Category: biological control

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Guidance on Nature-Based Solutions

whitebark pine in Glacier National Park killed by white pine blister rust; National Park Service photo

As I noted in the accompanying blog, the U.S. Department of Interior has also weighed in on how to mitigate climate change as part of the Nation’s response to COP24 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Interior’s Nature-Based Solutions “Roadmap” (citation at the end of the blog) is 480 pages long! It includes lots of pictures and extensive lists of examples of various types of projects. The document reviews “nature-based” restoration techniques, the benefits they provide in various realms (ecosystem, economy, social values); and the challenges or barriers likely to be encountered. These analyses cover six types of ecosystems – coastal (further divided into five subgroups), forests, grasslands (two types), inland wetland habitats, riverine habitats (three subgroups), and built environments. The obvious emphasis on aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats reflects the Department’s responsibilities. The threat from invasive species is recognized in each case. Plus there are separate chapters discussing management/removal of invasive pests and pathogens, plants, and vertebrates in all types of ecosystems.

The document’s purpose is to provide Interior’s staff – and others who are interested – with reliable information on determining the conditions and goals under which “nature-based” strategies perform best, the benefits they are likely to provide, instructive examples, and additional resources. Much of the information is intended to help staff persuade skeptics that a “nature-based” approach can solve a climate-related problem, such as sea level rise, as well as, or better than, “grey” infrastructure. This includes discussion of: construction and maintenance costs, efficacy in solving a specific problem, and managing conflicts over land use. Also, it considers benefits to other realms, for example, protecting biodiversity and providing opportunities for recreation and mental and physical well-being.

I will focus on aspects dealing with forests. These occur in several chapters. Each chapter has a brief description of the climate and other services provided by that ecosystem type, followed by sections on ways forward (“Technical Approach”), factors affecting site suitability, tools and training resources, likely benefits and outcomes (economic and ecological), barriers and solutions, and examples of projects.

The forest chapter (Chapter 10) discusses forest conservation and restoration with an emphasis on improving forest health, including fuels management, reforestation, and addressing threats from native and non-native pests. One proposed solution is thinning. This measure is said to enhance tree health and promote invasive plants. The “Roadmap” does not recognize that experts consider thinning is helpful in managing native pests such as mountain pine beetle but not non-native pests.

I was startled to find another suggestion – to plant native tree species that are resistant to non-native pests to restore stands. The “Roadmap” refers readers to the National Park Service Resilient Forests Initiative for Region 1 [which reaches from Virginia to Maine]. The Initiative encourages collaboration among parks with similar issues; provides park-specific resource briefs for 39 parks in the Region; and offers management strategies for a host of problems. These include invasive species control, prescribed fire, deer management, silvicultural treatments, tree planting, and fencing. My confusion is that – as far as I know – there are no sources of trees resistant to the non-native pests plaguing forests of the Northeast, e.g., beech, butternut, chestnut, hemlocks, ash, and oaks.

test planting of pathogen-resistant whitebark pine seedlings in Glacier National Park; photo by Richard Sniezko

In the “Tools” section Chapter 10 lists forest restoration guides published by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the International Union of Forest Research Organizations. The “Examples” section includes a few thinning projects.

Chapter 16 advises on enhancing urban forests, which provide many benefits. The chapter stresses the importance of ensuring that projects’ budgets can support protecting trees from such risks as flooding, fire, pests, disease, “invasive species” (presumably other than insects or pathogens), and climate change. The authors note that urban trees are often more susceptible to pests because of their proximity to human activities that facilitate pests’ spread. However, there is no mention that such pests spread to nearby natural forests. They warn against planting a single tree species. An issue noted but not discussed in detail is the use of non-native species in urban forests, some of which have already become invasive.

Three chapters discuss invasive species per se — insects and pathogens (Chap. 26), plants (Chap 27), and vertebrates (Chap. 28) Each chapter summaries invasion stages and stresses the importance of preventing new introductions, detecting them early, and responding rapidly. Most of the text deals with managing established populations – with the emphasis on applying integrated pest management (IPM).  Each raises caveats about biological control agents possibly attacking non-target organisms. Again, the authors emphasize the necessity of ensuring availability of adequate resources to carry out the program.

Chapter 26 addresses Invasive and Nuisance Insects and Pathogens. Examples listed include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, spongy moth, Dutch elm disease, sudden oak death, laurel wilt, white pine blister rust, chestnut blight and butternut canker. (All these invaders are profiled under the “invasive species” tab here). The examples also include several native pests, e.g., mountain pine beetle, southern pine beetle, and several pathogens, including Swiss needlecast. I am confused by a statement that priorities for management should be based on pests’ traits; my understanding of the science is that other factors are more important in determining a pest’s impact. See, for example, Lovett et al. 2006.This chapter reiterates the impractical advice to plant trees resistant to the damaging pest. I also wonder at the following statement:

“The process of detection and prevention will need to continue over time to prevent reintroductions or reinvasions of nuisance or invasive pests and pathogens. In some cases, long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread.” [p. 425] I believe long-term management will required in all cases!

The tools listed in the chapter include various DOI websites re: training and funding; the USDA website listing states’ plant diagnostic laboratories; a USDA IPM “road map”; The Nature Conservancy’s guidebook for assessing and managing invasive species in protected areas; the DOI Strategic Plan; and the University of Georgia’s Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health.

Chapter 27 discusses invasive and nuisance plants. It starts by noting that an estimated 5,000 non-native plant species are stablished in the US. While not all are invasive, there is still potential for these plants to spread and cause harm. The authors state that controlling such plants reduces fire risk and lowers demand for water in arid areas.

The authors say early management is crucial to eradicate or control invasive plant species. Because plant invasions cross property lines, agencies must form partnerships with other agencies and private landowners. Because invasive and nuisance plant species are so widespread, managers must set priorities. The “Roadmap” suggests focusing on sites at the highest risk, e.g., heavily trafficked areas. Continued effort will be necessary to prevent reinvasions or reintroductions. However, long-term management and containment can be incredibly costly and labor-intensive.

lesser celandine invade bottomlands of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

The “Roadmap” complains that many invasive and nuisance plant species are still offered for sale; in fact, that this is the primary pathway by which invasive plants enter the US, (While which we have known this for decades, it is encouraging to see a U.S. government report say:  “Advocating for federal regulation and cohesive local policies for preventing invasive [plant] sales is essential to avoid disjointed state rulings.” – even if it does not specify which agencies should take the lead.  

In the “Tools” section the chapter lists two USFS guides on managing invasive plants; two California Invasive Plant Council guides; the Interior Department’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan; EDDMapS (a University of Georgia site on which members of the public can report invasive species); and the TNC guidebook for Assessing and Managing Invasive Species in Protected Areas.

Chapter 28 addresses invasive & nuisance vertebrates (called “wildlife”). It notes that invasive animals are present in more than half of all US National parks. It briefly mentions the Lacey Act as providing legal power to curb the introduction and spread of these animals. It does not discuss strengths and weaknesses of this statute, both of which are substantial. This chapter repeats the odd wording from the pest and pathogen chapter – that in some cases long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread of invasive species. I find it doubtful that short-term actions will be effective in virtually all cases.

Tools listed include Interior guides on IPM, funding sources, and protecting aquatic systems along with the Department of Interior’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan. Other tools include the USDA guide on IPM, EDDMapS, and the TNC guidebook.

Forests were also mentioned in the discussion of assisted migration of coastal wetlands to avoid drowning by rising seas (Chapter 1). The text notes that forests upland from coastal wetlands might be killed – either as a result of waterlogging as sea levels rise or as deliberate action to make room for the new marsh. Mortality in either case will reduce carbon sequestration. The authors also note the probability that invasive plants – shrubs in the woods, Phragmites on the edge of the wetland — will be present and have to be controlled.

SOURCES

Lovett, G.M, C.D. Canham, M.A. Arthur, K.C. Weathers, R.D. Fitzhugh. 2006. Foret Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol 56 No. 5 May 2006.

Warnell, K., S. Mason, A. Siegle, M. Merritt, & L. Olander. 2023. Department of the Interior Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap. NI R 23-06. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/department-interior-nature-based-solutions-roadmap.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

What do “Self-Introduced” & “Door-Knocker” Species Tell Us?

Woldstedtius flavolineatus – one of at least 13 taxa of non-native ichneumonid wasps established in restoration forests in Hawaiian Forest National wildlife rfefuge; photo by Torgrim Breiehagen for the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre; via Wikipedia

As we know, non-native insects and pathogens pose a significant and accelerating threat to biodiversity in forests and other ecosystems. They undermine some conservation programs and reduce ecosystem services and quality of life in urban areas. Nevertheless, damaging introductions continue.  

Two recent articles have advocated accelerating biocontrol programs. These articles have reminded us  of ongoing failures of international and national biosecurity programs, including that of the US. The articles also make interesting suggestions regarding ways to be more pro-active in preventing introductions.

1. “Self-introductions” of invaders’ enemies

Weber et al. (full citation at end of blog) provide many examples of unintentional “self-introductions” of natural enemies of arthropod pests and invasive plants. In fact, “self-introductions” of natural enemies of arthropod pests might exceed the number of species introduced intentionally. These introductions have been facilitated by the usual factors: the general surge in international trade; lack of surveillance for species that are not associated with live plants or animals; inability to detect or intercept microorganisms; huge invasive host populations that allow rapid establishment of their accidentally introduced natural enemies; and lack of aggressive screening for pests already established.

Among the examples illustrating failures of biosecurity programs:

  • Across six global regions, nearly two-thirds of parasitoid Hymenoptera species were introduced unintentionally. The proportion varies significantly by region. For example, four-fifths of these insects in New Zealand arrived accidentally.
  • The  unintentional spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter (Homalodisca vitripennis) and a biocontrol agent Cosmocomoidea ashmeadi has been so rapid among islands in the Pacific Ocean (including Hawai`i) they are considered ‘biomarkers’ of biosecurity failures.
  • Regarding the United States specifically, an estimated 67% of beneficial insects introduced to Hawai`i and 64% of parasitoid Hymenoptera introduced to the mainland U.S. were accidental “self-introductions.”

