Category: invasive species policy

What I learned at the NPB meeting

The National Plant Board’s members are the lead plant health officials of the states and territories. Many federal officials also attend – from APHIS and DHS Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Representatives of other North American phytosanitary entities participate – i.e., Canada, Mexico, and the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). Some stakeholder groups participate, especially the nursery industry. I have attended these meetings for over a decade because they provide an overview of pest issues and programs plus an unparalleled opportunity to network. The Nature Conservancy’s Leigh Greenwood also attends. We are the only representatives of the species conservation community to attend – others are missing great opportunities.

Here, I’ve listed 10 items that are among the most important the group discussed.

1) The funding situation for APHIS is worse than I realized

APHIS Administrator Mike Watson and Deputy Administrator (for plants) Mark Davidson both spoke about the need to cut programs to stay within the limits set by congressional appropriations. Funding for APHIS, as a whole, was cut only 1% for the current year (Fiscal Year 2024), cost-of-living salary increases mean less money for programs. (I believe Dr. Watson said $41 million less for FY24). If FY25 funding is the same, Congressionally mandated additional payraises will mean an another $20 million decrease in program funding.

Dr. Davidson said that the plant programs (Plant Protection and Quarantine) had been cut by 5% in FY24. However, Congress did not finalize the funding levels until about half-way through the fiscal year – so staying within the limits required even more severe cuts to programs in the remainder of FY24. To stay within these limits, APHIS cut several programs, among them a $3.6 million cut from the “tree and wood pest” program. This meant loss of funds to manage the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, smaller cuts for programs managing Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer, and perhaps the Asian flighted spongy moth. They anticipate additional cuts in these programs in FY25. The one bright light is the Section 7721 Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program. It provides steady funding for a range of plant health programs. The House version of the still-pending Farm Bill calls for increasing funding for this program by $15 million each year.

Nearly 100% ash trees in Oregon wetland — exposed to spreading EAB. Photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Department of Forestry

Remember this when I ask you to lobby for appropriations!  If we don’t advocate for funding the programs dealing with “our” pests, they will shrink.

Watkins and Davidson also worry that whoever is the next secretary of USDA might not support the agency when it seeks to withdraw funds to cover emergencies from the Commodity Credit Corporation – as Secretary Vilsack has.

APHIS and the DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) both praised a recent regulatory action that increases user fees for importers having goods cleared at ports. Kevin Harriger, CPB official in charge of agriculture programs, said the new funds would allow CBP to hire 700 new agricultural inspectors (currently there are 2,800 agricultural officials). That sounds great, but … when trade and passenger volumes crashed early in the COVID pandemic, things looked dicey for a while.  Plus – as I have argued repeatedly – real protection against pest introductions will come from stronger policies, not ramped-up inspections.

Pathologist Bruce Moltzan reported on the USFS Forest Health Protection program. He pointed out that the USFS has a very limited toolbox. In this fiscal year, the program has about $48 million, after salaries, to support its activities. Projects targetting insects receive 70% of the funding; those targetting pathogens 15%.

2) Invasive hornets

Washington State has not found any new nests of the Northern (formerly Asian) giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia). Miraculous!

However, Georgia detected another species, the yellow-legged hornet (Vespa velutina), near Savannah in August 2023. The Georgia Department of Agriculture, APHIS, and the University of Georgia are working to find nests – which are located at the top of tall pine trees in residential areas. Five nests were found in 2023; another four so far in 2024. Georgia hopes to place traps 100 miles out from each detection site. Like the northern hornet, V. velutina preys on honey bees. It was probably transported by ship or with its cargo.

A third species, V. tropica, has been introduced on Guam.

3) Better Federal-State Cooperation — Sometimes

APHIS and the state phytosanitary officials have set up structures –  e.g., Strategic Alliance/Strategic Initiative, or SASI – to work together more closely. CBP joins the coordinating meetings. One program described at the meeting is the effort to contain spread of the box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis). This effort came out of discussions at last year’s Plant Board meeting, with follow-up gatherings of APHIS, the states, and the nursery industry. The moth is known to be present in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and now Delaware – plus several Canadian provinces.

A second project concerns how much data to share about state detections of pests – which are recorded in the National Plant diagnostic Network database. These data have accrued over 20 years … and are sought by both other states and academic researchers. States are often reluctant to allow public review of detection data because they fear it will cause other states or private parties to avoid buying plants or other goods from the infested area. While the project team has not yet decided how to deal with these conflicts, they said they were more inclined to share “nonconsequential data” – meaning data on a pest everyone already knows is present, not a pest under regulation or a new detection. In other words, “consequential” seems to pertain to industry profits, not damage to agricultural or natural resources.

EAB-killed ash along Mattawoman Creek, Maryland. Photo by Leslie A. Brice

4) Update: 20 years of tackling the emerald ash borer

Craig Kellogg, APHIS’ chief plant health representative in Michigan, reviewed 20 years of dealing with the emerald ash borer (EAB). He is optimistic about the impact of the biocontrol agents that have now been released in 32 states and four provinces. The larval parasitoids are dispersing and EAB densities are coming down. He conceded that over-story and mature ash are still dying, but says ash in long-infested areas are regenerating well. Scientists agree (see Wilson et al. 2024; full citation at end of the blog). Woodpeckers are still the most effective biocontrol agent of EAB for over-story ash, especially in locations where introduced parasitoids are not established. So far, the growing numbers of biocontrol agents are still parasitizing too few EAB larvae to prevent decline of over-story ash trees.

5) Flighted Spongy Moths

APHIS reported on recent detections of flighted spongy moth from Asia on ships coming to U.S. ports. The program covers four closely related species of Lymantria. All have much broader host ranges than Lymantria dispar, plus the females are capable of sustained flight, so they spread more rapidly.

The principal strategy to prevent their introduction is to require ships that call at ports along the Pacific coast in Russia, China, Japan, and North and South Korea to ensure that the ships’ superstructures and cargo are clean. Before arriving at U.S. ports, the ship’s captain must inform CBP where it has called over the last 24 months. Then, CBP conducts an inspection. If CBP inspectors find a small number of egg masses, they remove the eggs and spray pesticide. If the inspectors detect a large number of egg masses, the ship is ordered to leave port, clean itself, and undergo re-inspection before it can return.

Four countries in the Americas – the U.S., Canada, Chile, and Argentina – and also New Zealand have very similar programs.

Detections follow natural changes in population levels in the exporting regions. APHIS’ program leader, Ingrid Asmundsson, reported on an unfortunate coincidence in 2014. A huge moth population outbreak occurred simultaneously with very low fuel prices in Russia. The latter attracted many ships to call there.  An even bigger population surge occurred in 2019. Asmundsson expects another high-moth period this year.

flighted spongy moths infesting a ship superstructure

APHIS is working on putting this program on a regulatory foundation; this would allow the agency to be more specific in its requirements and to impose penalties (other than expulsions from ports). I’ll let you know when the proposed rule is published for comment.

6) Regional Reports: Old Pests, New Pests

Representatives of the regional plant boards informed us of their “new pest” or other concerns.

Gary Fish, president of the Eastern Plant Board, mentioned

  • the need for additional research on management of beech leaf disease
  • concern about impact of box tree moth and vascular streak dieback on the nursery industry (the latter is a threat to dogwood and redbud)
  • spread of elm zig-zag sawfly in Vermont and Connecticut
  • awareness that laurel wilt is moving into Virginia and maybe farther north.
elm zig-zag sawfly; photo by Gyorgy Csoka via Bugwood

There was a more general discussion of beech leaf disease. What can be done, given that the disease is so widespread that no one is regulating movement of beech. Gary Fish advised outreach and efforts to reach agreement on management approaches. Chris Benemann, of Oregon, suggested informing other states so that they can decide whether to take regulatory action. A representative of CBP urged engaging stakeholders by asking for their help.

Chris Benemann, President of the Western Plant Board, expressed concern about APHIS’ reduced funding for spongy moth detection and control efforts. She also worries about the recently detected population of Phytophthora austrocedrii in an Oregon nursery. The western states are also focused on several longstanding pest problems – grasshoppers, Japanese beetle; and a new beetle from Australia that is attacking almonds, pistachios, and walnuts.

tree infested by hemlock woolly adelgid; photo by F.T. Campbell

Megan Abraham of Indiana reported that members of the Central Plant Board are concerned about

She noted that nursery stock is increasingly coming from more distant – and cheaper – producers, raising the risk of new pests being introduced.

Finally, Abraham expressed concern about decreased funding at the same time as the need is growing – and asked with whom states should collaborate in order to reverse this trend.

Kenny Naylor of Oklahoma, Vice President of the Southern Plant Board, concurred that funding levels are a major concern. He mentioned specifically the spongy moth Slow the Spread program and eradication of the Asian longhorned beetle outbreak in South Carolina. Another concern is the Georgia hornet outbreak.

