forest pest insects – Page 16 – Center for Invasive Species Prevention

“Rule of Tens” – Time to Refine It

are wood-borers examples of species more likely to “proceed through the steps of invasion” than the theory suggests?

Much of the literature about biological invasion has relied on the “tens rule”. First enunciated in the mid-1990s by Williamson and Fitter (1996), it was actually conceived a decade earlier by Williamson and Brown (1986).

The “tens rule” hypothesizes that about 10% of all species transported to a new environment will be released or escape and become introduced species. Subsequently, 10% of those introduced species establish viable populations in the wild. Finally, about 10% of the established species become highly damaging. That is, 1% of the number originally transported to the new environment is a highly damaging invader.

Is the “tens rule” supported by evidence?

Empirical support for the hypothesis has been mixed; the number of studies questioning it has increased over the decades (Jeschke and Pyšek 2018). So Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) decided to evaluate the basis for the hypothesis. First, they divided the hypothesis into two sub-hypotheses so they could separate the concept of impact from the process of introduction, establishment, and spread. They justified this separation by noting that novel species can have an impact at any stage. The two sub-hypotheses:

1^st sub-hypothesis: At each of the three transitions between the invasion stages listed here the number of species completing the transition is reduced by 90% (invasion tens rule).

transport to exotic range

transition

introduction (release or escape into the environment)

transition

establishment of a least one self-sustaining population

transition

spread

2^nd sub-hypothesis: about 10% of established non-indigenous species cause a significant detrimental impact. This sub-hypothesis applies to the transition from establishment (iii, above) to significant impact (iv). Stepping back to the earlier introduction, so as to consider the situation overall, about 1% of all introduced non-native species cause a significant detrimental impact; this sub-hypothesis thus relates to the transition from introduction (ii) to significant impact (iv).

Jeschke and Pyšek carried out a quantitative meta-analysis of 102 empirical tests of the tens rule drawn from 65 publications. They found no support for the “invasion tens rule”. Indeed, their analysis found that about 24% of non-native plant and 23% of non-native invertebrate species are successful in taking consecutive steps of the invasion process. Among non-native vertebrates, about 51% are successful in taking consecutive steps of the invasion process.

The “impact tens rule” is also not supported by currently available evidence. However, Jeschke and Pyšek decided that more data are needed before a reasonable alternative hypothesis can be formulated.

Findings

Jeschke and Pyšek state that the “tens rule” is not based on a model or other defensible concept. It is also hampered by confusion of terms. Thus, different authors define the invasion process differently. Particularly confounding is the mixing of “impact” with steps in the invasion process. At the same time, there have been few studies of the “impact tens rule” hypothesis.

Finally, the “tens rule’s” predictions are not adjusted to consider changes in temporal and spatial scales. That is, it does not recognize that more invaders will be detected in any given place during more recent times than in the past. Furthermore, more invaders will find suitable niches in large areas than small.

The note that analysis is hampered by the paucity of reliable data about establishment success – especially for taxa other than mammals and birds. They do not discuss how this lack might affect efforts to analyze proportions of entering species that succeed in becoming invasive, especially among the small and inconspicuous taxa such as insects and fungal organisms that concern thus of us that focus on threats to forests. This same data gap has limited other studies as well; see, for example, Aukema et al. (2010) – who restricted their discussion of pathogens to “high impact” species.

Although Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) do not specify which studies they relied on to determine the proportion of successful invaders among species belonging to particular taxa, it seems likely that they relied principally on Vila et al. (2010) in determining that on average 25% invertebrates that are introduced (that is, proceed to the second stage in the process given above) become invasive. Vila et al. analyze introductions to Europe. They found that 24.2% of terrestrial invertebrates caused recognized economic impacts.

Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) Results and Discussion

Considering the “invasion tens rule”, two-thirds of the empirical tests in the dataset focused on the “invasion tens rule”. The majority of these focused on the transition from introduction to establishment (the transition from (ii) to (iii). The observed average percentage of species making this transition is more than 40% – or greater than four times larger than the “tens rule’s” prediction.

At the next transition, from establishment to spread (from iii to iv), the observed percentage of species making the transition is greater than 30% – or greater than three times the predicted value under the “tens rule”.

Considering the “impact tens rule”, on average a quarter of established non-indigenous species have a significant detrimental impact, which is again significantly more than the 1 out of 10 species predicted by the rule. Specifically by taxon, 18% of established plants have shown detrimental impacts. Among invertebrates and vertebrates that estimate is greater than 30%. All these observations are higher than predicted by the rule. However, sample sizes are low so more studies are needed to test whether these values hold true.

Regarding the fullest possible extent of the invasion process, 16 out of 100 species that were introduced (stage ii) had a significant impact. This is 16 times greater than the 1% predicted by the “tens rule”. Considering specific taxa, 6% of established plants and 15% of established invertebrates had a significant impact. Data were too poor to support an evaluation for vertebrates.

I note that the alarmingly high “impact” estimates for invertebrates are probably biased by scientists’ and funding entities’ lack of interest in species that don’t cause noticeable impacts.

Poor data preclude an analysis of the transition from transport (i) to introduced (ii).

Strengthening The Estimates

Might these introduction and impact estimates be tightened by analysis of additional sources, such as the studies led Seebens, forest pest impact analyses by Potter et al. (2019) and Fei (2019) and reviews of pest introduction numbers by Haack and Rabaglia (2013)?

Is it worth pursuing efforts to refine the Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) estimates? I think it is. An underestimation of the risk of introduction might lead decision-makers to downplay the need for a response.

