Cibotium glaucum in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; F.T. Campbell
A year ago I blogged about the status of Hawaiian species in the face of high levels of bioinvasions. I now update that discussion as it pertains to one of the invaders, the Australian tree fern Sphaeropteris cooperi.
S. cooperi has successfully invaded multiple regions, including the southern coast of South Africa, the Azores and Mascarene Archipelagos, and Hawai`i. The invasion’s impacts have been assessed only in Hawai`i. Studies found that the non-native tree ferns have outcompeted the dominant native tree fern Cibotium glaucum (Cibotiaceae), and altered leaf litter composition hence soil nutrient cycling. This in turn affects species assemblages (van den Berg et al. 2025).
Chau, Walker and Mehltreter (2013) documented the litter and soil chemistry in Hawaiian rainforests. They found that S. cooperi produces more leaves that grow faster, contain more nitrogen and phosphsorus, and decompose faster than the leaves of the dominant native tree fern C. glaucum. They compared the effect of leaf litter from the native and tree ferns on the growth and nutrient content of four native angiosperm species when they were grown in N-rich forest soil and P-rich landslide soil. The results suggested that nitrogen availability is the strongest driver of growth. The introduced tree fern, S. cooperi, can thus prompt more rapid growth of some native HI plants. They point out, however, that under natural conditions, native plants must compete for these additional nutrients with various non-native plants, including S. cooperi. The ultimate impact, then, remains unclear.
van den Berg et al. (2025) report that other invaded sites are at great risk Both the Garden Route region of South Africa and La Reunion Island in the Mascarene Archipelago in the eastern Indian Ocean have high bioidiversity. Both contain large, globally-recognized protected areas established to protect the native biodiversity: UNESCO Garden Route Biosphere Reserve and Reunion National Park. Despite their biological importance, both are among the top10 most invaded countries/territories globally (Tuberlin et al. 2017).
Sphaeropteris cooperi; photo via Easyscape
While climate change is expected to reduce the extent of suitable habitat for the Australian tree fern in both South Africa and La Reunion, the current situation is troubling. At present the tree fern occupies a narrower range of climatic conditions in both the Garden Route and especially on La Reunion than in Australia. (On La Reunion, 13.74 % of the fern’s apparent niche remains unoccupied.) van den Berg et al. (2025) are not sure what factors might be limiting the tree fern’s spread. They do urge educational campaigns to persuade people living near the Biodiversity Reserve to avoid planting the non-native tree fern.
The tree fern’s actual niche is somewhat uncertain because predation by deer (non-native to Australia) might have reduced its reproduction. The authors mention this but do not speculate further on the possible response of the fern to the absence of such stresses on La Reunion.
SOURCES
Chau, M.M., Walker, L.R. and Mehltreter, K. An invasive tree fern alters soil and plant nutrient dynamics in Hawaii. Biol Invasions15, 355–370 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0291-0
Turbelin,A.J., Malamud,B.D., Francis,R.A. 2017. Mapping the global state of invasive alien species: patterns of invasion and policy responses. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26,78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12517.
van den Berg, M.L., G. Singh, E.J. McCulloch-Jones, M. Rouget, D.M. Richardson, T.B. Robinson. 2025. The invaded range of the tree fern Sphaeropteris cooperi is predicted to shrink in two southern hemisphere biodiversity hotspots. African Journal of Botany 178 (2025) 390-399
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
We are beginning to get more information about invasive species on the African continent.
a flyer naming principal invasive ornamental plants in Kruger National Park
In several countries, the focus has been on threats to agriculture. Previous blog about horizon-scanning in Ghana. In Zimbabwe, N. Mudada and colleagues (2026; full citation and the end of this blog) found alarming, if not surprising, levels of risk to food production from introduced invasive plants. They investigated 1,668 human-aided transboundary plant introductions at 14 ports of entry and non-official crossing points over the course of four years.
They estimate that the 20,000 trucks that transported maize into the country over the four years carried over 20,700 metric tons of weed seeds and rubbish! They recorded detections of 11 species in eight orders. The pathways are familiar. As noted, several weeds were contaminants of grain shipments; Convolvulus arvensis in wheat for human consumption, Helianthus annus and Datura stramonium in maize for animal feed. Adenium obesum and Vitex agnus-castus were being smuggled for planting as flowers and ornamentals. (Vitex agnus-castus was also smuggled in passenger baggage for its medicinal properties). Several Lemna species (an aquatic plant) were also smuggled for planting as animal feeds.
In some cases, the focus is the threat to native ecosystems. I posted a blog the about threat of an introduced pathogen to trees in the remnant rain forests of Madagascar.
South Africa still has the lead in addressing invasive species. Regarding invasive plants specifically, the country has the benefit of more than 150 years of botanizing. The richness of the region’s flora is globally recognized. South Africa also has a long history of studying and managing invasive species, especially plants.
South African scientists and colleagues in Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, and Namibia have published four editions of the Flora of the Southern Africa region since 1984. In 2006, the PRECIS database of the South African National Biological Diversity Institute (SANBI) was combined with the Tropical African Plant Checklist published by the Conservatory and Botanical Garden of Geneva to create the African Plant Checklist and Database Project. It is continually updated. This is the first continental flora checklist for Africa; it fulfils countries’ obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.
The 2025 Checklist reports that 21,539 plant species are extant outside cultivation in the country; these comprise 20,204 indigenous species and 1,329 naturalized species. Thus, 6% of the total flora is non-indigenous. Of these, 649 (48.8% of the non-indigenous species, 3% of all plants) of them are invasive.
[Naturalized species are defined as species whose documented natural range does not include South Africa, but have overcome a biogeographic barrier and now sustain self-replacing populations for two or more life cycles or over a given period of time in the country. These populations are maintained without direct intervention by people, or despite human intervention. Invasive species meet the above definition plus produce reproductive offspring, often in large #s at considerable distances from the parent and/or site of introduction, and have the potential to spread over long distances.]
Since the previous checklist was published in 2006, botanists have identified 1,048 additional species – a 4.9% increase. Eighty-two percent of the newly identified species (865 species) are “naturalized”. Specifically, 414 new species are categorized as naturalized (a 31.1% increase), and 451 new species are classified as invasive (a whopping 69.5% increase). Le Roux and Klopper attribute these steep increases to active botanizing by SANBI’s Invasive Species Programme (begun in 2008), and the Southern African Plant Invaders Atlas Project (begun in 2010).
Of the 384 plant families present in South Africa, 350 contain at least some indigenous species. Thirty-four families contain only naturalized species. Among the 2,189 plant genera present, 459 (21%) contain only species that are non-indigenous.
Three families stand out because of the particularly high numbers of naturalized species: Fabaceae (143 species; 11% of all naturalized species), Asteraceae (140 species; 10%), Poaceae (123 species; 9%). Two of these families — Asteraceae and Fabaceae — are also the largest families among native South African plants. The third, grasses (Poaceae), ranks seventh in the list of most specious families indigenous to South Africa. The next group of families with high numbers of naturalized species has less than half as many invasive species: Myrtacae (55), Amaranthacea (52), Solanaceae (48). None of these families ranked within the top 20 families of indigenous plant species.
The genera with the most naturalized species were Solanum,Euphorbia and Acacia (all 24 or 23 species).
Acacia cyclops; photo by David M. Richardson
South African scientists are also exploring how to balance conflicting goals and perspectives when an invasive plant species has economic or social value. The example chosen by Mbobo et al. (2025) is guava (Psidium guajava) – a nutritious and popular tropical fruit grown commercially in South Africa, but also invasive along roadsides, watercourses and forest margins. Invasions are especially common in eastern parts of country; large monocultures are found in KwaZulu-Natal. Outbreaks have also been detected at five sites in Western Cape in riparian zones and at a hot spring. Mbobo et al. (2025) note that the microclimatic conditions at this last location differ from the broader conditions in the region – which are what most models would measure.
The scientists used models to predict where guava might invade – especially in large monocultures – and compared those areas to where the tree can be grown in cultivation with human inputs, e.g., irrigation. They then assessed whether six regulatory approaches would avoid restricting guava farming in areas at minimal or low risk while still protecting vulnerable locations. They also considered the amount of information required to implement the approach and costs of acquiring the information; and level of likely public acceptance. Mbobo et al. (2025) laid out the trade-offs between continuing to regulate planting of the species at the provincial level vs. at the municipal level. Prohibiting planting of guava in provinces where it is recorded as invasive allows some plantings near natural forests and riparian areas that are highly susceptible to guava invasions. On the other hand, nearly half of the prohibited area is outside the known or likely at-risk area. The provinces do allow exceptions through a permit process. Adopting more geographically limited rules by regulating at the municipal level would enable a tighter link to geographic areas at highest risk. However, this approach does not address long-distance seed dispersal by animals. Furthermore, the very detailed regulations might confuse stakeholders and complicate enforcement. Also, the models lack sufficiently fine spatial resolutions to predict invasible areas so accurately. Finally, the reduction in regulated area is minimal (~ 14%), so the economic benefits are unlikely to outweigh the significantly higher administrative costs and risk of allowing guava invasions in new sites.
Guava fruit on tree; Roenashy via Wikimedia
Gildenhuys et al. (2026) analyzed the factors that drive which non-native plants establish where. They assessed the roles of temperature, precipitation, urbanization intensity, urban area, travel time, year of city’s establishment, and human population density in determining which plant species are present in 54 urban centers in Western Cape Province. The cities have significant differences in climate: Mediterranean in the far southwest, warm temperate in the southeast, and semi-arid towards the interior. The expectation was that these drivers and assembly processes are influential at more advanced invasion stages when the species have already overcome some barriers to dispersal, so are now found in reasonably suitable habitats.