7) Phasing Out Post-Entry Quarantine

APHIS and the NPB have agreed to phase out the post-entry quarantine (PEQ) program. A program review revealed several problems, some of which astound me. When examining plants in quarantine the scientists still relying on visual inspection! And they are looking for pests identified 45 years ago (1980)! While I think PEQ programs can be valuable in preventing introduction of disease agents, as implemented in recent decades it does not.  Twenty years ago, citrus longhorned beetles escaped from a “quarantine” area in a commercial nursery in Washington state. These Cerambycids are more than an inch long!

citrus longhorned beetle; photo by Art Wagner, USDA via Bugwood

Part of this phase-out is to transfer plant species harboring pests of concern to the Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Assessment (NAPPRA). While the APHIS speaker said that NAPPRA allows the agency to act quickly when it detects evidence of pest risk, I have found lengthy delays. The third round of proposals was published in December 2019! The fourth round of species proposed for NAPPRA listing should be published soon; a fifth round is now in draft inside the agency.

8) Christmas Greens – Spreading Pests

Officials from Oregon, Maine, and Illinois described their concerns about pests being spread by shipments of various forest or plant products, especially Christmas greens. Mentioned were spongy moths, link hemlock woolly adelgid, link elongate hemlock scale, balsam woolly adelgid, link and box wood moth. Part of the challenge is that the vectoring items are often sold by unregulated outlets – multiple stores, Christmas tree lots – and through on-line or catalog outlets. There are also extreme demands on the regulatory enforcement staff during the brief holiday sales season. Several states are unsure whether they have authority over decorative products – although others pointed out that they are regulating the pest, regardless of the object for sale or type of store.

9) Pests in Firewood

Leigh Greenwood of The Nature Conservancy noted that the state agencies that issue firewood regulations – often the plant protection organization (state department of agriculture) — do a good job alerting the public about the risks and rules. However, the public looks first to state parks agencies for information about camping – and those agencies have less robust educational efforts. It is important to put the message where the public can find it when they don’t know it exists – before they include firewood from home in their camping gear.

10) Projects of the North American Plant Protection Organization

The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) is working on several projects of interest to those of us concerned about tree-killing pests. One project is evaluating risks associated with wood products, especially how well one international regulation, ISPM#15 is working for dunnage. Another projects is testing the efficacy of the heat treatment specified by ISPM#15 (50o C for 30 minutes). A third project — almost completed – is evaluating fumigants that can be alternatives to methyl bromide.

In conclusion, each annual meeting of the National Plant Board is packed with new information, updates on current pests, and comments on by the state agencies who suggest new approached to APHIS and hold the agency to account. It is well worth attending. Information about upcoming meetings of both the national and four regional plant boards is posted on the NPB website, https://www.nationalplantboard.org/

Signatories to the APHIS-NPB strategic alliance

SOURCE

Wilson, C.J., T.R. Petrice, T.M. Poland, and D.G. McCullough. 2024. Tree species richness and ash density have variable effects on emerald ash borer biological control by woodpeckers & parasitoid wasps in post-invasion white ash stands. Environmental Entomology.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

APHIS Annual Report Describes Helpful Programs … Since Cut Back Because of Funding Shortfalls

Flighted spongy moths infesting a ship’s superstructure

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued its annual report for Fiscal Year 2023.  The report is part of an enhanced outreach effort that I believe is an effort to persuade the Congress to provide additional funds. However, as I describe below, at this summer’s annual meeting of the National Plant Board, link APHIS’ leadership stated that funding shortfalls are forcing them to curtail many programs. These include ones important to those of us concerned about threats to North American trees. I applaud this action and hope it succeeds!

The report contains some good news but I consider the overall approach depressing. Tree-killing pests continue to receive little attention. The report also emphasizes APHIS’ efforts to facilitate export of agricultural products – an understandable stance given American politics.

The opening summarizes the agency’s activities includes:

  • Examples of programs targetting pests abroad, before they can reach the U.S. All are fresh fruits and vegetables;
  • APHIS or  staff at U.S. borders:
    • Approved (cleared) 27,235 shipmentscontaining over 1.87 billion plant units (e.g., a single plant or cutting, or vial of tissue culture plantlets) and 670,811 kilograms of seeds. They intercepted 2,176 quarantine pests. (APHIS carry out these inspections at Plant Inspection Stations – separate from the port environment where DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff inspects other cargo.)
  • Identified approximately 92,000 pestsfound during CBP inspections of cargo, mail, and express carrier shipments and took quick action to prevent those of concern from entering the U.S.
  • Facilitated entry of regulated agricultural cargo by monitoring more than 62,000 treatments of various kinds, that is, fumigations, cold or heat treatments, and irradiation.
  • Examples of APHIS’ efforts to slow pests’ spread within the country cited plant pest surveys — with coordinated responses — for approximately 45 pests. Also APHIS described funding to help citrus growers combat citrus greening.
  • The report has separate subreports on the following programs: risk analysis, pest detection, “specialty crop” pests, and tree and wood pests. The last two contain information specific to our interests.

Tree and Wood Pests

This program protects forests, private working lands, and natural resources. It targets specific pests: the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, and most recently the invasive shot hole borers. The report notes that numerous native, widespread hardwood tree species are vulnerable to these pests. APHIS asserts an economic justification for the program: conserving forests enhances rural communities’ economic vitality, supports forest-related industries, and maintains the ecosystem services provided by urban trees.

Unfortunately, at this summer’s annual meeting of the National Plant Board APHIS leadership said funding shortfalls forced them to pull back on all these programs.

Programs as Described in the Report

Asian Longhorned Beetle  

ALB eradication aims to protect the 30% of U.S. trees that are ALB hosts. These trees support multi-billion-dollar maple syrup, timber, tree nursery, trade, and tourism industries. After reviewing the history of ALB detections, starting in Brooklyn in August 1996, the report describes APHIS’ eradication strategy as comprising surveys, regulatory inspections and quarantine restrictions, removal of infested and high-risk trees, and chemical treatment applications. In FY 2023, the program surveyed more than 763,000 trees across the four regulated areas: New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and South Carolina. Each program is summarized.

Good news at two locations. On Long Island: only 11 new infested trees were found after a survey of 43,480 trees. In Worcester County, Massachusetts, no new infested trees were found after surveying nearly 360,000 trees. However, in Tate Township, Ohio, surveys detected 163 new infested trees. And in

South Carolina, the program is at an earlier stage — surveying a portion of the quarantine area. The program surveyed nearly 140,000 trees and removed 1,700 in FY 2023.

At the National Plant Board Meeting, Deputy Administrator Mark Davidson explained that the FY2024 appropriation cut $3.6 million from the “tree and wood pests” account. This required the agency to reduce funding for the ALB eradication program.

Emerald Ash Borer

The report summarizes the spread of EAB since its first detection in 2002 in Michigan to 37 states and the District of Columbia (APHIS does not mention EAB’s presence in five Canadian provinces.)

Saying that EAB has spread beyond what a regulatory program can control, the report notes that APHIS ended the regulatory program in FY 2021. In FY 2023 the agency continued the transition to a program relying primarily on biocontrol. In FY2023, APHIS provided parasitoids to 155 release sites – three in Canada, the rest in 122 counties in 25 states. APHIS and cooperators continue to assess their impacts on EAB populations and tree health at release sites and nearby areas. Field evaluations indicate the EAB parasitoid wasps and other EAB natural enemies (woodpeckers) are protecting regenerating sapling ash from EAB.

At the National Plant Board Meeting, Deputy Administrator Mark Davidson explained that the FY2024 appropriation cut $3.6 million from the “tree and wood pests” account. This required the agency to reduce funding for the EAB containment program – probably the biocontrol component.

Spongy Moths

Spongy moths (the species formerly called European gypsy moths) are established in all or parts of 20 eastern and midwestern states, plus the District of Columbia. APHIS and state cooperators regulate activities in the quarantine area to prevent the moths’ human-assisted spread to non-quarantine (non-infested) areas – primarily West coast states. To address the moths’ natural spread, APHIS PPQ monitors the 1,200-mile-long border of the quarantine area and adds newly infested areas to the regulated area. The USDA Forest Service – APHIS – Slow-the-Spread Foundation program has greatly reduced the moth’s rate of spread and has eradicated isolated populations.

Another component of the program aims to prevent introduction of members of the flighted spongy moth complex link from Asia. The Asian species have broader host ranges and the females can fly, so they could spread faster. A multi-nation cooperative program is designed to prevent the moths’ hitchhike on vessels coming from Asia. link APHIS supports this program through negotiations and support of CBP’s offshore vessel inspection, certification, and cleaning requirements. Canada participates in the same program.  

In FY 2023, APHIS and state cooperators continued efforts to delimit possibly introductions in Washington State (no additional moths detected); and California and Oregon (initial detections in FY 2020).

At the National Plant Board Meeting, Deputy Administrator Mark Davidson explained that the FY2024 appropriation cut $3.6 million from the “tree and wood pests” account. This required the agency to reduce funding for the flighted spongy moth program.

California sycamore infested by polyphagous shot hole borer; photo by Beatriz Nobua-Behrmann UC Cooperative Extension

Shot Hole Borers

The report notes that various non-native shot hole borers have been detected in several states. Their hosts include trees in forests and urban landscapes, tea plantations, and avocado orchards. The program’s focus was apparently on the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers devastating riparian habitats in southern California and urban areas in other parts of California. At California’s request, APHIS and the USDA Forest Service helped establish a working group, led by USFS, with the goal of strategically addressing both shot hole borers in California. In FY 2023, APHIS’ helped with foreign explorations for possible biocontrol agents, as well as host specificity testing.

APHIS leadership told the National Plant Board in July 2024 that it had dropped this entire program due to funding shortfalls.