Some scientists have accepted the new “rule of 25” (Schulz, Lucardi, and Marsico. 2021. Full citation at end of blog; also cited by USFS report – Poland et al. 2021). Others have not. Venette and Hutchison (2021; full reference at end of blog) continue to cite the estimate of approximately one “invasion success” for every 1,000 attempts – that is, a low-probability, high-consequence event. This challenges those responsible for managing invasive species.

Or are there other conundrums of introduction, establishment, and predicting impacts that have more direct relationship to improving programs? I note that the recent Forest Service report on invasive species (Poland et al. 2021) does not address the “rule of tens”.

Other Reasons Why Bioinvasion Damage is Underestimated

Jaric´ and G. Cvijanovic´ (2012) note that scientists lack a full understanding of ecosystem functioning, so they probably often miss more subtle – but still important – impacts.

Jeschke and Pyšek (2018) note that the percentage of introduced or established species with a quantifiable impact is not always the most important information. A single introduced species can have devastating impact by itself. They cite the amphibian disease chytrid (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) and such mammals as rats and cats.

SOURCES

Aukema, J.E., D.G. McCullough, B. Von Holle, A.M. Liebhold, K. Britton, & S.J. Frankel. 2010. Historical Accumulation of Nonindigenous Forest Pests in the Continental United States. Bioscience. December 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 11

Brockerhoff, E.G. and A. M. Liebhold. 2017. Ecology of forest insect invasions. Biol Invasions (2017) 19:3141–3159

Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. Liebhold. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 12 Aug 2019, 116(35):17371-17376

Haack, R.A. and R.A. Rabaglia. 2013 Exotic Bark and Ambrosia Beetles in the USA: Potential and Current Invaders. CAB International. 2013. Potential Invasive Pests of Agricultural Crops (ed. J. Pena)

Jaric´, I. and G. Cvijanovic´. 2012. The Tens Rule in Invasion Biology: Measure of a True Impact or Our Lack of Knowledge and Understanding? Environmental Management (2012) 50:979–981 DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9951-1

Jeschke J.M. and P. Pyšek. 2018. Tens Rule. Chapter 13 of book by CABI posted at http://www.ibot.cas.cz/personal/pysek/pdf/Jeschke,%20Pysek-Tens%20rule_CABI%202018.pdf

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. Springer Verlag. (in press).

Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, G. Man, and B.S. Crane. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of United States tree species: Evaluating vulnerability to forest insect and disease threats. Global Ecology and Conservation. (2019)

Schulz, A.N., R.D. Lucardi, and T.D. Marsico. 2021. Strengthening the Ties That Bind: An Evaluation of Cross-disciplinary Communication Between Invasion Ecologists and Biological Control Researchers in Entomology. Annals of the Entomological Society of America · January 2021

Seebens, H., T.M. Blackburn, et al. 2018. Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719429115

Vilà, M., C. Basnou, P. Pyšek, M. Josefsson, P. Genovesi, S. Gollasch, W. Nentwig, S. Olenin, A. Roques, D. Roy, P.E. Hulme and DAISIE partners. 2010. How well do we understand the impacts of alien spp on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 8, No. 3 (April 2010), pp. 135-144

Venette R.C. and W.D. Hutchison. 2021. Invasive Insect Species: Global Challenges, Strategies & Opportunities. Front. Insect Sci.1:650520. doi: 10.3389/finsc.2021.650520

Williamson M.H. and K.C. Brown. 1986. The analysis and modelling of British invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 314:505–522

Williamson M. and A. Fitter. 1996 The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77(6):1661–1666

South Africa & Invasive Species: Threats to High Value Biodiversity and Human Well-Being

*Protea repens* and fynbos vegetation near Table Mountain; photo by Mike Wingfield

South Africa is a country of immense biological diversity. It is also one that recognizes the threat invasive species pose to its natural wealth – and to the economy and livelihoods of ordinary people.

Also, South Africans are trying hard to improve the country’s invasive species program. It recently released the second national report assessing how well it is curtailing introductions and minimizing damage. As I describe in a companion blog, I find these reports to contain exceptionally thorough and honest appraisals of South Africa’s invasive species programs. I address that value in the companion blog, where I compare the South African report — and its findings — to U.S. government reports on our invasive species programs.

In South Africa, bioinvasion ranks third – after cultivation and land degradation – as a threat to the country’s impressive biodiversity. Invasive species are responsible for 25% of all biodiversity loss. Certain taxa are at particular risk: native amphibians and freshwater fishes, and some species of plants and butterflies.

Particularly disturbing is the bioinvasion threat to the Fynbos biome. The report notes that 251 non-native species have been identified in this system. This finding causes concern because the Fynbos is a unique floral biome. In fact, it constitutes the principal component of one of only six floral kingdoms found on Earth: the Cape Floral Kingdom (or region). For more information, go here.

map of South Africa showing fynbos biome

Not surprisingly, invasive bird and plant species are most numerous around major urban centers. The report concludes that this is probably because most non-native birds are commensal with humans; most birds and plants were first introduced to urban centers; and there is greater sampling effort there. Indeed, the patterns of (detected) invasive plant richness are still highly sensitive to sampling effort.

South Africa is considered a leader on invasive species management. However, its record is spotty.

