Pananax ship; photo by 2005emsaguinden via Wikimedia
Imports from Asia, specifically China, had surged in the first half of 2025 as importers tried to get ahead of new tariffs. Blog They then fell sharply, although there was also a shift in Asian suppliers from China to Vietnam and India. At the end of 2025, experts expected the slump to persist into 2026. However, now we learn that U.S. imports from Asia jumped 13% from April to May, to 1.68 million TEUs (Michael Angell, Journal of Commerce, June 16, 2026). According to Politico, the shift to importing goods from Vietnam, and to a lesser extent to Thailand and Indonesia, has continued.
American cities continue to compete for to build larger ports so they can receive more cargo. Of course, more cargo means more incoming containers. As my blogs document (click “wood packaging” in the “Categories” section below the “Archives”), containers and especially the crates and pallets inside them too often transport wood-boring insects and other invasive species.
My source of information on these developments is from the Journal of Commerce website. Unfortunately, access is blocked by a paywall.
Recent reports concern port cities dredging and widening their ports in hope of attracting increased import volumes.
Norfolk; photo by PghPhxNfK via Wikimedia
Norfolk, Virginia
This month the Virginia Port Authority (VPA), Governor Abigail Spanberger and other federal, state, and local officials inaugurated the Port of Norfolk’s expanded capacity. At 55 feet, Norfolk is now the deepest and widest port along the East Coast. The project, begun in 2019, will allow Norfolk to handle vessels carrying up to 18,000 TEUs [twenty-foot equivalent containers]. Authorities are encouraging ocean carriers to call there.
The port was visited by 1,497 container ships over the past 12 months; nearly a quarter had a capacity greater than 11,000 TEUs.
Virginia’s container volumes grew on average 3% annually between 2017 and 2024. In 2025, total container volume fell 8% from 2024 because shippers hoped to avoid tariff deadlines by unloading cargo at a first or second port of call. Virginia was the six-busiest US port for imports this year through May, handling 635,205 TEUs. That was up 2.6% from the same five-month period a year ago. To attract shippers to Norfolk as a first or even second port of call for more container services, Virginia Port Authority CEO Sarah McCoy said, Virginia needs to emphasize rail links. This involves expanding the region’s distribution center network.
The project to dredge and widen the port began in 2019. The total project has a budget of $1.4 billion. The project included adding two ultra-large container vessel (ULCV) berths at each of its two container terminals. The final component is to renovate the North Berth, including developing a fifth ULCV berth, plus four new ship-to-shore cranes and semi-automated stacking cranes in its container yard. Completion is scheduled for mid-2027. At that time, the port’s total handling will reach 5.8 million TEUs. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) is contesting installation of semi-automated stacking cranes in a series of lawsuits.
Other East Coast ports are also adding terminal capacity. This includes the Port of Baltimore, where a shipping company is developing a container terminal that includes handling two ULCVs simultaneously. Apparently they are not deterred by the months-long closure of the Port of Baltimore caused by a ship colliding with a bridge downstream from the port.
[Information from Michael Angell, Senior Editor, East Coast Ports. “Norfolk aims to be preferred USEC gateway with deeper port” June 18, 2026]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredge in the Savannah River
The Port of Savannah remains dominant. In 2025 Savannah and the roll on-roll of facility in Brunswick together handled nearly 5.7 million TEUs, an increase of 2.6% or 146,000 TEUs compared to 2024. Even so, Georgia Ports is financing a $4.5 billion port and inland infrastructure plan which will add five new container berths in Savannah, the most new berths of any U.S. port and one new RoRo berth in Brunswick. Port officials brag about their rapid turnover of cargo from ship to rail. Forty-two double-stack trains per week take this cargo to Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Charlotte and Orlando. The Port Authority also operates two inland terminals – in in Chatsworth and Gainesville, Ga.
Corpus Christi
As I have reported in previous blogs, Gulf Coast ports are also upgrading to receive more shipments. DP World, a Dubai-based terminal operator, is negotiating to develop a container terminal at the Port of Corpus Christi. This would open this port to container logistics.
Corpus Christi is already the third-busiest port in the US by gross tonnage, behind Houston and South Louisiana. The bulk of cargo is petroleum and bulk commodities. (In past years, dunnage associated with bulk commodities proved to cause pest-infestation problems in nearby Houston.)
dunnage piled on the dock at Houston; photo by S. Useman
Last year Corpus Christi completed an eight-year, $625 million project to widen and deepen its main shipping channel (from 47 feet to 54 feet). The expansion allows visits by super-post-Panamax container vessels.
[Information from Michael Angell, Senior Editor, East Coast Ports. “DP World begins talks with Corpus Christi for container terminal project” June 16, 2026]
Warehouse Capacity
Leaders of logistics managers note that importers and domestic manufacturers are diversifying their supply chains – both warehouse facilities and shipping routes – because of ongoing supply chain disruptions even years after COVID 19. While many industrial warehouses across the U.S. still have vacancies (averaging above 7%), some markets are filling up. They mention Chicago, Indianapolis, Memphis, Dallas, and Kansas City. These cities’ warehouse vacancies average ~5%. Indianapolis leads; asking rents for industrial space there have climbed more than 50% over the past five years. Phoenix also anticipates increased demand for space, although its current vacancy rate is 10.6% – the highest vacancy rate of the 25 largest markets.
The move away from Los Angeles-Long Beach began years ago. To move freight inland, shippers need options, particularly access to intermodal rail.
shipping containers at Long Beach in the early 2000s; photo courtesy of Bob Kanter of the Port of Long Beach
The experts attribute this growth to the need for more flexibile supply chains and demand for materials used in constructing data centers. Demand for the second category is reportedly strongest in the Southeast, followed by interior central markets.
[Information from William B. Cassidy, Senior Editor, Trucking. “US warehousing expanding faster at key inland hubs” June 18, 2026]
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) killed by EAB along Mattawoman Creek, Prince Georges County, Maryland; photo by Leslie A. Brice
I report here on action so far on funding vital agencies in Fiscal Year 2047 (which begins on October 1, 2026). I describe the various programs roles in addressing the invasive species threat briefly in my earlier blog.
USDA Forest Service
The House Appropriations Committee approved the FY27 Interior Appropriations bill (which includes the USFS) in early June. I greatly appreciate Congress’ continued support for two USFS programs that are vitally important in protecting resilience of the Nation’s forests in the face of invasions by non-native pests and plants: Research and Development and Forest Health Management (in the State, Private, and Tribal lands division). The Trump Administration had – for the second year in a row – called for ending these programs’ specific appropriations.
Research and Development
In my testimony I had asked the Subcommittee to maintain funding for R&D at the Fiscal Year 2026 Continuing Resolution level of $308 million. Instead the Subcommittee ignored the Administration’s request and provided $295 million – a fairly small reduction under the circumstances. Funding for the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program continues to see small increases — to $34 million.
While there is no specific line item for invasive species in the R&D budget, the report does encourage the USFS to address high priority invasive species, pests, and diseases, including the emerald ash borer, an unspecified “bark beetle”, spotted lanternfly, and Spruce Budworm. The list also includes three invasive plant species: buckthorn, Amur honeysuckle, and Callery pear. This language is not tied to a specific program, so it is unclear what will actually result.
In the R&D section of the report, the Committee “recognizes the significant damage invasive species can cause throughout forests, including urban forests, and encourages the USFS to continue reforestation efforts, including through the management of woody invasive species & tree planting in urban areas.” Again, the wording seems somewhat misplaced since the R&D program does not carry out tree planting.
State, Private, and Tribal forests
I had asked the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to maintain funding for State, Private, and Tribal forests program at the FY26 Continuing Resolution level of $310.6 million. Again, appropriators ignored the Administration’s request and provided $283,500,000 – a fairly small reduction. The Forest Health Management program was funded at $58 – of which $16 million is specified for efforts on federal lands, $42 million for helping state and tribal agencies and private landowners to manage pests on their lands.
The Subcommittee report emphasized the importance of working with Colorado to curtail spread of mountain pine beetle d associated wildfire risk. Music to my ears is the Committee’s statement encouraging the USFS to work with state & local agencies to counter the high rate of tree mortality due to the goldspotted oak borer infestation in Southern California. It advised prioritizing insect research, prevention, suppression, & mitigation projects that support community wildfire protection & State forest action plans. Since none of the members of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee is from California, I am pleasantly puzzled.