Weber et al. consider their figures to be underestimates. The situation is particularly uncertain regarding pathogens that kill arthropods. Many microbial species are not yet described.

spotted lanternfly; photo by Stephen Ausmus, USDA

In some cases, these “self-introduced” arthropods have proved beneficial. Two examples are Entomophaga maimaiga and Lymantria dispar nucleopolyhedrovirus (LdNPV), which help control the spongy moth (Lymantria dispar). In other cases the “self-introduced” creatures are pests themselves. A prominent example is the invasion by the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula). This was facilitated by the widespread presence of the highly invasive plant Ailanthus altissima. It illustrates what Weber et al. call “receptive bridgehead effects.” That is, once an invasive pest is well-established, the chance that its natural enemies will find a suitable host and also establish in the pest’s invaded range is much higher.

Weber et al. reaffirm that there are many good reasons not to allow such random invasions of diverse non-native species – including their natural enemies. Deliberately introduced biocontrol agents are chosen after determining their efficacy, host-specificity, and climatic suitability. Random introductions, on the other hand, might favor generalist species, which could threaten non-target species. Accidental introductions might also be accompanied by pathogens and hyperparasitoids that could compromise the efficacy of biocontrol agents.

In short, unintentionally introduced natural enemies might have about the same level of success in controlling the target pest’s populations as do intentionally introduced agents. However, unintentional introductions of both pests and pathogens carry additional risks of non-target impacts and contamination with their own natural enemies that would hamper the efficacy of the biocontrol agent. Weber et al. conclude that delays in releasing a deliberately chosen and evaluated biocontrol agent reduce the probability that it will successfully establish instead of an unintentionally introduced organism.

cactus moth larva on Opuntia; photo by Doug Beckers via Flickr

It is especially likely that an arthropod – whether or not a biocontrol agent – will spread within a geographic region. Weber et al. say both the U.S. and Canada have received more than a dozen species intentionally introduced into the other country. They also cite spread of the cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum, into Florida from several Caribbean countries. The cactus moth has spread and now threatens the center of diversity of flat-padded Opuntia cacti in the American southwest and Mexico.

Another example is California: 44% of invading terrestrial macroinvertebrates that have established in the state came from populations established elsewhere in the US and Canada (Hoddle 2023). This number exceeds the total number of invasive macroinvertebrates in the state that originated anywhere in Eurasia (Weber et al.).

True, it is very difficult to prevent natural spread. But a lot of this spread is facilitated by human activities, e.g., transporting vectors such as living plants, firewood, outdoor furniture or storage “pods.” I have complained often — here and here and here — that interstate movement of invasive plant pests is particularly poorly controlled.

Some scientists and regulators have responded to these situations by improving phytosanitary programs. California officials, in 2019, set up a program to fund projects aimed at developing integrated pest management strategies for species thought to have a high invasion potential before they arrive. I urge other states to do the same. This would probably be most effective in controlling the target species – and in relation to cost — if developed by regional consortia.

Weber et al. suggest that given continuing unintentional introductions of non-native species, phytosanitary agencies need to focus on those invasion pathways that are particularly likely to result in invasions, e.g. live plants, raw lumber (including wood packaging), and bulk commodities e.g. quarried rock. 

The authors also suggest research opportunities that arise from biocontrol agents’ “self-introductions”. These include:

  • Comparing actual host ranges to those predicted by laboratory and other studies;
  • Quantifying the role of Allee effects, for example by studying the spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter and its biocontrol agent across the Pacific region;
  •  Using molecular analyses to disentangle multiple routes of entry (e.g., the “invasive bridgehead effect”) and hybridization.

2. Door-knocker species

Hoddle (2023) suggests further that early detection programs should focus on “door-knocker” species — those likely to enter and cause significant negative impacts. In an earlier article (Hoddle, Mace and Steggall 2018) argued that the benefits of a pro-active biocontrol program outweigh the costs. The authors say the information gained would cut the time needed to deploy effective biocontrol. Ultimately, this could reduce the prolonged and even irreversible ecological and economic disruption from invasive pests, associated pesticide applications, and lost ecological services.

Asian citrus psyllid  (Diaphorina citri); USDA photo by Justin Wendell; Hoddle cites this species as one that a pro-active biocontrol program should have targetted

Hoddle calls funding pro-active biocontrol research programs before they’re needed as analogous to buying insurance. The owners of insurance policies hope not to need them but benefit when catastrophe strikes. Furthermore, the information gained from early research might identify natural enemy species that could “self-introduce” along with the invading host. Finally, proactive research might clarify whether the increasing number of natural enemy species that are “self-introducing” pose a threat to non-target organisms.

Recognizing the difficulty of identifying an “emerging invasive species” before its introduction, Hoddle endorses other components of prevention programs:

  • Collaborating with non-U.S. scientists to identify and mitigate invasion bridgeheads. Such efforts would both lessen bioinvasion threats and possibly aid in determining native ranges and facilitating location of natural enemies.
  • Sentinel plantings, such as those established under the International Plant Sentinel Network. These plantings can also support research on natural enemies of key pests.
  • Integrating online platforms, networks, professional meetings, and incursion monitoring programs into “horizon scans” for potential invasive species. He mentions specifically PestLens; online community science platforms, e.g., iNaturalist; international symposia; and official pest surveillance, e.g., U.S. Forest Service’s bark beetles survey and surveys done by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and border protection stations.
date palm mealybug (Pseudaspidoproctus hyphaeniacus); threat to native Washingtonia palms of California; one of pests tracked by PestLens

Weber et al. also support the concept of sentinel plant nurseries – especially because accidental plant and herbivore invasions often occur at the same points of entry.

Both Weber et al. and Hoddle urge authorities not to strengthen regulations governing biocontrol introductions. Weber et al. say that would be to make perfect the enemy of the good. The need is to balance solving problems with avoiding creation of new problems.

SOURCES

Hoddle, M.S., K. Mace, J. Steggall. 2018.   Proactive biological control: A cost-effective management option for invasive pests. California Agriculture. Volume 72, No. 3

Hoddle. M.S. 2023. A new paradigm: proactive biological control of invasive insect pests. BioControl https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10206-5

Weber, D.C. A.E. Hajek, K.A. Hoelmer, U. Schaffner, P.G. Mason, R. Stouthamer, E.J. Talamas, M. Buffington, M.S. Hoddle, and T. Haye. 2020. Unintentional Biological Control Chapter for USDA Agriculture Research Service. Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior Laboratory. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=362852

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Invasive Tree Species in the U.S. Caribbean: New Attention!

African Tulip Tree (Spathodea campanulata) on Puerto Rico; photo by Joe Schlabotnik via Flickr

While it is widely accepted that tropical island ecosystems are especially vulnerable to invasions, there has been little attention to terrestrial bioinvaders in the Caribbean; there has been more attention to marine bioinvaders such as lionfish. I am glad that is starting to change. Here I review a new study by Potter et al. (full citation at end of this blog), supplemented by information from other recent studies, especially Poland et al.

Potter et al. used USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) survey data to examine regeneration rates by non-native tree species introduced to the continental United States, Hawai`i, and Puerto Rico. I rejoice that they have included these tropical islands, often left out of studies. They are part of the United States and are centers of plant endemism!

Potter et al. sought to learn which individual non-indigenous tree species are regenerating sufficiently to raise concern that they will cause significant ecological and economic damage in the future. That is, those they consider highly invasive. They defined such species as those for which at least 75% of stems of that species detected by FIA surveys are in their small tree categories – saplings or seedlings. They concluded that these species are successfully reproducing after reaching the canopy so they might be more likely to alter forest ecosystem functions and services. They labelled species exhibiting 60 – 75% of stems in the “small” categories as moderately invasive.

The authors recognize that many factors might affect tree species’ regeneration success, especially at the stand level. They assert that successful reproduction reflects a suite of factors such as propagule pressure, time since invasion, and ability of a species to adapt to different environments.

As I reported in an earlier blog, link 17% of the total flora of the islands of the Caribbean archipelago – including but not limited to Puerto Rico – are not native (Potter et al.). In Puerto Rico, two-thirds of forests comprise novel tree assemblages. The FIA records the presence of 57 non-native tree species on Puerto Rico. Potter et al. identified 17 non-native tree species as highly invasive, 16 as potentially highly invasive, and two as moderately invasive. That is, 33 of 57 nonnative tree species, or 58% of those species tallied by FIA surveyors, are actual or potential high-impact bioinvaders. While on the continent only seven non-native tree species occurred on at least 2% of FIA plots across the ecoregions in which they were inventoried, on Puerto Rico 21 species occurred on at least 2% of the FIA plots (38%). They could not assess the invasiveness of the eight species that occurred only as small stems on a couple of survey plots. These species might be in the early stages of widespread invasion, or they might never be able to reproduce & spread.

The high invasion density probably reflects Puerto Rico’s small size (5,325 mi² / 1,379,000 ha); 500 years of exposure to colonial settlement and global trade; and wide-scale abandonment of agricultural land since the middle of the 20th Century

Naming the invaders

The most widespread and common of the highly invasive non-native tree species are river tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala), on 12.6% of 294 forested plots; algarroba (Prosopis pallida) on 10.9%; and African tuliptree (Spathodea campanulata)on 6.1%. Potter et al. attribute the prevalence of some species largely to land-use history, i.e., reforestation of formerly agricultural lands. In addition, some of the moderately to highly invasive species currently provide timber and non-timber forest products, including S. campanulata, L. leucocephala, Syzgium jambos (rose apple) and Mangifera indica (mango).

Potter et al. contrast the threat posed by Spathodea campanulata with that posed by Syzgium jambo. The latteris shade tolerant and can form dense, monotypic stands under closed canopies. Because it can reproduce under its own canopy, it might be able to remain indefinitely in forests unless it is managed. In contrast S. campanulata commonly colonizes abandoned pastures. Since it is shade intolerant, it might decline in the future as other species overtop it. Meanwhile, they suggest, S. campanulata might provide habitat appropriate for the colonization of native tree species.