Successes

Biocontrol interventions are considered a success. South Africa has approved release of 157 biocontrol agents, including seven since 2016. All the recent agents (and probably most others) target invasive plants. The South African biocontrol community conducts a comprehensive review of their effectiveness at roughly 10-year intervals. The fourth assessment is currently under way. Also, the report considers eradication of non-native fish (primarily sport species) from several wetlands and river reaches to have been successful. (However, opposition by sport fishermen has delayed listing of some trout species as invasive.)

Failures

On the other hand, strategies to combat invasive plants, other than by biocontrol, appear to be having little success. Even the extent of plant invasions in national parks is poorly documented. Also, the report highlights ballast water as an inadequately managed pathway of invasion.

The report estimates that three new non-native species arrive in South Africa accidentally or illegally every year. Interestingly, reported species arrivals have declined in the current decade compared to the preceding one. The report’s authors consider this to probably be an underestimate caused by the well-known lag in detecting and reporting introductions. The apparent decline also is contrary to global findings. Table 1 in Seebens et al. 2020 (full citation at end of blog) projected that the African continent would receive approximately 767 new alien species between 2005 and 2050.

Even the introductory pathways are poorly known: the pathway for 54% of the taxa introduced to South Africa are unknown. Of the species for which the introductory pathway is known, horticultural or ornamental introductions of plants dominate – 15% of that total. A second important pathway – for accidental introductions – is shipping (5% of all introductions). Other pathways thought to be prominent during 2017–2019 are the timber trade, contaminants on imported animals, and natural dispersal from other African countries where they had previously been introduced.

PSHB symptoms on Vachellia sieberiana; photo by Trudy Paap

Polyphagous shothole borer

The report highlights as an example of a recent introduction that of the polyphagous shothole borer (PSHB, Euwallacea fornicatus). https://www.dontmovefirewood.org/pest_pathogen/polyphagous-shot-hole-borer-html/ http://nivemnic.us/south-africas-unique-flora-put-at-risk-by-polyphagous-shot-hole-borer/ See Box 3.1 in the report. This species is expected to have huge impacts, especially in urban areas. While most of the trees affected so far are non-native (e.g., maples, planes, oaks, avocadoes), several native trees are also reproductive hosts. https://www.fabinet.up.ac.za/pshb In response to the introduction, the government established an interdepartmental steering committee, which has developed a consolidated strategy and action plan. However, as of October 2020 the shot hole borer had not been listed under invasive species regulations, even on an emergency basis. It had been listed as a quarantine pest of agricultural plants (e.g., avocado) per the Agricultural Pests Act 1983.

As note in my blog assessing the report, the report bravely concludes that the government’s regulatory regime is only partially successful (whereas three years ago it graded it as “substantial”). The downgrade is the result of a more thorough evaluation of the regulatory regime’s effectiveness.

SOURCES

SANBI and CIB 2020. The status of bioinvasions and their management in South Africa in 2019. pp.71. South African National BD Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3947613

Seebens, H., S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, C. Capinha, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, M. van Kleunen, I. Kühn, J.M. Jeschke, B. Lenzner, A.M. Liebhold, Z. Pattison, J. Perg, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, F. Essl. 2020. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology. 2020;00:1 -13 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15333

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

Federal Funding for Forest Pest Programs — Act Now! to Help Congress Decide

If you have not communicated to your Representative and senators your support for adequate funding of U.S. government programs to address non-native insects and pathogens threatening our forests, please do so now!

If political leaders do not hear from us that expanding these programs is important, these programs will continue to languish. It is easiest – and most direct – to inform your representative and Senators of your support. Please do so! If you do not agree that these programs should be expanded & strengthened, I ask that you send a comment outlining what approach you think would be more effective in curtailing introductions, minimizing impacts, and restoring affected tree species. I can then initiate a discussion to explore these suggestions. [I already have endorsed the suggestion to create a CDC-like body to oversee management of non-native forest pests.] You can find your member of Congress here. Your Senators here .

Last week the Biden Administration sent to Congress its proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2021. I find it falls short in key areas. Next, the House and Senate will pass a package of appropriations bills to set actual funding levels. This is the moment to press for boosted funding. In an earlier blog I explained my reasons for seeking specific funding levels.

Asian longhorned beetles – introduced in wood packaging (USDA photo)

Two USDA agencies lead efforts to protect U.S. wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and pathogens. Their funding is set by two separate – and critical — appropriations bills:

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has legal responsibility for preventing introduction of tree-killing pests; detecting newly introduced pests; and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize their damage. Funding for APHIS is contained in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
USDA Forest Service (USFS)
- The Forest Health Management (FHM) program provides funding and applied science to help partners manage pests. The program has two sides: the Cooperative component helps states and private forest managers, so it can address pests where they are first found – usually near cities – and when they spread. The federal lands component helps the USFS, National Park Service, and other federal agencies counter pests that have spread to the more rural/wildland areas that they manage.
- The Research and Development (R&D) program supports research into pest-host relationships; pathways of introduction and spread;; management strategies (including biocontrol); and host resistance breeding

Forest Service funds are appropriated through the Interior Appropriations bill.

APHIS – the Administration’s official budget proposal, and justification, is here.

The Administration proposes a small increase for three of four APHIS programs that are particularly important for preventing introductions of forest pests or eradicating or containing those that do enter. The Administration proposed significant funding for a fourth program that plays a small but important role in managing two specific forest pests.