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) killed by goldspotted oak borer; Heisey County Park, San Diego County, California. Photo by F.T. Campbell
The Interior Appropriations Subcommittee expressed continued concern about poor regeneration of eastern white oak (Quercus alba). (Of course, several other tree species are also regenerating poorly but a strong lobby is tied to oaks due to their economic importance.
i’iwi – a formerly common Hawaiian honeycreeper badly suppressed by avian malaria; photo by by James Petruzzi
Hawaii’s endangered birds
I am very pleased that the House Interior Appropriations Committee has provided $1,250,000 is for continuing research to protect Hawaiian forest birds from the dire extinction threat arising from non-native mosquitoes carrying avian malaria & other pathogens.
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
APHIS is responsible for preventing the introduction and spread of pests and invasive plants that harm agriculture, including forests. APHIS policy guides port inspections carried out by the DHS CBP. APHIS inspects imported live plants. Unlike the USFS, APHIS has the support of the Trump Administration, so funding levels have remained steady. Of course, continuing introductions of new pests and spread of established ones – and inflation – have increased the cost of countering invasions, so the agency continues to fall behind despite its relatively privileged position.
The House of Representatives adopted the FY27 Agriculture Appropriations Bill in early June. I apologize for the obscurity of the FY26 funding levels. Figures are in millions of dollars.
FY2025 enacted FY27
APHIS total $1,148 $1,157
Plant health subtotal $387.5 $387.6
Agric. quarantine $35.5 $35.5
Field crop and rangeland $12 $10
Pest detection $29 $29
Methods development $21.5 $21
Specialty crops $206.5 $209
Tree and wood pests $59 $58.6
In its report, the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations did not express concern about the issues that I had raised in my testimony. Instead, it mentioned several agricultural pests, e.g., citrus greening, fruit flies, a non-native beetle threatening nut orchards, and spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula). The Subcommittee also urged APHIS to work with the USDA Forest Service to counter the spread of two native wood-borers, mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in Colorado and southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis). Since both are native, APHIS’ role is unclear. The Subcommittee mentioned two invasive plants: glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) – saying it threatens biodiversity, especially in the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania; and Carizzo cane (Arundo donax), saying it contributes to tick invasions in addition to hampering detection of human immigrants along the Rio Grande.
sounder graphic by Jack Mayer, Savannah River National Laboratory
The bill increases funding for the national feral swine management program by $500,000. (I cannot determine total the appropriation). The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee had urged APHIS Wildlife Services to prioritize states with the largest invasive populations – although this choice contradicts standard advice for managing invasive species, including feral swine.
In one action linked to our concerns about wood-borer introductions via wood packaging, the Subcommittee encouraged APHIS to recognize sulfuryl fluoride as a treatment for logs, wood products, & wood packaging. This fumigant has been accepted under the international (ISPM#15) since 2013.
wooden pallets discarded next to wooded border in Glacier National Park, Montana; photo by F.T. Campbell
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Kevin Saville reports for the Journal of Commerce that containerized imports in 2025 are expected to be only 25.2 million TEUs, a decrease of 1.4% from 2024.
Declines are particularly large in the final months of 2025 since importers frontloaded their purchases to try to get ahead of the Trump Administration’s new tariffs. Imports for the first half of the year were up 3.6% compared with 2024 at 12.53 million TEUs. Thus, Saville’s sources expect November import levels to be 11.6% lower than in November 2024; December’s to be almost 13% lower.
Analysts expect the steeper decline to continue into the new year. Ben Hackett, of Hackett Associates, expects import volumes in the first four months of 2026 to be 10.3%, 8.5%, 16.8% , and 11% lower than the corresponding months a year earlier. The data source covers the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, Oakland, & Seattle & Tacoma on the West Coast; New York/New Jersey, the Port of Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami & Jacksonville on the East Coast; & Houston on the Gulf Coast. These are not all the maritime ports, but they are the major ones.
Another JOC reporter, Michael Angell, quoted several sources as saying they expect import volumes for all of 2026 to be flat or down 2% from 2025. Illustrating the reversal from past trends, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey expects total container volumes in 2026 to be 8.5 million TEUs, a decline of about 2% from 2024. Since 2016, NY-NJ port container volumes have grown at an annual average of 4.2%.
As I have blogged before — see here and here — these swings in import volumes threaten to undermine programs intended to prevent introductions of wood-boring insects hitching rides in wood packaging material. While the higher volumes arriving from Asia in the first half of 2025 pose the most obvious risk, falling volumes reduce fee-based funding that support port inspectors. Another factor is the shift to suppliers other than China – primarily countries in Southeast Asia. Two beneficiaries of this shift are Vietnam and – at least initially – India. They have much better records of compliance with ISPM#15-mandated treatments for wood packaging link than does China.
A third JOC source reports that while US and European imports are down, trade volumes in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America are rising. I expect this growing trade to facilitate new pest introductions, although we will have to wait several years to see any data.
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
pine plantation near Buenos Aires; photo by Biologicadero via Wikimedia
I have learned about the introduction of a North American woodwasp, Sirex obesus, in Brazil. Forestry interests in South America are worried that this woodwasp will cause significant damage to the pine plantations occupying 4.6 million hectares on the continent.
In July 2023, experts at the Estação Experimental de Ciências Florestais at ESALQ/USP in Itatinga, São Paulo, Brazil, investigated dead and symptomatic trees of several Pinus species and subspecies. They expected the causal agent to be Sirex noctilio – a woodwasp native to Europe and North Africa that has caused considerable damage to South American pine plantations since the 1980s (Wilcken et al.).
However, the pine species attacked were not typical hosts for S. noctilio (in Brazil, loblolly pine Pinus taeda). Instead, the infected trees were Caribbean pines, i.e., Pinus caribaea hondurensis, P. caribaea bahamensis, P. caribaea caribaea, P. maximinoi, P. tecunumani. The responsible woodwasp was identified as Sirex obesus. This species is native to the southwestern United States and northern and central Mexico (Wilcken et al.). This species is closely related to S. californicus (Wilcken et al.).
A second outbreak was found in November ~ 130 km away (still in São Paulo state). Scientists have not determined whether the two São Paulo outbreaks are related. Dr. Villacide reports (pers. comm.) that the two populations genetics have been compared, but he does not have the results.
A third population has been detected in a second, neighboring, state, Minas Gerais (Wilcken to Lantschner and Villacide).
Dr. Villacide (pers. comm.) reports that Brazilian scientists are trying to delimit the extent of the outbreaks. Public and private scientists in other countries with pine plantations have begun developing responses.
This is the first record of S. obesus outside of North America (Wilckens et al.).
Little is known yet about this woodwasp’s probable impact. It is clear that it can oviposit in a wide range of pines. In its native range, S. obesus has been reported on three host species: Pinus ponderosa, P. teocote (twisted-leaf pine), and P. leiophylla (no common name; native to Chihuahua – mostly in Mexico, and border areas of New Mexico and Arizona]. In Brazil, as noted, it has been recorded on other species as well as the hybrids P. caribaea x P. elliottii and P. caribaea x P. tecunumanii (Wilcken et al.).
So for purposes of their risk assessment, Lantschner and Villacide assumed that S. obesus can affect any of the species commonly planted in the region: P. taeda, P. elliottii, P. ponderosa, P. contorta, P. caribaea, P. oocarpa, P. patula, P. radiata, and P. tecunumanii (Lantschner and Villacide).
The risk assessment predicts suitable climatic conditions for invasion by S. obesus in 48% of the areas where South American pine plantation occur, particularly in montane and high-altitude regions along the Andean corridor and central-eastern Brazil. Incorporating other factors – host distribution, proximity to invaded areas, and volume of wood imports from Brazil – identified the most vulnerable areas as in southern Brazil, northeast Argentina, the Argentine Patagonia, and central Chile (Lantschner and Villacide).
pine plantation in Argentina; photo by Tomas Asurmendi via pexels
Preliminary sampling (Wilcken et al.) indicates the impacts could be severe. Mortality varies by species: in the worst cases average mortality approached 43% on P. caribaea hondurensis but only 11% on loblolly pine (P. taeda). They expect mortality rates to increase. Another 30% of P.c. hondurensis trees are dripping resin, a sign of woodwasp oviposition. If these eggs hatch, those larvae will probably kill the affected trees. Such a result would increase total mortality of P.c. hondurensis from 43% to ~ 73%. For P. taeda, the current mortality rate of 11% could rise to 49% as an additional 38% of trees succumb. Following this logic, these areas could experience complete tree mortality within a few years. Given the extent of pine plantations, and possible mortality rates, even a partial spread of S. obesus could lead to significant econ losses.
As second factor is the number of generations per year; the higher the number, the faster woodwasp populations can increase. Wilckens et al. report that adult emergence in Pinus logs maintained in cages indicates that S. obesus could have two or three generations per year.
S. obesus seems to prefer a different climate than S. noctilio. As noted, S. obesus seems to prefer montane and high-altitude climates. S. noctilio is concentrated in lowland temperate and humid regions (Lantschner and Villacide). The newly introduced species might substantially broaden the geographic area where pine plantations might be at risk – although further research is needed to clarify this point.