Specialty Crop Pests

While much of this report concerns pests of agricultural crops (e.g., grapes, citrus, potatoes), it also summarized efforts re: Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death) and spotted lanternfly. APHIS says its efforts protected nursery stock production worth approximately $1.3 billion as of 2019, and tree fruit production worth approximately $1.7 billion in 2021.

map showing areas of the Eastern United States at risk to P. ramorum – developed by Gilligan of Cambridge University

Phytophthora ramorum

The report states that APHIS seeks to limit P. ramorum’s spread from affected nurseries. The agency does this via regulatory strategies. During FY 2023, 16 nurseries were governed by more stringent rules  under the federal program which are imposed on nurseries that have been determined in past years to harbor P. ramorum-infected plants.

In addition, Oregon officials continued surveys of an area outside its quarantine zone because of a detection the previous year. APHIS will adjust the federal quarantine depending on the state’s findings.

The APHIS report does not discuss several pertinent events that occurred in FY2023. [For more details, read the California Oak Mortality Task Force newsletters for 2023 – posted here.

First, APHIS does not mention or discuss the implications of detection of two new strains of P. ramorum — EU1 & NA2 — in west coast forests. The presence of EU1 in a new California county (Del Norte) was confirmed in Feb 2023.

Second, the report said that Oregon is trying to determine the extent of the P. ramorum infection detected outside the state’s quarantine zone. However, it does not mention that this outbreak involves the new NA2 lineage – and that NA2 was known to be present in nurseries in the region since 2005.

The report also does not clarify that three nurseries to added to the more stringent program were so treated because SOD-infected plants were found on their premises.

Nor does the report note that at least two new naturally-infected hosts of P. ramorum were identified:  Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and Arbutus x ‘Marina’.Koch’s postulates need to be completed on the latter so it has not yet been added to APHIS’ official host list.

Spotted Lanternfly

Spotted Lanternfly (SLF) was found in 16 states in FY 2023. APHIS’ program enjoyed funding provided through Specialty Crop Pests and from the Plant Protection Act’s Section 7721 link ($6 million from the latter).

The report notes that APHIS still does not have enough data to determine SLF’s impacts on agriculture. Thus far, vineyards have been the most adversely affected agricultural segment, mostly due to SLF acting as a stressor to vines. Also, the sticky, sugary “honeydew” produced by SLF attracts other insects and promotes sooty mold growth. These can ruin the fruit and further damage the plant.

SLF populations are strongly linked to major transportation pathways, such as railroads and interstate highways. APHIS targets treatments and, in some areas, removes SLF’s preferred host plant (tree of heaven [Ailanthus]), from transportation hubs. The aim is to reduce the risk of SLF’ spread to new areas and to eradicate isolated infestations. In FY 2023, APHIS and cooperators treated 4,637 properties covering 6,455 acres in affected areas. However, during the National Plant Board meeting both state and APHIS officials complained to me that managers of these transportation hubs raise many barriers to their access, sharply limiting the program’s chance of success.

Ailanthus altissima – drive of spotted lanternfly invasion

The program was expanded after National Environmental Policy Act-mandated environmental review. This allowed APHIS to conduct treatments in four additional states—Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Rhode Island. In addition, program cooperators identified three potential biological control organisms, one that targets the tree of heaven and two that target SLF. APHIS will continue to evaluate them and develop methods to rear them in the laboratory.

Finally, in fiscal year 2023, APHIS joined the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the National Plant Board to develop a national strategic plan outlining the future direction of the SLF program. With the strategic plan, PPQ aims to harmonize the approach across states to slow SLF’s spread, develop consistent outreach messaging for a nationwide audience, and more effectively use existing state and Federal resources. Continued spread of SLF despite the huge effort, rising costs of the program, and new scientific findings spurred reconsideration of the strategy.

To summarize, I hope that APHIS’ annual report will – in the future – help members of Congress and their staff understand the agency’s programs’ purpose and past successes. This increased understanding might make it easier to advocate for more funding. I am troubled, however, by the agency’s glossing over significant problems.  

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Two new Phytophthora arrivals (plus another looming) in U.S. forests & nurseries

Breeding Port-Orford cedar for resistance to Phytophthora lateralis; photo by Richard Sniezko, USDA Forest Service

At the annual meeting of the National Plant Board in July, I learned that two new Phytophthora species have been detected in the United States. Questions remain about how each arrived.

  1. Phytophthora austrocedrii

This species was detected in a nursery in Oregon, then traced back to a supplier in Ohio. Officials are trying to determine how it entered the country – and then spread.

junipers in Great Britain killed by P. austrocedri; Forestry Research

In the United Kingdom, P. austrocedri has killed trees in the Juniperus and Cupressus genera. Damage is particularly significant at two sites in northern Scotland and in England’s Lake District. The principal host, Juniperus communis, is an important native species. It is already considered vulnerable. P. austrocedri has also been detected in Argentina, where it is killing the native Chilean or Patagonian cedar (Austrocedrus chilendris). The cedar species is the only one in the genus. Evidence indicates the pathogen was introduced to both Britain and Argentina; but its origin is unknown. Indeed, the species was first isolated by scientists as an unknown Phytopthora taxon on a juniper in an import/export nursery in Germany. All reported hosts are members of the Cupressaceae family (UK forest research website).

Of greater concern to Americans, P. austrocedri has also infected individual trees of Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). (UK forest research website).  

Port-Orford cedar is a species endemic to a small range in southwestern Oregon and Northwestern California.

POC populations have been severely reduced over the past century by a different non-native Phytophthora, P. lawsonii. US Forest Service scientists recently announced that they have bred trees resistant to this pathogen – and offered seedlings for widespread planting.

Possible hosts in the Pacific Northwest – other than Port Orford cedar – include Juniperus californica, Juniperus grandis, Juniperus occidentalis, and Juniperus maritima – although the junipers might be limited to arid environments, where they would presumably be less vulnerable. https://plants.usda.gov/home/classification/15147

Research in Great Britain shows that P. austrocedri spreads in water and by movement of infected plants and contaminated soil. Footwear, camping equipment, and vehicle tires can all carry the pathogen. This makes the pathogen particularly difficult to control (this is another similarity with P. lawsonii).

  • Phytophthora abietivora  

P. abietivora was originally found on a diseased Christmas tree (Fraser fir, Abies fraseri) in Connecticut in 2019. It has since been reported in Pennsylvania and Virginia; and in forest nurseries and Christmas tree plantations in Quebec and Ontario. The Canadians report that it has not caused disease (Canadian website). However, the Canadian representative at the National Plant Board meeting expressed concern and asked USDA APHIS to clarify what actions it is taking regarding this species.

(Natural populations of Fraser fir have been severely reduced over the past century by the balsam woolly adelgid.)   

Fraser fir killed by balsam woolly adelgid; Clingman’s Dome, Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Several additional hosts have been identified, including balsam fir (Abies balsamea) and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis); and deciduous or hardwood species: hickory (Carya sp.), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), mountain holly (Ilex montana), red maple (Acer rubrum), silver birch (Betula lenta), American beech (Fagus grandifolia); and several oaks: white (Quercus alba), chestnut (Q. montana) and northern red oak (Q. rubra) (Canadian fact sheet).

According to the Canadian website, P. abietivora causes root rot and subsequent foliar chlorosis, discoloration, stem cankers, and sometimes tree decline and death. Determining which Phytophthora species is the causal agent of a tree’s symptoms requires laboratory testing. The Canadian fact sheet reports that wet, cool conditions provide ideal environments for P. abietivora. Like other Phytophthora species, P. abietivora can be spread through soil and water, as well as via infected plant material or pots or trays (particularly if soil remains on the equipment). The Canadian fact sheet has several photographs illustrating symptoms and additional sources.

Liriodendron tulipifera; photo by Evelyn Simak via Geograph

  • Phytophthora kernoviae 

P. kernoviae was first detected in southwestern England in 2003. link In England, this pathogen has caused significant diseases in native Fagus sylvatica (European beech) and lesions on trunks of a European oak, Quercus robur. More worrying are the trunk lesions on the North American native yellow or tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and lesions on foliage of Monterey pine (Pinus radiate), giant sequoia(Sequoiadendron giganteum), and several North American native shrubs, Rhododendron macrophyllum (Pacific rhododendron), R. occidentale (western rhododendron), R. catawbiense (Catawba rosebay) and Umbellularia californica (California bay laurel).

Phytophthora kernoviae on R. ponticum in Cornwall

The infestation in Cornwall is sustained by heavy sporulation on the non-native shrub Rhododendron ponticum, which is invasive in woodlands. Worrying for Americans is the fact that P. kernoviae sporulates on three plant species native to West coast forests — Rhododendron macrophyllum, R. occidentale, and Umbellularia californica – as well as on R. catawbiense, which is native to the southern Appalachians.

USDA APHIS requested adoption of a “response plan” targetting P. kernoviae under the National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS). This plan was adopted in 2008 and updated in 2015.

The recovery plans found the areas at highest risk are eastern slopes of the Appalachian Mountains because this area combines a native sporulating host and residential landscaping choices that are likely to include hosts that could transport the pathogen. A lower risk was identified for West Coast forests.