Second-growth forest in Caribbean National Forest “El Yunque”

Poland et al. say the threat from Syzgium jambos might be reduced by the accidentally introduced rust fungus Puccinia psidii (= Austropuccinia psidii), which has been killing rose apple in Puerto Rico. In Hawai`i, the same fungus has devastated rose apple in wetter areas.

Potter et al. note that stands dominated by L. leucocephala and Prosopis pallida in the island’s dry forests are sometimes arrested by chronic disturbance – presumably fire. However, they do not report whether other species – native or introduced – tend to replace these two after disturbance. The authors also say that areas with highly eroded soils might persist in a degraded state without trees. The prospect of longlasting bare soil or trashy scrub is certainly is alarming.

Potter et al. warn that the FIA’s sampling protocol is not designed to detect species that are early in the invasion process. However, they do advise targetting eradication or control efforts on the eight species that occurred only as small stems on a couple of survey plots. While their invasiveness cannot yet be determined, these species might be more easily managed because presumably few trees have yet reached reproductive age. They single out Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper), since it is already recognized as moderately invasive in Hawai`i. I add that this species is seriously invasive in nearby peninsular Florida and here! APHIS recently approved release of a biocontrol insect in Florida targetting Brazilian pepper. It might easily reach nearby Puerto Rico or other islands in the Caribbean. I am not aware of native plant species in the Caribbean region that might be damaged by the biocontrol agent. However, two native Hawaiian shrubs might be harmed if/when this thrips reaches the Hawaiian Islands. Contact me for specifics, or read the accompanying blog about Potter et al. findings in Hawai`i.

Poland et al. looked at the full taxonomic range of possible bioinvaders in forest and grassland ecosystems. The Caribbean islands receive very brief coverage in the chapter on the Southeast (see Regional Summary Appendices). This chapter contains a statement that I consider unfortunate: “Introduction of species has enriched the flora and fauna of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.” The chapter’s authors assert that many of the naturalized species are restoring forest conditions on formerly agricultural lands. They say that these islands’ experience demonstrates that introduced and native species can cohabitate and complement one another. I ask – but in what kind of forest? These forests, are novel communities that bear little relationship to pre-colonial biodiversity of the islands. Was not this chapter the right place to note that loss? Forests are more than CO2 sinks.

I also regret that the chapter does not mention that the Continental United States can be the source of potentially invasive species (see several examples below).

Mealybug-infested cactus at Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Photo by Yorelyz Rodríguez-Reyes

The chapter does concede that some introduced species are causing ecological damage now. See Table A8.1. Some of these troublesome introduced species are insects:

  • the South American Harrisia cactus mealybug (Hypogeococcus pungens) is killing columnar cacti in the islands’ dry forests. The chapter discusses impacts on several cactus species and control efforts, especially the search for biocontrol agents.
  • the agave snout weevil (Scyphophorus acupunctatus), native to the U.S. Southwest and Mexico , is threatening the endemic and endangered century plant (Agave eggersiana) in St. Croix & Puerto Rico.
  • Tabebuia thrips (Holopothrips tabebuia) is of unknown origin. It is widespread around mainland Puerto Rico. Its impacts so far are primarily esthetic, but it does apparently feed on both native and introduced tree species in the Tabebuia and Crescentia genera.

The Caribbean discussion also devotes welcome attention to belowground invaders, i.e., earthworms. At least one species has been found in relatively undisturbed cloud forests, so it is apparently widespread. Little is known about its impact; more generally, introduced earthworms can increase soil carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as through speeded-up litter decomposition and soil respiration.

A factsheet issued by the British forestry research arm DEFRA reports that the pine tortoise scale Toumeyella parvicornis has caused the death of 95% of the native Caicos pine (Pinus caribaea var. bahamensis) forests in the Turks and Caicos Islands (a UK Overseas Territory). The scale is native to North America. It has recently been introduced to Italy as well as to Puerto Rico, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

SOURCES

Lugo, A.E., J.E. Smith, K.M. Potter, H. Marcano Vega, C.M. Kurtz. 2022. The Contribution of Non-native Tree Species to the Structure & Composition of Forests in the Conterminous United States in Comparison with Tropical Islands in the Pacific & Caribbean. USFS International Institute of Tropical Forestry General Technical Report IITF-54.

Poland, T.M., Patel-Weynand, T., Finch, D., Miniat, C. F., and Lopez, V. (Eds) (2019), Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector. Especially the Appendix on the Southeast and Caribbean. Springer Verlag. Available gratis at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45367-1

Potter K.M., Riitters, K.H. & Guo. Q. 2022. Non-nativetree regeneration indicates regional & national risks from current invasions. Frontiers in Forests & Global Change Front. For. Glob. Change 5:966407. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.966407

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Support House & Senate bills to Enhance Response to Forest Pests

white ash: a species that might be restored under the programs envisioned in the proposed bills

Bills have been introduced into both the House and Senate to enhance USDA APHIS and Forest Service programs intended to curtail introduction and spread of non-native forest pests and disease and – especially – programs aimed at restoring pest-decimated trees to the forest.

The House bill is H.R. 3174; it was introduced by Reps. Becca Balint (VT).

The Senate bill is S. 1238; it was introduced by Senators Peter Welch (VT), Mike Braun (IN), and Maggie Hassen (NH). [Both senators Welch and Braun are on the Agriculture Committee – which will write the bill.]

CISP hopes that the contents of these two bills will be incorporated in the Farm Bill that Congress is expected to adopt this year or next. The proposals have the support of the Forests in the Farm Bill coalition. [Unfortunately, neither the “Consolidated Recommendations” nor “Summarized Recommendations appears to be posted on the internet at present.]

In the last Congress, a nearly identical bill introduced by then-Representative Peter Welch was endorsed by the organizations listed below. We hope they will endorse the new bills now! If you are a member of one of these organizations, please ask them to do so.

Organizations that endorsed the previous bill: Vermont Woodlands Association, American Forest Foundation, Center for Invasive Species Prevention, Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition, National Woodland Owners Association (NWOA), National Association of State Foresters (NASF), The Society of American Foresters (SAF), the North American Invasive Species Management Association (NAISMA), the Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, a broad group of university professors and scientists, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Vermont, Audubon Vermont, the Massachusetts Forest Alliance, the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, the Maine Woodland Owners Association, and the Pennsylvania Forestry Association.

I seek your help in generating support for incorporating these proposals into the 2023 Farm Bill. Please urge your representative and senators to co-sponsor the bills or otherwise support that action.

beech in a breeding experiment at The Holden Arboretum; photo by Jennifer Koch

Key points of the two bills:

  • They strengthen APHIS’ access to emergency funds. APHIS has had the authority to access emergency funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation since 2000. However, the Office of Management and Budget has often blocked its requests. See § 2, of the bills, EMERGENCY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
  • It creates two separate but related grant programs.
    • The first grant program – in § 3. FOREST RECLAMATION GRANTS – funds research addressing specific questions impeding the recovery of tree species that are native to the US and have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native plant pests or noxious weeds.
    • The second grant program – in § 4. FOREST RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS – funds implementation of projects to restore these pest-decimated tree species to the forest. These projects must be part of a forest restoration strategy that incorporates a majority of the following components:

(1) Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material.

(2) Production of propagules of the target tree species in numbers sufficient for landscape-scale restoration.

(3) Preparation of planting sites in the target tree species’ former habitats.

(4) Planting of native tree seedlings.

(5) Post-planting maintenance of native trees.

  • § 5 states that the absence of a national policy on addressing nonnative forest pests has resulted in their receiving a low priority within all Federal agencies. It then mandates a study to analyze agencies’ available resources, raise the issue’s priority, and improve coordination among agencies. This study is to be carried out by an independent institution, for example the National Academy of Sciences. The authors are to consult with specialists in entomology, genetics, forest pathology, tree breeding, forest and urban ecology, and invasive species management.
  • Funding for all three action components – the emergency response and both grant programs – would come from the Commodity Credit Corporation, so it would not be subject to the vagaries of annual appropriations bills.
Forest Restoration Alliance volunteers potting hemlock seedlings; photo provided by Fred Hains

Entities which could apply for the research grants (§ 3 of the bills) include Federal agencies; State cooperative institutions; academic institutions offering degrees in the study of food, forestry, and agricultural sciences; and non-profit organizations exempt from taxes under §501(c)(3) of the tax code. Types of research funded could include:

      ‘‘(A) biocontrol of nonnative pests & diseases or noxious weeds severely damaging native tree species [the bill does not specify, but Project CAPTURE identifies many qualifying species; see also my earlier blog];  

‘‘(B) exploration of genetic manipulation of the plant pests or noxious weeds;

‘‘(C) enhancement of pest-resistance mechanisms of hosts; and

‘‘(D) development of other strategies for restoring individual tree species.

The maximum amount of such grants is $400,000 per year.

Entities which could apply for the implementation grants (§ 4 of the bills) include a cooperating forestry school; a land-grant college or university; a State agricultural experimental station; a 501(c)(3) organization. Funding would begin at $3 million for FY 2023 and rise to $10 million for FY 2026.

The Secretary of Agriculture would be guided in implementing these programs by two committees. One – the committee of experts – would constitute representatives of the USFS, APHIS, ARS & State forestry agencies. The second – the advisory committee – would be composed of representatives of land-grant colleges and universities and affiliated State agriculture experiment stations, forest products industry, recreationists, and professional forester, conservation, and conservation scientist organizations.

