina. Ailanthus is listed as “common” in the Park. I didn’t see Japanese stiltgrass but it is clearly present at lower elevations. I was particularly disturbed to see oriental bittersweet along trails located in all three sections of the Park.
Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., V. Herrmann, W.B. Cass, A.B. Williams, S.J. Paull, E.B. Gonzalez-Akre, R. Helcoski, A.J. Tepley, N.A. Bourg, C.T. Cosma, A.E. Ferson, C. Kittle, V. Meakem, I.R. McGregor, M. N. Prestipino, M.K. Scott, A.R. Terrell, A. Alonso, F. Dallmeier, & W.J. McShea. 2021. Long-Term Impacts of Invasive Insects & Pathogens on Composition, Biomass, & Diversity of Forests in Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. Ecosystems
Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, & A.M. Liebhold. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect & disease invasions in United States forests. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences.
Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, G. Man, & B.S. Crane. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of United States tree spp: Evaluating vulnerability to forest insect & disease threats. Global Ecology & Conservation.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
whitebark pine in Glacier National Park killed by white pine blister rust
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) is a major global policy driver around the world for more effective action to preserve biodiversity from current and future threats. (However, the United States has not joined the underlying treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). So its importance is probably less in the United States than in countries that take part.) This relatively new Framework was adopted at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD in December 2022 after four years of negotiations. However, cynics note that the 196 countries that are parties to the CBD have rarely met previous ambitious goals set at earlier COP.
Hulme et al. have just published a paper [full reference at the end of this blog] addressing how invasive species and this Framework’s target may interact. They note that conserving biodiversity costs money. Many of the countries hosting diverse and relatively intact ecosystems lack sufficient resources, capability, or robust governance structures for this conservation.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets out ambitious global targets to reduce biodiversity loss by 2030 so as to maintain the integrity of ecosystems and their constituent species. Of the 23 targets, one – Target 6 – addresses bioinvasion. Countries endorsing the CBD have committed to eliminating, minimizing, reducing and/or mitigating invasive species’ impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. This is to be accomplished by identifying and managing introduction pathways; preventing introduction and establishment of priority invasive species; reducing rates of introduction and establishment of known or potential invasive species by at least 50% by 2030; and eradicating or controlling invasive species, especially in priority sites.
I rejoice that the CBD parties have recognized invasive species as a major driver of biodiversity loss in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. I wish conservation organizations’ and funders’ activities clearly reflect this finding.
This is the challenge raised by Hulme et al.: countries must integrate efforts to counter bioinvasions into overall conservation programs. Success in curbing bioinvasion depends upon achieving almost all other KMGBF targets. And this is a two-way street: the more holistic approach offers greater likelihood of successful biodiversity conservation.
The same authors point out that some of the 22 other targets address rapidly evolving introductory pathways e.g.,
Target 15 – increasing international and domestic tourism;
Target 12 – encroachment of urban areas near protected areas;
Target 10 – development of intensive agriculture or aquaculture systems near protected areas;
Target 7 – species rafting on plastic marine pollutants; and
Target 8 – growing risk from species shifting ranges in response to climate change.
pallet graveyard behind camp store & snack bar art Lake MacDonald, Glacier National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell
Other targets relate to management of established invasive species, e.g.,
Target 1 – planning and priority-setting for allocation of limited resources among the various threats to biodiversity;
Identifying factors that pose risks to highly-valued species, e.g., threatened species (Target 4) and species that provide important ecosystem services (Target 11);
A final group of targets are intended to guide all conservation efforts. These goals include integrating biodiversity concerns in decision-making at every level (Target 14); reducing harmful economic incentives and promoting positive incentives (Target 18); and several targets addressing issues of equity, benefit sharing, and access to information. Hulme et al. assert that the threat posed by bioinvasions must be incorporated into policies, regulations, planning and development processes and environmental impact assessments across all levels of government.
Hulme et al. decry an imbalance as to which KMGBF targets have been the focus of attention from governments, conservation organizations, and media. These stakeholders have concentrated on
Target 3, which calls for extending legal protection to 30% of lands and waters by 2030;
Target 4, which promotes maintaining genetic diversity within and among populations of all species;
Target 7, which encourages reducing harmful pollution;
Target 15, which urges businesses to decrease biodiversity risks arising from their operations; and
Target 21, which advocates ensuring equitable and effective biodiversity decision-making.
Even when stakeholders have looked at Target 6, they have focused primarily on how to quantify the numbers of species being introduced to novel ecosystems. Hulme et al. argue that conservationists should instead concentrate on the challenge of achieving the target. They note that bioinvasion is worsening despite implementation of many long-term management programs. As they note, numbers of introduced species globally have increased, these species are occupying larger geographic areas, and the species’ measured impacts have risen to astounding levels (see my previous blog about new cost estimates). This same point was made two years ago by Fenn-Moltuet al. (2023) [full citation at the end of this blog]; they found that the number of invasive species-related legislation and treaties to which a country adheres did not relate to either the number of insect species detected at that country’s border or the number of insect species that had established in that country’s ecosystems.
As conservationists, Hulme et al. remind us that not all damages are monetary: invasive species threaten more than half of all UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
Hulme et al. say achieving Target 6 presents several scientific challenges – most of which have been discussed by numerous other authors. Introduction pathways are changing rapidly. There is great uncertainty regarding current and especially future propagule pressures associated with various pathways. Information about particular species’ impacts and where they are most likely to be introduced is insufficient. Management costs are routinely underestimated. Perhaps most challenging is the need to judge programs’ effectiveness based not simply on outputs (e.g., number of acres cleared of weeds) but on outcomes in relation to reducing the subsequent impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
I note that several environmental organizations endorsed a “platform” that discussed this last point a decade ago. [I have rescued the NECIS document from a non-secure website; if you wish to obtain a copy, contact me directly through the “comment” option or my email.] Unfortunately, the coalition that prepared this document no longer exists. Even when conservation organizations have invasive species efforts, they are no longer attempting to coordinate their work.