S. obesus also appears to be spreading at a rapid rate — ~46 km / year. At this rate, Lantschner and Villacide say it could spread throughout all major pine plantation areas in Brazil in less than years.
Sirex woodwasps kill trees by injecting a symbiotic wood decay fungus and a phytotoxic mucus into the tree when ovipositing. The toxin weakens the tree, allowing the fungus to spread, typically killing the tree in as little as three–four months. In North America S. obesus is associated with Amylostereum chailletti. While this species has not yet been confirmed in Brazil, (Wilckens et al.). Brazilian scientists are exploring whether S. obesus might adopt the fungus already present, Amylostereum areolatum, which is associated with S. noctilio.
Two insect species known to feed on woodwasps have emerged from logs infested with S. obesus: Ibalia leucospoides (Hymenoptera: Ibaliidae) and a species of Schlettererius (Hymenoptera: Stephanidae). While these two predators have not proved to be effective controls of woodwasps by themselves, they might become part of a control program. The parasitic nematode, Deladenus siricidicola (Nematoda: Neotylenchidae) used successfully in several South Hemisphere countries to control S. noctilio has not been found in Brazil (Wilckens et al.).
Scientists don’t know the pathway by which S. obesus entered Brazil. Wilckens believes it was via wood packaging; technicians from the Ministry of Agriculture have found some pallets associated with imports that lacked the ISPM#15 mark (Wilckens et al.).
Both Lantschner and Villacide and Wilcken et al. stress the vulnerability of South American pine plantations to introduction of damaging pests. The plantations are reportedly intensively managed, even-aged, regularly spaced monocultures. These conditions can facilitate invasive species establishment and spread by providing abundant host resources and reduced natural enemy pressure. Lantschner and Villacide cite Michael Wingfield that in plantation forestry, introduction of a single pest species can damage large areas of valuable timber.
mortality caused by Sirex noctilio in a pine plantation in Argentina; photo courtesy of Jose Villacide
The family Siricidae contains more than 120 species distributed across the forests of the Northern Hemisphere. In their native ranges they are typically minor or secondary pests (Wilckens et al.). Woodwasps have demonstrated that they can be transported in international commerce – S. noctilio alone has invaded pine stands (native or exotic) in nine countries in Oceania, Africa, and South and North America. Three other species in the family — Urocerus gigas, Urocerus flavicornis and Tremex fuscicornis – have been detected in South America (Wilckens et al.). If each represents a unique threat, countries with widespread pine plantations should enhance their phytosanitary programs. Exporting parties, e.g., the United States and European Union, should assist in efforts to prevent spread of these wood borers. One major step would be to strengthen regulations governing wood packaging material. [To see my criticisms of shortfalls of the ISPM#15 system, scroll down the list of blogs to “Categories” and click on “wood packaging”.]
Lantschner and Villacide cautionthat their assessment is based on a limited record of S. obesus occurrences in its native range. This range might be restricted by factors other than climate, including geographic barriers or biotic interactions (natural enemy pressure or interspecific competition). If so, the species’ potential invasive range might be larger than the climate-based models predict.
Recommendations for management strategies
I applaud Lantschner and Villacide for proposing immediate steps to improve management of the threat posed by introduction of S. obesus. These recommendations should prioritize enhanced phytosanitary inspections of wood products moving between high-risk regions and other South American countries. They suggest that Brazil adopt bilateral agreements with its major trading partners which would specify protocols for woodwaspdetection and quarantines. [Since many of these countries already have established populations of S. noctilio they probably do not have strong phytosanitary measures targeting wood borers at present.] Lantschner and Villacide advise creation of targeted surveillance programs in southern Brazil, northeastern Argentina, Argentine Patagonia, and central Chile. They should focus on sites near major transportation hubs and border crossings. Less intense surveillance should be instituted in regions they classified as medium risk. Again, the focus should be on major points of entry for imported goods and on plantations located near the Brazilian border. They note that preventing spread of S. obesus into new areas will require not only national efforts but also regionally coordinated monitoring, research, and forest health policies.
Lantschner and Villacide also identify priority areas for future research. These include clarifying S. obesus’shost range, the environmental conditions that enable the woodwasp to establish and persist beyond its native range, dispersal rates, and whether S. obesus exhibits pulse-like pop dynamics[long periods of low density interrupted by sudden outbreaks] seen in S. noctilio.
Dr. Villacide (pers. comm.) reports that Brazilian scientists are trying to delimit the extent of the outbreaks. Public and private scientists in other countries with pine plantations have begun developing responses. Dr. Villacide has posted a video from a recent online seminar sponsored by the Southern Cone Forest Health Group. Go to https://youtu.be/uVU6CpFNhlQ?si=lqXtwJTtz5rKXfL3 or https://sanidadforestalconosur.org/
A wider prespective
Dr. Villacide’s attention to Sirex obesus is part of his broader work on pest issues in South America’s commercial plantations. In another publication (Villacide and Fuetealba 2025; full citation at the end of this blog), he explores how to make these plantations sustainable in the face of rising threats from pests – both introduced and native to the region. Dr. Villacide and Alvaro Fuetealba report that every year 1.2 million hectares of plantations in the Southern Cone are affected by pests. Their vulnerability of will be worsened by the extreme weather events expected under climate change.
These plantations present vast areas of homogeneous stands: ~97% of the Southern Cone planted area consists of exotic tree species – mainly Pinus and Eucalyptus. Typical plantations are high density and managed intensively – including thinning, pruning, and fertilizing – to prompt rapid growth. As Villacide and Fuetealba point out, while these practices maximize wood production efficiency, they also lead to biological homogenization and reduced resilience to pests.
They report that pine plantations are under attack by wood and bark borers that have followed pines to the region, including Sirex noctilio, Orthotomicus erosus, and Cyrtogenius luteus; and now the newly detected Sirex obesus (above). At least two fungal pathogens — Fusarium circinatum and Dothistroma septosporum – have also been introduced. The principal threat to pine plantations from native pests comes from leaf-cutting ants (Atta and Acromyrmex).Eucalyptus plantations are plagued by several insects that have arrived from Australia, including Phoracantha semipunctata, Thaumastocoris peregrinus, and Leptocybe invasa. Pests native to the region that attack Eucalyptus are the Chilean carpenter worm (Chilecomadia valdiviana) and the leaf-cutting ants.
Cordilleran cypress; photo by LBM 1948 via Wikimedia
Threat to native conifer
More worrying to me is that introduced pests have entered native forests. Villacide and Fuetealba report that the aphid Cinara cupressi is attacking the native conifer Austrocedrus chilensis. Cordilleran cypress, also called Chilean or Patagonian cedar, is an endemic, monospecific tree in the Cupressaceae family. In southern Argentina and Chile the species forms pure and mixed stands with southern hemisphere beech (Nothofagus spp.) across ~ 160,000 ha. The profile Cinara cupressi on the Global Invasive Species Database is unclear about how many species are in the species complex and their places of origin.
Cordilleran cypress is also under attack by the oomycete Phytophthora austrocedri, an oomycete of unknown origin. This pathogen is of unknown origin. It is now thought to have been present in Argentina since at least the 1960s. P. austrocedri has also been ntroduced to Europe, western Asia, and North America.
Villacide and Fuetealba advocate several actions to might diversify tree species in the plantations to reduce their vulnerability to pests. They note that this recommendation builds on foundational ecological theory, including the resource concentration and natural enemy hypotheses. Diversity-promoting actions should reach beyond any plantation to the landscape level. Managers should consider connectivity of susceptible stands, the number of nutritionally optimal host trees in the landscape, and the availability and quality of hosts in adjacent stands.
Villacide and Fuetealba say mixed plantations can provide additional ecological and economic benefits, such as enhanced stand-level productivity; production of a wider range of commercial and subsistence products; and greater resistance and resilience to natural disturbances, e.g., extreme weather events.
They warn that designing and implementing mixed plantations must reflect ecological interactions and pest dynamics as well as management. There is need for regionally coordinated experimental plantations where scientist could test how variables such as tree species composition, density and spatial arrangement, and silvicultural practices influence pest dynamics, forest productivity, and ecosystem resilience under local conditions. They suggest incorporating sentinel plantings both early-warning systems and decision-support tools at plot and regional scales. Researchers should evaluate pest-specific responses, productivity trade-offs, long-term forest health outcomes under different scenarios.
Since the plantations extend across a multinational region with few natural barriers and uniform silvicultural practices, as well as high levels of trade, so do the pest problems. Therefore, the response must also be regional – e.g., regional experimental plantations and living laboratories. A collaborative approach linking researchers, forest managers, and policymakers is essential to translate experimental findings into practice and develop adaptive, ecol grounded silvicultural strategies. Long-term ecological trials must be embedded in operational contexts and aligned across countries.