Port-Orford cedar seedlings at USFS Dorena Center – a model for success! Photo provided by Richard Sniezko

Please contact your Member of Congress (Representative) and senators to urge them to support inclusion of these provisions in the Farm Bill.  [Remember: they work for us!] Telling them of your support for these bills is especially important if your Representative or Senator is on the Agriculture Committee.  I list those legislators here:

StateHOUSE AGRIC COMMSENATE AGRIC COMM
ALBarry MooreTommy Tuberville
ARRick CrawfordJohn Boozman
CADoug Lamalfa
John Duarte
Jim Costa
Salud Carbajal		 
COYadira CaraveoMichael Bennet
CTJahana Hayes 
FLKat Cammack
Darren Soto		 
GAAustin Scott
David Scott
Sanford Bishop		Raphael Warnock
HIJill Tokuda 
IARandy Feenstra
Zach Nunn		Joni Ernst
Charles Grassley
ILMike Bost
Mary Miller
Nikki Budzinski
Eric Sorensen
Jonathan Jackson		Richard Durbin
INJim BairdMike Braun
KSTracey Mann
Sharice Davids		Roger Marshall
KY Mitch McConnell
MAJim McGovern 
MEChellie Pingree 
MIElissa SlotkinDebbie Stabenow
MNAngie CraigAmy Klobuchar
Tina Smith
MOMark Alford 
MSTrent KellyCindy Hyde-Smith
NCDavid Rouzer
Alma Adams		 
ND John Hoeven
NEDon BaconDeb Fischer
NJ Cory Booker
NMGabe VasquezBen Ray Lujan
NYMarc Molinaro
Nick Langworthy		Kirsten Gillibrand
OHMax Miller
Shontel Brown		Sherrod Brown
OKFrank Lucas 
ORLori Chavez-Deremer
Andrea Salinas		 
PAGlenn ThompsonJohn Fetterman
  
SDDusty JohnsonJohn Thune
TNScott Desjarlais
Brad Finstad		 
TXRonny Jackson
Monica de la Cruz
Jasmine Crockett		 
VAAbigail Spanberger 
VTPeter Welch 
WAMarie Gluesenkamp Perez 
WIDerrick van Orden 

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Protecting ash & hemlock – latest information

nearly dead ash in Shenandoah National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

I participated in the annual USDA Interagency Invasive Species Research Forum in Annapolis in January 2023; as usual, I learned interesting developments. I focus here on updates re: efforts to protect ash and hemlock

Hopeful Developments re: countering EAB to protect ash

There are hopeful results in both the biocontrol and resistance breeding programs. The overall goal is to maintain ash as a viable part of the North American landscape.

Biocontrol

Juli Gould (APHIS) reminded us that the agency began a classical biocontrol program targetting emerald ash borer (EAB) in 2003 – only a year after EAB had been detected and much earlier than is the usual practice. [Thank you, former APHIS PPQ Deputy Administrator Ric Dunkle!] By 2007 scientists had identified, tested, and approved three agents; a fourth was approved in 2015.

Nicole Quinn (University of Florida) stressed that the egg prarasitoid, Oobius — if it is effective — could prevent EAB from damaging trees. However, it is so small that it is very difficult to sample. One small study demonstrated that Oobius will parasitize EAB eggs laid in white fringe trees (Chionanthus virginicus) as well as in ash. This is important because it means this secondary host is not likely to be a reservoir of EAB.

The numbers

According to Ben Slager (APHIS), more than 8 million parasitoids have been released at 950 sites since the program began in 2007. These releases have been in 418 counties in 31 states, DC, and four Canadian provinces. Still, these represent just 28% of infested counties. Parasitoids have been recovered in 21 states and two provinces.

Rafael de Andrade (University of Maryland) specified that these releases included more than 5 million Tetrastichus in 787 sites; ~2.5 million Oobius in 828 sites in 30 states; ~500,000 Spathius agrili – lately only north of the 40th parallel. Releases of Spathius galinae began in 2015; so far ~ 470,000 in 395 sites.

 Impact

Several presenters addressed questions of whether the agents are establishing, dispersing, and – most important – improving ash survival. Also, can classical biocontrol be integrated with other management techniques, especially use of the pesticide emamectin benzoate.

Dispersal

Several studies have shown that the four biocontrol agents disperse well (with the caveat that Oobius is very difficult to detect so its status is much less certain).

Implementation considerations

De Andrade found that the longer the delay between the date when EAB was detected and release of Oobius, the less likely Oobius will be recovered. Tetrastichus surprised because the higher the numbers released, the fewer were recovered. He could determine no association between recovery of S. agrili and variations in release regime [numbers released; delay in releasing biocontrol agents; or frequency of releases]. He said it is too early to assess Sp. galinae since releases began only in 2015, but he did see expected relationship to propagule pressure – the more wasps released, the higher the number that were recovered. Sp. galinae did surprise in one way: it seemed to perform better at lower latitudes. De Andrade noted he was working data from less than half of release sites. He asked collaborators to submit data!!!!

Initial signs of ash persistence and recovery 

Claire Rutledge (Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station) determined that

  • More large trees were surviving in plots where the biocontrol agents were released
  • EAB density was lower at long-invaded sites
  • Parasitism rates were similar across release age treatments and release/control plots

Gould focused on protecting saplings so they can grow into mature trees which could be sources of seeds to establish future generations. She noted that there are many “aftermath” forests across the northern United States – those dominated by ash saplings.

In Michigan, at a site of green ash, as of 2015 – 2021, EAB populations are still low, parasitism rate by Tetrastichus and S. galinae high. The percentage of saplings that remained healthy was greater than 80%. There were similar findings in white ash in New York: very low EAB larval density; and more than 70% of ash saplings had no fresh galleries. Gould reported that Tetrastrichus impcts could be detected within three years of release.

So, EAB are being killed by the biocontrol agents combined with woodpecker predation; but in their fourth instar, after considerable damage to the trees.

downy woodpecker in Central Park, NYC. photo by Steven Bellovin, Columbia University

Jian Duan reported on two long-term studies in green & white ash in Michigan and New England. His team used the most labor-intensive but best approach to determine EAB larval mortality and the cause – debarking trees – to determine whether the EAB larva were parasitized, were preyed on by woodpeckers, or were killed by undetermined cause, such as tree resistance, disease, or competition. In Michigan, he linked a crash of EAB population in 2010 was caused by Tetrastichus; EAB tried to recover, but crashed again, due to S. galinae. EAB larval densities had been reduced to 10 / m2. Predation by abundant woodpeckers and the native parasitoid Atanycolus was also important.

In New England, EAB has also declined from 20-30 larvae /m2 to ~ 10 m2.

In Michigan, healthy ash with dbh of larger than 5 inches were much more plentiful in sites where parasitoids had been released. Their survival/healthy rate also was much higher in release sites but the difference declined as years passed. In New England there were growing numbers of healthy trees in 2021-22; (almost none in 2017). Duan conceded that he could not prove a direct link but the data points to recovery.

Tim Morris (SUNY-Syracuse) found that white ash saplings continued to die in large numbers, but the mortality rate was significantly below the rate in 2017. Canopy conditions varied; some trees that were declining in 2013 were recovering in 2017. Forty percent of “healthy” ash in 2013 continued recovering in 2021. Few living trees were declining; trees were either healthy or dead. He thinks probably a combination of genetics and presence of parasitoids explains which trees recover. Morris also reported some signs of regeneration.

beaver feeding on ash saplings, Fairfax County, Va;
photo by F.T. Campbell

At this point, I noted that in parts of northern Virginia, beavers have killed ash saplings. Morris reported finding the same in some sites in New York. Perhaps others have, also; my comment was greeted by laughter.

Theresa Murphy (APHIS) looked at integration of biocontrol and insecticide treatment in urban and natural sites. A study of black and green ash in Syracuse, NY Naperville, IL, and Boulder, CO found continued high parasitism by Tetrasticus and S. galinae and woodpecker attacks in trees treated with emamectin benzoate. Researchers could not detect Oobius. By 2020, most of the untreated trees had died but treated trees remained healthy.

Murphy has begun studying integration of biocontrol and pesticides in green and black ash forests. The goal is to protect large trees to ensure reproduction; the biocontrol agents do not yet protect the large trees. This is especially important for black ash because it declines very quickly after EAB invades. Sites have been established in New York, through collaboration with New York parks, Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Mohawk tribe. She is still looking for sites in Wisconsin – where EAB is spreading more slowly than expected.

1 of the infested ash in Oregon; photo by Wyatt Williams, ODF

Max Ragozzino of the Oregon Department of Agriculture reported on imminent release of biocontrol agents targetting the recently detected outbreak there. I am encouraged by the rapid response by both the state and APHIS.

EAB resistance in ash

Jennifer Koch (USFS) said the goal is not to produce populations where every seedling is fully EAB-resistant, but to develop populations of ash trees with enough resistance to allow continued improvement through natural selection while retaining sufficient genetic diversity to adapt to future stressors (changing climate, pests, diseases). The program has developed methods to quantify resistance in individuals.. Initial field selections of “lingering ash” were shown to be able to kill as many as 45 % of EAB larvae. Already green ash seedling families have been produced by breeding lingering ash parents.  This first generation of progeny had higher levels of resistance, on average, than the parent trees.  Each generation of breeding can increase the proportion of resistance. Although the bioassays to test for EAB-resistance are destructive (e.g., cutting and peeling to count numbers of surviving larvae), the potted ash seedling stumps can resprout. Once the new sprouts are big enough they are planted in field trials to correlate bioassay results with field performers.  Poor performers are culled; those with higher levels of resistance remain and become sources of improved seed.

To ensure preservation of local adaptive traits, this process must be repeated with new genotypes to develop many seed orchards from across the species’ wide range. To support this work, concerned scientists are building multi-partner collaborative breeding networks. These organizations provide ways for citizens and a variety of partners to engage through monitoring and reporting lingering ash, making land available for test planting, and helping with the work of propagation.

See Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative » Holden Forests & Gardens (holdenfg.org), Monitoring and Managing Ash (MaMA) – A citizen-science-driven program for conservation and mitigation (monitoringash.org), and TreeSnap – Help Our Nation’s Trees! for more information.