APHIS Program	Current (FY 2021)	FY22 Administration proposed	FY 2022 Campbell recommended
Tree & Wood Pest	$60.456 million	$61 million	$70 million
Specialty Crops	$196.553 million	209 million	$200 million
Pest Detection	$27.733 million	No change	$30 million
Methods Development	$20.844 million	No change	$25 million

Tree and Wood Pests: It will be a major challenge for APHIS to eradicate the current outbreak of Asian longhorned beetles (ALB) in the swamps of South Carolina. APHIS should also address other pests. Even after cutting spending on the emerald ash borer (EAB), I think APHIS needs significantly more money in this account.

The Specialty Crops program is supported by such traditional USDA constituencies as the nursery and orchard industries, which probably explains the proposed increase. APHIS’ program to curtail spread of the sudden oak death (SOD) pathogen through interstate nursery trade receives funding from this program – about $5 million. I believe this program also now funds the agency’s efforts to slow spread of the spotted lanternfly.

SOD-infected rhododendrons in Indiana nursery in 2019

I would like the Pest Detection program to receive a small increase so the agency and its cooperators can better deal with rising trade volumes and associated pest risk. Similarly, Methods Development should receive a boost because of the need for improved detection and management tools.

USDA Forest Service – the Administration’s official budget proposal is here.

While the Forest Health Management (FHM) and Research and Development (R&D) programs are the principal USFS programs that address introduced forest pests, neither has non-native pests as the principle focus. Non-native forest pests constitute only a portion of the programs’ activities. In the case of Research, this is a very small portion indeed.

President Biden’s budget proposes to spend $59.2 million on the Forest Health Management program and $313.5 million for Research. Both represent significant increases over spending during the current fiscal year. However, the FHM level is still below spending in recent years, although both the number of introduced pests and the geographic areas affected have been rising for decades.

In my earlier blog I suggested the funding levels:

USFS PROGRAM	Current (FY21)	FY22 Administration	FY22 my recommendation
FHP Coop Lands	$30.747 million	$36.747 million	$51 million (to cover both program work & personnel costs)
FHP Federal lands	$15.485 million	22.485 million	$25 million (ditto)

Research & Develop	$258.7 million; of which about $3.6 million allocated to invasive species	$313.560 million	$320 million; I seek report language instructing the USFS to spend more on invasive species

Under the FHM program, a table on pp. 46-47 of the budget justification lists existing and proposed spending on 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites). Spending on these 14 species is proposed to total $30.3 million. Of this amount, less than half – $14.9 million – is allocated to such high-profile invasive species of forests as the emerald ash borer (EAB), hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), sudden oak death (SOD), and threats to whitebark pine (recently listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act). (The USFS does not engage in efforts to eradicate Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) outbreaks; it leaves that task to APHIS.) And of the nearly $15 million allocated to invasive non-native pests, more than half – $8 million – is allocated to European gypsy moths. While I agree that the gypsy moth program has been highly successful, I decry this imbalance. Other non-native pests cause much higher levels of mortality among hosts than does the gypsy moth.

dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake National Park; photo by FT Campbell

I applaud the modest increases in the Administration’s budget for other non-native forest pests. These range from tens to a few hundred thousand dollars per pest. FHM also supports smaller programs targetting rapid ohia death, beech leaf disease, the invasive shot hole borers in southern California, Mediterranean oak beetle, etc. Budget documents don’t report on these efforts.

The imbalance of funding allocated to damaging non-native pests compared to other forest management concerns is even worse in the Research program. Of the $313.5 million proposed in the budget for the full research program, only $9.2 million is allocated to the 14 pest taxa (plus invasive plants and subterranean termites) specified in the table on pp. 46-47. Of this amount, less than half — $4.5 million – is allocated to the high-profile invasive species, e.g., ALB, EAB, HWA, SOD, and threats to whitebark pine. The budget does provide extremely modest increases for several of these species, ranging from $12,000 for ALB to $114,000 for EAB. Again, some smaller programs managed at the USFS regional level might address other pests. Still – the budget proposes that USFS R&D allocate only 1.4% of its total budget to addressing these threats to America’s forests! This despite plenty of documentation – including by USFS scientists – that non-native species “have caused, and will continue to cause, enormous ecological and economic damage.” (Poland et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog). Poland et al. go on to say:

Invasive insects and plant pathogens (or complexes involving both) cause tree mortality, resulting in canopy gaps, stand thinning, or overstory removals that, in turn, alter microenvironments and hydrologic or biogeochemical cycling regimes. These changes can shift the overall species composition and structure of the plant community, with associated effects on terrestrial and aquatic fauna. In the short term, invasive insects and diseases can generally reduce productivity of desired species in forests. Tree mortality or defoliation can affect leaf-level transpiration rates, affecting watershed hydrology. Tree mortality … also leads to enormously high costs for tree removal, other management responses, and reduced property values in urban and residential landscapes.

eastern hemlock in Shenandoah National Park; photo by FT Campbell

I seek report language specifying that at least 5% of research funding should be devoted to research in pathways of invasive species’ introduction and spread; their impacts; and management and restoration strategies, including breeding of resistant trees. Several coalitions of which the Center for Invasive Species is a member have agreed to less specific language, not the 5% goal.

Two other USFS programs contribute to invasive species management. The Urban and Community Forest program provided $2.5 million for a competitive grant program to help communities address threats to urban forest health and resilience. Of 23 projects funded in FY2020, 11 are helping communities recover from the loss of ash trees to EAB. (On average, each program received $109,000.)

The Forest Service’ International Program is helping academic and other partners establish “sentinel gardens” in China and Europe. North American trees are planted and monitored so researchers can identify insects or pathogens that attack them. This provides advance notice of organisms that could be damaging pests if introduced to the United States.