SOURCES
Lantschner, V. and J. Villacide. 2025. Invasion Potential of the Recently Established Woodwasp Sirex obesus. Neotropical Entomology. (2025) 54:117 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-025-01347-6
Villacide, J. and A. Fuetealba. 2025. Pests in plantations: Challenging traditional productive paradigms in the Southern Cone of America. Forest Ecology and Management 597 (2025) 123127
Wilcken, C.F., T.A. da Mota, C.H. de Oliveir, V.R. de Carvalho, L.A. Benso, J.A. Gabia, S.R.S. Wilcken, E.L. Furtado, N.M. Schiff, M.B. de Camargo, M.F. Ribeiro. 2025. Sirex obesus (Hymenoptera: Siricidae) as invasive pest in pine plantations in Brazil. Scientific Reports. 2025. 15:22522 https://doi.org/10.1038/541598-025-06418-7
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
Michigan’s champion green ash – killed by emerald ash borer
As readers of this blog know, I worry when volumes of imports rise (scroll down the webpage to “categories”, then scroll down to the “wood packaging” category), especially when the rise is rapid and supply chains are in chaos – as they are now. As I reported a month ago, U.S. imports from China landing at U.S. west coast ports grew by significant amounts during January through April 2025 as importers sought to get their goods before a threatened strike by longshoremen and high tariffs mandated by President Trump. The blog provides specific proportional increases for the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma. After a dip in May and June [as reported in both the Washington Post article and that by M. Angell] – in response to President Trump announcing a 145% tariff on goods from China – imports surged again in July when this tax was postponed (see below).
These spurts in imports worried me because wood packaging from China has a nearly 30-year history of higher-than-average failure to comply with phytosanitary regulations (see Haack et al. 2022; full citation at the end of this blog; and earlier blogs). I fret that when importers are in a rush neither exporters nor importers pays much attention to whether the crates and pallets have been treated in accordance with ISPM#15 to prevent insect infestation.
The surge in imports was across the board. Indeed, other countries saw even higher growth in exports to the United States than did China. According to the Journal of Commerce (JOC), www.joc.com containerized imports from all exporters reached an all-time high in July 2025 — 2.6 million TEUs Over the six-month period January through June, 12.53 million TEUs [Robb] (otherwise measured as approximately 6.3 million 40-ft containers). JOC also recorded single-digit declines in import volumes from all regions in May and June.
In a blog in March 2025 I noted that the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had processed 36.6 million shipping containers holding imports in Fiscal Year 2023 – which ended in September 2023. Together, Mexico and Canada provided 30% of U.S. imports in 2022. So probably ~25 million shipping containers arrived via ship from Asia, Europe, and other overseas trading partners.
Note that the CBP reports containers, while the JOC reports TEUs [TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit; standardized measure of container]. Most sea-borne containers are actually 40 feet long; CBP numbers probably refer predominantly to 40-feet containers. The numbers reported by the two sources are not equivalent. The trends do match, however.
container ship at Hai Phong container port; photo by Nathan.cima via Wikimedia
Origins
Despite the spurts in volumes of incoming containers, total imports from China have declined from previous years. According to Angell, the 1.228 million TEU imported from China in July was 8% lower than the number of TEUs from China in July 2024. Importers have shifted to suppliers in Southeast Asia. Containerized imports from that region rose 24% over the previous July, reaching records of 542,414 TEUs in June and 581,803 in July. In fact, the U.S. imported more goods from Southeast Asia in the months March – June than from China (Wallis 2025).
The second greatest increase was in imports from countries on the Indian subcontinent. They also reached a record in July of 152,630 TEUs – 21% above July 2024.
Vietnam and India have much better records of compliance with ISPM#15 than does China: only one of 257 consignments from Vietnam and three of 1,549 consignments from India inspected over the period 2010 – 2020 harbored pests. Thus, from the perspective of introduction of non-native tree-killing insects, the shift to Southeast Asia and India is a plus. However, this improvement might not last. I expect that the 50% tariff on most goods from India that came into effect in late August 2025 will result in a steep fall-off in imports from that country.
Imports from Southern Europe also rose 7% from a year earlier to 155,587 TEUs. Imports from Northern Europe were essentially flat over the July 2024 – July 2025 period.
discarded dunnage in Houston
Ports
Shifts in trade patterns also appear in port data. The Port of Los Angeles received 542,940 TEUs in July, a 10% increase from a year earlier and the highest monthly total for the port since August 2024. However, it was Houston that saw the strongest year-over-year import growth; the 184,418 TEUs entering in July 2025 volume were 18.5% higher than the number imported in July 2024. Imports from Southeast Asia saw a 63% increase; those from China rose by 9.8% [Angell].
As you might remember, pest detections by CBP have risen at ports in America’s southeast: at the National Plant Board meeting in July, representatives of APHIS and state phytosanitary agencies expressed surprise about this finding. I reminded the group that ports in that region had been receiving higher import volumes in recent years, including from Asia through the widened Panama Canal. I added that there had been problems with dunnage in the port of Houston.
De Minimis packages
As of 29 August 2025, the United States is imposing tariffs on small-value imports that previously could enter the country tax-free. In 2016, the U.S. raised the threshold from $200 to $800. Importers of these packages not only avoided paying taxes on this newly expanded list of items. They also were subjected to minimal processing, including inspections (Chapell). This change coincided with on-line shopping becoming the norm. De minimis shipments started to dominate cargo entering the U.S. According to a press release from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, cited by NPR, the number of de minimis shipments grew from 140 million in 2014 to 1.36 billion in 2024.
Not coincidentally, phytosanitary officials have expressed growing concern about on-line sales of plant species considered invasive in one or more states, and exacerbated appearance of items infested by plant pests. These concerns have been voiced at National Plant Board meetings since at least 2021. At that meeting, then APHIS Deputy Administrator Osama el-Lissy said that managing
e-commerce was a priority of the new Biden Administration. The topic has been on the NPB agenda since then. Two kinds of shipments raise concern: those by North American suppliers that send plants or other items that violate regulations of the destination state, and those from abroad. All recognize that persuading foreign suppliers to comply with U.S. regulations is nearly impossible. At this year’s meeting, Acting Deputy Administrator Matt Rhoads conceded that APHIS has not yet figured out how to curtail this risk. The volume of illegal imports can be huge: an illegal shipment of tens of thousands of black pine (Pinus thunbergii) seedlings was sent to Georgia. State officials found out about the importation and stopped sale of the plants. Although the Trump Administration’s decision to end the de minimis exemption was not prompted by the plant health risks, it will probably help reduce it.
Japanese black pine bonsai at National Arboretum; photo by Ragesoss via Wikimedia
Imports during the Pandemic: will we soon see a jump in new detections?
We already know that import volumes first fell dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, then rebounded to record levels. According to David Lynch (citation below), in 2021 the Port of Los Angeles handled more than 535,000 incoming shipping containers in May 2021. During that month and three others in 2021, the number of arriving containers exceeded the single busiest month in 2019 (476,000) [p. 257]. Other ports also saw increased volume. Lynch discusses how this import surge stressed capacity of ports, warehouses, and transportation systems (truckers and railroads). He does not examine how this surge might have affected traders’ compliance with wood packaging treatment requirements or phytosanitary agencies’ ability to enforce those rules. Those agencies’ funding had decreased during the pandemic drought.
Five years have passed since this disruptive swing from low numbers to record-breaking quantities. Will we begin to see evidence — trees stressed by newly introduced insects or pathogens?
Wallis, K. Surging Southeast Asia volumes strain Intra-Asia Capacity. https://www.joc.com/article/surging-southeast-volues-strain-intra-asia-capacity-6078465
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
The Washington Post has summarized data on the number of container ships travelling from China to U.S. west coast ports for the first half of 2025. It compares those numbers to the same period in 2024.
For the first four months, the trips exceeded 2024 levels, often by considerable amounts, as importers sought to get their goods before President Trump imposed high tariffs. Thus, the number of container ships arriving at Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma during each month:
January: 17% increase
February: 32% increase
March: 14% increase
April: 5% increase
In May, landings from China decreased by 33%! Those ships arriving also carried fewer containers.
When measured by the value of imported goods, imports from China fell 20% nationwide when we compare April 2024 to April 2025. This decrease was seen at four of the five west coast ports; the exception was Tacoma.
When President Trump “paused” the 145% increase in tariffs on Chinese goods, the prices shippers charge for transporting containers doubled – from less than $3,000 per container to $6,000. This change probably portends a rebound in import volumes.