Gildenhuys et al. (2026) found temperature and precipitation were most important in determining plant species’ presence. This was especially true at the boundary between arid and mesic climates. These strong environmental gradients are the same ones which have driven high differences in native species presence across the province. [See pamphlet describing invasive plants in Cape Town.] This finding supports the “Goldilocks hypothesis”: that non-native plant species assemblages are driven by the same abiotic variables as native species assemblages. While did not directly study the “Biome decides hypothesis” (the composition of non-native flora is mediated by the biotic effects of native flora and fauna), Gildenhuys et al. (2026) doubt its applicability here because native species’ presence has probably been greatly reduced by the effects of urbanization.
Urbanisation intensity itself ranked third as a factor. Its effect was strongest at low to medium urbanization intensities. Because urbanization creates novel habitats, such as, “hardscapes” of paved surfaces that resemble deserts, their non-native plant assemblages are dominated by similar, urban specialist, species. At lower urbanization intensities a greater variety of habitats is available. Gildenhuys et al. (2026) conclude that urbanization acts primarily as a driver of opportunistic habitats for species at later invasion stages rather than as a filter of species introduction.
An earlier study found a similar effect from road density (often associated w/ urbanization) as an explanation for where specific woody non-native species establish. They do concede that larger urban areas might experience greater propagule pressure.
Gildenhuys et al. (2026) note that recent globalization of the plant trade has probably changed the specis planted in urban centers. For example, cities in the Western Cape are increasingly replacing English oak (Quercus robur) with more disease-resistant oaks. The change might reflect greater environmental awareness and regulations issued under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. In newly established urban centers, fewer invasive species are being planted — at least among trees.
SOURCES
Gildenhuys, C.P., L.J. Potgieter, C. Hui, D.M. Richardson. 2026. Drivers of compositional turnover of the NIS urban flora in the W Cape, South Africa. Urban Ecosystems (2026) 29:51 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-026-01919-3
Le Roux, M.M., R.R. Klopper. 2025. Taking stock of South Africa’s flora. South African Journal of Botany 184 (2025) 571-579
Mbobo, T., D.M. Richardson, A. Datta, K.T. Faulkner, J.R.U. 2025. Wilson. Spatially-Differentiated Reg of NIS Can Be Improved Using Spp Distribution Models: Psidium guajava in South Africa as a Case Study. Diversity and Distributions. 2025 31:e70102 https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.70102
Mudada, N., J. Chitamba, E. Nyangani, C. Chapano, N. Mapope,and W. Ngezimana. 2026. Weeds associated with cross border traffic, their approach and infestation rates in Zimbabwe. ISABB Journal of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Vol. 12(1) January-June 2026. DOI: 10.5897/ISABB-JFAS2025.0192
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
dying ash in Shenandoah National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell
The emerald ash borer (Agrilus plannipennis; EAB) was detected in North America in 2002. So both U.S. and Canadians have been motivated to evaluate the probable trajectory of the primary hosts – the ash genus Fraxinus – in the face of the ongoing invasion. See Deschênes et al. 2026 and Wilson et al. 2025 – full citations at the end of this blog. Both studies focused on white (Fraxinus americana) and green ash (F. pennsylvanica); they say next to nothing about black ash (F. nigra). I regret this silence because of the unique ecology of black ash swamps. Neither addresses the threat to Oregon ash (F. latifolia) in the West.
The two assessments have similar findings: high mortality of larger trees (canopy and “recruit” size trees); abundant regeneration (seedling and saplings sizes) after an initial period; and uncertainty as to whether persisting EAB populations will kill the saplings before sufficient numbers grow into reproductive size.
There are two conspicuous differences. First, the American study does not consider the possible impact of biological control – although USDA APHIS has placed all its effort on this approach since January 2021. The Canadians report that self-sustaining populations of the wasps are now found across the northern U.S. and eastern Canada. In their study, conducted in Ontario, they detected only Tetrasticus planipennisi; it was parasitizing 16% of the EAB larvae in dissected stems. This wasp’s affinity for colder climates and short ovipositor – which limits it to parasitizing larvae inhabiting small stems – are portrayed as positive traits under these circumstances.
Second, the Canadians did not find “lingering” adult ash trees as have the Americans. These trees indicate the probability of finding workable levels of genetic resistance to the EAB. USDA Forest Service scientists are pursuing a breeding program. While in south-central Michigan, where overstory ash mortality typically exceeded 80%, 46% of overstory ash and 82% of ash recruits were relatively healthy (Wilson et al. 2025), in Ontario none of 1,129 overstory ash trees survived beyond seven years after EAB detected. No trees exceeded 15 cm dbh (Deschênes et al. 2026).
ash resistance breeding trial at Holden Arboretum; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS
Regeneration
As Deschênes et al. (2026) state, the future of ash stands depends on the complex of interactions among environmental conditions, management interventions, efficacy of natural enemies (natural or introduced), and life-history traits of the insect and its host. Coexistence might be possible if EAB larval densities remain sufficiently low to support survival of residual trees and successful seedling recruitment.
Larval densities in Ontario were said to be generally low, suggesting reduced carrying capacity in post-invasion forests, lower EAB fecundity, and higher EAB mortality in regenerating stems. Deschênes et al. (2026) note that in more northern areas colder temperatures are thought to slow larvae development. Perhaps these larvae might also be less vigorous, so they night disperse only over short distances. Still, there were sufficient EAB present after all the overstory trees had died to create 97% of the 298 galleries in regenerating ash stems (Deschênes et al. 2026). Furthermore, Wilson et al. (2025) say that EAB densities in infested trees in Michigan were similar to densities recorded during the initial invasion. This seems ominous to me – a solid foundation from which beetle populations could build up again as regenerating ash grow and provide more phloem for the insect to exploit.
Ash reproduce by both flowering/seeding and sprouting from the base. EAB predation is not the only complication. First, ash are dioecious so mature trees of both sexes must grow within a few hundred meters. Second, predation by the ash seed weevil (Lignyoodes helvolus) reduces seed supplies. Dense sedge mats can prevent germination (Wilson et al. 2025). Scientists generally believe that the soil seed bank is quickly exhausted, although Wilson et al. (2025) cite others’ conflicting findings. Neither article discusses predation by mammals, e.g., deer or rabbits. Wilson et al. (2025) mention attacks by beavers.
ash saplings felled by beavers; photo by F.T. Campbell
Wilson et al. (2025) did not study whether stump-sprouted ash were able to successfully recruit into the overstory. They do report that in one study in southeastern Michigan stump sprouts were the dominant form of green ash regeneration and about a quarter of these sprouts produced seeds at least once. Deschênes et al. (2026) found that on average 47% of regenerating stems at their Ontario research sites originated from stump sprouts.
EAB has been documented to attack and kill trees when the main stem is as small as 2.5 cm. While EAB probably prefer larger stems, Deschênes et al. (2026) suggest that stems become acceptable at the lower range of size required for seed production – 8–10 cm dbh. Reliable and abundant seed production doesn’t occur until white or green ash achieve > 20 cm dbh. At their Ontario sites, Deschênes et al. (2026) found that 42% of regenerating stems has been infested by EAB at least once; 14% had been attacked five or more times. They removed 74 EAB larvae from 28 stems; 49 (66%) were alive. Fifteen EAB (16% of current year galleries) had been parasitized — all by Tetrastichus planipennisi. They also observed numerous signs of defensive responses.
In Michigan, no ash recruits — living or dead – were found in plots in 28% of the cells. In the remaining 128 cells, an average of ~33% of ash recruits were infested by EAB, and ~21.4% of ash recruits dead. As is typical, white ash fared better than green ash. Recruit sized ash trees were twice as likely to die than to survive and mature into overstory size (Wilson et al. (2025).
In Ontario, as noted, all canopy ash had died. There were 119 live trees 5 – 10 cm dbh – a tenth as many “mature” ash as when EAB arrived, and all were smaller. There was abundant regeneration in most sites initially, but at the longest-infested sites in Essex County, regenerating ash stems were half as numerous as early after the transition (Deschênes et al. 2026).
The Canadians found it encouraging that some of the regenerating stems were vigorous despite containing EAB gallery densities greater than 20 larvae·m?2 of phloem. They did not know the mechanisms underlying survival of these stems. Possible explanations ranged from the low EAB carrying capacity of smaller trees to stronger host defenses in regenerating stems to EAB mortality due to parasitism.
Wilson et al. (2025) note that despite more than 20 years of EAB presence, densities of ash recruits, saplings, and seedlings were high relative to other species. However, they remind us, ~ one-third of the live ash recruits were infested so their survival into reproductive size was uncertain. The high mortality of overstory ash results in loss of seed resources, greater sun exposure, and cascading consequences for forest composition and function. In upland sites, cells with low ash basal area favored Quercus rubra and Tilia americana. They conclude that changes to forest composition is probably site specific — largely depend on what tree species are already present.
Despite the challenges described above, the Canadian scientists also believe that these findings demonstrate that ash has a capacity for long-term regeneration (Deschênes et al. 2026).
Changing Species Composition in the U.S. (Wilson et al. 2025)
Canopy gaps caused by ash mortality have largely been filled by lateral ingrowth of species already there — American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra). The regeneration strata (saplings and seedlings) is dominated by Fraxinus (white outnumbering green when differentiated), maples (Acer rubrum, A. saccharum), black cherry, Crataegus species and Carya ovata. Elms are consistently among most common non-ash taxa among overstory, recruit, sapling and seedling strata. At some Ohio sites there was also increased abundance of non-native tree and shrub seedlings. This is not surprising since invasive plants are widespread in the forests of Ohio and other eastern states. A decade ago 93% of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots in Ohio had at least one of 50 invasive plant species.