APHIS inspecting imported plants
I greatly regret that Hulme et al. continue a long-standing misrepresentation of international border biosecurity controls as consisting primarily of inspections — of imported commodities, travellers, and associated transport conveyances. I have argued for decades that inspections are not effective in preventing introductions. See Fading Forests II Chapter 3 (published in 2003); Fading Forests III Chapter 5 (published in 2014); “briefs” describing pathways of introduction prepared for the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases – in 2014 and in 2018.
The weaknesses of visual inspection are especially glaring when trying to prevent introductions via wood packaging material and living plants — also here.
Hulme et al. propose a politically astute approach to finding the resources to strengthen countries’ efforts to curtail invasive species’ spread within their borders. Recognizing that no country has unlimited resources to allocate to managing invasive species, they suggest concentrating slow-the-spread efforts on preventing damage to legally protected areas. Furthermore, authorities should avoid designating as new “protected areas” places that are already heavily invaded – or at risk of soon becoming so. As they note, programs aimed at protecting these areas often engage conservation stakeholders, decision-makers, even potential non-governmental donors. In other words, there is a foundation on which to build.
To buttress their argument, Hulme et al. cite evidence that bioinvasions threaten these areas’ integrity. For example, Cadotte et al. (2024) found that bioinvasion is one of most frequently identified threats identified in a survey of 230 World Heritage sites; and that they pose a greater degree of concern than other threats to biodiversity. They reiterate that managing invasive species is one of the most effective interventions aimed at protecting biodiversity.
The task remains complex. Hulme et al. note that accurate information about pressure caused by invasive species is not easily quantified using remote sensing. It requires expensive on-the-ground data collection. Even current methods for ranking invasive species have crucial gaps regarding species’ potential impact and the feasibility of their control. Choosing management strategies also requires assessing potential unintended effects on biodiversity and other GBF Targets, e.g., pollution from pesticides (Target 7).
Still, the context remains: successful management of bioinvasions to support the integrity of protected areas depends on the integrative approach described above.
Hulme et al. note a contradiction within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Target 10 calls for the agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry industries to adopt sustainable practices, but doesn’t raise the issue of these sectors’ role in the introduction and spread of invasive species. They say guidelines have been developed for sustainable forestry production. These guidelines recommend that commercial plantation forests not plant non-native tree species within 10 km of a protected area. Hulme et al. also suggest applying a “polluter pays” fine or bond to forestry businesses that use invasive species without sufficient safeguards to prevent escape. These funds could be accessed to support invasive species management in protected areas, particularly surveillance. (Target 19 mandates obtaining more funds for this purpose). They add that these aquaculture, agriculture, horticulture and forestry sectors should take action to prevent the local feralization of alien crops and livestock.
Target 8 calls for minimizing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. Hulme et al. note numerous scientific challenges here, including understanding how specific ecosystems’ and native species’ are vulnerable to altered climates, along with how specific invasive species’ are responding to an altered climate regime.
These same authors provide specific recommendations to the global conservation community to put in place a more holistic perspective. Some recommendations deal with data integration. Others call for major undertakings: i.e., developing a protected area management toolkit at a global scale. This action will require significant investment in capacity-building of protected area managers plus international cooperation and technology transfer (Target 20). Hulme et al. suggest funding this effort should be a priority for any resources leveraged from international finance (Target 19).
Hulme et al. also propose changes in the conservation approaches advocated by the CBD and IUCN. Specifically, they call for more explicit consideration of current and future impacts of bioinvasions and their management — on protected areas. The needed activities fall into six areas:
(1) reduce risks associated with various pathways;
(2) plan for range-shifting invasive species;
(3) mitigate invasive species’ impacts on biodiversity and (4) on ecosystem services;
(5) ensure new protected areas (including urban green spaces and infrastructure corridors) are largely free of established (“legacy”) invasive species; and
(6) provide managers sufficient resources to take effective action.
SOURCES
Fenn-Moltu, G., S. Ollier, O.K. Bates, A.M. Liebhold, H.F. Nahrung, D.S. Pureswaran, T. Yamanaka, C. Bertelsmeier. 2023. Global flows of insect transport & establishment: The role of biogeography, trade & regulations. Diversity & Distributions DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13772
Hulme, P.E., Lieurance, D., Richardson, D.M., Robinson, T.B. 2025 Multiple targets of Global Biodiversity Framework must be addressed to manage invasive species in protected areas. NeoBiota 99: 149–170. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.99.152680
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Oregon ash in swamp in Ankey National Wildlife Refuge, Willamette Valley, Oregon; photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Department of Forestry
1) Funds still not released
As of the end of June, the Office of Management and Budget has not released funds to programs under the USDA Forest Service’ State, Private, and Tribal section. This includes many programs – grants, etc. – that support state and other entities’ efforts and operation of the Forest Health Protection program. Meanwhile, tree-killing insects, pathogens, and nematodes pursue their lives … killing trees in the process.
Congress has not yet acted on legislation that will determine the funding level for USFS FHP and Research programs in Fiscal Year 2026, which begins on October 1. I remind you that the Administration has proposed 0 funds for these programs. Take advantage of the Congressional delay – contact your Member of the House and Senators.
2) the Mediterranean oak beetle (MOB) Xyleborus monographus has now been detected in nine California counties, including Napa, Sonoma, Lake, Sacramento, El Dorado, Yolo, Mendocino, and as of last month, Marin. MOB is also present in Oregon – in Multnomah, Clakamass, Marion and Washington counties.