REFERENCE:

Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. Editors T.M. Poland, T. Patel-Weynand, D.M. Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M. Lopez Open access!

Posted by Faith Campbell

Rising risk to East Coast as Ship Capacities Expand

They’re coming! As I have blogged frequently over the past year, imports through ports other than Los Angeles-Long Beach are rising – and with them the risk of pest introductions.

Demonstrating this phenomenon is the fact that the largest container ship ever to call on the North American East Coast will arrive this week. The “Marco Polo” can carry 16,022-TEU (twenty-foot equivalent; a standardized measure of container capacity). It is scheduled to call at Nova Scotia today (May 17), then work its way down the coast to New York-New Jersey on May 20, Norfolk on May 23, Savannah on May 26, and Charleston on May 28. Most of these ports have a history of receiving tree-killing pests: beech bark disease, beech leaf weevil, and brown spruce longhorned beetle at Halifax, NS; Asian longhorned beetle at New York and possibly Charleston; redbay ambrosia beetle at Savannah.

The ship’s owner CMA CGM (a French company operating around the globe), also holds the previous record for the largest ship to visit the east Coast: the 15,072-TEU “Brazil” called at New York-New Jersey in September 2020. CMA CGM North America President Ed Aldridge credited the ports’ significant increases in capacity for allowing the increased volume.

CMA CGM is focused on imports from the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Ships headed to the North American East Coast are transitting the Suez Canal.

CMA CGM also operates the “Jules Verne” with a capacity of 16,022-TEU; and the “Ben Franklin” at 18,000-TEU. These ships serve trans-Pacific trade.

During the first 10 months of 2020, 15% of vessel calls were by ships with capacities of 10,000-TEU or higher, up from 11% in 2019.

Source:

https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/cma-cgm/largest-ship-call-east-coast-arrive-next-week-cma-cgm_20210514.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medicum=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%205/17/21%20_PC00000_e-production_E-98549_TF_0517_0617

EAB Threat to Eastern Europe

The emerald ash borer (EAB) was first detected in European Russia in 2003, in Moscow. By 2020, EAB was recorded in 16 provinces [=‘oblast’] of European Russia, especially to the West of Moscow towards the borders with Belarus and Ukraine.

Russian scientists have documented that the emerald ash borer is spreading faster in the southwest of the country and in neighboring Ukraine than in the northwest (near St. Petersburg and the Baltic countries).

Despite an abundance of ash [both green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) – native to North America – and European ash F. excelsior], EAB population density in the northwest remains low and damage is in scattered clusters.

However, in September 2020 officials detected an isolated outbreak in a St. Petersburg suburb, 520 km away from the apparent edge of the principal Russian population. The authors believe this outbreak has been present since 2015. They think it is the result of transport of EAB either by “insect-hitchhiking” on vehicles or by movement of plants for planting or other commodities.

The Petersburg population is only 130 km from Estonia and Finland – the border with the European Union.

A thousand kilometers to the south, in southwest Russian eastern Ukraine, an outbreak was reported in June 2019. By the next summer, EAB were detected more than 100 km to the West. While this outbreak is still 800 km from Ukraine’s border with eastern Europe (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania), the authors note that rapid spread is likely since F. excelsior and F. pennsylvanica have been extensively planted along roads, railways, field shelter belts, and urban greenings.

The slower spread in the North is attributed to colder temperatures, the local abundance of food, and possibly pressure by the native parasitoid Spathius polonicus Niezabitowski (note that USDA APHIS has approved two Spathius species as biocontrol agents in the U.S.). On the other hand, the climate is milder in Saint Petersburg (along the coast) than it is inland; and ash woodlands are common along the Baltic coast.

Noting that ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) has devastated more than 95% of European ash populations, the authors express concern about the future of ash.

SOURCE

Musolin, D.L.; Selikhovkin, A.V.; Peregudova, E.Y.; Popovichev, B.G.; Mandelshtam, M.Y.; Baranchikov, Y.N.; Vasaitis, R. North-Westward Expansion of the Invasive Range of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) towards the EU: From Moscow to Saint Petersburg. Forests 2021, 12, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040502

Posted by Faith Campbell

13 (at Least) Exotic Tussock Moths Pose High Risk to North America

*Lymantria monacha* 1 Novlinder, Saxafraga -Ab H Bass

The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) has released a scientific study, Risks Associated with the Introduction of Exotic Tussock Moth Species (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Lymantriinae) of Potential Concern to the NAPPO Region.

The report identifies 13 species of tussock moths — other than several Asian gypsy moths – that pose a serious risk to Canada, Mexico, and the United States and that should be addressed as quarantine pests. However, vital information was missing in key areas, on one variable for more than 84% of the 79 species screened. Thus many additional species were not fully evaluated; some of these might also pose serious risks. Study findings

North American countries already regulate several species of Lymantria native to east Asia: Lymantria dispar asiatica, L. dispar japonica, L. albescens (includes L. postalba), and L. umbrosa. NAPPO’s Regional Standard for Phytosanitary Measure (RSPM) No. 33url sets up a system requiring inspection and cleaning of marine vessels travelling from China, Korea, and Russia to the NAPPO region during the specified risk periods (SRP) of moth flight and egg mass deposition by these species.

However, the U.S. and Canada have been intercepting egg masses belonging to other lymantriid species, especially Lymantria lucescens, Leucoma salicis, Lymantria mathura, and Lymantria xylina. In response, the NAPPO countries initiated this study. All life stages — egg masses, larvae, pupae, and adults — have been intercepted in the NAPPO region primarily during maritime port inspections of vessels and shipping containers originating in Asia (Russia, Japan, China, Philippines, and Korea) and Europe.