In another paragraph they mention Tilia americana as one of the important species in these forests.
Situation in Canada (Deschênes et al. 2026)
Deschênes et al. (2026) express concern that the death of nearly all canopy-level trees will substantially reduce ash’ ability to fulfill its ecological roles in these ecosystems. Still, ash regeneration is persisting for decades following overstory mortality. The taxon’s continued presence is driven largely by strong sprouting, which has been observed in several locations in Ontario. In some areas, low EAB infestation rates and evidence that regenerating stems can withstand multiple infestations raises hope that some might reach maturity and produce seeds. This scenario would be similar to that of elms, in which surviving trees contribute to ongoing regeneration and might eventually facilitate development of some level of resistance to the invasive fungus. A second possibility is that ash’ high sprouting capacity might point to a scenario similar to that of American chestnut. This species has persisted for a century primarily as sprouting shrubs — although they rarely reach reproductive maturity.
white fringetree; photo by Ryan Somma via Wikimedia
White Fringetree
Scientists also reviewed the status of a secondary host of EAB in North America, white fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus). Earlier studies of this host-pest relationship had been conducted on ornamental plantings where the trees tend to be scattered across open lawns and actively managed – including protection from pests. The Cipollinis (see full citation at the end of this blog) believe they might be better able to ward of EAB attack than are wild, unmanaged trees in forests that must compete for resources. They wanted to assess the current status and likely trajectory of the tree species in the wild.
To do so they revisited a wild population of the tree in southern Ohio previously assessed 10 years earlier. White fringetree is a small multi-stemmed tree native to the southeastern U.S. It is widely planted as an ornamental in across the east. In Ohio, white fringetree grows wild in only a few southern counties, in small populations or as widely scattered individuals. The species is classified as “Potentially Threatened” at the state level.
In 2015, 30% of the white fringetrees at the site were infested. These trees had signs of stress but none had died. EAB larvae grow more slowly on fringetree than on North American ash species. Meanwhile, all mature white ash trees at the site had been killed by EAB. Smaller white ash trees more comparable in size to the white fringetrees had attack rates and impacts comparable to those on the fringetrees.
In their new study, the Cipollinis found that nine of 31 trees tagged in 2015 (29%) had died; 22 (71%) were alive. Of those 22 living trees, 12 (55%) stayed the same or improved slightly over the five-year period; 10 (45%) declined. Five of these 22 living trees (23%) had evidence of current infestation. Trees that had died had a higher incidence of old EAB galleries, adult exit holes, and woodpecker activity. This is interpreted as demonstrating that EAB must cause extensive damage to kill fringetrees.
In summary, fringetrees in a wild unmanaged population continued to be attacked by EAB over 10 years and suffered higher attack rates and more significant impacts than those previously observed in managed pops. The Cipollinis conclude that trees large enough to attract EAB oviposition will continue to decline in health and be killed as long as beetles are present. They expect that wild white fringetrees might meet the same fate as ash trees, but over longer time scales.
At the same time, this delay in complete mortality might create a refugium for remnant populations of EAB after most ash have been killed. This status would be exacerbated if it turns out that the biocontrol agents cannot find their target — EAB — in the alternative host. The Cipollinis found lower parasitism rates by Tetrastichus planipennisi in fringetrees, although this was not true for the egg parasite Oobius agrili and two Spathius larval parasites.
Whitebark fringetree populations can produce few adult EAB because the trees are small and contain low amounts of phloem. Still, as young trees grow into vulnerable sizes they might help sustain the EAB population – as young ash trees in the area appear to do.
While caution is appropriate in interpreting findings from a study of a single population, the Cipollinis argue that this population has been studied intensively: assessed six times over 10 years, beginning at the start of the EAB infestation. Therefore they think their analysis provides useful informative regarding the long-term impacts of EAB on fringetree.
They concede that larger populations in areas deep within the tree’s native range might experience different dynamics and impacts. So far, however, observations in Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia and at Great Falls Park on the Maryland-Virginia border generally support their finding that wild fringetrees in natural landscapes will suffer higher attack rates and be more severely impacted by EAB than trees in managed landscapes.
Finally, the Cipollinis fear that a close relative, pygmy fringetree, Chionanthus pygmaeus, is at particularly high risk because it is endemic to only a few counties in the sandhills of central Florida. The species is already classified as endangered by both the state and the federal governments. The pygmy fringetree is smaller than white fringetree, so its size might help it escape attack. However, adults achieve sizes comparable to that of fringetree in some cases. So when EAB reaches Florida, the specie appears to be highly vulnerable.
SOURCES
Cipollini, D. and K. Cipollini. 2026 The Fate of a Wild White Fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus) Population in Ohio 10 Years After Invasion by Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) Forests 2026, 17, 712
Deschênes, É., C.J.K. MacQuarrie, L. Scott, C. Zimmerman, and I. Aubin. 2026. Ash population dynamics after two decades of emerald ash borer infestations in Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Can. J. For.Res. 56: 1–13 (2026) | dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2026-0075
Wilson, C.J, L. Labbate, T.R. Petrice, T.M. Poland, D.G. McCullough. 2025. Ongoing regeneration of ash and co-occurring species 20 years following invasion by emerald ash borer. Forest Ecology and Management 580 (2025) 122546
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
Hernández‐Gutiérrez, Nichols, and Kelly (2026) (full citation at the end of the blog) analyzed interactions between this genus of beetles and oaks (Quercus species). In this context, they report that 32 Agrilus species from Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America use 51 Quercus species as hosts in their native range. Eighteen (56.25%) use only Quercus hosts.
Oaks that host Agrilus species cluster in several clades, i.e., the entire Section Cerris and one clade of Section Ilex and two clades of section Lobatae. Clades where Agrilus hosts are underrepresented are Sections Cyclobalanopsis and Quercus &, surprisingly, two clades in Section Lobatae.
Their analysis indicated that beetle-oak interactions involving all the 32 Agrilus species and 105 Quercus species in their study had a significant likelihood of being damaging. For example, northern red oak (Q. rubra) is already known to host six Agrilus species. Hernández‐Gutiérrez, Nichols, and Kelly (2026)’s analysis indicated that this tree species might be utilized by all 32 Agrilus species assessed. The tree’s wide distribution (both native and introduced) places it close to other known or probable hosts, which exacerbates the risk of an interaction. Another 26 Quercus species are predicted to host ten or more Agrilus species.
The model was not successful in predicting hosts of A. auroguttatus (goldspotted oakborer) in its introduced range in California.
black oak (Quercus kelloggii) in Cleveland National Forest killed by GSOB; photo by F.T. Campbell
It also predicted that few of China’s oak species might host Agrilus beetles. However, as Dr. Robert Haack notes (pers. comm. June 2026), larval hosts have been identified for only 13% of the nearly 1,200 Asian Agrilus.
Some Agrilus species have a very large number of predicted novel interactions. A. graminis and A. angustulus are predicted to have more than 40 novel oak hosts. Both have numerous known oak hosts; so their “polyphagous” nature is already documented.
Since two-thirds of 666 Agrilus species with known larval hosts exploit only one plant genus as a host in their native range, Hernández‐Gutiérrez, Nichols, and Kelly (2026) assert that they might spread faster if introduced to homogeneous rather than species-rich habitats. Dr. Haack believes that this statement is too broad (pers. comm. June 2026).
A. bilineatus; photo by Christina Butler via Wikimedia
Twolined chestnut borer
Haack and Blank (2024) document that the twolined chestnut borer, Agrilus bilineatus has preferentially infested apparently healthy English oak (Quercus robur) trees over healthy native oak trees in Michigan. In North America, A. bilineatus is a major pest of oaks and American chestnut (Castanea dentata)when they are stressed by drought or other factors. Infestation typically begins in the upper crown and proceeds downward; tree death often occurs within three years.
At several sites in southern Michigan, where English oaks were intermixed with native white oaks (Quercus alba) and close to northern red oaks (Quercus rubra), A. bilineatus preferentially infested Q. robur trees that initially appeared healthy. Further study revealed that many of the English oaks attacked had low or depleted root starch levels.
Although these findings are cause for alarm, English oak is already used by 11 species of Agrilus in Europe. Perhaps the tree and ecosystem might have sufficient defenses in Europe. Meanwhile, A. bilineatus has been reported in Turkey as of 2018; I have found no recent information about the damage whether it is causing any damage there.
Data from Britain and Worldwide
Peyton et al. (2026) reviewed the effectiveness of a “horizon scanning” exercise conducted for Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales). They report that 3,248 recognized non-native species have been detected in Great Britain, of which 2,016 have established self-sustaining populations. Some 194 (~10%) are considered invasive, that is, have negative impacts on biodiversity and wider ecosystem viability. These consist of 108 terrestrial species, 47 freshwater species, and 39 marine species. These bioinvaders cost the British economy an estimated ~£3.9 billion per year (the bulk of the damage is attributed to ash dieback, caused by the fungus Hymenoscyphus fraxineus).
In the decade between completion of the “horizon scan” and the present, 143 species were recorded as being introduced. The horizon scan predicted 31 of these species, 22%. Peyton et al. (2026) consider this to be success.
Peyton et al. (2026) report that globally, ~ 6% of non-native plant species are ranked as invasive. Among invertebrates, this proportion rises to 22%. Considering vertebrates introduced to Europe or North America, the figure is more than 50%!! I welcome global data that support my call for rethinking the “rule of tens” long relied on for estimating the proportion of non-native species that are invasive.
Discussing bioinvaders’ role in causing extinctions, Peyton et al. (2026) report that 30 predators have been linked to declines and extinctions of 738 vertebrate species.