There is no treatment for infected trees. California authorities urge landowners to search for the insect and remove infected trees – and to avoid moving infested wood.
3) Oregon Department of Forestry has announced that thousand canker disease (TCD) of walnut is killing trees of the Juglans genus in the Willamette Valley. Where the insect has been found in traps, the majority of black walnut trees have since died. Black walnut (Juglans nigra) is not native in Oregon; its range east of the Great Plains. Apparently the range of northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) also does not extend into Oregon.
Cities in Oregon are preparing for the inevitable arrival of the emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis) which was detected in Forest Grove in June 2022. The City of Salem inventoried all of its street & park trees in the last 5 years. It plans to inject a systemic pesticide into at least 550 trees this year and a similar number next year. These trees have been judged to be in good condition. Ash trees in poor condition along streets or in parks are gradually being removed and replaced.
Salem also plans to inventory Oregon ash growing in the city’s natural areas so as to understand where they will need to plant other native species. I blogged earlier about the threat EAB and MOB pose to western Oregon’s wetlands and oak savannahs.
4) Ann Hajek of Cornell and colleagues haves published a review of 20 years of research on entomopathogens that might contribute to control efforts targetting the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) (Anoplophora glabripennis). The authors call for renewed efforts to find appropriate control agents and techniques. They conclude that various pathogens – especially fungi – can support ALB eradication efforts. They would be particularly helpful if ALB populations spread – or a new outbreak is detected. (Remember, ALB has been detected in seven locations in North America – some the result of more than one introduction; and nine locations in Europe.)
The article is open access!! See
Ann E. Hajek, A.E., E.H. Clifton, and L.F. Solter. 2025. Entomopathogens for control of Asian longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Environmental Entomology, XX(XX), 2025, 1–10 https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvaf016
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
In early May I posted a blog about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget – saying that it would eliminate funding for nearly all USFS research & Forest Health Protection.
I can now provide some additional information.
The Administration has released a supplemental document providing a few details about the severe cuts it is proposing for USFS programs vital to countering bioinvasion in the coming fiscal year (FY2026), which starts October 1st. You can download this document at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/appendix_fy2026.pdf
Congress has the final say on appropriations – so please!!! inform your representative & senators about why these cuts are disastrous.
USFS [See pages 162-168 of the Appendix]
Research & Development
The Administration requests $0 for R&D. It says it will strategically use existing carryover balances to responsibly terminate research programs & close research stations. Thus, funding for R&D will decrease from the $301 million in FY24 to $44 million in FY26. The Forest Inventory & Analysis will be shifted to the National Forest System and funded at $21.5 million – less than program supporters are seeking.
The proposal does contain an “additional amount” of $26 million for dealing with the consequences of wildfires, hurricanes & other natural disasters that occurred in calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. I am confused about this funding.
State, Private, and Tribal Forests
The Administration requests $0 for S,P&T. Again, the proposal says the agency will use existing carryover balances to effectively & responsibly terminate these programs. The number of employees would be cut from 520 employees in FY24 to 37.
Again, the proposal contains an “additional amount” of $208 million for Forest Health Management to deal with the consequences of wildfires, hurricanes & other natural disasters that occurred in calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. $14 million of this sum is earmarked for assistance to states in the Northeast that are anticipating an outbreak of eastern spruce budworm (which has been spreading from Canada). In a highly unusual move, the proposal says this funding is not subject to a requirement that grant recipients provide matching funds from non-federal sources. [Is it a coincidence that Maine Senator Susan Collins chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee?]
National Forest System
Total funding for NFS would be $1.5 billion. This includes an “additional amount” of nearly $2.5 billion for expenses related to the consequences of wildfires, hurricanes & other natural disasters that occurred in calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. $75 million of this amount is earmarked for construction or maintenance of shaded fuel breaks in the Pacific Northwest.
As I noted above, the Forest Inventory and Analysis program would be placed under the NFS.
I am particularly concerned that the budget proposal provides explicitly for $20 million to improve or maintain landscape & watershed conditions by preventing invasive plant infestations and installing aquatic organism passages, etc. There is no mention of programs intended to address damage caused by non-native insects and pathogens. It appears that the Administration proposes to drop all programs re: these organisms.
The overall objective of NFS programs is defined as managing the forests for productive use & resilience to catastrophic wildfire & provide broad range of ecosystem services. The budget allegedly prioritizes funding of programs designed to increase health & resilience of National Forests & Grasslands – including meeting multiple use requirements for resources on these lands.
The prose no longer says that timber production is the sole purpose of Nation forests – as the original budget stated.
APHIS appears to have survived – although the supplement provides minimal information (on pp. 85 – 87 of the Appendix).
The supplement contains a lengthy description of APHIS’ purpose — to protect America’s agricultural and natural resources from introduced pests. It requests $1.1 billion for FY2026. The only plant pest listed as a priority is exotic fruit flies. Personnel would be cut from 6,142 in FY24 to 5,092. I could find no specifics regarding funding for programs of interest – tree & wood pests, specialty crops, pest detection, and methods development.
Implications for Non-native Insects and Pathogens
Remember that USFS’s research and development program is intended to improve forest managers’ understanding of ecosystems, including human interactions and influences, thereby enabling improvements to the health and use of our Nation’s forests and grasslands. Most importantly to me, this program provides foundational knowledge needed to develop effective programs to prevent, suppress, mitigate, and eradicate the approximately 500 non-native insects and pathogens that are killing America’s trees.
The Forest Health Program provides technical and financial assistance to the states and other forest-management partners to carry out projects (designed based on the above research) intended to prevent, suppress, mitigate, and eradicate those non-native insects and pathogens. The program’s work on non-federal lands is crucial because introduced pests usually start their incursions near cities that receive imports (often transported in crates, pallets, or imported plants).