There are more than 2,400 species of Lymantriids found on all continents except Antarctica. The group is also missing from Pacific islands, including New Zealand and Hawai`i. The greatest diversity occurs in the tropical areas of Africa, India, and Southeast Asia.

Lymantriid moths can have high fecundity, which can result in large population increases in a single generation. Some undergo cyclical outbreaks resulting in large-scale defoliation of their host plants.

The larvae are highly polyphagous. Some species feed on more than 150 hosts, especially trees – both deciduous and coniferous. The host plants are better known in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere; little is known about hosts of tropical moth species.

The study concluded that there is a high likelihood of introduction of lymantriid species into the NAPPO region due to the high volume of trade coming from Asia, the large number of probable lymantriid host species in North America, and the apparently suitable climatic conditions. While there are several possible pathways for transporting the moths from Asia to North America, the most important is the presence of masses of resilient eggs on surfaces of ships and hard-sided cargo (containers, motor vehicles, etc.). Once in North American ports, mated female moths can disperse either by flight (some species) or by “ballooning” on wind currents.

The authors initially collected data on 189 species. The report does not indicate whether they focused on Asia, but the results seem to be limited largely to that region. The authors winnowed the initial list down to 79 species for further analysis due largely to lack of resources and information. The Risk Assessment Model and Data Sheet are available here.

The study concluded that 13 species pose a high and that the NAPPO countries should designate them as “actionable pests” and take other actions to prevent their introduction. The high-risk species are Lymantria monacha, L. mathura, L. lunata and L. xylina, Euproctis kargalika, Euproctis subflava, Euproctis chrysorrhoea, Leucoma candida, Orgyia thyellina, Euproctis lunata, Leucom wltshirei, Lymantria fumida, and Sarsina violascens.

Evaluation Process

The 79 species were evaluated based on eight questions:

1) Are adult females attracted to light? (The authors thought such behavior would make them more likely to be flying during risk periods and attracted to ports and vessels).

2) Has the species been reported as a contaminant pest of commodities in trade in its

overwintering stage? (This presence was thought to result in species that are likely to move via trade and have the highest risk of survival and introduction).

3) Is the species reported to cause economic or environmental damage in its native range?

4) Does the species have larvae capable of ballooning?

5) Does the species have adult females capable of flight?

6) Does the species’ life history include a dormant stage able to withstand harsh environmental conditions? (Such species were thought to be more likely to survive transit to the NAPPO region and to persist once introduced).

7) Is the species capable of natural dispersal farther than 1 km/year?

8) Is the species reported to have allergenic properties?

Questions 2 & 3 were given more weight because they were considered to have a greater effect on the likelihood of the species being introduced and causing unacceptable impacts.

Weaknesses

Both the apparent focus on Asia and the emphasis on question 3 result in a process that was unlikely to uncover any potential pests that are currently “unknown unknowns”.

Vitally important information was missing for many of the species. For six of the eight questions, the evaluation found no information for more than 50 percent of the species evaluated. Information was lacking for Question 2 – one of the questions assigned greater weight – on 84 percent of the species! Ability to disperse more than 1 km per year had an even higher percentage of answers as “unknown”. Regarding “ballooning” of larvae, 80 percent of the species could not be classified.

These data gaps created a high level of uncertainty regarding the risk rankings of those species ranked as “low” risk. See Figure 2 from the report.

One of the reasons cited for the information gaps was the inability to access literature in foreign languages, specifically Russian. Surely both the U.S. and Canada have access to native Russian speakers!

The authors admit that the lack of information “affected the risk scores and possibly the risk categories for certain species.” They call for additional research and periodic reviews of the report’s findings.

They note that the report is a quick screening tool, not a rigorous pest risk assessment. They suggested additional research and sharing of interception data to address the information gaps. The research should focus on species’ flight periods and biological information relevant to regulatory actions; and detection tools (e.g., traps, lures, predictive phenology models, and molecular identification tools).

They note that the three countries currently limit surveillance and management programs to a few taxa.

I concur with the authors’ recommendation that a moth species be considered to pose a serious threat if it feeds on a host included in a tree or shrub genus that has economic value in the NAPPO region. (Under the terms of the International Plant Protection Organization, ISPM#5, environmental damage is included in the term “economic value”.)

Posted by Faith Campbell

Funding – Appropriations – Crucial to Protecting Our Forests from Pests

Two USDA agencies lead efforts to protect U.S. wildland, rural, and urban forests from non-native insects and disease-causing pathogens:

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has legal responsibility for preventing introduction of tree-killing pests, detecting newly introduced pests, and initiating eradication and containment programs intended to minimize the damage they cause.
USDA Forest Service (USFS)
- Forest Health Management (FHM) program assists partner agencies to counter pests where they are first found – usually near cities – and when they spread. This work falls primarily to the Cooperative component of Forest Health Management program. The Federal lands component helps the USFS, National Park Service, and other federal agencies counter pests that have spread to more rural/wildland areas.
- Research and Development (R&D) program supports research into pest-host relationships, introduction & spread pathways, management strategies (including biocontrol) and host resistance breeding

Since 2010, several new tree-killing pests have been detected in the US, including polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, two rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogens, and Mediterranean oak beetle. Over the same period. the Asian longhorned beetle has been detected in two new states – Ohio and South Carolina; the emerald ash borer expanded its range from 14 to 35 states; laurel wilt disease spread from five states to 11; a second strain of the sudden oak death fungus appeared in Oregon and California forests; and whitebark pine has been proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. (I have blogged often about policy failures that have contributed to these introductions; today I am focused on agencies’ ability to respond.)