Peyton et al. (2026) also discuss the difficulty in predicting an introduced species’ impacts when in some cases the time lag between introduction and presence in the wild or between establishment and spread w/in the region can last decades or even a century. They cite as an example Senecio squalidus, which escaped the Oxford Botanic Gardens in the 1700s but started to spread only during mid-1900s.
Australia
More than 300 non-native insect pests, pathogens and nematodes have established on tree or shrub hosts in Australia; 20% have caused moderate to high impacts to commercial plantations, urban forests, or trees in natural ecosystems (Carnegie et al. 2026).The rate at which non-native forest pests and pathogens have been detected in Australia has doubled since 2018 compared to earlier decades: from ~ 1.5 to ~ 3 per year. Carnegie et al. (2026) attribute this rise to greatly expanded official surveillance efforts. Still, three-quarters of the most recent detections came too late for eradication to be attempted.
The Forestwatch program (inaugurated – under a different name – in 2022) includes pathogens. I rejoice!!! Still, the target species threaten primarily tree species not native to Australia but important to commercial forestry or urban forests: Asian longhorned beetle, burnt pine longicorn (Arhopalus ferus), pine pitch canker, pine wilt disease, red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens), Asian spongy moth, red needle cast, and sudden oak death. The exceptions are strains of Austropuccinia psidiinot yet intro to Australia, and eucalypt leaf blight (caused by Teratosphaeria destructans) (Carnegie et al. 2026).
Austropuccinia psidii infection on Melaleuca in Australia; photo by John Tann via Flickr
Among the introduced pests causing the greatest damage to native species are
Phytophthora cinnamomi: this soil fungus can kill 40% of the plant species in the southern portion of Western Australia – which is one of 36 “Biodiversity Hotspots” recognized by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund.
Austropuccinia psidii (cause of myrtle rust) in natural ecosystems; Members of the host family Myrtaceae occur in 11 of 13 major vegetation formations on Australia. Various authorities have identified 76 species as at risk to the rust.
I hope the Australians are developing strategies for landowners to counter damage by the polyphagous shot hole borer (Euwallacea fornicatus) and its associated fungus (Fusarium euwallaceae). DMF Outbreak detected near Perth, Western Australia, in 2021 – apparently three years after the actual introduction. By June 2025 authorities had determined that it was too widespread to be eradicated, so landowners will be responsible for any management. (Carnegie et al. 2026) Impact is predicted to be greatest in urban landscapes, and cost up to AU$9.7 M per annum to manage.
Phytophthora pluvivora was first detected in Australia on an English oak, Quercus robur. However, it has since been recorded on native species in the Blue Mountains, including the critically endangered dwarf mountain pine (Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii) in a National Park.
SOURCES
Carnegie. A.J., B.A. Summerell, C. Trollip, F. Tovar, D.I. Smith, and J. McDonald. 2026. Sentinel trees for early detection of non-native forest pests and pathogens in Australia. Front. For. Glob. Change 9:1801183. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2026.1801183
Haack, R.A. and R.B. Blank. 2025. Susceptibility of English Oak (Quercus robur) to the Twolined Chestnut Borer, Agrilus bilineatus (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): Observations from Michigan. The Great Lakes Entomologist. 57: 113-125. https://doi.org/10.22543/0090-0222.2492
Hernández‐Gutiérrez, E., R.A. Nichols, and L.J. Kelly. 2026. Combined phylogenetic and geographic data can predict plant–pest interactions with high accuracy. New Phytologist (2026) doi: 10.1111/nph.71306
Peyton, J.M., S. Rorke, D.C. Aldridge, O.L. Pescott, K. Dehnen- Schmutz, D.G. Noble, J. Sewell, A.J.A. Stewart, T. Adriaens, B.C. Beckmann, J. R. Britton, J. Brodie1, P.M.J. Brown, I.C.N. Cavadino, P.F. Clark, A.M. Dunn, J.Foster, C. Harrower, M.C. Harvey, M.C. Jackson, T. Jones, C.A. Maggs, G. Martin, F. Mathews, A.C. Mill, D. Murphy, E. Paganini, R. Payne, W. Rabitsch, T. Renals, K. Schönrogge, R.H. Shaw, G.C. Smith, P.D. Stebbing, P.A. Stroh, H. Tidbury, E. Tricarico, J. Vallet, K.J. Walker, L.E. Wood, C.A. Wood, B. Woodcock, H.E. Roy. 2026. Assessing the success of a horizon scanning approach in predicting invasive non- native species arrival. J Appl Ecol. 2026;63: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70217
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
ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) killed by EAB along Mattawoman Creek, Prince Georges County, Maryland; photo by Leslie A. Brice
I report here on action so far on funding vital agencies in Fiscal Year 2047 (which begins on October 1, 2026). I describe the various programs roles in addressing the invasive species threat briefly in my earlier blog.
USDA Forest Service
The House Appropriations Committee approved the FY27 Interior Appropriations bill (which includes the USFS) in early June. I greatly appreciate Congress’ continued support for two USFS programs that are vitally important in protecting resilience of the Nation’s forests in the face of invasions by non-native pests and plants: Research and Development and Forest Health Management (in the State, Private, and Tribal lands division). The Trump Administration had – for the second year in a row – called for ending these programs’ specific appropriations.
Research and Development
In my testimony I had asked the Subcommittee to maintain funding for R&D at the Fiscal Year 2026 Continuing Resolution level of $308 million. Instead the Subcommittee ignored the Administration’s request and provided $295 million – a fairly small reduction under the circumstances. Funding for the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program continues to see small increases — to $34 million.
While there is no specific line item for invasive species in the R&D budget, the report does encourage the USFS to address high priority invasive species, pests, and diseases, including the emerald ash borer, an unspecified “bark beetle”, spotted lanternfly, and Spruce Budworm. The list also includes three invasive plant species: buckthorn, Amur honeysuckle, and Callery pear. This language is not tied to a specific program, so it is unclear what will actually result.
In the R&D section of the report, the Committee “recognizes the significant damage invasive species can cause throughout forests, including urban forests, and encourages the USFS to continue reforestation efforts, including through the management of woody invasive species & tree planting in urban areas.” Again, the wording seems somewhat misplaced since the R&D program does not carry out tree planting.
State, Private, and Tribal forests
I had asked the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to maintain funding for State, Private, and Tribal forests program at the FY26 Continuing Resolution level of $310.6 million. Again, appropriators ignored the Administration’s request and provided $283,500,000 – a fairly small reduction. The Forest Health Management program was funded at $58 – of which $16 million is specified for efforts on federal lands, $42 million for helping state and tribal agencies and private landowners to manage pests on their lands.
The Subcommittee report emphasized the importance of working with Colorado to curtail spread of mountain pine beetle d associated wildfire risk. Music to my ears is the Committee’s statement encouraging the USFS to work with state & local agencies to counter the high rate of tree mortality due to the goldspotted oak borer infestation in Southern California. It advised prioritizing insect research, prevention, suppression, & mitigation projects that support community wildfire protection & State forest action plans. Since none of the members of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee is from California, I am pleasantly puzzled.
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) killed by goldspotted oak borer; Heisey County Park, San Diego County, California. Photo by F.T. Campbell
The Interior Appropriations Subcommittee expressed continued concern about poor regeneration of eastern white oak (Quercus alba). (Of course, several other tree species are also regenerating poorly but a strong lobby is tied to oaks due to their economic importance.
i’iwi – a formerly common Hawaiian honeycreeper badly suppressed by avian malaria; photo by by James Petruzzi
Hawaii’s endangered birds
I am very pleased that the House Interior Appropriations Committee has provided $1,250,000 is for continuing research to protect Hawaiian forest birds from the dire extinction threat arising from non-native mosquitoes carrying avian malaria & other pathogens.
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
APHIS is responsible for preventing the introduction and spread of pests and invasive plants that harm agriculture, including forests. APHIS policy guides port inspections carried out by the DHS CBP. APHIS inspects imported live plants. Unlike the USFS, APHIS has the support of the Trump Administration, so funding levels have remained steady. Of course, continuing introductions of new pests and spread of established ones – and inflation – have increased the cost of countering invasions, so the agency continues to fall behind despite its relatively privileged position.
The House of Representatives adopted the FY27 Agriculture Appropriations Bill in early June. I apologize for the obscurity of the FY26 funding levels. Figures are in millions of dollars.
FY2025 enacted FY27
APHIS total $1,148 $1,157
Plant health subtotal $387.5 $387.6
Agric. quarantine $35.5 $35.5
Field crop and rangeland $12 $10
Pest detection $29 $29
Methods development $21.5 $21
Specialty crops $206.5 $209
Tree and wood pests $59 $58.6
In its report, the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations did not express concern about the issues that I had raised in my testimony. Instead, it mentioned several agricultural pests, e.g., citrus greening, fruit flies, a non-native beetle threatening nut orchards, and spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula). The Subcommittee also urged APHIS to work with the USDA Forest Service to counter the spread of two native wood-borers, mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in Colorado and southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis). Since both are native, APHIS’ role is unclear. The Subcommittee mentioned two invasive plants: glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) – saying it threatens biodiversity, especially in the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania; and Carizzo cane (Arundo donax), saying it contributes to tick invasions in addition to hampering detection of human immigrants along the Rio Grande.
sounder graphic by Jack Mayer, Savannah River National Laboratory
The bill increases funding for the national feral swine management program by $500,000. (I cannot determine total the appropriation). The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee had urged APHIS Wildlife Services to prioritize states with the largest invasive populations – although this choice contradicts standard advice for managing invasive species, including feral swine.