[FIA might inform all about where such pests are found — but it doesn’t address how to contain their spread, suppress their impacts, or restore the affected tree species.]
Eliminating either or both programs will allow these pests to cause even more damage to forest resources – including timber.
Both supporting research and on-the-ground management must address pest threats across all U.S. forests, including the more than 69% that are located on lands managed by others than the USFS. Already, the 15 most damaging of these pests threaten destruction of 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states. This is a rate similar in magnitude to that attributed to fire (Fei et al. 2019). [This estimate does not include loss of beech beech leaf disease.] It is ironic that the Administration considers the fire threat to be so severe that it has proposed restructuring the government’s fire management structure.
I remind you that the existing USFS R&D budget allocates less than 1% of the total appropriation to studying a few of the dozens of highly damaging non-native pests. I have argued that this program should be expanded, not eliminated. Adequate funding might allow the USFS to design successful pest-management programs for additional pests (as suggested by Coleman et al.).
As a new international report (FAO 2025) notes, genetic resources underpin forests’ resilience, adaptability, and productivity. Funding shortfalls already undercut efforts to breed trees able to thrive despite introduced pests and climate change (the latter threat is still real, although the Administration disregards it). I have frequently urged the Congress to increase funding for USFS programs – which are sponsored primarily by the National Forest System and State, Private, and Tribal, although some are under the R&D program.
I repeat: Please ask your Member of Congress and Senators to oppose these proposed cuts. Ask them to support continued funding for both USFS R&D and its State, Private, and Tribal Programs targetting non-native insects and pathogens. America’s forests provide resources to all Americans – well beyond only timber production and they deserve protection.
Contacting your Representative and Senators is particularly important if they serve on the Appropriations committees.
House Appropriations Committee members:
Republicans: AL: Robert Aderholt, Dale Strong; AR: Steve Womack; AZ: Juan Ciscomani; CA: Ken Calvert, David Valadao, Norma Torres; FL: Mario Diaz-Balart, John Rutherford, Scott Franklin; GA: Andrew Clyde; ID: Michael Simpson; IA: Ashley Hinson; KY: Harold Rogers; LA: Julia Letlow; MD: Andy Harris; MI: John Moolenaar; MO: Mark Alford; MS: Michael Guest; MT: Ryan Zinke; NC: Chuck Edwards; NV: Mark Amodei; NY: Nick LaLota; OH: David Joyce; OK: Tom Cole, Stephanie Bice; PA: Guy Reschenthaler TX: John Carter, Chuck Fleishmann, Tony Gonzales, Michael Cloud, Jake Ellzey; UT: Celeste Maloy; VA: Ben Cline; WA: Dan Newhouse; WV: Riley Moore
Democrats: CA: Pete Aguilar, Josh Harder, Mike Levin; CT: Rosa DeLauro; FL: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Frankel; GA: Sanford Bishop; HI: Ed Case IL: Mike Quigley, Lauren Underwood; IN: Frank Mrvan; MD: Steny Hoyer, Glenn Ivey; ME: Chellie Pingree; MN: Betty McCollum; NJ: Bonnie Watson Coleman NY: Grace Meng, Adriano Espaillat, Joseph Morelle; NV: Susie Lee; OH: Marcy Kaptur; PA: Madeleine Dean; SC: James Clyburn; TX: Henry Cuellar, Veronica Escobar; WA: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez; WI: Mark Pocan
Senate Appropriations Committee members:
Republicans: AK: Lisa Murkowski; AL: Katie Britt; AR: John Boozman (AR); KS: Jerry Moran; KY: Mitch McConnell; LA: John Kennedy; ME: Susan Collins; MS: Cindy Hyde-Smith; ND: John Hoeven; NE: Deb Fischer; OK: Markwayne Mullin; SC: Lindsey Graham; SD: Mike Rounds TN: Bill Hagerty; WV: Shelley Moore Capito;
Democrats: CT: Chris Murphy; DE: Chris Coons; GA: Jon Ossof; HI: Brian Schatz; IL: Richard Durbin; MD: Chris van Hollen; MI: Gary Peters; NH: Jeanne Shaheen; NM: Martin Heinrich; NY: Kirsten Gillibrand; OR: Jeff Merkley; RI: Jack Reed; WA: Patty Murray; WI: Tammy Baldwin
Addendum
Maintaining the USFS State, Private, and Tribal (SPT) programs is essential to
complying with laws adopted by the Congress (see second page).
meeting the USFS mission of sustaining“the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”
ensuring future economic and ecological benefits to Americans.
More than two-thirds of U.S. forests are privately owned or managed by state, local, or tribal governments. These forests provide many benefits, including 89% of America’s timber harvest.[i] SPT is the only federal program providing technical, financial, & educational assistance to these non-federal landowners.
Among the many threats to American forests, the Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) focuses on the threat from insects and pathogens introduced from abroad. More than 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states is at risk to non-native pests already established in the country.[ii] From 2011 to 2020, sap feeders, e.g., hemlock woolly adelgid, killed trees on 635,000 acres; foliage feeders, e.g., spongy moth, killed trees on 948,884 acres.[iii] Additional pests will be introduced and kill more trees.
Non-native pests are introduced primarily in crates, pallets or other packaging made of wood; and in imported plants. These imports – and the pests – usually land in cities or suburbs and establish there. Initially they cause widespread death of urban trees and impose high costs on local governments and property owners who must remove dying trees. The pests also spread. Hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, sudden oak death, and beech leaf disease have all spread to National forests from cities or suburbs.