Funding agencies’ essential programs has fallen behind these calamities. APHIS funding has been steady or has risen slowly – at least not dropping – but not enough to deal with the growing threat.

Meanwhile, the key USFS programs have been cut by half or more. In 2010, USFS FHP and Research, together, allocated $32 million to efforts to understand and manage a dozen introduced pests: Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, hemlock woolly adelgid, goldspotted oak borer, laurel wilt, thousand cankers disease, European gypsy moth, Port-Orford cedar root disease, Sirex woodwasp, and white pine blister rust (especially on whitebark pine). By 2021, this total had fallen to about $10 million. There was no indication that any USFS R&D funding has been allocated to recently detected, highly damaging pests, i.e., rapid ʻōhiʻa death, the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, Mediterranean oak beetle, or beech leaf disease. USFS FHP has funded work on some of these pests through its “emerging pest” fund – but that fund is limited to $500,000 for the entire country.

At present, more than 228 tree species growing in the “lower 48” states are infested by an exotic pest. The 15 most damaging of the introduced species threaten 41.1% of the total live forest biomass in the 48 conterminous states. Additional trees on the Hawaiian and other Pacific islands are also being killed by non-native insects and pathogens. Non-native forest pests have caused a 5% increase in total mortality by tree volume nation-wide. The greatest increases in mortality rates have been a four-fold increase for redbay; and a three-fold increase each for ash, beech, and hemlock.

Introductions of tree-killing pests occur because we import things! The highly damaging wood-borers can arrive in crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made of wood. Other pests – especially plant diseases – come here on imported plants. Gypsy moth and spotted lanternfly egg masses can be attached to virtually any hard surface, e.g., steel slabs, vehicles, stone, containers, or ship superstructures.

Imports from Asia pose a particularly high risk – illustrated by the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, sudden oak death, and spotted lanternfly.

U.S. imports from Asia rose almost a third between 2019 and 2020. No part of the country is safe. While nearly half of imports from Asia enter via Los Angeles/Long Beach, California, another 21% entered via New York – New Jersey and Savannah. Other ports in the “Top 10” were the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma, Oakland, Norfolk, Houston, Charleston, Baltimore, and Mobile.

Pests don’t stay in the cities where they first arrive. Instead, they proliferate and spread to other vulnerable trees – often assisted by people moving firewood, plants or household goods. For example, less than 20 years after their first detections, the emerald ash borer has spread to 35 states, the redbay ambrosia beetle to 11.

[For more information, read my earlier blogs posted here or species-specific descriptions here.]

Please contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to push for increased funding for key programs managed by these two agencies. I describe funding needs below. I list members of the appropriate Congressional subcommittees at the end of this blog.

USDA APHIS programs (all included under “Plant Protection and Quarantine”)

APHIS Program	FY 2020 (millions)	FY 2021 (millions)	FY 2022 ask
Tree & Wood Pest	$60.000	$60.456	$70 million
Specialty Crops	$192.000	$196.553	$200 million
Pest Detection	$27.446	$27.733	$30 million
Methods Development	$20.686	$20.844	$25 million

APHIS’ “Tree & Wood Pests” account has traditionally supported eradication and control efforts targeting only three insects: the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB), emerald ash borer (EAB), and gypsy moth. The program to eradicate the ALB has received about two-thirds of the funds — $40 million. There is encouraging progress in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Clearly, this program must be maintained until final success is achieved. Plus the program must now counter the Charleston, South Carolina, outbreak, where more than 4,000 infested trees have been detected in an area of 58 square miles. (See my blog here, which describes the difficult conditions arising from wetlands in South Carolina.)

APHIS has terminated its emerald ash borer regulatory program, which had previously been funded at about $7 million per year. (See my blog). APHIS has said it will now focus on production and release of biocontrol agents, although it has not indicated the funding level. It is probable that EAB will now spread more rapidly to the mountain and Pacific Coast states, threatening both riparian woodlands and urban forests.

APHIS’ “Specialty Crops” program funds APHIS’ regulation of nursery operations to prevent spread of the sudden oak death pathogen. APHIS must improve that program to avoid a repetition of the 2019 incident, in which plants infected by the SOD pathogen were shipped to 14 states.

This budget line also supports efforts to manage the spotted lanternfly, which has spread from Pennsylvania to seven other mid-Atlantic states.

The “Pest Detection” budget line supports the collaborative state –federal program that detects newly introduced pests. Successful eradication and containment programs depend on early detection.

The “Methods Development” program assists APHIS in developing detection and eradication tools essential for an effective response to new pests.

USDA Forest Service

USFS PROGRAM	FY20	FY21	FY 22 ask
FHP Coop Lands	$32 M	$30.747M	$51 million (to cover both program work & personnel costs)
FHP Federal lands	$19 M	$15.485M	$25 million (ditto)

Research & Develop	$305 million	$258.7 million; of which about $3.6 million allocated to invasive species	$320 million; seek report language specifying $5 million for invasive species

The Mission of the USDA Forest Service is “To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” To achieve this mission, the Forest Service needs adequate funding to address the difficult challenge of containing the spread of introduced pests, protecting host tree species from mortality caused by those pests, and restoring decimated tree species to the forest. Meeting this challenge requires gaining scientific understanding of the pest’s and host’s biology and what motivates people to avoid activities that facilitate pests’ spread (e.g., transporting firewood that might harbor wood-boring insects).