I always worry about containers from China (see Haack et al. 2022; full citation at the end of this blog; and this blog). For more than 30 years they have too often been the means by which wood-boring insects are introduced to North American forests. I fret even more when import volumes are rising – especially when importers are in a rush. I suspect that neither exporters nor importers pay much attention to whether the crates and pallets have been treated properly.
ash tree killed by EAB — the risk of woodborers introduced in wood packaging; photo courtesy of John Hieftje, former mayor of Ann Arbor, Michigan
I have asked the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection for comment, but have not yet received a reply.
Please note that these data do not include information about imports from other Asian countries … or shipments destined for U.S. ports in the Gulf or Atlantic (via the expanded Panama Canal) or to Canadian ports.
SOURCE
Haack RA, Hardin JA, Caton BP and Petrice TR (2022) Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Guest blog by Kristy M. McAndrew, Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University
Virginia juniper (Juniperus virginiana) preforming its ecological role: succession in a field (in Ohio); photo by Greg Hume via Wikimedia
Spread of non-native species is a facet of global change that is an unintended consequence of the modern global trade network. Despite efforts put in place to limit such transport, such as International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), unintentional spread of species continues, and thus, an important part of forest health research and management includes non-native monitoring and control efforts. As other aspects of global change, such as climate and weather patterns, shift, the dynamics between native landscapes and introduced pests may unexpectedly shift as well. For example, increased climate stress of tree hosts may weaken tree defenses, allowing species that historically have not been pests of concern to reach pest status.
Japanese cedar longhorned beetle (Callidiellum rufipenne; JCLB) is a wood boring beetle in the longhorned beetle family, Cerambycidae. The adults are reddish brown in color, and relatively small for longhorned beetles, at only around 1 cm in length. Japanese cedar longhorned beetle has a long history of establishing outside of its native range but has largely been considered a non-issue. It has long been disregarded as a pest because it feeds primarily on dead or dying trees in both the native and invaded ranges. However, there are more examples of these beetles feeding on stressed, but alive, trees in North America. Therefore, I think it is an important insect to take a closer look at.
Life cycle
These beetles have a one-year life cycle, most of which is spent inside a host tree. Adults emerge from host trees in the early spring and seek out other adults to mate with and trees to lay eggs on. Eggs are laid on thin parts of bark or in bark crevices, and when the eggs hatch larvae chew beneath the bark where they feed on the phloem until they have completed larval development. Once larvae are fully developed, they burrow further into the tree, into the xylem tissue, where they pupate, overwinter as fully formed adults, and continue the cycle the following spring.
Native range
The native range of JCLB is eastern Asia. It is common throughout the Korean peninsula and across the islands of Japan. It is also considered native to Eastern China and Russia. Within the native range JCLB is found primarily on dead and/or dying trees and is thus considered a secondary pest. On dead trees they can be found on any diameter of dead woody material, but on declining trees they will likely be in the small diameter branches and stems.
Arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis); photo by James St. John via Flickr
Invasion history
Japanese cedar longhorned beetle was first documented as an invasive pest in the early 1900s in France, and since then has established in at least fifteen countries (Clément 2023). Most of these countries are in Europe, but the United States and Argentina also have established populations. As with most woodboring insects, the invasion pathway is believed to have been wood packaging material being transported via global trade routes. Between 1914 and 2022 it was intercepted over 700 times (reviewed by KM). Since the implementation of ISPM No. 15, only six interceptions have been reported up to 2022 (USDA APHIS data reviewed by K.M.). [For Faith’s view on the regulation of wood packaging, see Fading Forests II and III (links provided at the end of this blog) and earlier blogs posted here under the category “wood packaging”. esp. 1 from 2015].
A USDA risk assessment completed in 2000 suggested other possible pathways of introduction, including balled nursery stock, green logs, and pruned branches (USDA APHIS and Forest Service, 2000).
In terms of establishments in North America, JCLB was first detected in natural forests in North Carolina in 1997. It was soon discovered in Connecticut in 1998; in neighboring New York in 1999; and in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island in 2000. It was quickly discovered feeding on live arborvitae (also called northern white cedar; Thuja occidentalis) in these invaded regions. JCLB has since been found in Pennsylvania (in 2010) and Maryland (in 2011). It is important to note that it is not clear when this species truly established, because of its previously discussed long history of being intercepted in ports of entry.
Most introduced populations of JCLB are found in either dead hosts or in the damaged/dead limbs of live hosts. In Buenos Aires, for example, storm-damaged trees with broken limbs are often where beetles are collected (Turienzo 2007). In the United States, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and common juniper (Juniperus communis ) are the two native species most commonly affected, but so far there is no evidence of live trees of these species being infested (Maier 2007). However, a growing concern in the United States is that JCLB has been documented on live trees – particularly in urban environments. These trees are typically arborvitae, and they are typically stressed urban trees that have been overwatered and often show signs and symptoms of other health issues.
Host breadth
The host breadth of JCLB encompasses much of the family Cupressaceae. Maier (2007) identified 19 potential hosts from the literature and research, with the vast majority (14) of the hosts being Cupressaceae species, which is indicative of JCLB being a relative generalist, especially when considering species in the cypress family. This is important, because there are over 130 species within Cupressaceae worldwide that could be suitable hosts for JCLB, meaning host will not be a limiting factor in many invasion scenarios for this insect. Most often trees infested by JCLB need to be either stressed or dead, which limits suitability to an extent. However, many landscape trees are inherently stressed, whether it be from a history of roots being balled and wrapped in burlap, being planted in less than ideal scenarios, or being overwatered.
A few reports from research in Japan record JCLB feeding on plants in Pinaceae, primarily Pinus and Abies species. One article reports use of Larix kaempferi; another documented JCLB on the Taxaceae species, Taxus cuspidata. North American pine (Pinus spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) species have not been tested, but if they are revealed as suitable that would increase the availability of hosts in North America significantly.
In southern New England at least nine species have been confirmed as suitable, all of which are in the family Cupressaceae. Native and abundant junipers, such as Juniperus virginiana, appear to be highly suitable hosts. Additional host testing would be beneficial – especially Cupressaceae species that are either threatened or have a limited range. Within the United States there are a total of 28 native Cupressaceae species. Thus the suitable range (in terms of hosts) covers the entire Eastern half of North America through central Texas, most of the Pacific Coast, and widespread but spotty/disjunct areas throughout the Intermountain West and High Plains regions.
Atlantic white cedar swamp (Chamaecyparis thyoides) in Brendan Byrne State Forest, New Jersey; photo by Famartin via Wikimedia
Suitability
Tools such as environmental niche models can give helpful estimates of suitability. For species that are typically secondary pests, such as JCLB, it can be difficult to obtain non-biased data with good coverage to make reliable predictions. Preliminary research (unpublished) has been completed to estimate suitable habitat with limited occurrence records from the native range. Despite limited occurrences, models performed well and estimated moderate to high suitability in most temperate regions globally. These preliminary models are still being optimized by working with collaborators within the native range of JCLB to increase the number of occurrences. It is also important to note that these models are only accounting for climate data. Host data was not included, but Cupressaceae species are abundant globally, and therefore host availability is not likely a limiting factor for JCLB in establishing in regions.
Importance of monitoring species
While JCLB is still mostly limited to dead, dying trees, many of the species it may affect in the Eastern United States are already of heightened conservation concern. Wetland Cupressaceae, such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), are valuable in terms of ecosystem services they provide in coastal, and inland, wetlands. These wetlands are encountering heightened stress in the form of increasing saltwater intrusion, increased storm strength, and changing landscapes, all of which may predispose trees to insect attack. Japanese cedar longhorned beetle has been successfully reared out of logs of Atlantic White Cedar, but thankfully has not been documented on live trees of this species (Maier 2009)[Ma1] . Bald cypress has not yet been tested for suitability. It is unknown if the stressors these trees are facing and will continue to face will impact JCLB’s ability to infest these landscapes, or if they will remain restricted to dead trees in these coastal forests. Regardless, given JCLB already has an established foothold in the Eastern United States, it is important to better understand the potential impacts of this insect.
First steps to understanding those impacts include 1) better documenting the host range in the regions and 2) determining the climate that may support the species. Hopefully we can continue research in these areas to best manage this non-native pest.
Much of the research conducted on JCLB in North America took place almost 20 years ago (Maier 2007, 2009), so updated sampling has potential to provide a wealth of information regarding spread rate, suitable climate, and establishment patterns.
bald cypress(Taxodium distichum); photo by Kej605 via Wikimedia; it is unknown whether this species is vulnerable to the Japanese cedar longhorned beetle
Sources
Clément F. 2023. Le point sur la distribution en France et en Europe de Callidiellum rufipenne (Motschulsky, 1861)(Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Cerambycinae, Callidiini). Le Coléoptériste. 26(3):188–203.