Because of this status, P. kernoviae is also a “priority” pest for surveys under the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) program. According to Purdue University’s “pest tracker” website four states have reported carrying out surveys for P. kernoviae in one or more years since 2016: Oregon, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Surveys in Oregon were carried out in 2018 – 2020. In 2020 the counties surveyed included Curry County, where three strains of P. ramorum link have become established. The Purdue list is not certified as accurate or complete. To date, no surveys have detected P. kernoviae in the United States or – I believe – in Canada.

SOURCES

Canadian fact sheet at https://inspection.canada.ca/en/plant-health/invasive-species/plant-diseases/p-abietivora/fact-sheet; accessed July 2024

Canadian website at https://inspection.canada.ca/en/plant-health/invasive-species/plant-diseases/p-abietivora  accessed July 2024

Purdue University’s “pest tracker” website at pesttracker.org. Survey Status of Phytophthora leaf blight – Phytophthora kernoviae . (2023)  accessed July 2024

UK research website at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/pest-and-disease-resources/phytophthora-austrocedri-disease-of-juniper-and-cypress/  accessed July 2024

For details on existence of two clonal lineages of Phytophthora austrocedrii, see Henricot, B. A. Perez-Sierra, A.C. Armstrong, P.M. Sharp, and S. Green. Phytopathology 2017. 107:12, 1532-1540.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Congress is considering the Farm Bill – help improve it!!!

Senator Peter Welch of Vermont

The House and Senate Agriculture committees are edging toward adopting the next Farm Bill, which   is a year past due. Farm bills set policy, funding levels, and more, for 5 years. Each covers a wide range of subjects, including crop subsidies and insurance; food stamps; rural development (including wifi access); forestry policy; and research.

As you might remember, CISP aims to improve USDA’s programs — not only to prevent introductions of non-native tree killing pests and pathogens but also to better respond to those that enter the US and become established. I summarize here what the Senate and House bills have in common and how they differ on these issues.

I understand that the minorities, that is, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, have not accepted all aspects of the majorities’ drafts. So let’s take the opportunity to ask for better bills.

Both the House and Senate bills would “simplify” the USDA Forest Service’s obligations to prepare environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I have not analyzed which bill weakens NEPA more.

The Senate Bill: The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024

The Senate bill addresses forest pest species in several places: Title II — Conservation, Title VII — Research, and Title VIII — Forestry. Here, I describe relevant sections, beginning with the section that partially addresses CISP’s proposal.  

Title VIII — Forestry. Section 8214 requires the USDA Secretary to establish a national policy to counter threats posed by invasive species to tree species and forest ecosystems and identify areas for interagency cooperation.

This mandate falls far short of what we sought in a previous bill (S. 1238). However, depending on the exact wording of the bill and accompanying report, perhaps we can succeed in building a stronger program.

It is most important to obtain funding for applied, directed research into resistance breeding strategies, “bulking up,” and planting seedlings that show promise. Please contact your senators and ask them to work with the sponsors – Peter Welch [D-VT], Maggie Hassan [D-NH], and Mike Braun [R-IN] – to try to incorporate more of S. 1238 in the final bill.

The Senate bill contains other provisions that might be helpful for invasive species management – although not part of what CISP and our partners asked for.

‘ōhi‘a trees killed by rapid ‘ōhi‘a death; photo by Richard sniezko, USFS

Title VIII — Forestry. In Section 8506, the Senate bill would require that the US Departments of Agriculture and Interior continue working with Hawai`i to address the pathogen that causes rapid ‘ōhi‘a death. The section authorizes $5 million for each of the coming five fiscal years to do this work. Unfortunately, authorization does not equal funding. Only the Senate and House Appropriations Committees can make this funding available. Hawai`i’s endemic ‘ōhi‘a trees certainly face a dire threat. CISP is already advocating for funding to support resistance breeding and other necessary work.

Title VIII — Forestry. Sections 8247 and 8248 support USDA Forest Service’s nursery and tree establishment programs. My hesitation in fully supporting these provisions is that I fear the urge to plant lots of trees in a hurry will divert attention for the need to learn how to propagate many of the hardwood tree species that have been decimated by non-native pests. However, I agree that the U.S. lacks sufficient nursery capacity to provide anything close to the number of seedlings sought. Perhaps this program can be adjusted to assist the “planting out” component of our request.

Title VII — Research. Section 7208 designates several high-priority research initiatives. On this list are spotted lanternfly, and “invasive species”.  A number of forest corporations have been urging Members of Congress to upgrade research on this broad category, which I believe might focus more on invasive plants than the insects and pathogens on which CISP focuses. How the two ideas are integrated will be very important.

Another high-priority initiative concerns the perceived crisis in failed white oak regeneration.

Title VII — Research.  Section 7213 mandates creation of four new Centers of Excellence at 1890 Institutions. These are historically Black universities that are also land-grant institutions]. These centers will focus on: 1) climate change, 2) forestry resilience and conservation; 3) food safety, bioprocessing, and value-added agriculture; and, 3) food and agricultural sciences and the social sciences.

Title II — Conservation. Section 2407 provides mandatory funding (which is not subject to annual appropriations) of $75 million per year to the national feral swine eradication/control program (run by USDA APHIS’ Wildlife Service Division). I discuss this program in a separate blog.

The Senate bill also mandates use of several conservation and other programs to address the causes and impacts of climate change. This requirement is directly countered by the House Agriculture Committee’s bill (see below).

The House Bill

Title VIII — Forestry. This section contains none of the provisions CISP’ sought to  USDA’s management of tree-killing non-native insects and diseases.

Instead, the House bill calls on the USFS to establish a comprehensive approach to addressing the demise of the giant sequoia trees.

Title VII — Research The House bill, like the Senate’s, lists the invasive species and white oak research initiatives as high priority. The House, unlike the Senate, does not include spotted lanternfly.

Title II — Conservation. As I noted above, the House bill explicitly rescinds all unobligated conservation funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. It reallocates these funds to the traditional conservation programs, e.g., the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention. The bill would use these funds to support “orphan” programs – naming specifically the national feral swine eradication/control program. The House bill provides $150 million – apparently across the five years covered by the Farm Bill, so $30 million per year.  Finally, the House allocates 60% of the hog management funds to APHIS, 40% to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

spotted lanternfly – target of at least 11 projects funded through APHIS’ the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program in FY24. Photo by Holly Raguza, Pennsylvania Department of Agriuculture

Title X —Horticulture, Marketing, and Regulatory Reform. The House’s summary says it is taking steps to protect plant health. It does this by increasing funding for the grant program under the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program – §7721 of the last (2018) Farm Bill. The increase would raise the amount of money available each year from the current level of $70 million to $90 million. These funds are mandatory; they are not subject to annual appropriations. Research, development, and outreach projects funded by this program have certainly added to our understanding of plant pests, hence to their effective management. However, they are usually short-term projects. Therefore they are not suitable for the long-term commitment required for resistance breeding programs. See here  and here.  

Title III — Trade. Here, the House bill exacerbates the current imbalance between trade promotion and phytosanitary protection. The bill doubles the authorized funding for USDA’s Market Access and Foreign Market Development programs. I concede that this measure probably does reflect a bipartisan consensus in the Congress to support robust programs for promoting agricultural exports.

Also under this Title, the House bill requires the USDA Secretary to conduct regular assessments to identify risks to critical infrastructure that supports food and agriculture sector. This might be helpful – although it is not clear that this assessment would include to threats to forest or urban trees not used commercially (e.g., for timber).

At a recent forum on biological control sponsored by the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), it was reported that participants noted several problems: insufficient funding, significant delays in refilling positions, inadequate research capacity, lack of brick-and-mortar infrastructure, and declining college enrollments in biocontrol-related studies. The NASF Forest Science Health Committee is developing a “Statement of Needs” document that NASF and others can use to lobby for funding to fill these gaps. I hope you will join them in doing so!

salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) attacked by biocontrol agent; photo by J.N. Stuart via Flickr

However, as I note above, empowering resistance breeding programs requires a long-term commitment, that is, a comprehensive alteration of policies and infrastructure – beyond annual appropriations.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Feral pigs – 20 years of APHIS engagement

feral hogs in state wildlife area, Florida; photo by Craig Oneal via Flickr

Most invasive species detection and control programs suffer from inadequate funding. Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are the exception. True, feral hogs are widely considered among the most damaging of invasive species. They are conspicuous. And they cause damage to agricultural crops – thus energizing a politically powerful constituency. (The extent of that damage is open to question; see my discussion below.) Can we learn from the political success of this program to build support for countering other invasive species?

[Several forest pests are also listed as among the “100 worst” invasive species: Asian longhorned beetle, chestnut blight, gypsy or spongy moths, Dutch elm disease, Phytopthora cinnamomi. Many invasive plant species present in the United States are also listed. These bioinvaders have not elicited the same level of response.]

According to a US Department of Agriculture report (USDA 2018), feral hogs only recently spread throughout the United States. In 1982, they were thought to inhabit only a small percentage of counties in 17 states. As of 2018, they were recognized as present in ~ 43% of all counties in the country; those counties were in 38 states and three US territories. USDA APHIS lists the following impacts from feral hog activities: damage to crops (including tree seedlings), livestock pastures and feed supplies, other kinds of property, and natural resources. In addition, feral pigs might transmit disease to the human food supply and possibly to livestock, and occasionally threaten public safety. In response, APHIS proposed to develop a national response. The goal was to reduce the risks and damages and encourage better coordination among the states and with Canada and Mexico. Since environmental conditions and laws vary among states, APHIS provides resources and expertise while allowing operational flexibility. The early focus was on primarily northern states where eradication was considered viable. By 2019, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, and New York had been declared “pig free”.