The most effective way to protect America’s forests is to find and kill the pests where they first appear – usually in city trees. Waiting to act until a pest reaches National Forest boundaries means failure. Instead, we should expand the Forest Health Management (FHM) Cooperative Lands program to quickly detect, contain, and – if possible – eradicate the pests. With higher appropriations, the STP FHM program could tackle more of the 53 tree species under threat. At present, only four of these species benefit from 95% of FHM projects – eastern oaks, loblolly and ponderosa pines, and hemlocks.[iv]
USFS Research and Development (R&D) program
FHM adopts strategies based on knowledge of pests’ life histories and traits gained through research conducted or sponsored by the USFS R&D program. CISP urges you to support continued funding for the USFS Research and Development (R&D) program. However, we advocate a realignment: raise the proportion of research funding allocated to invasive species from the current paltry level of 1% to 5%. Funding for studying non-native pests has decreased 70% since FY2010 despite new pests attacking our forests. As a result, the Forest Service is hampered from developing effective programs to prevent, suppress, and eradicate most non-native pests.
Another crucial strategy for reducing loss of tree species to non-native pests is breeding trees able to thrive despite introduced pests. Currently these projects are supported – inadequately – by all three USFS divisions: R&D, SPT, and National Forest System (NFS).
The model program is the Dorena Genetic Resource Center. The Center has bred Western white pine and Port-Orford-cedar trees resistant to introduced pathogens; these trees are now being planted. Promising projects target the pathogens killing whitebark pine, American chestnut, American elm, and Hawaiian koa. Projects at earlier stages address ash, beech, and ʻōhiʻa.
Lesson: federal dollars, wisely invested, can mitigate the damage caused by invasive species. CISP asks you to support continuing these programs so that America can restore threatened trees to our forests.
Complying with the Law
The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1974
Section 2 (a) Findings …—
(1) most of the productive forest land of the United States is in private, State, and local governmental ownership, and the capacity of the United States to produce renewable forest resources is significantly dependent on such non-Federal forest lands;
(b) Purpose.—… authorize[s] the Secretary …, with respect to non-Federal forest lands … to assist in—
…
(3) the prevention and control of insects and diseases affecting trees and forests;
(c) Priorities.—In allocating funds … , the Secretary shall focus on the following national private forest conservation priorities, …:
…
(2) Protecting forests from threats, including … invasive species, insect or disease outbreak, … and restoring appropriate forest types in response to such threats.
(e) Policy. … it is in the national interest for the Secretary to work through and in cooperation with State foresters, or equivalent State officials, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector …
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
Sec. 401(a) FINDINGS.—(1) high levels of tree mortality resulting from insect infestation (including the interaction between insects and diseases) may result in — (A) increased fire risk; … (E) degraded watershed conditions; (F) increased potential for damage from other agents of disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and (G) decreased timber values;
…
(3) the hemlock woolly adelgid is— (A) destroying streamside forests throughout the midAtlantic and Appalachian regions; (B) threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic species; and (C) posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber land in northern New England;
(4)(A) the emerald ash borer … has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests …; and (B) … threatens to destroy more than 692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone, and between 5 and 10 percent of urban street trees in the Upper Midwest;
…
(11)(A) often, there are significant interactions between insects and diseases; (B) many diseases (such as white pine blister rust, beech bark disease, and many other diseases) can weaken trees and forest stands and predispose trees and forest stands to insect attack; and (C) certain diseases are spread using insects as vectors (including Dutch elm disease and pine pitch canker); …
(b) … The purposes of this title are— (1) to require the Secretary to develop an accelerated basic and applied assessment program to combat infestations by forest-damaging insects and associated diseases; (2) to enlist the assistance of colleges and universities …, State agencies, and private landowners to carry out the program; and (3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.
Sec. 402 Definitions
…
(3) FOREST-DAMAGING INSECT. … means … (D) a gypsy moth; (E) a hemlock woolly adelgid; (F) an emerald ash borer; … and (I) such other insects … identified by the Secretary.
[i] Oswalt, S.N., .W.B. Smith, P.D. Miles, & S.A. Pugh. Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 Uport WO-97SDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report WO-97. March 2019
[ii] Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35 17371–17376
[iii] Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
Scientists at the University of Minnesota have begun a project to assess the usefulness of remote sensing to detect the presence of emerald ash borer (EAB) earlier in the invasion. Previous studies had suggested that EAB infestation reduces leaf photosynthesis and transpiration before the yellowing of leaves. Scientists can monitor these changes from space. The project is now testing whether such monitoring can reliably detect EAB infestations at an early stage … The project began in April 2025 and is scheduled to end in December 2028.
Specific research questions to be addressed are:
How effective is remote sensing in detecting EAB years ahead of crown dieback?
Do changes in photosynthesis and transpiration caused by climate stresses (e.g. droughts and floods) differ from those caused by EAB infestation?
How quickly does an EAB infestation progress and spread spatially?
If remote sensing proves to be useful, land managers will have a new tool allowing them to intervene early enough to treat ash trees, before it is too late. The project team will build on existing detection protocols in collaboration with the USDA Forest Service, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
I note that the Pacific coast states would benefit greatly from being able to identify satellite EAB outbreaks.
ash-dominated swamp in the Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge along the Willamette River in Oregon; photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Department of Forestry
I hope that this tool might also be tested for efficacy re: the non-native wood-borers attacking oaks and other trees in the Pacific coast states, e.g.goldspotted oak borer, Mediterranean oak borer, and three species of invasive shot hole borers.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
Coast live oak killed by GSOB at William Heise State Park, San Diego County; photo by F.T. Campbell
Forest entomologists in southern California have organized the first of what they intend to be annual an annual “GSOB blitz”. The goldspotted oak borer has established widely in the region and has killed tens of thousands of California black and coast live oaks.