In one action linked to our concerns about wood-borer introductions via wood packaging, the Subcommittee encouraged APHIS to recognize sulfuryl fluoride as a treatment for logs, wood products, & wood packaging. This fumigant has been accepted under the international (ISPM#15) since 2013.
wooden pallets discarded next to wooded border in Glacier National Park, Montana; photo by F.T. Campbell
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
The Trump Administration proposes (again!) to end all funding for USFS Research and State, Private, and Tribal Forestry programs. The budget document claims that these cuts are necessary “to ensure fiscal responsibility w/ taxpayer dollars & appropriate alignment of resources w/ USFS’s responsibility to appropriately steward National Forest System lands.” Ending the SP&T programs is justified as “better balance[ing] the appropriate roles of federal & State governments. … and [restoring] federalism …] The document claims that the federal component of Forest Health Management [currently receiving $16 million] duplicates programs managed by the National Forest System; yet the actions listed under this second budget category all relate to water management, not insects or pathogens. The document says states should manage pests on non-federal lands [currently receives $42 million]. I think this approach ignores the need for coordinated management for each of hundreds of pest species, from detection to eradication or development of host resistance. Eliminating the Research program will deprive all forest managers of a scientific foundation for management efforts.
The Trump Administration’s proposed budget would hold funding for key APHIS programs steady. This is great news compared to the extreme cuts proposed for the Forest Service. The budget document says that it is essential to continue APHIS programs success; any stoppages or reductions would potentially cause catastrophic consequences for environmental health. Contrary to this statement, holding funding steady actually results in cuts due to continuing introductions of new pests and inflation.
Item
2024 Actual
2025 Actual
2026 Estimated
2027 Estimated
Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests (incl cogongrass)……….
12,000
12,000
11,000
9,026
Pest Detection ………………………………………………..
29,000
29,000
29,000
29,000
Plant Protection Methods Development ………………….
21,500
21,500
21,500
21,500
Specialty Crop Pests …………………………………………
215,000
215,000
214,000
217,339
Tree & Wood Pests …………………………………………..
59,000
59,000
58,650
58,650
Subtotal, Plant Health …………………………………….
387,500
387,500
385,150
386,515
USDA Forest Service
Two USFS programs w/ vital roles in protecting resilience of the Nation’s forests in the face of invasions by non-native pests and plants: R&D program and FHM within SPT division
The many economic & ecological benefits from our forests are under growing threats from a variety of disturbances, ranging from fires & hurricanes to non-native pests. ~ 60% of forests owned by non-feds; USFS must address threats to forests outside NFS to achieve its mission of sustaining “health, diversity, & productivity of the nation’s forests & grasslands to meet the needs of present & future generations.”
Research & Development
The Continuing Resolution for FY26 funded Research at $308 million for the year. Ask Congress to maintain this level. + increase research on invasive species from the current level of 1% to 5%.
The area of our forests & woodlands that is threatened by alien pests is similar to that attributed to fire or western bark beetles. More than 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states is at risk to established non-native pests.[1] If able, add reference to pests on Hawai`i or Caribbean islands. Since additional introductions almost guaranteed, even greater proportion of US’ forest resources at risk in future. If possible, name example, e.g., Phytophthora austrocedri.Forest managers cannot counter these threats without understanding how these P&P kill trees & what actions are effective counter measures. This knowledge is obtained by research.
At least 53 tree species in forests across America are already under attack by non-native pests and pathogens. Yet as of FY23, Research stations spent just 1% of appropriation studying a few of the dozens of NIS pests. Funding for alien pests has decreased 70% since FY2010 even as new pests enter our forests. This inadequate research effort means USFS cannot develop effective programs to prevent, suppress, & eradicate the majority of alien pests. One crucial strategy suffers particularly = efforts to breed trees able to thrive despite NIS pests. R&D currently supports only a few such projects.
Forest Health Management: Supporting the Full Continuum of Pest Management
The Continuing Resolution for FY26 funded State, Private, and Tribal forests program at $310.6 million. I have not found specifics for the FHM program. This was an increase over the $281 million level in FY25.
Non-native pests and pathogens arrive as contaminants or hitchhikers on imported goods, especially on wood packaging and plants. These imports usually arrive in cities or suburbs, so the pests establish there first. They immediately cause enormous damage to urban forests, forcing local governments and property owners to absorb high tree removal costs. They then spread to rural forests, including National forests. Examples include hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, invasive shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, sudden oak death, and beech leaf disease.
The most effective approach is to kill the pests where they first appear – usually in those urban or semi-rural forests. This response is led by FHM Cooperative Lands subprogram. We urge maintain funding for this subprogram at the FY26 level (possibly $42 million) so that the agency’s experts can continue to assist the states and other partners in countering these pests. As these pests spread to rural areas – including to National forests, National parks, and other public lands, responsibility for their management involves FHM Federal Lands subprogram. So much maintain funding for this subprogram at FY26 levels.
A recent analysis[2] determined that the natural resource values of 92 National parks are threatened by forest pests. Western parks are threatened primarily by outbreaks of the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Those in the East face threats from more than a dozen species of non-native pests, including hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, laurel wilt, and – most recently – beech leaf disease.
Again, combatting these pests requires understanding their life histories & traits – understanding gained through the research program mentioned above.
Funding reductions over the past decade have already shrunk the number of FHM projects & areas treated each year. While 53 tree species are threatened, only four [eastern oaks, loblolly & ponderosa pines, & hemlocks] are targeted by 95% of projects. To counter the threats to 50 additional tree taxa, FHM needs additional resources.[3]
Investing in urban forestry is key to addressing both parties’ priorities & advancing flexible & cost-effective solutions to a wide range of issues impacting American communities, businesses, & families. The USFS SPT division’s Urban & Community Forestry Program efficiently distributes funds to shovel-ready projects for improving communities by maintaining a healthy tree canopy. Federal “seed” money provides resources necessary to initiate & stabilize these local programs.
A surprisingly high proportion of the (inadequate) funding for breeding trees to mitigate the damage caused by non-native pests is from FHM or the NFS, rather than R&D. These programs should receive substantial increases. The model program is the Dorena Genetic Resource Center. It provides decades-long commitment, skilled staff, necessary facilities; these result in breeding successes, i.e., western white pines and Port-Orford cedar.
Invasive Plants
Invasions of forests by non-native plant species erode forest productivity & provision of the full range of ecosystem services, hinder forest uses, degrade biodiversity & habitat, and impose substantial financial costs. A recent analysis[4] documents that this threat is growing: the number of FIA inventory plots containing invasive plant species rose in 58.9% of surveyed counties. Furthermore, in 73.2% of the counties the plots experienced an increase in species richness of invading plants. Increases occurred in all regions, but were greater in the East: from 46% to 52.3%. In the Rocky Mountains, the proportion of invaded plots rose from 6% to 11%. In Hawai`i, this proportion grew from 70% to 83.2%. Again, USFS Research and FHM programs, working together, are key to making progress in countering these bioinvasions.
[1] Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35 17371–17376
[2] Michalak, J.L., C.E. Littlefield, J.E. Gross, T.G. Mozelewski, J.J. Lawler. 2026. Relative Vulnerability of US National Parks to Cumulative & Transformational Climate Impacts. Conservation Letters, 2026 Vol 19, Issue 1; 19:e70020
[3] Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17
[4] Potter, K.M., B.V. Iannone III, K.H. Riitters, Q. Guo, K. Pandit, C.M. Oswalt. 2026. US Forests are Increasingly Invaded by Problematic NIS Plants. Forest Ecology & Management 599 (2026) 123281
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
APHIS is responsible for preventing intro and spread of pests and invasive plants that harm agric, including forests. APHIS policy guides port inspections carried out by the DHS CBP. APHIS inspects imported live plants.
Introductions of pests and pathogens have continued to occur. APHIS funding has remained steady – which means it is not growing to match the rising threat. At minimum, maintain current levels.
FY2025 enacted FY26 House FY26 Senate
APHIS total $1,148 $1,146 $1,168
Plant health subtotal $387.5 $388.6
Agric. quarantine $35.5 $35.5 $35.5
Field crop and rangeland $12 $11 $11.5
Pest detection $29 $28.5 $29
Methods development $21.5 $21.5 $21.5
Specialty crops $206.5 $216.3 $208.5
Tree and wood pests $59 $59 $58.6
Emergency preparedness and response* $44.5 $44.5 $44.3
* this fund is apparently for both animal and plant emergencies
Rationale
Already introduced pests threaten the many forest products and services benefitting all Americans. Just 15 of the worst pests threaten 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states – comparable to fire.[1] A significant proportion of the resulting costs are imposed on municipal governments and homeowners. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated[2] that the municipal governments were spending more than $1B / year, primarily on removing and replacing trees on public property killed by these non-native pests. Homeowners faced costs of $1B plus loss of another $1.5B in property value. A more recent study estimated that cities will have to spend $30M per year to remove and replace ~ 1.4M street trees by 2050. Additional trees in parks and on homeowners’ properties also die.[3]
A new pattern has appeared in recent years: more newly-introduced pests are being detected in the Pacific Coast states rather than in the East and Midwest. Two southern California counties are projected to pay $150M – $1B[4] to remove and replace trees killed by invasive shot hole borers. The emerald ash borer threatens 9,000 ash on the streets of Portland, Oregon and millions more in parks and the forested wetlands of Willamette Valley, including in Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge. The Mediterranean oak borer has already killed thousands of oak trees in the San Francisco Bay area; it also threatens urban forests and valued oak savannahs in Oregon.