The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program was officially established as by the 2018 Farm Bill. It was funded at $75 million over the five-year life of the 2018 Farm Bill – or ~$15 million per year. The program is implemented jointly by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. According to the website, USDA focused these efforts where feral swine pose the highest threat.

APHIS has published a report covering the initial 2014 – 2018 program. I expect they will shortly publish a report covering 2018- 2023. My quick review of the available but outdated report shows that nearly all the pig removal projects funded by the program aimed to protect property, particularly agriculture. Protection of natural resources benefited from far fewer projects. The states funding natural resource  projects most generously were Washington (92% of projects!); Illinois (62%); Nevada (48%); Florida (47%); Idaho and Missouri (both at 44%); Wisconsin and New Hampshire (both at 41%); Ohio (35%); Utah (34%); and Arizona (32%). Some of the Western states have considerable land managed by federal agencies; this might explain their relative focus on natural resources. Pennsylvania allocated only 1% of its projects to protecting natural resources. West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands allocated none. I hope this tilt lessens in more recent years – although the program will clearly always be focused on agriculture.

There were no programs in five states: Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Note that the summary of the draft Senate Farm Bill says this program would be funded at $75 million per year in future. This would increase funding 15 fold. I think this is probably a mistake in writing the summary; that the total funding would continue to be $75 million over five years.

I also reviewed the annual report issued by the APHIS Wildlife Services program’s National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). The Center lists 17 publications by NWRC staff and cooperators dealing with various aspects of feral pig management [other than swine fever transmission]. Topics included feral pigs’ social structure; factors that influence reproductive rates; factors that influence efficacy of bait/trap programs; in-field methods to determine animal’s weight; and the extent to which hunters, farmers and the public accept various control techniques.

feral hog damage in a corn field; photo by Craig Hicks, USDA APHIS

Two of the studies – Didero et al. and VerCauteren et al. – aim to answer a fundamental economic question of feral hog management: how to determine the level of damage feral hogs cause to agricultural crops. Interestingly, authors of both studies conclude that existing data do not allow that determination. According to VerCauteren et al., understanding of wild pig damage is limited largely to one kind of damage — rooting – as it affects some natural resources (e.g., wetlands), some crops (e.g., grains, nuts, and beans), and some property (e.g., golf courses and cemeteries). They found few reports documenting damage from other behaviors or effects on pasture, livestock, sensitive species, public recreation spaces, and historical sites. Furthermore, they could not generalize the findings of even those studies that attempt to link the level of damage to pig population density. This is because these studies use many different metrics. They say that designing studies to capture the full scope of damage even in a local area will be complex because of the variety of resources at risk and of mechanisms by which damage might occur (e.g., rooting, consuming plants or animals, wallowing …). VerCauteren et al. suggest specific approaches that should be applied in future studies so that economic estimates will be consistent, shareable, and repeatable. I encourage you to read the articles to learn details of what is known about feral hog damage.  

I rejoice that one set of NWRS studies focuses on Missouri.  As I have blogged previously, Missouri has operated an aggressive program since the 1990s. I appreciate that APHIS is trying to learn how Missouri officials determined which approaches work best, and built support for the program among farmers, landowners, hunters, etc.

NWRC staff and cooperators also studied some other issues relating to invasive species impacts.  One study sought to predict the level of suppression of brown treesnakes that must be achieved to protect birds that might be reintroduced on Guam. A second study sought to find out whether invasive coqui frogs can survive in the colder climates of high elevations in Hawai`i. There is concern that the frogs might compete with native birds for food.  

SOURCES

Didero, N.M., K.H. Ernst, S.C. McKee, and S.A. Shwiff. 2023. A call and suggested criteria for standardizing economic estimates of wild pig damage. Crop Protection 165:106149. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106149

United States Department of Agriculture National Feral Swine Damage Management Program Five Year Report FY14 – FY18

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services. 2024. Innovative Solutions to Human Wildlife Conflicts. National Wildlife Research Center Accomplishments, 2023.

VerCauteren, K.C., K.M. Pepin, S.M. Cook, S. McKee, A. Pagels, K.J. Kohen, I.A. Messer, M.P. Glow,  N.P. Snow. 2024. What is known, unknown, and needed to be known about damage caused by wild pigs. Biol Invasions (2024) 26:1313–1325          https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03263-z

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Disappearing Floristic Diversity – Should Some of the Attention to Extinctions be Refocused on Invasive Plants?

Sakhalin knotweed (Fallopia (Reynoutria) sachalinensis) – an invasive plant widespread in Europe; photo by Katrin Schneider [korina.info] via Wikimedia

There is growing evidence that invasive plants – as distinct from invasive species of animals, microbes, etc. – play a significant role in causing the loss of floristic uniqueness at the local or regional level. I provide full citations of all sources at the end of this blog.

Less Diversity. More Similarity

Several studies show that plant invasions have a bigger impact than extinction in the homogenization of Earth’s flora. A major driver is sheer numbers. Daru et al. point out that 10,138 plant species have become naturalized to a region outside their native ranges while only 1,065 species have gone extinct. Even under a scenario in which all species currently included in IUCN Red List as “threatened” become extinct, non-native plant species naturalizations are by far the stronger contributor to biotic reorganization.

Winter et al. report that in Europe since AD 1500, plant invasions have greatly exceeded extinctions, resulting in increased taxonomic diversity (i.e., species richness) on the Continent but increased taxonomic and phylogenetic similarity among European regions. In other words, floras of individual European countries became phylogenetically and taxonomically impoverished. This situation is likely to worsen in the future because introductions continue.

Winter et al. conclude, more broadly, that a focus on species richness can be misleading because it does not capture the important effects of taxonomic or phylogenetic distinctiveness.

Yang et al. (2021) considered the situation globally. They divided most of Earth’s ice-free land surface into 658 regions. They found that introduction of non-native plants has increased the taxonomic similarity between any two of these regions in 90.7% of the time. Introductions increased phylogenetic similarity in 77.2% of those pairs. Australasia illustrates the situation. The region has a large proportion of endemic species, reflecting its unique evolutionary history and exhibiting high floristic diversity. However, the region has also received large numbers of non-native plants from other regions. The result is that the Australasian flora has lost much of its original uniqueness.

rubbervine (Cryptostegia madagascariensis) – one of the worst invasive plants in Australia; photo by Tatters via Flickr

Introduced plant species rarely cause outright extinction of members of the native flora of the receiving ecosystem – at least at the scale of a continent. Winter et al. found that in Europe, extinction usually occurs to plant species with small numbers that are limited to localized habitats. Often, however, the same species continue to thrive elsewhere on the continent. The “losing” country finds its flora becoming more similar to that of other European countries. It loses some uniqueness because it lost one or more components of its flora. However, for Europe as a whole, there is no loss. The homogenization of the “losing” country’s flora is exacerbated by the fact that more than half of plant species listed as invading a particular European country are from other European regions. Winter et al. say a similar pattern has been found in North America.

The picture is more complex for small isolated ecosystems. Carvallo and Castro (2017), writing about isolated volcanic islands in the southeastern Pacific Ocean, introduction of large numbers of non-native plant species has not caused extinction of native plant species. It has, however, resulted in the homogenization of the islands’ floras.

These authors worry that this reduction in phylogenetic diversity could have detrimental impacts for ecosystem function and ecosystem services.  (Interestingly, at the level of order or family rather than species or genus, the combined effects of species introductions and extinctions did not change the islands’ taxonomic diversity. They don’t explicitly say whether that fact might mitigate effects on ecosystem function.)  

What is the situation in Hawai`i? The Islands are the “capital” of both extinction and invasion. I know the Hawaiian flora has very high levels of endemism and of endangerment. In addition, naturalized non-native plant taxa constitute up to 54% of the archipelago’s flora (Potter et al. 2023). However, it is probably extremely difficult to distinguish the impacts of introduced plants separate from the impacts of the many non-native animals, e.g., feral hogs. 

Extinction by Introduction

It has been reported that invasive species have caused the extinction of at least seven species of plants on the Cape of Good Hope and endangered another 14% (Houreld 2024). Unfortunately, the report doesn’t specify whether the non-native species are plants or animals. Either way, this is a tragedy. I remind you that the Cape Floral Kingdom is Earth’s smallest Plant Kingdom in geographic size (78,555 km2), and extremely important in uniqueness. According to the article in The Washington Post, two-thirds of the 20,400 plant species growing in South Africa are endemic – found nowhere else on Earth.

Nearly a decade ago, Downey and Richardson objected to measuring the impact of introduced plant species by considering only total extinction of native plant species. They complain that this approach fails to recognize that plants experience a long decline before reaching extinction. They divide this decline into six “thresholds”. Downey and Richardson say there is abundant evidence of invasive plants driving native plants along this extinction trajectory. For example, increases in non-native plant cover or density that result in decreased native plant species diversity or richness equates, under their hierarchy, to the native species crossing from the first to second threshold. They note there are also examples of species causing “extinction debts”. That is, the extinction occurs long after the invader is introduced and initiates a native species’ decline. They call for conservationists to intervene earlier in that trajectory.

The Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was recently published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.  This report notes that there are at least 1,061 invasive plants on Earth. In terrestrial systems, invasive plants are the taxonomic group most frequently reported as having negative impacts, especially in cultivated areas, plus temperate and boreal forests. As I have noted above, non-native plant taxa constitute a particularly high proportion of the flora on islands. The assessment found that the number of non-native plants exceeds the total number of native plants on more than one quarter of the Earth’s islands. However, this report does not distinguish the number of species endangered by plant invasions from the number of species endangered by invasive species of all taxonomic groups.

Tiburon mariposa lily (Calochortus tiburnensis) – a federally Threatened species in California; photo by T.J Gehring via Flickr

None of the experts denies the impact of extinction on biodiversity. Extinction represents the loss of phylogenetically and taxonomically unique organisms. This loss is exacerbated if some taxonomic groups are at disproportionately higher risk of extinction. Introduced non-native species compensate for these losses only to a point (Daru et al.). In Europe, Winter et al. found that extinctions usually befall specialized endemic or rare species, often from species-poor families. On the other hand, successful invaders are often ecological generalists with large ranges, often belonging to species-rich families. This results in the pronounced decrease of phylogenetic and taxonomic ß-diversity within and between regions to which the rare species are unique.  

All these experts agree that species declines — short of extinction — have severe impacts on ecosystem functions, and even evolution.

Yang et al. emphasize that the rapid and accelerating loss of regional biotic uniqueness changes biotic interactions and species assemblages, with probable impairment of key ecosystem functions. Daru et al. stress that biotic homogenization— declining ß-diversity—reduces trait and phylogenetic differences between regions. Conceding that the consequences of this global biotic reorganization on ecosystems are poorly understood, Daru et al. cite increasing evidence that biotic heterogeneity provides insurance for the maintenance of ecosystem functioning in a time of rapid global change. They assert that declining ß-diversity is a more characteristic feature of the Anthropocene than species loss.

Winter et al. also state that the phylogenetic structure of a species assemblage represents the evolutionary history of its members and reflects the diversity of genetic and thus morphologic, physiologic, and behavioral characteristics. High phylogenetic diversity might enable rapid adaptation to changing environmental conditions.

According to Daru et al., the loss of 14 billion years of evolutionary history has affected some regions particularly. The most disturbed biotas include those of California and Florida; Mesoamerica; the Amazon; the Himalaya-Hengduan region; Southeast Asia; and Southwest Australia. These are regions that experienced spectacular taxonomic radiation over time, and now have both high levels of threat and also species invasion.  

Carvallo and Castro, focused on the Pacific islands, call for integrating the two parallel channels of conservation that currently operate separately: those focused on reversing plant extinctions and those focused on reducing invasions. They call for a biogeographical approach that addresses all causes of phylogenetic homogenization.

Tetragonia tetragonoides – the most widespread invasive plant on these Pacific islands; photo by Jake Osborn via Flickr

I believe all these experts, in all their papers, have made the case for such integration world-wide.

Invasive plants’ impact on non-plant species

While I have focused here – and in most of my blogs more broadly — on impacts on wild, native plant communities, it is clear that alterations to floristic communities influence other taxonomic groups. A couple of years ago I summarized findings by Douglas Tallamy and colleagues on what happens to insects – and their predators – when a landscape is dominated by introduced plant species.

In short, domination by non-native plants – whether invasive or just widely planted – suppresses the numbers and diversity of native lepidopteran caterpillars. One study cited in the blog found that 75% of all lepidopteran species were found exclusively on native plant species. Non-native plants in the same genus as native plants often support a similar but depauperate subset of the native lepidopteran community. Tallamy and colleagues conclude that a reduction in the abundance and diversity of insect herbivores will probably cause a concomitant reduction in the insect predators and parasitoids of those herbivores – although few studies have measured this impact beyond spiders, which are generalists. Tallamy focuses on birds.

In the same blog I reviewed publications by Lalk and colleagues, which examined interactions between invasive woody plants and arthropod communities more broadly. They decried the insufficient data about most of these interactions.

A few weeks ago I saw a report of an unexpected impact of invasive plants: roots of beach naupaka [beach cabbage or sea lettuce] (Scaevola sericea) are penetrating sea turtle nests so aggressively that they kill the unhatched turtles. Apparently this is happening at several sites in the Caribbean, where the plant is not native (Houreld 2024). I could find no scientific reports of this phenomenon. One reference noted that a related species (S. taccada) can form large, dense stands that might prevent adult sea turtles’ access to nesting areas (Swensen et al. 2024).

Sources:

Daru, B.H., T.J. Davies, C.G. Willis, E.K. Meineke, A. Ronk, M. Zobel, M. Pärtel,  A. Antonelli,  and C.C. Davis. 2021. Widespread homogenization of plant communities in the Anthropocene. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS (2021) 12:6983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27186-8 

www.nature.com/naturecommunications

Downey, P.O. and D.M. Richardson. 2016. Alien plant invasions and native plant extinctions: a six-threshold framework. AoB Plants, 2016; 8: plw047 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plw047; open access, available at http://aobpla.oxfordjournals.org/

Houreld, K. 2024. “Parched Cape Town copes with climate change by cutting down trade.”. The Washington Post. February 29, 2024.

Potter, K.M., C.Giardina, R.F. Hughes, S. Cordell, O. Kuegler, A. Koch, and E. Yuen. 2023. How invaded are Hawaiian forests? Non-native understory tree dominance signals potential canopy replacement.  Landsc Ecol https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01662-6

Swensen, S.M., A. Morales Gomez, C. Piasecki-Masters, N. Chime, A.R. Wine, N. Cortes Rodriguez, J. Conklin, and P.J. Melcher. 2024. Minimal impacts of invasive Scaevola taccada on Scaevola plumieri via pollinator competition in Puerto Rico. Front. Plant Sci. 2024; 15: 1281797.

Yang, Q., P. Weigelt, T.S. Fristoe, Z. Zhang, H. Kreft, A. Stein, H. Seebens, W. Dawson, F. Essl, C. König, B. Lenzner, J. Pergl, R. Pouteau, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, A.L. Ebel, N. Fuentes, E.L.H. Giehl, J. Kartesz, P. Krestov, T. Kukk, M. Nishino, A. Kupriyanov, J.L. Villaseñor, J.J. Wieringa, A. Zeddam, E. Zykova. and M. van Kleunen. 2021. The global loss of floristic uniqueness. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS (2021) 12:7290.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27603-y

Winter, M., O. Schweiger, S. Klotz, W. Nentwig, P. Andriopoulos, M. Arianoutsou, C. Basnou, P. Delipetrou, V. Didz.iulis, M. Hejdah, P.E. Hulme, P.W. Lambdon, J. Pergl, P. Pys.ek, D.B. Roy, and I. Kuhn. 2009. Plant extinctions and intros lead to phylogenetic and taxonomic homogenization of the European flora  PNAS Vol 106 # 51 December 2009

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Funding of tree pest programs through §7721

spotted lanternfly – target of many projects funded by USDA’s Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program; photo by Holly Raguza of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

I am belatedly reporting on the forest-pest projects funded by annual grants under the Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program ( of the Plant Protection Act). As usual, APHIS funded projects totaling $62.975 million in FY24. In total, 353 projects were funded. These projects represented 70% of the 504 project proposals submitted (the total funding sought was $106 M).  

APHIS reserved $11 million for responding to P&P emergencies. I applaud this choice since the agency’s annual appropriation provides only a completely inadequate $1 million (or less) to cover emergencies.

APHIS notes that since initiation of the Plant Pest & Disease Management & Disaster Prevention Program in 2009, it has funded more than 5,500 projects with a total of nearly $870 million.

In FY24 the program funded 30 more projects than the 322 projects funded in FY23. blog 320 The FY24 allocation provides more than $1 million more for goal area 1S — Enhance Plant Pest/Disease Survey (from $14.4 million to $15.7 million). This was balanced by small decreases for the other goal areas: enhancing mitigation capabilities received $13.6 million; inspections at domestic sites important in invasive species’ spread received $6.3 million; pest identification and detection received $5.3 million; and outreach and education received $4.1 million.  Projects safeguarding nursery production and those improving pest and disease analysis each received about $2 million.

By my calculation – subject to error! – about $7.5 million went to projects clearly dealing with forest pests [12% of total funding]. This is a welcome increase from FY23 – when funding of such projects reached about $6.5 million (a little over 10%). blog 320 Funding for tree pest projects might be higher. Some $1.9 million is allocated to surveys of grapevines and orchards — hosts of the spotted lanternfly (SLF). However, it is not clear whether these projects are focused on detecting and managing SLF; they might have a much broader goal. If we do include these projects, the total for tree-killing pests rises to $9.4 million — nearly 15% of the total.

Over both FY23 and FY24, the majority of funds went to similar topics: survey and management of sudden oak death in nurseries; surveys for bark beetles, Asian defoliators, and forest pests generally; and outreach programs targetting the spotted lanternfly. In FY24, just under $100,000 paid for efforts to develop tools for rapid detection of laurel wilt link to DMF in avocados – that is, in a crop rather than the natural environment.