Resistance levels in some of the first generation progeny were high enough for use in horticulture, where it is important that trees can remain healthy in challenging environments (street trees, city parks, landscaping, etc.). Koch hopes to develop about a dozen cultivars comprising the best-performing trees, appropriate for planting in parts of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.   Local NGO partners are planting some of these promising genotypes in Detroit to see how they withstand EAB attack.

a black ash swamp; photo via Flickr

The threat to black ash is especially severe, and this species presents unique difficulties. While scientists found several seedlings from unselected seedlots had killed high levels of larvae, those deaths did not always result in better tree survival. Koch thinks the tree’s defense response becomes detrimental to tree by blocking transport of water and nutrients. She is working with experts in genomics and others, such as Kew Royal Botanic Gardens, to try to identify candidate trees for breeding programs.  The genomics work has been supported by APHIS and the UK forest research agency, DEFRA. Michigan and Pennsylvania have supported the breeding work. USFS Forest Health Protection has supported work with black and Oregon ash (see below) (J. Koch, USFS, pers. comm.).

Koch has also begun working with Oregon ash, in collaboration with the USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center (located in Cottage Grove, Oregon) and other partners.

dead hemlock in Massachusetts; photo by Ian Kinahan,
University of Rhode Island

Hemlock woolly adelgid

Scientists are still trying to find the right combination of biocontrol, chemical treatments, and silvicultural manipulation.

For several years, hope has focused on two has been on two predatory beetles, Laricobius nigrinus and L. osakiensis. Scott Salom (Virginia Tech) reports that release of these beetles over the past 20 years has had a significant impact on HWA density and tree photosynthetic rate and growth. However, Laricobius aredifficult to rear and they attack only the sistens generation of the adelgid. Ryan Crandall (University of Massachusetts) reports it has been difficult to establish these beetles in the Northeast. He links this difficulty is caused by temporary drops in HWA populations after cold snaps.

Scientists now agree that need to find predators that attack HWA during other parts of its lifecycle. Hope now focuses on silverflies — Leucotaraxis argenticollis and Le. piniperda.  While both species are established in eastern North America, the clades in the east feed almost exclusively on pine bark adelgid, and have not begun attacking HWA. Biocontrol practitioners therefore collect flies in the Pacific Northwest for release in the east. Salom is increasing his lab’s capacity to rear silverflies and exploring release strategies.

Preliminary evidence indicates that the western clades of Leucotaraxis are establishing, although data are not yet definitive (Havill, USFS).

Detecting the presence of biocontrol agents presents several challenges. Tonya Bittner (Cornell) described efforts to use eDNA analysis for this. Some puzzles have persisted; e.g., at some sites, she detected eDNA but caught no silverflies. This raised the question of long eDNA associated with the original release might persist. Another problem is that the assay cannot separate the introduced western L. nigrinus from the native congener, L. rubus (which also does not feed on HWA). She continues efforts to improve this technique.

Others explored interactions of the biocontrol agents with insecticides. Salom is studying the impact of soil-applied insecticides on Laricobius populations, which aestivate in the soil. Preliminary results showed significant reduction in the beetle’s population under soil drench application but not under soil injection. He has not yet analyzed all the data.

Michigan is trying to prevent spread of HWA from five counties along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan (where HWA was introduced on nursery stock) to widespread hemlock forests in northern part of the state. Phil Lewis (APHIS) is studying persistence of systemic insecticides in hemlock tissues, particularly twigs and needles. The pesticides involved are imidacloprid, dinotefuran, and Olefin. He has found that pesticide levels are highest 18 – 22 months after treatment, then decline. They are significantly higher after trunk injection compared to bark spray or soil treatments. Imidacloprid had higher residues in twigs; dinotefuran in needles. This difference affects the likelihood of adelgids actually ingesting the toxin.

healthy hemlock in experimental gap; Jefferson National Forest, VA; photo by Bud Mayfield, USFS

Bud Mayfield (USFS) reported on his study of silvicultural strategies to support healthier hemlocks. While hemlocks normally thrive in shade, it has been determined that sunlight assists small trees  reducing HWA sufficiently to counter the tree’s leaf-level stress. Small sapling hemlocks grown in sunlight fix more carbon and convert it to growth in shoots and trunk diameter.

Mayfield found promising immediate suppression of HWA in large gaps in Georgia and Tennessee. By the third year the saplings were still growing, although their faster growth had attracted more HWA. These findings were less clear farther north in central Virginia and western Maryland – Mayfield thinks because HWA pressure there is lower. However, managers must maintain the gaps by cutting rapidly-growing competing woody species. He plans to test this strategy farther north in Pennsylvania. He is still trying to determine the optimal size of the gap.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

FY 23 Funding of Tree Pest Projects

Phytophthora ramorum-infected rhododendron plant; photo by Jennifer Parke, Oregon State University

APHIS has released the list of projects funded under §7721 of the Plant Protection Act in Fiscal Year 2023.  Projects funded under the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program (PPDMDPP) are intend to strengthen the nation’s infrastructure for pest detection and surveillance, identification, threat mitigation, and safeguard the nursery production system.

APHIS has allocated $62.975 M to fund 322 projects in 48 states, Guam, & Puerto Rico. ~ $13.5 M has been reserved for responding to pest and plant health emergencies throughout the year. USDA is funding ~70% of the more than 460 PPDMDPP proposals submitted.

Funding by Goal Area

  • 1A – Enhance Plant Pest/Disease Analysis                               $2,057,174
  • 1S – Enhance Plant Pest/Disease Survey                                 $14,375,000
  • 2 – Target Domestic Inspection Activities at Vulnerable Points              $6,356,964
  • 3 – Pest Identification and Detection Technology Enhancement            $5,295,125
  • 4 – Safeguard Nursery Production                                                                 $2,079,119
  • 5 – Outreach and Education                                                                            $4,131,333
  • 6 – Enhance Mitigation Capabilities                                                             $13,875,775

By my calculation (subject to error!), the total for projects on forest pests is ~$6.5 M – or a little over 10% of the total. The top recipient was survey and management of sudden oak death: ~$700,000 for research at NORS-DUC and NCSU plus detection efforts in nurseries of 14 states. Other well-funded efforts were surveys for bark beetles and forest pests (projects in 14 states); surveys for Asian defoliators (projects in 14 states); and outreach programs targetting the spotted lanternfly (10 states, plus surveys in California).

Three states (Iowa, Kentucky and Maryland) received funding for surveys targetting thousand cankers disease of walnut; two states (Kentucky and Maine) obtained funding for outreach about the risk associated with firewood. Funding for the Nature Conservancy’s “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign appears under the home state of its leader, Montana.

Massachusetts obtained funding for outreach re: Asian longhorned beetle. Ohio State received funding for developing a risk map for beech leaf disease.

Ten states received funding for no forest pest projects; I don’t know whether they sought funding for this purpose. These states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawai`i, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Puerto Rico. The “National” funding category also contained no forest pest projects.

Looking at the overall funding level might give a somewhat skewed impression because several of the projects with total funding of ~ $500,000 are actually carried out by USDA agencies. These awards are listed under the state in which the USDA facility happens to be located. Nearly half this money ($213,000) goes to a project by an Agriculture Research Service unit in Delaware to study the efficacy of the biocontrol targetting emerald ash borer.  Another $105,588 is allocated to detection of the SOD pathogen (Phytophthora ramorum) in irrigation water, undertaken – I think – at the ARS quarantine facility in Frederick, Maryland. A smaller project at a USFS research facility in Connecticut is studying egg diapause in the spotted lanternfly. The Delaware ARS unit is also pursuing biological control of the red-necked longhorn beetle (RNB) Aromia bungi, which attacks primarily stone fruits. Native to China and other countries in Asia, RNB has been intercepted in wood packaging by the U.S. and Europe; it has become established in Italy and Japan [Kim Alan Hoelmer, ARS, pers. comm.] The APHIS lab in Massachusetts is developing a light trap for detection of the Asian spongy moths Lymantria dispar.

I am intrigued that two states (Mississippi and Nevada) are conducting “palm commodity” surveys. Palms are important components of the environment in some states – although I am not certain these are the two most important!

As you might remember, I am also interested in some invaders other than forest pests. Washington has obtained $998,000 to support two projects integral to its efforts to find and eradicate the Asian (or Northern) Giant hornet. Oregon has obtained funding to carry out a survey for these hornets.  

Cactus moth larvae feeding on prickly pear cactus; photo by Doug Beckers, via Flickr

I rejoice to see that the Florida Department of Agriculture continues efforts to deploy biocontrol agents targetting the cactus moth. The Agriculture Research Service is evaluating the establishment of biocontrol agents released to counter two highly invasive plants. Re: Brazilian peppertree, I don’t question the damage it has caused in southern Florida but I have grave concerns should the psyllid and thrips reach Hawai`i. I am most distressed to see that Hawaiian Division of Forestry and Wildlife and Department of Agriculture are actively pursuing deliberate introduction of the thrips. ARS is also searching for potential biocontrol agents targetting the invasive cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Penn State is working on registering a soil fungus native to North America, Verticillium nonalfalfae, as a biocontrol targetting the highly invasive tree of heaven (Ailanthus).  

Phragmites invading Merkle Wildlife Sanctuary, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; photo by Alicia Pimental, (c) Chesapeake Bay Foundation

APHIS is pursuing biocontrol for “Roseau” cane scale. This situation presents a conflict of geographic regions because the plant to be controlled is Phragmites australis. Phragmites is highly invasive in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Great Lakes states . On the Mississippi delta it is considered important in maintaining wetlands crucial to protecting the Louisiana coast from rising seas.

Finally, USDA is pursuing management tools to contain the Box Tree Moth – a threat to the most widely planted ornamental shrub.  