Additional introductions of highly damaging wood-borers are likely because we continue to receive inadequately treated crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made of wood. For 20 years, all countries shipping goods to North America must treat their wooden packaging per prescribed protocols. To address this risk, we urge a modest $1M increase in APHIS’ “Tree and Wood Pest” account. We also suggest that the Subcommittee inquire of APHIS what steps it will take to improve compliance with the treatment requirement. You should focus your inquiry on China; wood packaging from this country is three times more likely to harbor a tree-killing pest than the global average.[5]
Other pests—especially plant diseases and sap sucking insects—enter on imported plants. Pathogens introduced recently via this pathway include rapid ohia death in Hawai`i (threatening the species that constitutes 80% of the Islands’ forest biomass) and beech leaf disease (thin a dozen years has spread across much of the East).
All assessments of APHIS’ plant import programs’ effectiveness use data from 2009; at that time, plant imports were more than 100 times more likely to transport pests than was wood packaging.[6] APHIS has amended its regulations several times since 2009. We urge the Subcommittee to call for APHIS to facilitate independent analysis of the efficacy of its current phytosanitary programs in order to understand whether the updated regulations have reduced the risk of additional introductions.
Again, pests introduced via this pathway proliferate and spread – often facilitated by movement of firewood, plants, and outdoor household goods. APHIS’ programs have suffered severe failures to prevent such spread, for example in the cases of the emerald ash borer and sudden oak death. We suggest that the Subcommittee inquire of APHIS what steps it will take to improve containment efforts regarding damaging plant pests, including through collaboration with its state partners.
We ask for small increases to the Pest Detection and Methods Development programs. The first enables prompt detection of newly introduced pests … which is critical to successful pest eradication or containment. The second empowers APHIS to improve essential detection and eradication tools.
The current emergency fund of is far below the level needed to respond when a new pest is discovered. We thank both the House and the Senate for clearly recognizing that these appropriations are inadequate by including in their bills language reiterating the Agriculture Secretary’s power to access funds from other Departmental programs (usually the Commodity Credit Corporation) to respond to emergencies.
[1] Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35 17371–17376
[2] Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K. O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R. G. Haight, T. P. Holmes, A. Liebhold, D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle.. 2011. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States PLoS One September 2011 (Volume 6 Issue 9)
[3] Hudgins, E.J., F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, and B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology
[4] Jetter, K. A. Hollander, B.E. Nobua-Behrmann, N. Love, S. Lynch, E. Teach, N. Van Dorne, J. Kabashima, and J. Thorne. 2022. Bioeconomic modeling of invasive species management in urban forests: final report.
[5] Haack RA, Hardin JA, Caton BP and Petrice TR (2022) Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117
[6] Liebhold, A.M., E.G. Brockerhoff, L.J. Garrett, J.L. Parke, and K.O. Britton. 2012. Live Plant Imports: the Major Pathway for Forest Insect and Pathogen Invasions of the US. www.frontiersinecology.org
Congressional Committees with Jurisdiction … & how to submit testimony
FUNDING APHIS
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Chairman: Andy Harris (R-MD)
Members: Robert Aderholt, David Valadao, John Moolenaar, Dan Newhouse, Julia Letlow, Ben Cline, Ashley Hinson, Scott Franklin
Democrats à Sanford Bishop, Jr., Chellie Pingree, Lauren Underwood, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Marcy Kaptur, Debbie Wasserman Schultz
deadline: May 1; email to ag.approp@mail.house.gov
instructions: 5 pages, double-spaced in Times New Roman, 12 Point Font; single-sided; PDF attachment to your email. At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation (if any); In 1st paragraph, clearly state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Chairman: John Hoeven (R-ND)
Members: Republicans à Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Jerry Morn, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds
Democrats à Jeanne Shaheen, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, Martin Heinrich, Gary Peter, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jon Ossof
deadline: not clear; might be 22 May; email to agri@appro.senate.gov
instructions: 4 pages.. At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation; state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request
FUNDING USFS
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Chairman: Mike Simpson (R-WY)
Members: Republicans à Mark Amodei, Guy Reschenthaler, Michael Cloud, Ryan Zinke, Jake Ellzey, Celeste Maloy
Democrats à Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Betty McCollum, Josh Harder, James E. Clyburn
deadline: 22 April; email to IN.Approp@mail.house.gov
instructions: 4 pages, single-spaced in 12 Point Font; single-sided; prefer PDF but other formats OK. At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation (if any); In 1st paragraph, clearly state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Chairman: Lisa Murkowski (R- AK)
Members: Republicans à Mitch McConnell, Shelly Moore Capito, John Hoeven, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds
Democrats à Jeff Merkley, Chris van Hollen, Martin Heinrich, Tammy Baldwin, Kirsetn Gillibrand, Jon Ossof
deadline: unclear; possibly mid-June; email to int@appro.senate.gov
instructions: 4 pages, single-spaced in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect; do NOT send PDF. At top of 1st page, clearly indicate your name, title, & institutional affiliation (if any); In 1st paragraph, clearly state agency, program, & amount of funding in the request
In a press release on 31 March, 2026, the USDA announced major changes to the USFS structure. Agency headquarters will be moved to Salt Lake City. They point out that nearly 90% of USFS land is west of the Mississippi … but promise to sustain engagement in the Southeast (America’s “wood basket) by creating a regional office there. Furthermore, they will change the current regional organization to a state-based one; they plan to create 15 state directorships. State directors will serve as national leaders with primary oversight of forest supervisors, operational priorities, & relationships with states, tribes, & other partners. Each state office will include a small leadership support team responsible for functions such as legislative affairs, communications, & intergovernmental coordination.
There will still be some “operational service centers” in other cities; that for research will be in Fort Collins. The goal is to unify research priorities, accelerate the application of science to management decisions, & reduce administrative duplication. Information on which facilities will be retained or closed is available at this webpage. (I could not open this site.)
No specific information is provided re: forest health management program.
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
Callery/Bradford pear invasion in northern Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the North American Invasive Species Management Association (NAISMA) held the 34th annual forum on invasive species research at the end of February 2026. The agenda is available here In this blog I summarize the presentations about invasive alien plants (IAS); a separate blog discusses findings on tree-killing pests. Formal proceedings will be available in some months.
The most important information from the meeting:
If NAISMA had not taken on the task of hosting the conference it would not have happened.
Government leaders allowed only 1 staffer per USDA Forest Service region to participate. Not allowed to come were people who had organized the whole meeting or individual sessions, and presenters discussing several topics, including preventing IAS plant spread, and progress on controlling cogongrass (major impediment to pine plantations, affecting harvests).
What do these decisions say about the genuineness of the USDA Secretary’s recent memorandum listing invasive species as one of four priority areas for the department’s research efforts?
A reminder to us all: Rebekah Wallace of the Center for Invasive Species & Ecosystem Health at the University of Georgia urged us all to provide citations for images used in informal materials – posters, presentations, outreach efforts, blogs, videos. Images grab attention, provide context for communication, and support data cited. Providing the citation increases our credibility and ensures that we avoid perpetuating misinformation!
Callery/Bradford pear in Kentucky; photo by Sherry Bailey via NARA archive
Two presentations focused on Callery / Bradford pear
Jess Hartshorn of ecoLogic described efforts to develop a remote sensing tool that will be as accurate as human surveyers — but faster. What scientists learned from this exercise will help build tools for other invasive plants. Hartshorn noted that while there are many no-cost sources of satellite imagery, no single source is sufficient. But integrating data from several programs, plus adding new criteria proved challenging. One setback was a surprise: the spectrum emitted from the tree’s most conspicuous feature, its early-season white blooms, is similar to that reflected from concrete! – with which the species is associated … The authors had to use data from several satellite systems to identify unique wavelengths from the leaves. Accuracy was lost when an individual pixil contain mixed “vegetation”.
Marcin Nowicki, of the University of Tennessee, explored the genetic changes that allowed a species that is rare in Asia to become a prolific continent-wide invader in North America. “Evolutionary overdrive” resulted from planting plants from several origins close together, thus promoting cross pollination. This led to exceptionally rapid diversification in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. A bonus: once Sequencing the genomes of several cultivars have been sequenced, bans on sales of those hybrids that are most invasive can be enforced.
Becky K. Kerns, USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station reported on disturbing increases in invasive plants in forests of the Pacific Northwest. In the past, higher elevations, low light levels, and cooler temperatures appeared to protect the region’s forests from invasion. However, annual grasses, especially cheat grass (Bromus tectrorum), are now being found at unprecedented levels in forest plots that have been burned, grazed, or logged, burned, and grazed. This includes plots subjected to prescribed burns. Kern thinks the plant invasions are due to increased light, ground disturbance, changed competitive interactions, and potentially higher propagule pressure. Pyrophytic shrubs also of increasing concern; Kerns mentioned Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) in Douglas-fir forests. [I am uncertain how novel this threat is because academic scientists issued warnings about Scotch and other brooms in the mid-1990s.] [run together w/ following] She is working with the staff of the National Invasive Species Council’s task force on fire and invasives to increase attention to emerging threats and to encourage managers to prioritize managing known pyrophytic species along with fire.
Wavyleaf basketgrass infestation in closed-canopy forest in Maryland; photo by Kerry Kyde, Maryland DNR via Bugwood
Two speakers addressed aspects of the invasion by wavyleaf basket grass (Oplismenus hirtellus subsp. undulatifolius).
Wavyleaf basket grass was first detected in 1996 in Maryland. It is now widespread in the Mid-Atlantic and expected to spread along the Appalachian Trail and to other recreation sites. Thirty percent of public land in the East is considered vulnerable.
Carrie Wu of the University of Richmond is exploring the grass’ association with changes in the soil microbial community. She tested associated soil microbial communities in 12 locations with three types of soil. She found decreased fungal diversity but not homogenization of the fungal community. She is now constructing an invasion history to see how fast the changes occur, confirm the invaded range, and predict high-risk sites.