No projects addressing tree or forest pests were funded in seven states or territories: Guam, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Utah. This was three fewer states than in FY23. In neither year do I know whether these states submitted proposals in this category that ended up not being funded.

In FY24, spotted lanternfly is by far the pest addressed by the most projects. As noted above, I can’t be precise about the number because of the lack of information about the 23 projects that fund pest surveys of grapes and/or tree crops that are SLF hosts. Eleven projects named SLF specifically. A final project (not included in above) is one funding registration of Verticillium nonalfalfae as a biocontrol for Ailanthus altissima – an invasive tree that is the preferred host of SLF.

The District of Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma each had one tree pest project funded. In the cases of Kansas and Missouri, the single project was surveys for thousand cankers disease of walnut. Three other states — Iowa, Maryland, and Pennsylvania — also obtained funding to survey for TCD.

The single Oklahoma project concerned efforts to ensure that the sudden oak death pathogen(Phytopthora ramorum) is not present in nurseries. (An Oklahoma wholesaler was one of the hubs of this pathogen’s spread to 18 states in 2019). Eleven other states were also funded to survey their nurseries for P. ramorum: Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. P. ramorum is a “program pest” in 2024. That is, APHIS had designated it as a regulated pest for which the agency wished to fill knowledge gaps about its distribution. I note that last year APHIS published a risk assessment that downplayed the likelihood that P. ramorum would establish in the eastern states. Is APHIS seeking more information to test this conclusion?

In a separate case, Oregon received $76,000 to evaluating the threat to nurseries and forests arising from the presence in the state’s forests of two strains or lineages of P. ramorum that previously had not been extant in the environment of North America.

Another approximately 53 projects fund surveys for tree pests other than spotted lanternfly; these are often fairly general surveys, such as for woodborers or “Asian defoliators”. About ten projects fund management efforts – including evaluation of the efficacy of emerald ash borer biocontrol programs.

Last year I noted that two states – Mississippi and Nevada — had projects to survey the “palm commodity”. Hawai`i joined this group in FY24. The project descriptions don’t specify which pests are the targets. The South American palm weevil (Rhynchophorus palmarum) seems most probable; it is established in far southern California and neighboring Mexico. APHIS prepared a risk assessment on the species in 2012. link? In Hawa`ii, concern probably focuses on the coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros). link? There are other threats to palms, e.g., the red palm weevil (Rhynochophorus ferrugineus), link? and a deadly Fusarium wilt. link?

native palms in the desert at Anza-Borrego, California; photo by F.T. Campbell

California has native palms (Washingtonia filifera); southern states from Texas to at least South Carolina have native palmettos. Of course, many species of palms are important ornamental plants in these states, and dates are raised commercially.

Another “program pest” that I have blogged about in the past is box tree moth. link to blog 287 In FY24 five projects addressed this pest, including surveys and efforts to develop better control tools.

beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris) in Anza-Borrego, California; photo by F.T. Campbell

I am pleased by continued funding of projects trying to utilize biocontrol agents to protect two groups of cactus severely threatened by non-native insects: lepidoptera that attack flat-padded prickly pear cacti (Opuntia spp.) link to DMF and the mealybug that attacks columnar cacti of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. link to DMF

vulnerable cactus on St. John, US Virgin Islands; photo by F.T. Campbell

I applaud the decision to fund projects focused on determining the efficacy of biocontrol projects. As noted above, three projects are asking these questions in the case of the emerald ash borer. link to DMF  Another project funds production, release, and efficacy evaluation of biocontrol agents targetting Brazilian peppertree in Florida & Texas.

I am also pleased that three projects assist Washington State in its efforts to eradicate the invasion by giant hornets from Asia. link to blogs & Hornet Herald – no detections in 2023 … A company in California also received funding to developing hornet detection tools.

Nineteen projects funded outreach efforts, including continued funding for the “Don’t Move Firewood” program. In addition to those focused on spotted lanternfly, such projects also included other firewood programs, Asian longhorned beetle awareness, and the nursery industry.

I note that while California received funding for 27 projects, none dealt with any of several deadly tree pests extant in the state – goldspotted oak borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, Mediterranean oak borer, and the palm weevils.  Nor did Hawai`i obtain funding to address rapid ohia death.  Did no one submit proposals to address any of the many issues impeding management of these killers?

South American palm weevil; photo by Allan Hopkins via Flickr

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

California bill – model for other states?

invasion of wild/black mustard Brassica nigra; photo by carlbegge via Flickr

A California state legislator has proposed a bill to expand state efforts to counter invasive species. Should we support it – and others like it in other states?

The bill is Assembly Bill 2827 introduced by Assembly Member (and former Majority Leader) Eloise Reyes of the 50th Assembly District. She represents urban parts of southwestern San Bernardino County, including the cities of Rialto, Colton, and Fontana.

According to media reports, Reyes was prompted to act by the current outbreak of exotic fruit flies, which as of some months ago resulted in detections in 15 California counties.

The bill is much broader than agricultural pests, however. It would find and declare that it is a primary goal of the state to prevent the introduction, and suppress the spread, of invasive species within its borders.  I applaud the language of the “findings” section:

(a) Invasive species have the potential to cause extensive damage to California’s natural and working landscapes, native species, agriculture, the public, and economy.

(b) Invasive species can threaten native flora and fauna, disrupt ecosystems, damage critical infrastructure, and result in further loss of biodiversity.

Paragraph (c) cites rising threats associated with increased movement of goods, international travel, and climate change — all said to create conditions that may enhance the survival, reproduction, and spread of these invasive species, posing additional threats to the state.

(d) It is in the best interest of the state to adopt a proactive and coordinated approach to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species.

California sycamore attacked by invasive shot hole borer; photo by Beatriz Nobua-Behrmann

The bill calls for

  • The state agencies, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to develop and implement pertinent strategies to protect the state’s agriculture, environment, and natural resources.
  • The state to invest in research, outreach, and education programs to raise awareness and promote responsible practices among residents, industries, and visitors.
  • State agencies to coordinate efforts with federal, local, and tribal authorities.

However, the bill falls short when it comes to action. Having declared that countering bioinvasion is “a primary goal of the state”, and mandated the above efforts, the bill says only that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (which has responsibility for plant pests) is to allocate funds, if available, to implement and enforce this article. Under this provision, significant action is likely to depend on holding agencies accountable and providing increased funding.

removing coast live oak killed by goldspotted oak borer; photo by F.T. Campbell

Would this proposed legislation make a practical difference? I have often complained that CDFA has not taken action to protect the state’s wonderful flora. For example, CDFA does not regulate firewood to prevent movement of pests within the State. It has not regulated numerous invasive plants or several wood-boring insects. These include the goldspotted oak borer; the polyphagous and Kuroshio shothole borers; and the  Mediterranean oak borer.

On the other hand, CDFA is quick to act against pests that might enter the state from elsewhere in the country, e.g., spongy moth (European or Asian), emerald ash borer and spotted lanternfly.

I hope Californians and the several non-governmental organizations focused on invasive species will lobby the legislature to adopt Assembly Bill 2827. I hope further that they will try to identify and secure a source of funds to support the mandated action by CDFA and other agencies responsible for managing the fauna, flora, and other taxa to which invasive species belong.

I applaud Ms. Reyes’ initiative. I hope legislators in other states will consider proposing similar bills.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Europe outlaws “ecocide”

American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus); photo by Will Brown via Wikimedia; one of invasive animals deliberately introduced to Europe in the past

In February 2024 the European Parliament approved legislation outlawing “ecocide” and providing sanctions for environmental crimes. Member states now have two years to enshrine its provisions in national law.

The new rules update the list of environmental crimes adopted in 2008 and enhance the sanctions. The goal is to ensure more effective enforcement. Listed among the offenses are:

  • the import and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases,
  • the import of invasive species,
  • the illegal depletion of water resources, and
  • pollution caused by ships.

This action followed an in-depth analysis of the failures of the previous EU environmental directive, first adopted in 2008 (Directive 2008/99/EC). The review found that:

  • The Directive had little effect on the ground.
  • Over the 10 years since its adoption few environmental crime cases were successfully investigated and sentenced.
  • Sanction levels were too low to dissuade violations.
  • There had been little systematic cross-border cooperation.

EU Member states were not enforcing the Directive’s provisions. They had provided insufficient resources to the task. They had not developed the needed specialized knowledge and public awareness. They were not sharing information or coordinating either among individual governments’ several agencies or with neighboring countries.

The review found that poor data hampered attempts by both the EU body and national policy-makers to evaluate the Directive’s efficacy.

The new Directive attempts to address these weaknesses. To me, the most important change is that complying with a permit no longer frees a company or its leadership from criminal liability. These individuals now have a “duty of care”. According to Antonius Manders, Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), if new information shows that actions conducted under the permit are “causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop.” This action reverses the previous EU environmental crime directive – and most member state laws. Until now, environmental crime could be punished only if it is unlawful; as long as an enterprise was complying with a permit, its actions would not be considered unlawful. Michael Faure, a professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University, calls this change revolutionary.

Lorton Prison; via Flickr

Another step was to make corporate leadership personally liable to penalties, including imprisonment. If a company’s actions cause substantial environmental harm, the CEOs and board members can face prison sentences of up to eight years. If the environmental harm results in the death of any person, the penalty can be increased to ten years.  