Maier CT. 2007. Distribution and Hosts of Callidiellum rufipenne (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), an Asian Cedar Borer Established in the Eastern United States. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY. 100(4).
Maier CT. 2009. Distributional and host records of Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) associated with Cupressaceae in New England, New York, and New Jersey. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 111(2):438–453. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797-111.2.438
Turienzo P. 2007. New records and emergence period of Callidiellum rufipenne (Motschulsky, 1860) [Coleoptera:Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae: Callidiini] in Argentina. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas. 33:341–349.
United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Forest Service 2000. (Pasek, J.E., H.H. Burdsall, J.F. Cavey, A. Eglitis, R.A. Haack, D.A. Haugen, M.I. Haverty, C.S. Hodges, D.R. Kucera, J.D. Lattin, W.J. Mattson, D.J. Nowak, J.G. O’Brien, R.L. Orr, R.A. Sequeira, E.B. Smalley, B.M. Tkacz, W.W. Wallner) Pest Risk Assessment for Importation of Solid Wood Packing Materials into the United States. USDA APHIS and Forest Service. August 2000.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
discarded pallets next to developed area in Glacier National Park (!); photo by F.T. Campbell
Since July 2015 I have posted nearly 50 blogs about non-native insects introduced via movement of solid wood packaging material (SWPM). Why? Because SWPM is one of two most important pathways by numbers introduced & by impact of the species introduced. (The other pathway is P4P.) To read those earlier blogs, scroll below “archives” to “categories”, choose “wood packaging”.
dead redbay trees in Everglades National Park; killed by laurel wilt vectored by redbay ambrosia beetle
As I have reported in the earlier blogs and in my “Fading Forests” reports (links at the end of this blog), in 2002, the parties to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) adopted an international “standard” to guide countries’ programs intended to reduce the presence of damaging insects in the wood packaging: International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) #15). The U.S. and Canada adopted the standard through a phase-in process culminating in 2006. [For a discussion of the phase-in periods and process, read either of the studies by Haack et al. cited at the end of this blog.] In other words, the U.S. and Canada have implemented ISPM#15 for almost 20 years. China specifically has been subject to requirements that it treat its SWPM even longer – since December, 1998, i.e., more than 25 years.
Unfortunately, ISPM#15 is not intended to prevent pest introductions. As stated in Greenwood et al 2023, “Prior to 2009, the goal of compliance with ISPM 15 was to render the risk of wood-borne pests “practically eliminated,” in 2009 the standard was amended to “significantly reduced”.
Despite almost universal adoption of the standard by countries engaged in international trade, insects have continued to be present in wood packaging. A very high proportion of these infested shipments — 87% – 95% — of the SWPM found by U.S. officials bears the ISPM#15 stamp – that is, is apparently compliant. (See my blogs by clicking on the “Category” “wood packaging” listed below the “Archives”.) The same proportion was found in a narrower study in Europe (Eyre et al. 2018). All the post-2006 examples of infested wood analyzed by Haack et al. (2022) (see below) carry the stamp. I conclude that the ISPM#15 mark has failed in its purpose: to reliably indicate that SWPM accompanying imports has been treated so as to minimize the likelihood that an insect pest will be present.
Dr. Robert Haack, retired USFS entomologist, has twice tried to estimate the “approach rate” of insects in SWPM entering the United States (both studies are cited at the end of this blog). A study published in 2014 that relied on data from 2009 found that U.S. implementation of ISPM#15 was associated with a reduction in the SWPM infestation rate reported of 36–52%. The authors estimated the infestation rate to be 0.1% (1/10th of 1%, or 1 consignment out of a thousand). (See Haack et al. 2014; citation at the end of this blog.)
In their second study, published in 2022, Haack and colleagues found a 61% decrease in rates of borer detection in wood packaging when comparing numbers of wood borer detections in 2003 – before the U.S. implemented ISPM#15 – to those in 2020. Specifically, detections dropped from 0.34% in 2003 to 0.21% in 2020. This decrease occurred despite the volume of U.S. imports rising 68% between 2003 and 2020. (My blogs document a further increase in import volumes over the years since 2020.) In addition, the number of countries from which the SWPM originated more than doubled from 2003–2004 to 2010–2020. This expansion exposes North America to a wider range of insect species that might be introduced, as well as a wider range of individual countries’ effectiveness in enforcing the standard’s requirements (Haack et al. 2022).
These decreases are encouraging. However, Haack et al. (2022) note some caveats:
The reduction in pest presence was greatest during the initial implementation of the program the first phase, 2005-2006 (61%); in subsequent periods pest approach rate inched back up. In the 2010-2020 period, the pest detection rate was only 36% below the pre-ISPM#15 level. Detection rates have been relatively constant since 2005. Does this stasis mean that exporters learned that they could ignore or circumvent the requirements without suffering significant penalties? Or is some of this rise related to increased trade volumes, increasing variety of country of origin for trade, or other global trade patterns unrecognized in the data? (However, see the next bullet point.)
Certain types of commercial goods and exporting countries have consistently fallen short. Specifically, the rate of wood packaging from China that is infested remained relatively steady over the 17 years since 2003. The proportion of consignments with infested wood packaging coming from China was more than five times the proportion of all inspected shipments for this period. In other words, China has had a consistent record of poor compliance with phytosanitary regulations since they were imposed in December 1998. Why is USDA not taking action to correct this problem? (As I note below, DHS CBP has ramped up enforcement efforts.) Some other countries, e.g., Italy and Mexico, have reduced the rate at which wood packaging accompanying their consignments is infested. In fact, Mexico’s improved performance largely explains the overall infestation rate estimate of 0.22% during the period 2010-2010. Mexico’s successes affect the overall statistics in a way that makes other countries’ failure to reduce the presence of pests in wood packaging they ship to the United States far less obvious.
Haack et al. (2022) discuss ten possible explanations for their finding that pest approach rates – as determined by their study — have not decreased more. See the article or my blog about the study.
Although USDA APHIS has not taken steps to strengthen its enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection [an agency in the Department of Homeland Security] has done so twice — see here and here. CBP staff have expressed disappointment that these actions reduced the numbers of shipments in violation of ISPM#15 by only 33% between Fiscal Year 2017 and FY2022. True, more than 60% of these violations consisted of a missing or fraudulent ISPM#15 stamp. However, 194 consignments still harbored live pests prohibited under the standard.
APHIS did agree in 2021 to enable the study by Robert Haack and colleagues, via an interoffice data sharing agreement between USDA APHIS and the Forest Service- this resulted in Haack et al. 2022.
APHIS and CBP also collaborated with an industry initiative to train inspectors that insure other aspects of foreign purchases. The ideas was that CBP or APHIS and their Canadian counterparts would inform importers about which foreign treatment facilities have a record of poor compliance or suspected fraud. The importers could then avoid purchasing SWPM from them. I have heard nothing about this initiative for three years, so I fear it has collapsed.
We lack data on which to base a rigorous analysis
While the two studies by Robert Haack and colleagues are the best available, and they relied on the best data available, the fact is that those available data do not provide a full picture of the risk of pest introduction associated with wood packaging. As pointed out by Leigh Greenwood of The Nature Conservancy in her presentation to 2025 USDA Invasive Species Research Forum, available data have been collected for different purposes than to answer this question. Leigh’s powerpoint is posted here.
Leigh has identified the following data gaps:
In their studies, Haack and colleagues rely on data from the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM) system. This dataset is based on random sampling of very distinct segments of incoming trade. It is therefore a better measure of insect approach rates than reports of interceptions by either APHIS or CBP.
However, AQIM includes data from only those very distinct segments of trade: perishable goods, SWPM associated with maritime containerized imports, Italian tiles, and “other” goods, AQIM does not contain a segment of trade that includes wood packaging associated with maritime breakbulk or roll-on, roll-off (RORO) cargo. These exclusions have prevented scientists and enforcement officials from determining, inter alia, how great a risk of pest introduction is associated with various types of wood packaging, especially dunnage, as the randomized sample does not include entire pathways for the entrance of dunnage.
Greenwood states that she has not found another country that operates a similar analysis of randomly collected data at ports of entry.
2) USDA does not collect data on consignment size, piece-specific infestation density, nor consignment-wide infestation density. As Haack et al. (2022) point out, reporting detections by consignment doesn’t reveal the number of insects present. If implementation of ISPM#15 resulted in fewer live insects being present in an “infested” consignment, this would reduce the establishment risk because there is lower propagule pressure. However, we cannot know whether this is true.