The goal of the “blitz” is to train community members & organizations in detecting and reporting presence of this beetle. Survey events are scheduled in six Southern California Counties between June 1-June 15, 2025. Participants are welcome from the general public, private business, public or community organizations, etc.
The Trump Administration’s budget for Fiscal Year 2026 [which begins at the end of September 2025] proposes to eliminate funding for nearly all USFS research & Forest Health Protection.
Proposed Cuts to USFS Research: Timber the Sole Aim
In a letter from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine, Director Russell Vought says the Administration wants to manage National forests “for their intended purpose of producing timber” and that the research and development program “is out of step with the practical needs of forest management for timber production.” The Administration proposes to eliminate funding for USFS research projects other than the small portion covering Forest Inventory and Analysis.
I understand that the USFS Chief told various NGOs that his job is to run the National Forest System, increase timber production by 40%, and do nothing else.
This single aim conflicts with the 1897 legislation founding and authorizing the USFS. It also violates provisions of subsequent legislation such as the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. It also departs from long-standing US Forest Service policy – which is the intention.
The “intended purpose” of establishing “forest reserves” [which were later renamed National forests] has never been solely for timber production. The “Organic Act” of 1897 provided that any new forest reserves would have to meet the criteria of forest protection, watershed protection, and timber production.
Specifically, theORGANIC ACT OF 1897 [PUBLIC–No.2.] says:
“[All public lands heretofore designated and reserved by the President of the US under the provisions of the Act [of] March 3rd 1891, the orders for which shall be and remains in full force and effect, unsuspended and unrevoked, and all public lands that may hereafter be set aside as public forest reserves under said act, [these were the “forest reserves,”predecessors of “National Forests]” shall be as far as practicable controlled and administered in accordance with the following provisions:
“No public forest reservation shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of [US] citizens; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of the Act providing for such reservations, to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes.”
The Department of the Interior, which then managed these forest reserves, promptly issued implementing regulations. The regulations stated that the “object” of forest reservations was:
“2. Public forest reservations are established to protect and improve the forests for the purpose of securing a permanent supply of timber for the people and insuring conditions favorable to continuous water flow.”
Therefore, I think the Administration has exaggerated the emphasis on timber production by calling it “the” intended purpose of the original establishment of National forests. The Administration has also chosen to ignore subsequent legislation, such as the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.
Sec. 13 of the NFMA limits the sale of timber from each national forest to a quantity equal to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis. This limit might be exceeded under certain circumstances, but such excess must still be consistent with the multiple-use management objectives of the land management plan. Further, Sec. 14 requires public input into any decision to raise timber allowances.
During his period as Chief (1905 – 1910), Gifford Pinchot invented and applied the concept of “conservation” of natural resources. As a result “wise use” became accepted as the national goal.
Culminating more than a century of legislation and informed policy, the mission of the USDA Forest Service is to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”
Proposed Cuts to State, Private, and Tribal Forests
The budget also cuts $303 million from the State, Private, and Tribal Forests program. (I understand this zeroes out the entire program). The OMB Director alleges that the program has been “plagued by oversight issues, including allegation of impropriety by both the Agency and State governments.” I understand that this would eliminate the cooperative projects managed by the Forest Health Protection program, too.
Implications for Non-native Insects and Pathogens
Remember that USFS’s research and development program is intended to improve forest managers’ understanding of ecosystems, including human interactions and influences, thereby enabling improvements to the health and use of our Nation’s forests and grasslands. Most importantly to me, this program provides foundational knowledge needed to develop effective programs to prevent, suppress, mitigate, and eradicate the approximately 500 non-native insects and pathogens that are killing America’s trees.
The Forest Health Program provides technical and financial assistance to the states and other forest-management partners to carry out projects (designed based on the above research) intended to prevent, suppress, mitigate, and eradicate those non-native insects and pathogens. The program’s work on non-federal lands is crucial because introduced pests usually start their incursions near cities that receive imports (often transported in crates, pallets, or imported plants).
Eliminating either or both programs will allow these pests to cause even more damage to forest resources – including timber.
Both supporting research and on-the-ground management must address pest threats across all U.S. forests, including the more than 69% that are located on lands managed by others than the USFS. Already, the 15 most damaging of these pests threaten destruction of 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states. This is a rate similar in magnitude to that attributed to fire (Fei et al. 2019). It is ironic that the Administration considers the fire threat to be so severe that it has proposed restructuring the government’s fire management structure.
I remind you that the existing USFS R&D budget allocates less than 1% of the total appropriation to studying a few of the dozens of highly damaging non-native pests. I have argued that this program should be expanded, not eliminated. Adequate funding might allow the USFS to design successful pest-management programs for additional pests (as suggested by Coleman et al.).
As a new international report (FAO 2025) notes, genetic resources underpin forests’ resilience, adaptability, and productivity. Funding shortfalls already undercut efforts to breed trees able to thrive despite introduced pests and climate change (the latter threat is still real, although the Administration disregards it). I have frequently urged the Congress to increase funding for USFS programs – which are sponsored primarily by the National Forest System and State, Private, and Tribal, although some are under the R&D program.
Please ask your Member of Congress and Senators to oppose these proposed cuts. Ask them to support continued funding for both USFS R&D and its State, Private, and Tribal Programs targetting non-native insects and pathogens. America’s forests provide resources to all Americans – well beyond only timber production and they deserve protection.
Contacting your Representative and Senators is particularly important if they serve on the Appropriations committees.