Michael Fulcher, of the USDA Agriculture Research Service’s Foreign Disease-Weed Science Lab, is concerned about the microbes associated with invasive plant species. We don’t know whether some of these microbes might be beneficial, perhaps as biocontrol agents? Or might they cause disease in desired plant species. He phenotyped 319 isolates from healthy leaves. This study detected two known crop pathogens on healthy wavy leaf basket grass plus an unknown species in a genus that includes some known pathogens. In lab tests, this organism stunted growth of wheat and tall fescue embryos
Fulcher emphasizes that even asymptomatic non-native plants can transport possible pathogens. Scientists should try to detect and analyze these as quickly as possible. I note that Eliana Torres Bedoya reported last year that healthy woody plants can also transport disease-causing fungi.
Fulcher is looking for collaborators to help collect plant samples
Other invading plants
Craig Barrett of West Virginia University seeks to answer questions related to “invasiveness” traits and whether selective pressures enhance those traits in the invasive range. To explore these topics, Barrett is mapping the invasion history of the widespread invasive species Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). He has found evidence of the grass’ rapid adaptation after introduction, including greater diversity in invasive populations in the Northeast than those in the Southeast. Barrett thinks it most likely that a genetic bottleneck at introduction was followed by mixing that created novel genotypes that might bridge gene transfer between larger populations. There is evidence of phenological adaptation to local climates and a genetic basis for whether a plant supports awns – which react to changes in moisture by “walking” across soil and burying themselves.
Elizabeth Ward, at the Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station, documented how invasive plant species utilize forest gaps created by the death of ash caused by emerald ash borer (EAB). The progress of the EAB infestation across Connecticut is well-documented, so scientists can track plant responses to stages of canopy mortality. She found:
Larger canopy gaps contained more invasive plants and fewer native tree seedlings / reduced regeneration.
Higher soil nitrogen availability is also linked to higher non-native plant cover (all species) – including non-native tree seedlings.
Higher carbon availability led to lower non-native plant cover, including that of non-native tree seedlings.
Ward advises active management of EAB-invaded forests to reduce plant invasions and promote tree regeneration.
Ward is now comparing sites with passive management vs. salvage harvests. Early results find no difference in invasive plant cover. However, harvested sites had higher abundance of ash regeneration and and diversity of native plant species.
Jeremy Anderson, at the University of Massachusetts, discussed difficulties that have slowed the search for a biocontrol agent to control invasive knotweeds. North American scientists are collaborating with counterparts in Europe. Because knotweeds are related to rhubarb, scientists must ensure that any agent is host specific.
knotweed infestation in Maryland; photo by Will Parson, Chesapeake Bay Program
Initial surveys 20 years ago identified 180 candidate insects. However, the only speciesfound suitable for in- depth evaluation failed to establish. Why? First, there was apparently a climate mismatch: the insect is from southern Japan but the plant is from the North. Then a second difficulty was discovered: the target weeds are hybrids, not a pure species. Scientists are now testing a microbe that might overwinter on pine needles, so they are comparing needle chemistries of Japanese red pine with those of North American pines to determine whether there is a risk. In answer to a question, Anderson said scientists do not know how the microbe will respond to the warmer, wetter climate expected in New England in the future.
Ashley Schulz, of Mississippi State University, is continuing her efforts to identify clues to which newly introduced species might be most damaging. In this case she is analyzing efficacy of biocontrol agents to understand which establish and have significant impacts. Species with traits similar to successful biocontrol agents might be more successful invaders.
Schulz analyzed information from 394 insects introduced to North America to control 153 plant species and 87 agents targeting 325 insect pests. The data recorded on each species: whether it established, level of impact, insect’s feeding guild, climate matching, host specialization, and evolutionary history. For the 87 entomophagous insects, she also recorded host feeding guild and host specialization. See other blog.
Phytophagous insect biocontrol agents were more likely to establish if the insect is a generalist newly associated with the target plant species. The biocontrol agent is more likely to have a greater impact when released in environments similar to the agent’s native range. The introduced biocontrol agent will have less impact if it feeds on plant parts that the plant can easily restore (foliage, fruit/seeds).
What does this indicate re: invasive species? Schulz concluded that among phytophagous insects, generalists might be more likely to find a suitable host and survive. The “Goldilocks” premise applies: the host is sufficiently similar to the invader’s native host that it is recognizable but sufficiently distantly related to lack defenses effective against the invader. Bioinvasive phytophagous insects will have a greater impact when introduced to a similar climate and feeds on plant structures that are not easily restored – i.e., stem, root.
For traits of entomophagous insect biocontrol agents see my other blog here.
Schulz recommends more analysis of what can be learned from experience with biocontrol agents. However, such studies are challenged by poor records, lack of empirical evidence and quantitative data, the lower number of biocontrol agents introduced recently, and funding shortages that preclude post-release monitoring.
Schulz also mentioned that she worries that a proposal to drop the word “harm” from definition of invasiveness could result in biocontrol agents being lumped with invasive species. This would further hamper implementation of biocontrol. She considered this loss to have particularly bad affects at a time when there are growing restrictions on pesticide use.
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
As bioinvasions and their impacts continue to expand globally, managers and decision-makers charged with developing effective management and mitigation strategies urgently need tools that can assess and rank all impacts. These start with impacts on species’ populations … but go much farther, to the assemblage, ecosystem, and abiotic levels. Impacts at the “species and assemblage” level include species extinction (locally or more broadly), changes in species range, assemblage structure, successional patterns, and the soundscape. Impacts at the “ecosystem function” and “abiotic” levels include changes to primary production, food webs, water quality, and nutrient cycles. The analysis also addresses changes that do not affect native biota directly, although they present no examples.
For a decade, scientists studying bioinvasions have used the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) framework to standardize categorization of species-level impacts. One group that has not used this methodology is experts on tree pests. Why? Does the approach fail to describe the impacts of non-native arthropods and pathogens on tree species and forest ecosystems more broadly? Or is it simply because of academic silos?
Even more important: are the science and practical management of invasive species and forest pests losing valuable insights, resources, policy choices, … because of this schism? Would both groups gain from closer interactions?
In any case, the framework used by many scientists working on “invasive species” is undergoing a revision to better capture cascading and systemic effects from bioinvasion. A group of scientists has created the Extended EICAT (EEICAT) framework. (See the publication reference at the end of this blog to learn the process of development and details of the new system.) The proponents claim that the new system recognizes the functional interdependence of species in ecosystems, which means that alterations in species assemblages inevitably amplify throughout the system. E.g., alterations in physico-chemical characteristics or habitat structure. Impacts can even cross-ecosystem impacts between ecosystems that are often managed separately. An example is a change in the quality, magnitude, and novelty of resource flows between terrestrial and aquatic systems. To address these multifaceted effects, EEICAT integrates 19 impact types into the analysis. The intention is to improve communication about the complex ecological impacts caused by bioinvasions and facilitate prioritization of responses to competing bioinvasions.
While the various outcomes from bioinvasion can be positive or negative for nature and people, the EEICAT does not use value-laden distinctions. These determinations are left to stakeholders, managers, and community members, based on their own perspectives. Instead, it compiles and standardizes information about the measurable changes to species numbers (some decrease, others increase); to ecosystem processes (e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes).
EEICAT incorporates the “reversibility concept”, which addresses the potential for a native sp (including individuals, pops, and assemblages), ecosystem function, or abiotic environmental to recover after removal of the bioinvader. The system developers distinguish “naturally reversible changes” and “naturally irreversible changes”. In the former case, the affected spp, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought likely to return to their original state within 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer) through natural processes or human-assisted actions that do not exceed what is already being done. This does not include reintroductions or restoration efforts that require new efforts. Instances of “naturally irreversible changes” are those in which the affected species, ecosystem functions, or abiotic conditions cannot return to their original state within that timeframe without significant additional human intervention, or even after intense human intervention. The system has reached a different, stable equilibrium. These “permanent” changes are the result of one or more species’ global extinction, or persistent environmental alterations, e.g., soil modification, altered hydrology, or irreversible changes in nutrient cycling.
The proponents assert that EEICAT allows multiple impacts reported in a single study to be classified independently at each impact level. Furthermore, the EEICAT analysis does not require extensive research on the assessed species or understanding of the mechanisms through which the invasive species affects native species or the environment. EEICAT framework is applicable to any amount of info available in each study. It also explicitly assesses the adequacy / reliability of evidence [data, methods, approach] used in studies of bioinvasions that are included in the analysis.
EEICAT framework enables researchers to evaluate how “ecosystem engineer” species influence key ecological functions by explicitly accounting for changes to ecosystem processes, e.g., nutrient dynamics or hydrological regimes. For example introduced bivalves increase water clarity in certain systems, triggering cascading effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
The EEICAT framework also allows separation of the mechanisms of impact vs. attribution of impact. For example, when a non-native plant species alters nutrient availability, thereby changing the microbial community, EEICAT assigns separate impact categories to the two impacts.
Regarding cross-ecosystem effects, the proponents cite rats on islands. Their predation suppresses seabird pops; reduced guano alters the nutrient dynamics of adjacent coral reef ecosystems. Thus assign impact categories not only to the changes in nutrients, but also to ecological functioning. This provides a more comprehensive view of interconnected effects.
Proponents of the proposed new framework assert that the fundamental distinction between EEICAT and the earlier EICAT is that the earlier assessment is “species-based”, whereas the new one is “impact-based”. It is broader because it focuses on specific combinations of invading species plus the affected systems. It is better able, they assert, to account for contrasting impacts in different invasions.