3) Neither USDA nor CBP reports the inspection effort. Nor do they conduct a “leakage survey” to see how often target pests are missed. This means, inter alia, that we cannot estimate inspectors’ efficiency in detecting infested wood packaging. If their proficiency has improved as a result of improvements in training, inspection techniques, or technology, the apparent impact of ISPM#15 would be under-reported in recent years.
4) USDA does not require port inspectors to report the type of SWPM in which the pest was detected. Leigh participated in an effort that included industry representatives, DHS CBP and USDA APHIS to define the types of wood packaging in legal terminology so that they could be incorporated in the drop-down menu on inspectors’ reporting system. This was first successfully included in the legal glossary within USDA APHIS system of record, ACIR Glossary. Last fall the team was working to integrate the requirement for using these definitions into the inspection data collection system used by DHS CBP, which would then make this data available in Agricultural Risk Management, ARM (see Abstract here for adequate primer on ARM). However, it is unclear now whether the new administration will do so. One potential barrier is that asking the port of entry inspection staff to record these data will add to the time and training required for reporting inspection results.
In summary, Leigh reports that current data systems do not support
estimating probabilities of pest infestation of via volume or type of SWPM (e.g. pallet vs dunnage)
measuring the risk of arrival associated with a specific hazard (in this case, a hazard being a live pest or pathogen associated with SWPM)
extrapolating or supporting findings for some types of wood packaging to other types of wood packaging
Scientists from Canada, Mexico, and the United States have formed a working group under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). The group is trying to determine whether various types of wood packaging are more likely to harbor pests. This study is currently hampered by the many data gaps, including those Leigh outlined above. The best data available, cited by Haack et al. (2022), found that in maritime containerized shipping, crates were more likely to harbor pests than pallets- however, other forms of SWPM (dunnage, bracing, etc.) had such low sample size that no analysis of those is possible. One of the main objectives of the NAPPO study is to evaluate if dunnage poses the same or higher risk, so this is a major impediment.
Two issues need to be resolved.
One is scientific: why are insects continuing to be detected in wood packaging marked as having been treated? What is the relative importance of insects surviving the treatment versus treatment facilities applying the treatments incorrectly or inadequately?
The second issue is legal and political: what proportion of the detections is due to treatment facilities committing outright fraud – claiming to treat the wood, stamping it with an IPPC stamp, while not actually performing any treatments at all?
Knowing which measures will most effectively solve these quandaries / reduce pest presence in wood packaging depends on knowing what the relative importance of these factors are in causing the problem. The lack of basic data on which to base any analysis certainly hampers efforts to improve protection.
Leigh calls for researchers to recognize these data needs and work to fill them.
•Understand, account for, and communicate data realities
•Work collectively to increase useable data quality
•Use additional research to validate, or to demonstrate disparities
Why Wait for the Science?
In the meantime, however, I assert that more vigorous enforcement efforts by responsible agencies should help reduce the occurrence of fraud. I have suggested the following actions:
U.S. and Canada refuse to accept wood packaging from foreign suppliers that have a record of repeated violations – whatever the apparent cause of the non-compliance. Institute severe penalties to deter foreign suppliers from taking devious steps to escape being associated with their violation record.
APHIS and CBP and their Canadian counterparts follow through on the industry-initiated program described above and here aimed at helping importers avoid using wood packaging from unreliable suppliers in the exporting country.
Encourage a rapid switch to materials that won’t transport wood-borers. Plastic is one such material. While no one wants to encourage production of more plastic, the Earth is drowning under discarded plastic. Some firms are recycling plastic waste into pallets.
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
Europe has been invaded by two insect species that North Americans should be watching out for. First, a Cerambycid, the wasp-mimicking tiger longicorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis. And second,the Buprestid cypress jewel beetle, Lamprodila festiva. We should also ensure that none of the other 500+ beetles introduced to Europe poses a threat to our trees. These are summarized in a 2024 paper by Bunescu et al.
Tiger Longicorn Beetle
This beetle is native to eastern Asia. It feeds on and kills mulberry trees (Moraceae: Morus spp.). It might also attack apple and pear trees and grapevines – Asian sources report these as hosts. The status of grapevines has been questioned by a Spanish experiment, in which artificial inoculations failed. I have seen no further information about the vulnerability of apple (Malus spp.) and pear (Pyrus spp.) (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021)
In Europe, the pest threatens mulberry trees which are commonly planted for shade and ornamentation, especially in southern France, Spain and Greece (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021). For example, there are more than 20,000 mulberry trees in Athens (EFSA 2021). The trees’ abundance contributes to spread of any associated pests, the level of damage caused by falling branches, and the expense of tree removal. Economic damages are those typically associated with wood-borer invasions of urban areas. That is, the cost of tree removals, loss of shade and amenity values, and increased risk of injury from falling branches.
We Americans should be concerned, too. Wild red mulberry (Morus rubra) occupies much of the eastern United States, from southern New England west to southeastern Minnesota, then south along the eastern edge of the Great Plains to central Texas, and east to southern Florida. It is also found in Bermuda. It grows primarily in flood plains and low moist hillsides. . Presumably it would also be attacked by Xylotrechus chinensis, although I don’t know whether anyone has tested this. As a native tree, red mulberry plays a role in natural ecosystems, including wildlife food supplies. Thus, America would see even more significant losses if Xylotrechus chinensis were to establish.
Morus rubra in Fairfax County, Virginia; photo by Fmartin via Wikipedia
Red mulberry is already declining in parts of its central range, possibly due to a bacterial disease. The effects and extent of this disease have not been investigated thoroughly.
Apples and pears are important crops across North America; the farm-gate value is estimated at $3.2 billon.
Introductions of the beetle to Spain, France, and Greece might have resulted from inadequately-treated wood packaging or other wood products. Detections of the species in wood imports were reported in Germany in 2007 and 2017 (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021). The U.S. has also intercepted X. chinensis at least once, at the port of Philadelphia, in 2011 (EFSA 2021).
These detections have raised questions to which no-one yet has answers. First, can X. chinensis develop in cut logs? The European Food Safety Agency concluded that it can (EFSA 2021). Second, one detection involved a shipment of wooden items made from birch (Betula spp.) and willow (Salix spp). It is not yet clear whether these taxa are also hosts (EFSA 2021). (The wood species were not specified in the case of the other interceptions.) I have blogged often about how “leaky” the wood packaging pathway has been; to see these blogs, scroll below the “archives” section of the webpage, then click on the category “wood packaging”.
European scientists believe X. chinensis might also be transported in shipments of plants for planting. However, the beetle prefers to oviposit on large trees. This pathway is less viable for the United States since USDA APHIS allows imports of mulberries (Morus) and pears (Pyrus) only from Canada. Apple trees (Malus spp.), however, may be imported from France – which hosts an introduced population of X. chinensis – and other European countries.
Detection of any invasion by X. chinensis will pose the usual difficulties associated with woodborers. In some European cities, hundreds or even a thousand trees were infested before the outbreak was detected (EFSA 2021).
I am concerned that the Europeans appear to have been slow to respond to the threat from Xylotrechus chinensis. After several outbreaks were discovered in Greece, France, and Spain in 2017 and 2018, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) added X. chinensis to its Alert List. This action requires member states (which are not limited to European Union members) to report new outbreaks and inform about efforts to either stop or eradicate them (Saarto i Monteyu, Costa Ribeu, and Savin 2021).
Shortly afterwards the European Union Commission requested the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) to conduct a risk assessment. This analysis was completed in 2021. (It contains lots of photos of the insect and its damage.) The analysis concluded that Xylotrechus chinensis could probably infest most areas in the Union and cause significant damage. The species meets the criteria for designation as a quarantine pest in the Union. However, as of December 2024, this action had not been taken. As a result, control measures for this species are not mandatory.
Introductions continue; an outbreak in Lombardy, Italy, was found in June 2023 (Sarto i Monteys, Savin, Torras i Tutusaus & Bedós i Balsach 2024). European regulations – following IPPC standards – also are linked to named pests and known outbreak locations. Such restrictions almost guarantee that the pest will continue to spread from not-yet-detected outbreaks. (Decades ago, after the emerald ash borer invasion, Michigan’s State Plant Regulatory Official, Ken Rasher, noted that, to be effective, “slow the spread” efforts must apply to areas beyond the known limits of the pest’s range.) The EFSA risk assessment did suggest delimitation of buffer zones around known European outbreaks. I don’t know whether such zones have been set up.
The risk assessment also recommended [true?] improving detection of this insect by developing male pheromones as lures. These have not been acted on. Guidance on best timing for treatment [trunk injections of systemic insecticides] also appears to have been taken up by Greece but not by Spain (Sarto i Monteys, Savin, Torras i Tutusaus & Bedós i Balsach 2024).
These authors include more information about the Xylotrechus chinensis life cycle and trajectory of the invasion,. They note that climate change appears to be altering the insect’s phenology. Especially, the adult flight period is beginning earlier in the spring.