House Appropriations Committee members:
Republicans: AL: Robert Aderholt, Dale Strong; AR: Steve Womack; AZ: Juan Ciscomani; CA: Ken Calvert, David Valadao, Norma Torres; FL: Mario Diaz-Balart, John Rutherford, Scott Franklin; GA: Andrew Clyde; ID: Michael Simpson; IA: Ashley Hinson; KY: Harold Rogers; LA: Julia Letlow; MD: Andy Harris; MI: John Moolenaar; MO: Mark Alford; MS: Michael Guest; MT: Ryan Zinke; NC: Chuck Edwards; NV: Mark Amodei; NY: Nick LaLota; OH: David Joyce; OK: Tom Cole, Stephanie Bice; PA: Guy Reschenthaler TX: John Carter, Chuck Fleishmann, Tony Gonzales, Michael Cloud, Jake Ellzey; UT: Celeste Maloy; VA: Ben Cline; WA: Dan Newhouse; WV: Riley Moore
Democrats: CA: Pete Aguilar, Josh Harder, Mike Levin; CT: Rosa DeLauro; FL: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Frankel; GA: Sanford Bishop; HI: Ed Case IL: Mike Quigley, Lauren Underwood; IN: Frank Mrvan; MD: Steny Hoyer, Glenn Ivey; ME: Chellie Pingree; MN: Betty McCollum; NJ: Bonnie Watson Coleman NY: Grace Meng, Adriano Espaillat, Joseph Morelle; NV: Susie Lee; OH: Marcy Kaptur; PA: Madeleine Dean; SC: James Clyburn; TX: Henry Cuellar, Veronica Escobar; WA: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez; WI: Mark Pocan
Senate Appropriations Committee members:
Republicans: AK: Lisa Murkowski; AL: Katie Britt; AR: John Boozman (AR); KS: Jerry Moran; KY: Mitch McConnell; LA: John Kennedy; ME: Susan Collins; MS: Cindy Hyde-Smith; ND: John Hoeven; NE: Deb Fischer; OK: Markwayne Mullin; SC: Lindsey Graham; SD: Mike Rounds TN: Bill Hagerty; WV: Shelley Moore Capito;
Democrats: CT: Chris Murphy; DE: Chris Coons; GA: Jon Ossof; HI: Brian Schatz; IL: Richard Durbin; MD: Chris van Hollen; MI: Gary Peters; NH: Jeanne Shaheen; NM: Martin Heinrich; NY: Kirsten Gillibrand; OR: Jeff Merkley; RI: Jack Reed; WA: Patty Murray; WI: Tammy Baldwin
SOURCES
Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17
FAO. 2025. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, 2025. Rome.
Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35 17371–17376
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
Guest blog by Kristy M. McAndrew, Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University
Virginia juniper (Juniperus virginiana) preforming its ecological role: succession in a field (in Ohio); photo by Greg Hume via Wikimedia
Spread of non-native species is a facet of global change that is an unintended consequence of the modern global trade network. Despite efforts put in place to limit such transport, such as International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), unintentional spread of species continues, and thus, an important part of forest health research and management includes non-native monitoring and control efforts. As other aspects of global change, such as climate and weather patterns, shift, the dynamics between native landscapes and introduced pests may unexpectedly shift as well. For example, increased climate stress of tree hosts may weaken tree defenses, allowing species that historically have not been pests of concern to reach pest status.
Japanese cedar longhorned beetle (Callidiellum rufipenne; JCLB) is a wood boring beetle in the longhorned beetle family, Cerambycidae. The adults are reddish brown in color, and relatively small for longhorned beetles, at only around 1 cm in length. Japanese cedar longhorned beetle has a long history of establishing outside of its native range but has largely been considered a non-issue. It has long been disregarded as a pest because it feeds primarily on dead or dying trees in both the native and invaded ranges. However, there are more examples of these beetles feeding on stressed, but alive, trees in North America. Therefore, I think it is an important insect to take a closer look at.
Life cycle
These beetles have a one-year life cycle, most of which is spent inside a host tree. Adults emerge from host trees in the early spring and seek out other adults to mate with and trees to lay eggs on. Eggs are laid on thin parts of bark or in bark crevices, and when the eggs hatch larvae chew beneath the bark where they feed on the phloem until they have completed larval development. Once larvae are fully developed, they burrow further into the tree, into the xylem tissue, where they pupate, overwinter as fully formed adults, and continue the cycle the following spring.
Native range
The native range of JCLB is eastern Asia. It is common throughout the Korean peninsula and across the islands of Japan. It is also considered native to Eastern China and Russia. Within the native range JCLB is found primarily on dead and/or dying trees and is thus considered a secondary pest. On dead trees they can be found on any diameter of dead woody material, but on declining trees they will likely be in the small diameter branches and stems.
Arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis); photo by James St. John via Flickr
Invasion history
Japanese cedar longhorned beetle was first documented as an invasive pest in the early 1900s in France, and since then has established in at least fifteen countries (Clément 2023). Most of these countries are in Europe, but the United States and Argentina also have established populations. As with most woodboring insects, the invasion pathway is believed to have been wood packaging material being transported via global trade routes. Between 1914 and 2022 it was intercepted over 700 times (reviewed by KM). Since the implementation of ISPM No. 15, only six interceptions have been reported up to 2022 (USDA APHIS data reviewed by K.M.). [For Faith’s view on the regulation of wood packaging, see Fading Forests II and III (links provided at the end of this blog) and earlier blogs posted here under the category “wood packaging”. esp. 1 from 2015].
A USDA risk assessment completed in 2000 suggested other possible pathways of introduction, including balled nursery stock, green logs, and pruned branches (USDA APHIS and Forest Service, 2000).
In terms of establishments in North America, JCLB was first detected in natural forests in North Carolina in 1997. It was soon discovered in Connecticut in 1998; in neighboring New York in 1999; and in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island in 2000. It was quickly discovered feeding on live arborvitae (also called northern white cedar; Thuja occidentalis) in these invaded regions. JCLB has since been found in Pennsylvania (in 2010) and Maryland (in 2011). It is important to note that it is not clear when this species truly established, because of its previously discussed long history of being intercepted in ports of entry.