EEICAT can be applied to any invasion event (i.e., a specific combination of invasive species, recipient system, and context). It broadens the range of evidence that can be integrated into the assessment. Decision-makers benefit from access to more information. The information can also be provided in more easily understood form through two visualization tools:
An “invasive species profile” aggregates all recorded impacts caused by a single invading species. This facilitates clear communication of the bioinvasion’s impact severity to managers and stakeholders, plus how those impacts vary by context.
An “invaded ecosystem profile” compiles impacts from different species to a site or location. This is particularly useful for synthetic analyses (e.g., meta-analyses), evidence syntheses, and manager assessments.
Resulting profiles can help stakeholders prioritize species or ecosystems for responses.
https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/pest_pathogen/phytophthora-root-rot-html/to are ants. No disease agent is discussed or even named. This gap is surprising given the devastating and geographically extensive impacts of e.g., avian malaria, chitrid fungi (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) on amphibians, and Phytophthora cinnamomi on the flora of western Australia.
One example in Table 3 pertains to native Hawaiian forests. The underlying study analyzed changes in ecosystem functions caused by the invasive nitrogen-fixing tree Falcataria moluccana. The EEICAT proponents say their analysis of this study would supports more informed decisions in conservation planning and ecosystem management. Indeed, the principal author of the underlying study has recently published a suggested method to manage the Falcataria moluccana invasions by replacing these trees with either native species or valued crops under an agroforestry program. Neither of the articles mentions that exactly this same area (the Puna District on the “Big Island) has suffered widespread death of the native tree ʻōhiʻa lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) as a result of the invasive disease rapid ʻōhiʻa death (ROD). The more recent article does address the fact that native plant species are extremely rare in this region.
Would integrating studies of tree-killing arthropods and pathogens into the EEICAT system provide benefits? First, let’s consider analytical methodology. Many analyses of forest pests’ impacts already discuss at least some of the wider ecological (and economic) outcomes. (To explor this, visit www.dontmovefirewood.org and read some of the species profiles under the “invasive species” tab.) Would comparing these findings to an EEICAT analysis confirm the proposed methodology? Or would it instead suggest needed adaptations? In either case, the results should improve scientists’ work.
Second, would the science and practice of managing invasive species be strengthened by bridging the differences in methods and terminology between those focused on plants and vertebrates and those focused on tree-killing invertebrates and microbes? Would greater unity result in more attention to bioinvaders from policy-makers and/or conservation practitioners and advocates? Especially since (nearly) all the major forest pest invasions would qualify as “naturally irreversible changes” or even “permanent”: the affected species, ecosystem processes or abiotic conditions are thought unlikely to return to their original state within 10 years or 3 generations (whichever is longer) in the absence of intense human-assisted actions. If joining forces might bring about greater societal efforts, is the EEICAT methodology a promising tool to achieve this goal?
Finally, would applying the EEICAT system improve the analyses of tree-pest impacts? Would this approach result in incorporation of types of effects that would otherwise be missed – either often or in specific cases? Are there relationships among forest species, or between species and ecological functions, that might be discovered? Might preparation of “invaded ecosystem profiles” that include bioinvaders from earthworms to canopy foliage feeders provide an informative perspectives that is now lacking?
SOURCE
Carneiro, L., Pincheira-Donoso, D., Leroy, B., Bertolino, S., Camacho-Cervantes, M., Cuthbert, R.N., et al. (2026) Expanding invasive species impact assessments to the ecosystem level with EEICAT. PLoS Biol 24(3): e3003665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003665
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
Falcataria moluccana tree; photo by Forest & Kim Starr via Flickr
Nitrogen-fixing tree species have been recognized as damaging to invaded ecosystems for decades. These trees increase soil N availability through increased N content in litterfall. The elevated soil N availability might persist long after the mature individuals responsible for creating such litterfall have ceased to exist. When this happens, some plant species able to exploit increases in nutrients and light, e.g., non-native grasses and forbs, might quickly dominate post-control succession.
In Hawai`i one of the worst nitrogen-fixing tree species is albizia (Falcataria falcata) [formerly Falcataria moluccana, Paraserianthes falcataria, or Albizia falcataria]. This fast-growing species has aggressively invaded across the archipelago, transforming composition, structure, and function of remnant lowland wet forests. There are an estimated four million F. falcata trees across the Hawaiian islands; 720,000 large trees (i.e., > 25 cm DBH). The trees spread rapidly once established because the small seeds remain attached to the lighweight pods, which can be blown for long distances in wind storms (J.B. Friday, University of Hawaii, pers. comm.).
Stands with contiguous overstory F. falcata canopies reduce light availability to 20% of ambient levels; adding in understory vegetation further reduces light to ~5% of ambient levels. Albizia’s abundant and persistent seedbank promotes its return to dominance after mature individuals controlled.
understory of an albizia-invaded area; invasive plants: forbs along roadside; Miconia calvescens in the shade. Photo by F.T. Campbell
Beyond the conservation threats, albizia also poses a threat to residential communities & agricultural lands. The trees are some of the fastest growing species in the world, easily growing 5 m in height annually over the first few years and reaching up to 40 m. When their brittle branches fall they crush structures and entire trees can topple during windstorms. The damage is exacerbated by trees’ widespread presence. When Tropical Storm Iselle hit Hawai‘i island in 2014, over 10,000 people were stuck in their subdivisions or on their farms because fallen albizia had blocked all their access roads (Friday, pers. comm.).
Until recently control efforts have relied largely on clearing the land using large machinery (e.g., bulldozers). This is expensive and – worse – not very effective because the magnitude of disturbance to the soil disturbance often leads to explosive germination of the trees’ seeds.
There has been success recently through application of a target-specific herbicide (aminopyralid) at low doses (Leary et al. 2014). Hughes et al. (2025) found that herbicide-killed F. falcata quickly lost their leaves. This litterfall increased litter inputs of N and P that translated to increased soil nutrient availability that is exploited by extant understory vegetation (non-native grasses and forbs). These plants formed a continuous layer that severely limited germination of F. falcata seeds. In their study plots the number of saplings per ha after three years was only 18, despite the presence of perhaps 8 million seeds!
As an early successional pioneer species, F. falcata requires high light conditions to germinate, persist, & grow. The rapid growth & thorough occupation of the understory by other species prevents the species’ re-establishment. However, these aggressive non-native plants also prevent restoration of native Hawaiian species. There is little to no regeneration of native plants under albizia, either on stands that established on abandoned agricultural or ranch lands or under trees that spread into native forests.
Hughes et al. (2025) suggest manipulating the succession trajectory by planting desired species – either native species or species that have cultural importance to native Hawaiians – under albizia stands before herbicide treatment. If the land is to be restored to agricultural use, mechanical clearing would be used rather than herbicide used as felling the brittle dead trees is hazardous to equipment operators, and standing dead trees would pose a risk to farmers. In a forest setting, understory planting before herbicide treatment of the canopy-forming F. falcata stands would allow desired species to take maximum advantage of the increased resources (i.e., light and nutrients) (Friday pers. comm.).
Even after invasive N-fixing trees have been physically removed, the soil legacy effects of transformed microbial communities, depleted native seedbanks, increased available soil N, and dominance by undesirable weed species are daunting barriers to restoration of native species. With intensive management, though, these lands can be restored to agricultural production. Dozens of acres of papaya farms have been established on areas in the Puna district of Hawai‘i island on lands formerly occupied by albizia (Friday, pers. comm.).
In this case, re-establishment by native species is not expected due to their scarcity in study areas. These areas had experienced significant disturbance (i.e., fire, and/or conversion to agriculture) before albiziast and establishment. Instead, the proposal’s objective is primarily to understand whether, how, and to what extent F. falcata stands could be eliminated from areas in a manner that constrains the species’ seedling recruitment and subsequent re-establishment leading to overstory dominance once again (Friday, pers. comm.).
Hughes et al. (2025) emphasize the need for long-term follow-up to ensure that F. falcata does not re-establish later on. The species’seeds retain 70 – 90% viability following 18 months in storage; possibly some much longer. Also, a few saplings did still establish. The non-native grass invasion might lead to declines in soil N availability that provide opportunities for secondary invasion by N2-fixing treesin light gaps. Dr. Friday reports that practitioners revisit treated areas to kill these seedling while they are still 10 – 20 feet tall.
Conclusions
Hughes et al. (2025) assert that management of this large, fast-growing, & disruptive invasive tree is possible by exploiting its weakness of shade intolerance. Dr. Friday agrees that fast-growing timber species, e.g., Eucalyptus, could outcompete regenerating albizia. However, will there be a market for locally grown timber? Dr. Friday doubts the possibility of agro-forestry plantings of smaller or slower-growing species because of the danger that the overtopping dead F. falcate would fall on and crush agricultural workers or structures.
The fall hazard would presumably apply in other parts of the Pacific & elsewhere where F. faclata poses the same invasiveness problems.
ʻōhiʻa trees killed by ROD in the Puna District of Hawai`i Island; photo by F.T. Campbell
Hughes et al. (2025) do not mention that the native tree that was probably most widespread before the disturbances is ʻōhiʻa lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha). In precisely the same lowland region of the Big Island where they conducted their study, ʻōhiʻa has been killed by a newly introduced disease, rapid ʻōhiʻa rust (ROD). This new invader greatly complicates any effort aimed at restoring native plant species.
healthy ʻōhiʻa in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell
SOURCES
Hughes, R.F., C. Morrison, E. Bufil, J. Leary. 2025. Ecosystem response to management of an invasive N-fixing tree in Hawai`i. Trees, Forests and People 21 (2025) 100932
Leary, J., J. B. Friday, S. Kaye, and F. Hughes. 2014. Proper technique of injecting albizia (Falcataria moluccana L.) with the herbicide Milestone ® (active ingredient aminopyralid).
Dr. Friday provided the following more local references:
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