Financial penalties were also raised. Each Member state sets the fines within certain parameters. Fines may be based on either a proportion of annual worldwide turnover (3 to 5%) or set at a fixed fine (up to 40 million euros). Companies might also be obliged to reinstate the damaged environment or compensate for the damage caused. Companies might also lose their licenses or access to public funding, or even be forced to close.

Proponents of making ecocide the fifth international crime at the International Criminal Court argue that the updated directive effectively criminalizes “ecocide” — defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

Individual member states also decide whether the directive will apply to offences committed outside EU borders by EU companies.

Some members of the European Parliament advocate for an even stronger stance: creation of a public prosecutor at the European Union level. They hope that the Council of Europe will incorporate this idea during its ongoing revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. To me, this seems unlikely since the current text of the Convention, adopted by the Council in 1998, has never been ratified so it has not come into force.

The Council of Europe covers a wider geographic area than the European Union – 46 member states compared to 27. Members of the Council of Europe which are not in the EU include the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania; several mini-states, e.g., Monaco and San Remo; and countries in arguably neighboring regions, e.g., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.

While I rejoice that invasive species are included in the new Directive, I confess that I am uncertain about the extent to which this inclusion will advance efforts to prevent spread. The species under consideration would apparently have to be identified by some European body as “invasive” and its importation restricted. As we know, many of the most damaging species are not recognized as invasive before their introduction to a naïve environment. On the other side, the requirement that companies recognize new information and halt damaging actions – even when complying with a permit! – provides for needed flexibility.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Read both: a short call to action (41 pp) based on a long report (952 pp!) Then Act!!!

U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters; lets lobby these people! photo by Wikimedia

Twenty-three  scientists based around the world published a Letter to the Editor titled “Overwhelming evidence galvanizes a global consensus on the need for action against Invasive Alien Species” It appears in the most recent edition of Biological Invasions (2024) 26:621–626.

The authors’ purpose is to draw attention to the release of a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ (IPBES).  

The report was issued in September 2023. It is described as the most comprehensive global synthesis of the current knowledge on the bioinvasion process and the impacts of invasive alien species (952 pages!). Its preparation took nearly a decade. Most important, it represents the first consensus among governments and scientists worldwide on the magnitude and extent of the threats that bioinvasions pose to nature, people, and the economy.

The proposed solutions are astoundingly broad and ambitious: transformation of how governments and societies perform. I don’t disagree! However, we need interim steps – “bites of the elephant.”  In my view, the report falls short on providing these.

Our challenge: join others in bringing this analysis to decision-makers’ attention. Can we pull out information that will help persuade U.S. decision-makers – governmental and non-governmental – that the  threat is both urgent and solvable? How do we more effectively advocate for the aggressive, science-based action that we all know is needed?

(I hope that the fact that the report was prepared under the auspices of the Convention on Biodiversity, to which the U.S. is not a party, does not intensify the challenge for us.)

Why we need to restructure the behavior of governments and societies

Bioinvasions are facilitated by policies, decision-making structures, institutions, and technologies that are almost always focused on achieving other goals. Species transport and introduction are driven by policies aimed at promoting economic growth – especially trade. Later stages of invasions, i.e., establishment and some spread, are accelerated by certain uses of land and sea plus climate change. For example, activities that fragment habitats or cause widespread habitat disturbance provide ready places for bioinvasions. Rarely are those who gain by such policies held accountable for the harms they produce via bioinvasions.

To address these unintended consequences, the IPBES report calls for “integrated governance.” Its authors want coordination of all policies and agencies that touch on the indirect drivers, e.g., conservation; trade; economic development; transport; and human, animal, and plant health. Policy instruments need to reinforce – rather than conflict with — strategic invasive species management across sectors and scales. This involves international agreements, national regulations, all governmental sectors, as well as industry, the scientific community, and ordinary people – including local communities and Indigenous Peoples.

The report also calls for establishment of open and inter-operable information systems. This improved access to information is critical for setting priorities; evaluating and improving regulations’ effectiveness; and reducing costs by avoiding duplication of efforts.

Critically important information that is often unspoken:

  • Indirect causes underlying the usual list of human activities that directly promote bioinvasions are the rapid rise of human population and even more rapid rise in consumption and global trade.
  • Biosecurity measures at international borders have not kept pace with the growing volume, diversity, and geographic origins of goods in trade.
  • Continuation of current patterns is expected to result in one-third more invasive species globally by 2050. However, this is an underestimate because today’s harms reflect the consequences of past actions – often from decades ago. Drivers of invasions are expected to grow in both volume and impact.
  • We can prevent and control invasive alien species – but that success depends on the availability of adequate, sustained resources, plus capacity building; scientific cooperation and transfer of technology; appropriate biosecurity legislation and enforcement; and engaging the full range of stakeholders. These require political will.
  • A major impact of bioinvasion is increased biotic homogenization (loss of biological communities’ uniqueness). This concerns us because we are losing the biotic heterogeneity that provides insurance for the maintenance of ecosystem functioning in the face of ongoing global change.
  • The IPBES study asserts that successfully addressing bioinvasions can also strengthen the effectiveness of policies designed to respond to other drivers, especially programs addressing conservation of biological diversity, ensuring food security, sustaining economic growth, and slowing climate change. All these challenges interact. The authors affirm that evidence-based policy planning can reflect the interconnectedness of the drivers so that efforts to solve one problem do not exacerbate the magnitude of others and might even have multiple benefits.

More Key Findings

  • Overall, 9% (3,500) of an estimated 37,000 alien species established in novel environments are invasive (those for which scientists have evidence of negative impacts). Proportions of invasives is high among many taxonomic groups: 22% of all 1,852 alien invertebrates; 14% of all 461 alien vertebrates; 11% of all 141 alien microbes; and 6% of all 1,061 alien plants. (The discussion of probable undercounts relates to aquatic systems and certain geographic regions. However, I believe these data are all undermined by gaps in studies.)
  • Invasive alien species – solely or in combination with other drivers – have contributed to 60% of recorded global extinctions. Invasive species are the only driver in 16% of global animal and plant extinctions. Some invasive species have broader impacts, affecting not just individual species but also communities or whole ecosystems. Sometimes these create complexoutcomes that push the system across a threshold beyond which ecosystem restoration is not possible. (No tree pests are listed among the examples.)

dead whitebark pine in Glacier National Park; photo by National Park Service

  • The benefits that some non-native – even invasive – species provide to some groups of people do not mitigate or undo their negative impacts broadly, including to the global commons. The report authors note that beneficiaries usually differ from those people or sectors that bear the costs. The authors cite many resulting inequities.
  • There are insufficient studies of, or data from, aquatic systems, and from Africa; Latin America and the Caribbean; and parts of Asia.
  • The number of alien species is rising globally at unprecedented and increasing rates. There are insufficient data specifically on invasive species, but they, too, are thought to be rising at similar rates.
  • Horticulure is a major pathway for introducing 46% of invasive alien plant species worldwide.
  • Regarding invasive species’ greater impact on islands,the IPBES report mentions brown tree snakes on Guam and black rats on the Galapagos Islands. It also notes that on more than a quarter of the world’s islands, the number of alien plants exceeds the total number of native ones. See my blogs on non-native plants on Hawai`i and Puerto Rico. In addition, I have posted several blogs regarding disease threats to rare bird species in Hawai`. The IPBES report does not mention these.  

Where the Report Is Weak: Interim Steps

  • The report endorses adoption of regulated species (“black”) lists.
  • The report emphasizes risk analysis of species. Unfortunately IPBES’ analysis was completed before publication of the critique of risk analysis methods by Raffa et al. ( (2023) (see references). However, we must take the latter into consideration when deciding what to advocate as U.S. policy.
  • The report authors call for more countries to adopt national legislation or regulations specifically on preventing and controlling invasive species. (They note that 83% of countries lack such policies). They also list the many international agreements that touch on invasive species-relevant issues. However, Raffa et al. found that the number of such agreements to which a country is a party bears no relationship to the numbers of alien species detected at its border or established on its territory.
  • The challenge to risk assessment posed by multiple sources of uncertainty can be managed by recognizing, quantifying, and documenting the extent of that uncertainty.

Beech leaf disease – one of many non-native pests that were unknown before introduction to a naive ecosystem. Photo by Jennifer Koch, USDA Forest Service

  • I appreciate the report’s emphasis on the importance of public awareness and engagement, but I thought the discussion of effective campaigns lacked original ideas.

The report did not fulfill its own goal of fully exploring unappreciated impacts of policies in its discussion of habitat fragmentation. For example, the report notes that grazing by feral alien ungulates facilitates the spread of invasive alien plant species. However, it does not mention the similar impact by livestock grazing (Molvar, et al. 2024).

SOURCES

Molvar, E.M., R. Rosentreter, D. Mansfield, and G.M. Anderson. 2024. Cheat invasions: History, causes, consequences, and solutions. Hailey, Idaho: Western Watersheds Project, 128 pp.

Raffa, K.F., E.G. Brockerhoff, J-C. GRÉGOIRE, R.C. Hamelin, A.M. Liebhold, A. Santini, R.C. Venette, and M.J. Wingfield. 2023. Approaches to forecasting damage by invasive forest insects and pathogens: a cross-assessment. BioScience 85 Vol. 73 No. 2 (February 2023) https://academic.oup.com/bioscience  

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org