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

EAB: Why Quarantines Are Essential

area devastated by EAB; photo by Nathan Siegert, USFS

The emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis) is the most damaging forest insect ever introduced. In late June 2022 it was detected in Forest Grove, Oregon — 26 miles from Portland. This is the first confirmation of EAB on the West Coast – a jump of over 1,000 miles from outbreaks in the Plains states. The infested ash trees were immediately cut down and chipped (see Oregon Department of Agriculture website; full link at end of blog). See my earlier blog on EAB’s threat to ash-dominated riparian wetlands in Oregon.

ash-dominated swamp along the Willamette River in Oregon; photo by William Wyatt, ODF

Oregon has been preparing for the EAB:

  • The state finalized its response plan in March 2021; see reference at end of blog.
  • The state sought and received funds from USDA APHIS to initiate a biocontrol program. The funds were not from APHIS’ operational budget, but from the agency’s Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program (PPDMDPP) (Farm Bill money).  
  • State and federal agencies have begun collecting seeds for resistance screening and a possible breeding program.

EAB: Why Quarantines Are Essential

As you might remember, in January 2021 APHIS dropped its federal regulations aimed at curtailing EAB’s spread via movement of wood and nursery plants. This shifted the responsibility for quarantines to state authorities. Instead, APHIS reallocated its funding to biological control. I raised objections at the time, saying the latter was no substitute for the former.

A new academic study shows that APHIS’ action was a costly mistake.

Hudgins et al. (2022; full citation at end of this blog) estimate EAB damage to street trees alone – not  counting other urban trees – in the United States will be roughly $900 million over the next 30 years. These costs cannot be avoided. Cities cannot allow trees killed by EAB to remain standing, threatening to cause injury or damage when they fall.

ash fallen onto house in Ann Arbor, Michigan; photo courtesy of former mayor John Hieftje

The authors evaluated various control options for minimizing the number of ash street trees exposed to EAB. They assessed the trees’ exposure in the next 40 years, based on management actions taken in the next 30 years.

In their evaluation of management options, Hudgins et al. tried to account for the fact that the effect of management at any specific site depends on the effects of previous management. Additional complexity comes from the facts that the EAB is spread over long distances largely by human actions (i.e., movement of infested wood); and that biocontrol organisms also disperse.

They conclude that efforts to control spread at the invasion’s leading edge alone – as APHIS’ program did – are less useful than accounting for urban centers’ role in long-distance pest dispersal via human movement. Cities with infested trees are hubs for pest transport along roads. Hudgins et al. say that quarantine programs need to incorporate this factor.

Hudgins et al. concluded that the best management strategy always relied on site-specific quarantines aimed at slowing the EAB spread rate. This optimized strategy, compared to conventional approaches, could potentially save $585 million and protect an additional 1 million street trees over the next 40 years. They also found that budgets should be allocated as follows: 74-89% of funds going to quarantine, the remaining 11% to 26% to biocontrol.

 In other words, a coherent harmonized quarantine program – either through reinstatement of the federal quarantine or coordination of state quarantines — could save American cities up to $1 billion and protect 1 million trees over several decades. Since street trees make up only a small fraction of all urban trees, up to 100 million urban ash trees could be protected, leading to even greater cost savings.

Unfortunately, such a coordinated approach seems unlikely. States continue to have very different attitudes about the risk. For example, Washington has no plans to adopt EAB regulations, despite it being detected in Oregon. To the north, Canada already has EAB quarantines and Hudgins et al. advise that they be maintained.

The authors recognize that quarantines’ efficacy is a matter of debate. Quarantines require high degrees of compliance from all economic agents in the quarantine area. Also they need significant enforcement effort. Some argue that meeting either requirement, let alone both, is unrealistic.  However, under Hudgins et al.’s model, use of quarantines was always part of the optimal management method across a variety of quarantine efficiency scenarios. Again, these models point to allocating about 75% of the total budget to quarantine implementation. In all scenarios, reliance solely on biocontrol led to huge losses of trees compared to a combined strategy.

Hudgins et al. asked their model for optimal application of both quarantines and biocontrol agents. For example, quarantine enforcement could focus on limiting entry of EAB at sites that: 1) have many ash street trees, 2) currently have low EAB propagule pressure, but 3) are vulnerable to receiving high propagule influx from many sites. Seattle is a prime example of such a vulnerable city with many transportation links to distant cities with significant ash populations.

On the other hand, quarantine enforcement could strive to limit outward spread (emigration) of EAB from which high numbers of pests could be transported to multiple other locales, each with many street trees and low propagule pressure. These sites would be along the leading edge of the invasion and where the probability of long-distance pest dispersal is high.

Authorities should be prepared to adjust quarantine actions in response to changing rates and patterns of invasion spread.

Biocontrol agents should be deployed to sites with sufficient EAB density to support the parasitoids, especially sites predicted to be hubs of spread.

Hudgins et al. concede that they did not explicitly account for:

1) The impact of uncertainty regarding EAB spread on the model;

2) Alternative objectives that might point to other approaches, e.g., minimizing extent of invaded range, or reducing the number of urban and forest trees exposed to EAB;

3) Impacts of predators, such as woodpeckers, on EAB populations;  

4) Synergistic impacts from climate change, which by exacerbating stress on ash trees will probably increase tree mortality from EAB infestations; and

5) Variation in management efficiency depending on communities’ capacities.

In the future, Hudgins et al. hope to test their model on other species to determine whether there is a predictable spatial pattern for all wood boring pests, that is, should quarantines always be focused on centers of high pest densities as probable sources of spread. Determining any patterns would greatly assist risk assessment and proactive planning.

dead ash near major road in northern Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

In an earlier study, Dr. Hudgins and other colleagues projected that by 2050, 1.4 million street trees in urban areas and communities of the United States will be killed by introduced insect pests – primarily EAB. This represents 2.1- 2.5% of all urban street trees. Nearly all of this mortality will occur in a quarter of the 30,000 communities evaluated. They predict that 6,747 communities not yet affected by the EAB will suffer the highest losses between now and 2060. However, they evaluated risks more broadly: the potential pest threat to 48 tree genera. Their model indicated that if a new woodboring insect pest is introduced, and that pest attacks maples or oaks, it could kill 6.1 million trees and cost American cities $4.9 billion over 30 years.  The risk would be highest if this pest were introduced via a port in the South. I have blogged often about the rising rate of shipments coming directly from Asia to the American South

SOURCES

Hudgins, E.J., J.O. Hanson, C.J.K. MacQuarrie, D. Yemshanov, C.M. Baker, I. Chadès, M. Holden, E.  McDonald-Madden, J.R. Bennett. 2022. Optimal emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) control across the U.S.  preprint available here: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1998687/v2

Hudgins, E.J., F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology

Members of this team published an article earlier that evaluated the threat from introduced woodborers as a group to U.S. urban areas; see E.J. Hudgins, F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology

Oregon Department of Agriculture: https://www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/IPPM/SurveyTreatment/Pages/EmeraldAshBorer.aspx

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Hemlock biocontrol – need summer parasitoids

healthy hemlocks in Cook Forest, Pennsylvania; photo by F.T. Campbell

I blogged recently about North Carolina’s multi-pronged hemlock conservation program. As noted there, scientists are putting considerable hope in biological control as the most promising strategy to protect eastern (Tsuga canadensis) and Carolina hemlocks (T. caroliniana) from the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA; Adelges tsugae). For a more detailed discussion of the adelgid’s life cycle, go here.    

A new study by Crandall, Lombardo and Elkinton (full citation at end of blog) cheers us by supporting the probable efficacy of this approach – as long as a complete suite of biocontrol agents is deployed. The study points to the need to introduce additional biocontrol agents, specifically those that feed in the summer.

The study analyzed the relative importance of two different mechanisms to protect plants from herbaceous insects: do some hemlock species have an enhanced ability to fend off the adelgid (bottom-up protection); or do predators apply sufficient pressure (top-down protection) to reduce adelgid populations to levels that the tree can withstand?  The study simultaneously analyzed

(1) the relative importance of summer-active and winter-active native predators;

(2) whether HWA colonization and abundances differed on western and eastern hemlock species;

(3) the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up forces on HWA feeding on western and eastern hemlocks in the adelgid’s native range;

4) tested whether the adelgid is ubiquitous at low densities across the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and compared HWA abundance in PNW to invaded range in New England.

The study was carried out in Washington State, where both western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and HWA are native. They were able to compare adelgid impacts on eastern hemlock because the tree is planted in parks and gardens in the PNW.

Eastern hemlock infested by HWA; USDAFS via Bugwood

In an earlier study, (Crandall et al. 2020) found that L. nigrinus was not able to reduce HWA densities in the east. Laricobius spp have their greatest impact on HWA by larval feeding on the progrediens eggs produced by the sistens. However, 90% of hatching progrediens die naturally because there are a finite number of needles for them to settle on. To have an impact on HWA populations, Laricobius spp would have to prey on more than 90% of progrediens eggs. The solution appears to be summer-active predators – e.g., silver flies — which feed on the progrediens eggs and the sistens eggs which the progrediens generation lays.

western hemlock in British Columbia; photo by F.T. Campbell

KEY FINDINGS

  • Western hemlock is a native host of the adelgid. Crandall, Lombardo, and Elkinton found no evidence that western hemlock’s structure, chemistry, or other attributes help it fend off adelgid attack. The proportion of branches colonized by HWA was significantly higher on western than on eastern hemlock. Indeed, HWA populations were able to reach levels similar to those in eastern North America and were able to persist on western hemlock for multiple generations. Thus there is no evidence for bottom-up control of HWA on western hemlock.
  • HWA survival was significantly lower on branches of western hemlock when predators were allowed access. Crandall assumes that the smaller, non-significant, decrease in HWA densities on eastern hemlocks in the Pacific Northwest is also attributable to predation, although the data are too few to support a definitive conclusion. These predators included a species that has been released as a biocontrol agent in the east, Laricobius nigrinus. More important, apparently, was the presence of summer-active predators, including Leucotaraxis spp. and generalists. These summer-active predators are active from the progrediens nymph stage in April through the aestivating sistens nymph stage until about October. Laricobius nigrinus doesn’t become active until September. These results support the hypothesis that predator-caused mortality is responsible for suppressing HWA during rare and localized outbreaks on western hemlock in the PNW. In the east there are no native natural enemies that attack HWA – which is introduced to the region.
  • Effective control of HWA on the eastern naïve hosts will require establishment of a suite of predators which – together — attack the adelgid during both summer and winter.While several possible biocontrol agents have been introduced in the region, and at least some – e.g., Laricobius nigrinus – have established self-sustaining populations, are spreading, and have high predation rates, they have had very limited success in reducing HWA populations. Crandall, Lombardo and Elkinton say these data support the recent decision by the USDA Forest Service to augment the HWA biocontrol effort by introducing two species of silver flies, Leucotaraxis argenticollis and Le. piniperda, that feed on both the sistens and progrediens generations in PNW.
  • Tree-adelgid interactions are probably significantly affected by the lineage of both – whether the tree species has co-evolved with the specific lineage of the adelgid with which it is interacting. Crandall, Lombardo and Elkinton think evaluation of any Tsuga species’ resistance to HWA or any potential biocontrol agent needs to be studied in relation to the appropriate lineage of the adelgid.