Lamprodila festiva; Udo Schmidt via flickr
Cypress jewel beetle
This second pest of concern is a buprestid that attacks trees in the Cupressaceae. Infested trees generally die within a few years.
In its native Mediterranean range, the beetle feeds on native Juniperus, Cupressus and Tetraclinis. In invaded urban landscapes of Europe it attacks primarily introduced Cupressaceae , particularly Thuja, Chamaecyparis, Platycladus, Callitris, and some hybrids (Cupressocyparis). It has also been recorded as damaging Sequoia sempervirens (Brunescu, et al., 2024). (Genera in bold are native to North America.)
Thuja occidentalis; photo by H. Zell via Wikimedia
White cedar, Thuja occidentalis is the focus of Brunescu, et al.’s article. It is native to eastern Canada and much of the north-central and northeastern United States. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) has identified eight species in the Lamprodila genus as important pests, (Brunescu et al. 2024) so the danger might be more widespread. The invasion of Europe is probably the result of adult flight or other short-range transport. The article does not suggest pathways that the species might exploit to cross oceans.
SOURCES
Bunescu, H., T. Florian, D. Dragan, A. Mara, I-B. Hulujan, X-D. Rau. 2024 The Cypress Jewel Beetle Lamprodila Festiva Linné, 1767 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), an Invasive Major Pest of Thuja Occidentalis Linné in Romania Hop and Medicinal Plants, 2024 XXXII, No. 1-2, 2024.
Saarto i Monteyu V., A. Costa Ribeu. I. Savin. 2021a. The invasive longhorn beetle Xylotrechus chinensis, pest of mulberries, in Euro: Study on its local spread & efficacy of abamectin control Plos One January 29, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245527
Sarto i Monteys, V., I. Savin, G. Torras i Tutusaus & M. Bedós i Balsach. 2024b. New evidence on the spread in Catalonia of the invasive longhorn beetle, Xylotrechus chinensis, & the efficacy of abamectin control. Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:26754 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78265-xwww.nature.com/scientificreports/
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
ash tree in Michigan killed by emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of (then) Mayor John Hieftje
The Forest Service is promoting its efforts to protect urban forests [see the Northeast Region’s “Roots in Research” in mid-December 2024]. The rationale is that urban forests provide substantial environmental and economic benefits that deserve more attention. These include air purification, temperature regulation and energy savings, water absorption, and improved public health. At the same time, urban forests face multiple and overlapping threats – including the one of greatest concern to us, introduction of tree-killing non-native insects and pathogens.
The article on which the Roots in Research “Science Brief” is based was actually published in 2022 in the Journal of Forestry. In it, David Nowak, Eric Greenfield, and Alexis Ellis evaluated historical and current threats to urban forests across the contiguous states and projected them 50 years into the future. Threats included urban expansion, climate change, insect infestation, and extreme weather events. Their goal was to help urban forest managers and policymakers prioritize resources and planning efforts.
I believe stakeholders should view these projects as underestimates because the sources Nowak et al. relied on for both future climatic conditions and non-native pest impacts are incomplete or outdated. I am not criticizing the choice of sources – they are the standard ones. But events have raised questions about their accuracy.
Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis expected that urban tree cover will decline significantly by 2060. The principle cause is urban expansion — development of previously wooded areas. Development has traditionally been the leading cause of urban forest loss.
Newer threats have become obvious in recent decades – i.e., pest and disease attacks and extreme weather events.
coast live oak infected by GSOB; Heisey County Park, San Diego County photo by F.T. Campbell
The most troubling example of the sources’ weaknesses is the Alien Forest Pest Explorer (AFPE), on which the authors rely for their list of non-native insects and pathogens present in the United States. However, the compilers of this database decided not to include pests that are native to some parts of North America but are behaving as bioinvaders in other regions. The premier example is the goldspotted oak borer (GSOB), Agrilus auroguttatus. This insect kills three species of oaks native to southern California – coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), and canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis). Twelve years ago scientists estimated that GSOB had killed at least 100,000 trees in San Diego County; it has since been detected in widespread infestations in four other counties in southern California.
Not including GSOB (or Mediterranean oak borer; see below) skews the findings because of the importance of the oaks in California’s urban forests. Their genus is the second most-abundant native genus in the state’s urban forest, making up 6.5% of the trees. Because many of these trees are large, they contribute significantly to the ecosystem benefits provided by urban forests. Out of the 152,594 coast live oaks in 287 cities statewide, at least 30,000 of them meet GSOB’s preferred size limit (DBH greater than 18 – 20 inches [~45 cm]) (Love et al. 2022). The highest presence of oaks in urban forests in the South is in Santa Barbara – which has not yet been invaded by GSOB. However, built-up sections of Los Angeles – which are heavily invaded already — have between 250,000 and 300,000 coast live oak trees.
The Alien Forest Pest Explorer also does not include pests of palms. Palms are the first and second most the abundant species in urban areas of both the Southern California Coast and Southwest Desert regions (Love et al. 2022). Of course, palms contribute little to the ecosystem benefit associated with urban forests, but they are iconic symbols of the region. California’s palms are under attack by the South American palm weevil. https://cisr.ucr.edu/invasive-species/south-american-palm-weevil
More difficult to understand is the AFPC’s failure to include the Mediterranean oak borer, (MOB) (Xyleborus monographus). MOB has been introduced from Europe, so it fits the AFPE’s criteria for inclusion. MOB is killing valley (Quercus lobata) and blue oaks (Q. douglasii) in Lake, Napa, Sacramento, and Sonoma counties in California and Oregon oak (Q. garryana) in Troutdale, Salem, and other towns in Oregon.
Quercus lobata, killed by Mediterranean oak beetle
As to the data sources relied on for projections of future climatic factors, several measurements of the changing climate already exceed projections in the models. They expect intensified threats from changes in air temperature, precipitation, aridity, wildfire risk, flooding, and sea level rise. By 2060, temperatures in urban areas are expected to increase by 1.2 – 3.5° C. Nowak and colleagues expected this warming to exacerbate threats from heat stress, flooding, increased salinity, drought, and wildfire. Less certain but possible are more intense storms and pest outbreaks. As I noted above, perhaps even these projections understate the threats.
For example, in discussing flooding the authors relied on measurements of the historic 100-year flood plain. I understand that experts now say this standard is inadequate, given existing records and projected further increases in precipitation (especially high-intensity storms). Urban areas in 98% of the 2,424 counties Nowak et al. analyzed contain flood-prone areas.
Nowak et al. do mention two additional elements exacerbating the flood risk: the spread of impervious surfaces and location of many cities next to bays or wide rivers. In these latter cases, risks might include salt intrusion linked to higher water levels, even in the absence of flooding. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s “intermediate high” scenario projects sea level will rise 61 cm by 2060.
Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis said the greatest overall threat is in the eastern states, especially New England other than Vermont and Maine; the mid-Atlantic; South Carolina; and Ohio. They say this arises from the combination of high levels of urbanization and accumulation of several threats. The specific threats include projected precipitation changes, storms (hurricanes in the southeast; ice storms in the Appalachians); sea level rise; and the abundance of non-native pests. I think that reliance on data from the past results in understating the hurricane risk in the Northeast (especially the Hudson and Connecticut river basins) and in North Carolina.
Nowak, Greenfield, and Ellis reminded us that a healthy urban forest canopy can help mitigate some of the threats associated with climate change. This applies particularly to local air temperatures. Reducing urban heat islands not only addresses a direct threat; it can also moderate such other threats as pest infestations, wildfire, aridity, and storm damage, especially runoff. They advocate science-based tree management programs including preserving existing trees and planting species that can thrive in the expected new local and regional environment, e.g., withstand droughts, flooding, saltwater exposure, or extreme temperatures.
I think their recommendation on pest threats is lame: they suggested “monitoring and managing local pest threats.” Non-native pests demand additional actions at all levels of authority — local, state, and federal. (See the “Fading Forests” reports linked to at the end of this blog, and earlier blogs under the category “invasive species policy”.) I have already noted troubling exclusion of some pests already present in urban areas of the continental United States. I understand that it is impossible to predict which additional pests might be introduced in the next 50 years. But I would have appreciated a sentence stating the near certainty that more pests will be introduced and cause damage to urban forests in the next 50 years.
Given the recent fires in the Los Angeles region, I believe we need new analyses of the risk of wildfire in cities and the positive and negative interactions with the urban forest.
Nowak, D.J., E.J. Greenfield, and A. Ellis. 2022. Assessing Urban Forest Threats across the conterminous United States. Journal of Forestry, 2022, Vol. 120, No. 6
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at https://treeimprovement.tennessee.edu/