Most introduced populations of JCLB are found in either dead hosts or in the damaged/dead limbs of live hosts. In Buenos Aires, for example, storm-damaged trees with broken limbs are often where beetles are collected (Turienzo 2007). In the United States, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and common juniper (Juniperus communis ) are the two native species most commonly affected, but so far there is no evidence of live trees of these species being infested (Maier 2007). However, a growing concern in the United States is that JCLB has been documented on live trees – particularly in urban environments. These trees are typically arborvitae, and they are typically stressed urban trees that have been overwatered and often show signs and symptoms of other health issues.
Host breadth
The host breadth of JCLB encompasses much of the family Cupressaceae. Maier (2007) identified 19 potential hosts from the literature and research, with the vast majority (14) of the hosts being Cupressaceae species, which is indicative of JCLB being a relative generalist, especially when considering species in the cypress family. This is important, because there are over 130 species within Cupressaceae worldwide that could be suitable hosts for JCLB, meaning host will not be a limiting factor in many invasion scenarios for this insect. Most often trees infested by JCLB need to be either stressed or dead, which limits suitability to an extent. However, many landscape trees are inherently stressed, whether it be from a history of roots being balled and wrapped in burlap, being planted in less than ideal scenarios, or being overwatered.
A few reports from research in Japan record JCLB feeding on plants in Pinaceae, primarily Pinus and Abies species. One article reports use of Larix kaempferi; another documented JCLB on the Taxaceae species, Taxus cuspidata. North American pine (Pinus spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) species have not been tested, but if they are revealed as suitable that would increase the availability of hosts in North America significantly.
In southern New England at least nine species have been confirmed as suitable, all of which are in the family Cupressaceae. Native and abundant junipers, such as Juniperus virginiana, appear to be highly suitable hosts. Additional host testing would be beneficial – especially Cupressaceae species that are either threatened or have a limited range. Within the United States there are a total of 28 native Cupressaceae species. Thus the suitable range (in terms of hosts) covers the entire Eastern half of North America through central Texas, most of the Pacific Coast, and widespread but spotty/disjunct areas throughout the Intermountain West and High Plains regions.
Atlantic white cedar swamp (Chamaecyparis thyoides) in Brendan Byrne State Forest, New Jersey; photo by Famartin via Wikimedia
Suitability
Tools such as environmental niche models can give helpful estimates of suitability. For species that are typically secondary pests, such as JCLB, it can be difficult to obtain non-biased data with good coverage to make reliable predictions. Preliminary research (unpublished) has been completed to estimate suitable habitat with limited occurrence records from the native range. Despite limited occurrences, models performed well and estimated moderate to high suitability in most temperate regions globally. These preliminary models are still being optimized by working with collaborators within the native range of JCLB to increase the number of occurrences. It is also important to note that these models are only accounting for climate data. Host data was not included, but Cupressaceae species are abundant globally, and therefore host availability is not likely a limiting factor for JCLB in establishing in regions.
Importance of monitoring species
While JCLB is still mostly limited to dead, dying trees, many of the species it may affect in the Eastern United States are already of heightened conservation concern. Wetland Cupressaceae, such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), are valuable in terms of ecosystem services they provide in coastal, and inland, wetlands. These wetlands are encountering heightened stress in the form of increasing saltwater intrusion, increased storm strength, and changing landscapes, all of which may predispose trees to insect attack. Japanese cedar longhorned beetle has been successfully reared out of logs of Atlantic White Cedar, but thankfully has not been documented on live trees of this species (Maier 2009)[Ma1] . Bald cypress has not yet been tested for suitability. It is unknown if the stressors these trees are facing and will continue to face will impact JCLB’s ability to infest these landscapes, or if they will remain restricted to dead trees in these coastal forests. Regardless, given JCLB already has an established foothold in the Eastern United States, it is important to better understand the potential impacts of this insect.
First steps to understanding those impacts include 1) better documenting the host range in the regions and 2) determining the climate that may support the species. Hopefully we can continue research in these areas to best manage this non-native pest.
Much of the research conducted on JCLB in North America took place almost 20 years ago (Maier 2007, 2009), so updated sampling has potential to provide a wealth of information regarding spread rate, suitable climate, and establishment patterns.
bald cypress(Taxodium distichum); photo by Kej605 via Wikimedia; it is unknown whether this species is vulnerable to the Japanese cedar longhorned beetle
Sources
Clément F. 2023. Le point sur la distribution en France et en Europe de Callidiellum rufipenne (Motschulsky, 1861)(Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycinae, Callidiini). Le Coléoptériste. 26(3):188–203.
Maier CT. 2007. Distribution and Hosts of Callidiellum rufipenne (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), an Asian Cedar Borer Established in the Eastern United States. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY. 100(4).
Maier CT. 2009. Distributional and host records of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) associated with Cupressaceae in New England, New York, and New Jersey. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 111(2):438–453. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797-111.2.438
Turienzo P. 2007. New records and emergence period of Callidiellum rufipenne (Motschulsky, 1860) [Coleoptera:Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae: Callidiini] in Argentina. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas. 33:341–349.
United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Forest Service 2000. (Pasek, J.E., H.H. Burdsall, J.F. Cavey, A. Eglitis, R.A. Haack, D.A. Haugen, M.I. Haverty, C.S. Hodges, D.R. Kucera, J.D. Lattin, W.J. Mattson, D.J. Nowak, J.G. O’Brien, R.L. Orr, R.A. Sequeira, E.B. Smalley, B.M. Tkacz, W.W. Wallner) Pest Risk Assessment for Importation of Solid Wood Packing Materials into the United States. USDA APHIS and Forest Service. August 2000.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