When they compared HWA abundance (in 2021) on hemlock forests in western Washington with HWA abundance at introduced HWA range in New England, Crandall, Lombardo and Elkinton found that HWA abundance was higher in New England. They note that these comparisons are between two different linages of HWA – the lineage native to PNW and the introduced Japanese lineage in the East.

The authors note that HWA densities in the PNW are higher at the urban site (Seattle) than rural sites. Perhaps the reason is lower densities of HWA predators in non-forest settings because some, e.g., La. nigrinus, require a duff layer for pupation. Duff layers are rarely permitted to accumulate in urban areas. The authors call for studies to assess the relative abundance and identify factors affecting the abundance of HWA predators in rural and urban settings.

SOURCES

Crandall R.S., Jubb C.S., Mayfield A.E., Thompson B., McAvoy T.J., Salom S.M. and J.S. Elkinton. 2020. Rebound of Adelges tsugae spring generation following predation on overwintering generation ovisacs by the introduced predator Laricobius nigrinus in the eastern United States. Biological Control 145, 104-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104264

Crandall, R.S., J.A. Lombardo, and J.S. Elkinton. 2022. Top-down regulation of hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) in its native range in the Pacific Northwest of North America. Oecologia 199, 599-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-022-05214-8

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Funding APHIS & USFS – speak up!

To forest pest mavens:

The House Appropriations Committee has acted on funding for APHIS & USFS in Fiscal Year (FY) 23 – which begins on October 1. While several programs have been funded at an adequate level, funding for others – e.g., APHIS’ “Tree & Wood Pests) still falls short. Please contact your senators and ask them to urge members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to increase funding for this program. Members of the Senate Agriculture and Interior Appropriations subcommittees (those with jurisdiction) are listed at the end of this blog. My rationale for the “asks” are in my earlier blog.

APHIS funding in $ millions

ProgramFY 2021 (millions)FY 2022  enactedFY 2023 Pres’ requestOur askHouse bill
Tree & Wood Pests$60.456$61.217$62.854$70$62.562
Specialty Crops$196.553$209.553$219.533$219$219.698
Pest Detection$27.733$28.218$29.854$30$29.825
Methods Development$20.844$21.217$21.854$23$31.807

The House bill provides significant funding for many traditional agricultural concerns – livestock health, cotton pests, citrus diseases and pests. Programs we lobbied for received less than the Administration requested with the exceptions of Methods Development and Specialty Crops. I found no explanation for the $10 million increase for methods development.

The Committee Report specifies increases for several pests under Specialty Crops, e.g., citrus and grapes. The report also specifies that $18.3 million should be spent to control spotted lanternfly, which is a pest of both agriculture (especially grapes) and forests. The Committee asks APHIS to keep it informed about progress tackling this pest. (Rep. Andy Harris, ranking Republican on the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, has an active SLF infestation in his district.)

The report also instructs APHIS to maintain funding for Asian longhorned beetle at previous levels – within the Tree & Wood Pest account. This means that any savings arising from APHIS’ declaration that parts of the Ohio infestation have eradicated must still be spent on this pest. There are several outbreaks where such funds might be spent, including in New York, Massachusetts, remaining areas in Ohio, and South Carolina.

As in past years, the House Report reiterates members’ expectation that the USDA Secretary will use the authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation to obtain funds to address animal and plant pest emergencies that threaten American agriculture. The Committee has appropriated additional money which is intended to enhance, not replace, use of CCC funds. [The Office of Management and Budget has severely curtailed APHIS access to emergency funds.]

=======================

The House Committee has asked that USFS develop a research program that reflects priorities on, inter alia, invasive species. This falls short of my request for earmarking a specific (small) percentage of research funding for invasive species, but it does show Congressional interest in this problem.

one of the diseases needing USFS research: beech leaf disease (photo by Dr. Chagas de Freitas)

In the part of the budget that funds actual management work, Forest Health Management, apparently the $52 million appropriation reflects only a modest increase of funding for managing invasive species everywhere – on federal lands, i.e. National forests and non-federal lands, i.e., “coop” lands. I appreciate the attention to invasive species, especially emerald ash borer; but worry about allocating most funding to managing the impacts rather than pro-actively addressing introduction and spread to new areas.

USFS funding in $ millions

ProgramFY 2021FY 2022  enactedFY 2023 Pres’ requestMy askHouse bill
R&D $296.6$317.8$317.8$360.4
[FIA]    $37.7 ($15 M increase)
S&P FHM$46,232same?$59.232$82$52.232
      

Research & Development – The Committee Report noted members’ interest in funding specific laboratories, programs, & projects, including several listed areas. The Committee expects USFS to develop a research program that reflects members’ priorities & other priorities critical to forest health, particularly with respect to climate change adaptation, preventing spread of insects and diseases, and watershed improvement

The report states several times that the USFS should assist in control of the emerald ash borer and other invasive pests, especially in areas where ash tree mortality has been high. Such statements are under State and Private Forestry, under both the Forest Health Management and Urban and Community Forests programs. The Committee earmarks $4 million under UCF for management & reforestation – including tree planting & removals — in communities most severely impacted by EAB and other pests. The efforts should prioritize regional, multi-organization collaborations in urban communities most severely impacted by invasive pests like EAB. The committee asks for a report from USFS on major invasive species and progress of remediation and replanting programs.

===========================

Key Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee

STATEMEMBERAPHIS APPROPUSFS APPROP
AKLisa Murkowski X
CalifDiane FeinsteinXX
FLMarco Rubio X
HIBrian SchatzX 
INMike BraunX 
KSJerry MoranX 
KYMitch McConnellXX
MDChris Van Hollen X
MESusan CollinsX 
MSCindy Hyde-SmithXX
MORoy BluntXX
MTJon TesterXX
NDJohn HoevenX 
NMMartin HeinrichXX
ORJeff MerkleyXX
RIJack Reed X
TNBill Hagerty X
VTPatrick LeahyXX
WVShelly Moore Capito X
WITammy BaldwinX 

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Updates on 1) hemlocks 2) shot hole borers/Fusarium & 3) beech leaf disease

symptoms of beech leaf disease; photo by Dr. Chagas de Freitas

Three webinars during April and May provided updates on efforts to address three non-native, tree-killing pests: hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), link invasive shot hole borers (ISHB), link and beech leaf disease (BLD) link. I attended each and summarize here.  

  1. Hemlock conservation in North Carolina  – the NC Hemlock Restoration Initiative (HRI) see SaveHemlocksNC.org  

The webinar was recorded at Hope for the Hemlocks: HWA Management Approaches on Public and Private Lands in North Carolina.  You probably need to be a member of the Natural Areas Association to watch the archived version.

I was pleased to learn about the major effort under way in North Carolina, where eastern and Carolina hemlocks are extremely important components of multiple ecosystems. In 2013, the Commissioner of Agriculture decided to make protecting hemlocks a signature project. He wanted to ensure that three state agencies – the Forest Service, Wildlife Department, and State Parks – worked together to improve the efficacy of treating trees. (Treatments available at the time were expensive and time-consuming.)

HRI treatment at Conestee Falls; HRI photo

Thom Green described the result: North Carolina’s Hemlock Restoration Initiative (HRI). The initiative is administered by the Western North Carolina Communities – a non-governmental organization with strong connections to rural communities and a history of successful collaborative projects that support agriculture and forestry. It engages state agencies, local and county governments, local NGOs, and federal agencies and works on both public and private lands with the goal of ensuring that hemlocks can survive to maturity.

HRI staff work with local partners to identify priority hemlock conservation areas (HCAs). It then sends a “strike team” to guide the partners in treating as many trees as possible. (North Carolina allows non-licensed volunteers to apply pesticides under supervision; also, landowners can treat trees on their own property.) These collaborative projects can treat up to 1,000 trees per day.

The chemicals used are imidacloprid and, where poor tree health justifies emergency treatment, dinotefuran. These are usually applied as a soil drench because it is easier for people to transport the equipment into the woods. Bark spray is used in sensitive areas. They have found that imidacloprid provides five to seven years of protection. A new product, CoreTech, is even easier to transport and works much faster than imidacloprid, however, it costs more.

The HRI believes it is minimizing non-target impacts of the neonictenoid imidacloprid because:

  • hemlocks are pollinated by wind, not insects
    • hemlocks don’t exude resins that attract insects
    • pesticide applications are tightly targetted at the base of trunk, with 10-foot setbacks from water
    • long intervals between treatments (5 – 7 years) allow soil invertebrates to recover

The program has treated 100,000 trees between 2016 and 2021 on state and private lands. Now they are starting the second round of treatments for trees treated at the beginning of the program.

Treatment priorities are based primarily on the extent to which the trees are able to take up the chemical, evaluated by the percentage of the crown that is alive and the density of foliage. Since imidacloprid can take a year to reach the canopy of a mature tree, it is used only on trees with greater than half the crown rated as healthy. When trees have a lower status, dinotefuran is added (because it can reach the canopy within weeks).  Trees with less than 30% live crown are not treated.

The Initiative also supports biocontrol programs. It has assisted releases of Laricobius nigrinis (a beetle in the family Derodontidae) and helps volunteers monitor releases and survival. Dr. Green reports that L. nigrinis has spread almost throughout western North Carolina but that questions remain regarding its impact on tree health. He thinks biocontrol is not yet reliable as stand-alone tool; success will require a suite of predatory insects.

Forest Restoration Alliance potting hemlock seedlings; HRI photo

The HRI measures the success of various treatments (Hurray!). “Impact plots” are established at the start of treatment. Staff or volunteers return every three years to monitor all aspects of the health of a few designated trees – including untreated ones. So far, they have seen encouraging responses in crown density and new growth.

  • Invasive Shot Hole Borers (ISHB) in California

See www.ishb.org and video recordings of the meeting at:  

https://youtu.be/RyqJYyLkshk (Day 1); and https://youtu.be/kWmtcbjTczw (Day 2)

A host of scientists from California spent two full days describing research and management projects funded by specific state legislation – Assembly Bill (AB)-2470 on two invasive shot hole borers.

Adoption of this legislation resulted largely from lobbying by John Kabashima. Additional funding was provided by CalFire (the state’s forestry agency). The agency responsible for managing invasive species – California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) had designated these organisms as not a threat to agriculture. So it did not fund many necessary activities.

The Problem and Where It Is

“Fusarium dieback” is the disease caused by this insect-pathogen complex. The insects involved are two ambrosia beetles in the Euwallacea genus – the polyphagous (E. whitfordiodendrus) and Kuroshio (E. Kuroshio) shot hole borers. link to DMFAccording to Dr. Bea Nabua-Behermann, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Advisor with University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE), other fungi are present on both beetle species but its matching Fusarium sp. is the principal associated fungus and is required for the beetle’s reproduction. These are Fusarium euwallaceae and F. kuroshium.

As of spring 2022, the beetle/fungus complex has spread as far north as Santa Barbara /Santa Clarita; and inland to San Bernardino and Riverside (see the map here). They are very widespread in Orange and San Diego counties. At least 65 tree species in southern California are reproductive hosts (globally, it is 77 species; see full list here). The preferred and most succeptible hosts are several species in the Acer, Parkinsonia, Platanus, Quercus, and Salix genera. Box elder (A. negundo) is so susceptible that it is considered a sentinel tree.

Because the beetles spend most of their life inside trees, their life cycle leaves few opportunities to combat them. Females (only) fly but tend to bore galleries on their natal tree. Several speakers on the webinar said management should focus on heavily infested “amplifier trees”. Much spread is human assisted since the beetles can survive in dead wood for months if it is damp enough for the fungus.  Possible vectors are green waste, firewood, and even large wood chips or mulch.

Management – from Trapping to Rapid Response to Restoration

Akiv Eskalen of University of California Davis discussed trapping and monitoring techniques to confirm presence of the insect and pathogen. Also, he talked about setting priorities for treating trees based on the presence of reproductive hosts, host value, infestation level, and whether the trees pose a safety hazard. The disease causes too little damage to some hosts to warrant management. He emphasized the importance of preventing spread. This requires close monitoring of infested trees to see whether beetles move to neighbors. Dr. Eskalen described a major and intensive monitoring and treatment program at Disneyland. The 600 acres of parks, hotels, and parking lots have ~16,000 trees belonging to 681 species.

Several speakers described on-going efforts in Orange County. Danny Hirchag (IPM manager for Orange County Parks) described how his agency is managing 60,000 acres of variable woodlands containing 42,000 trees, of which 55% are hosts of ISHB and their associated fungi. Of greatest concern are California sycamore and coast live oak in areas of heavy public use. The highest priority is protecting public safety; next is protecting historic trees (which can’t be replaced); third is minimizing impacts to ecosystem services. Orange County Parks is currently removing fewer than 50 trees each year. Hirchag noted the importance of collaborating in the research trials conducted by the University of California Cooperative Extension.

infested California sycamore; photo by Bea Nabua-Behermann

Maximiliano Regis and Rachel Burnap, of County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures, described Los Angeles County’s efforts more broadly. The challenge is clear: LA County has more than 160 parks. In 2021, they placed nearly 2,500 traps, mapped infected trees, carried out on-ground surveys to find amplifier trees, removed both amplifier and hazard trees (using funds provided by CalFire), and educated the public. Their efforts were guided by an early detection-rapid response (ED/RR) Plan (2019) developed by Rosi Dagit (see below). While London plane trees (Platanus x hispanica) and California sycamores (Platanus racemose) were initially most affected, now black locusts (Robinia pseudoacacia) and box elders (Acer negundo) are succumbing. [Note: both are widespread across North America.] The researchers are trying to determine why some areas are largely untouched, despite the presence of the same tree species. Regis and Burnap noted the increasing difficulty getting confirmation of the pathogen’s presence because laboratories are overwhelmed. They continue looking for funding sources.

Rosi Dagit, Senior Conservation Biologist, Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, described the creation of that ED/RR system for Los Angeles County as a whole, without regard for property lines. Participants established random study plots across the entire Santa Monica Mountains Natural Recreation Area (NRA), based on proximity to areas of particularly sensitive ecological concerns. The fact that the NRA’s forests are aging and that the risk of infestations is especially high in riparian forests helped persuade policy-makers to fund the effort. The accompanying rapid response plan informs everyone about what to do, who should do it, and who pays. This information incorporates agencies’ rules about what and where to plant. It also provides measures to evaluate whether the action was effective. It did take more than two years for the county to set staffing needs etc.

John Kabashima link discussed his criteria for replanting and ecosystem restoration following tree removal in the southern California region. He recommends prompt removal of amplifier trees – especially box elder and California sycamore. He relies on replanting guidance developed by UC-Irvine (which is on the website) – especially avoiding monocultures. Kabashima reiterated the importance of close monitoring to track beetle populations and responding quickly if they build up.

Economics of Urban Forests and Cities Most at Risk

Karen Jetter (an economist at the UC Agriculture Issues Center) has developed a model to compare the costs of an early detection program to the environmental and monetary costs of infestation by Fusarium disease.  She noted that early detection and monitoring programs are often hard to justify because — when they are successful — nothing changes! She found that averted or delayed costs (including tree removals, lost ecosystem services, lost landscape asset value [replanting value] and the cost to replant) always far exceeded the cost of monitoring programs. Unfortunately, a written report about this effort (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)   appears to be available only through the University of California “collaborative tools” website dedicated to practitioners and stakeholders engaged on ISHB issues. If you are not a member of the list, contact me using the comment button and ask that I send it to you. Include your email address (the comment process makes determining emails difficult if not impossible.)

Shannon Lynch (UC Davis) developed a model to estimate vulnerability of urban areas based on phylogenetic structure (relationship between tree species), host abundance, and number of beetle generations/year (linked to temperature). She found that areas with less favorable host communities can become vulnerable if the climate becomes favorable. Where the host community is already favorable, climate not important.

She evaluated 170 California cities based on their tree inventories. The cities at highest risk were San Diego, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay area, and the Central Valley – e.g., Sacramento. For areas lacking tree inventories, she based her risk determination on the estimated number of generations of beetles per year – based on climate. This analysis posited a very high risk in the eastern half of southern California and the Central Valley. Participants all recognized the need to apply this model to cities in Arizona and Nevada.

Possible Management Strategies

Shannon Lynch (UC Davis) studied whether endophytes might be used to kill the Fusarium fungi. She reported finding 771 fungal strains and 657 bacterial strains in tree microbiomes. Some of the fungal isolates impeded growth of the Fusarium fungi in a petri dish. She began testing whether these fungi can be used to inoculate cuttings that are to be used for restoration. She also planned to test more endophytes, and more native plant species to explore creation of a multi-fungus cocktail.

Richard Stouthamer of UC Riverside is exploring possible biocontrol agents. Of three he has evaluated, the most promising is Phasmastichus sp., which is new to science. He is still trying to establish laboratory cultures so he can test its host specificity.

See bldresearch@lists.osu.edu

symptoms of beech leaf disease; photo by Dr. Chagas de Freitas

At this meeting, scientists described research aimed at improving basic understanding of beech leaf disease’s causal agents, its mechanisms of spread, etc.  Their findings are mostly preliminary.

These findings are of greatest importance now:

  • presence of the nematodes varies considerably across leaf surface – if one collects samples from the wrong site on leaf, one won’t detect nematode (Paulo Vieria, Agriculture Research Service)
    • developing predictive risk maps that combines temperature, humidity, elevation, soils (Ersan Selvi, Ohio State). So far, he has found that BLD is greater in humid areas – including under closed forest canopies. The USFS is funding studies aimed at incorporating disease severity in detection apps.
    • determining extent of nematode presence. Sharon Reed of Ontario has found nematode DNA in trap fluids throughout the Province. It is much more common at known disease sites. Reed is also studying the presence of arthropods on beech leaves and buds.

Longer term findings and questions

  • possible vectors:
    • nematode DNA has been detected from birds – although it is not clear whether the DNA came from bird  feces, feathers, or dust (DK Martin)
    • a few live nematodes have been extracted from the excrement of caterpillars that fed on infected leaves (Mihail Kantor, ARS)
    • nematode damage to leaves:
      • presence of the nematode in leaf buds before they open (Vieria and Joe Mowery, both ARS). The nematode can create considerable damage in leaf buds before they open. Nematodes are present as early as October of the preceding year.
      • damage to leaves by nematode (Mowery, ARS) Leaf epidermal cells are distorted, stomata blocked, chlorobasts are larger than normal, irregular shape
    • possible management tools
      • are there parasites that might attack the nematode? (Paulo Vieria, ARS)
      • experimental treatment of infested trees using phosphite (Kandor, ARS)
    • ecology: how do root microbiomes compare on infested and healthy trees? (Caleb Kime, Ohio State; and David Burke, Vice President for Science at Holden Arboretum)
infested European beech in Rhode Island; photo by Dr. Nathanial A. Mitkowski

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org