Given the hundreds of damaging non-native pests, the Forest Service must set priorities. One attempt to do so is “Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation). Priority species for forests on the continent are listed below. A separate study is under way for forests in Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia)
American chestnut (Castanea dentata)
Allegheny chinquapin (C. pumila)
Ozark chinquapin (C. pumila var. ozarkensis)
redbay (Persea borbonia)
Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
pumpkin ash (F. profunda)
Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana)
Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus)
butternut (Juglans cinerea)
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
white ash (Fraxinus americana)
black ash (F. nigra)
green ash (F. pennsylvanica).

These 15 priority species should be the focus of both comprehensive gene conservation programs and tree breeding and restoration programs. Unfortunately, USFS programs do not reflect this recommendation.

Forest Health and Management Programs (FHM)

Despite severe cuts (see above), FHM has continued its commitment to projects addressing Port-Orford-cedar root disease, threats to whitebark pine, and thousand cankers disease; plus it is support for managing “lingering” ash which appear to survive EAB attack. However, I am concerned about past reductions in programs targetting laurel wilt and sudden oak death. And as I noted above, several highly-damaging pests lack a “program” at all. I applaud establishment of an “emerging pest” line. However, competition will be fierce for the $500,000 – pitting the invasive shot hole borers in California against the coconut rhinoceros beetle and rapid ‘ōhi‘a death in Hawai`i, against beech leaf disease in Ohio to Massachusetts.

And where is federal leadership on managing continued spread of the emerald ash borer, now that the USDA APHIS has terminated its regulatory program?

USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research Program

Effective programs to prevent, suppress, and eradicate non-native pests depend on understanding of the pest-host relationship gained through research. In recent years, about 1.5% of the USFS Research budget has been allocated to the non-native pests listed above. Past reductions have hit programs targetting hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, sudden oak death, and the Sirex woodwasp. Programs targetting several other high-impact pests, including the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt have been funded at a steady rate. I could find no documentation of USDA Forest Service research into beech leaf disease, rapid ʻōhiʻa death, or other pests currently killing trees.

Members of Key Congressional Committees

Note that some Representatives or Senators are members of subcommittees that fund both APHIS and the USFS. It is especially important that they hear from their constituents!

APHIS is funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill. Members of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development:

Sanford Bishop Jr., Chairman GA
Chellie Pingree ME
Mark Pocan WI
Lauren Underwood IL
Barbara Lee CA
Betty McCollum MN
Debbie Wasserman Schultz FL
Henry Cuellar TX
Grace Meng NY
Jeff Fortenberry, Ranking Member NE
Robert Aderholt AL
Andy Harris MD
David Valadao CA
John Moolenaar MI
Dan Newhouse WA

Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development:

Tammy Baldwin, Chair WI
John Merkley OR
Dianne Feinstein CA
Jon Tester MT
Patrick Leahy VT
Brian Schatz HI
Martin Heinrich NM
Ranking Republican John Hoeven ND
Mitch McConnell KY
Susan Collins ME
Roy Blunt MO
Jerry Moran KS
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
Mike Braun IN

The USFS is funded through the Interior appropriations bill. Members of the House Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies: add states

Chellie Pingree, Chair ME
Betty McCollum MN
Derek Kilmer WA
Josh Harder CA
Susie Lee NV
Marcy Kaptur OH
Matt Cartwright PA
David Joyce, Ranking Member NC
Mike Simpson ID
Chris Stewart UT
Mark Amodei NV

Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies:

Jeff Merkley, chair OR
Dianne Feinstein CA
Patrick Leahy VT
Jack Reed RI
Jon Tester MT
Chris van Hollen MD
Martin Heinrich NM
Ranking Rep. Lisa Murkowski AK
Roy Blunt MO
Mitch McConnell KY
Shelly Moore Capito WV
Cindy Hyde-Smith MS
Bill Hagerty TN
Marco Rubio FL

Posted by Faith Campbell

Asian longhorned beetle – Eradication in South Carolina will be Extremely Difficult

arrows indicate red maples in the swamps of ALB regulated site in South Carolina
photo by David Coyle

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is one of the most threatening of the hundreds of non-native insects and pathogens introduced to American forests since European colonization began 400 years ago. The ALB attacks about 100 species of trees in 12 or 13 genera; it prefers maples, poplars, willows, and elms. Forests with substantial components of susceptible species constitute 10% of forests on the U.S. mainland and nearly all of Canada’s hardwoods. Host trees species also make up a significant proportion of trees in urban areas. A two-decade old estimate is that ALB could cause more than $1.2 billion in damage to urban trees [Coyle et al. 2021; full citation at the end of the blog]. The contemporary estimate would be higher.

The ALB began showing up in imports and in warehouses less than a dozen years after the U.S. opened trade with China [see Chapter 3 of Fading Forests II; url provided at the end of this blog]. Now there is a new infestation in South Carolina that threatens to be the most difficult to eradicate. Given the level of resources and extended commitment this will demand from APHIS and South Carolina, I worry that the agencies and Congress will give up. To find more money, will the agency take funds from other pests that also need to be addressed? Will it seek – and receive – emergency funding? Congress is currently considering funding for APHIS for the fiscal year that begins in October. Let’s inform them of the need to ensure adequate resources to carry forward necessary eradication efforts.

ALB in the U.S.: 25 Years of Repeated Infestations and Eradications

The first established ALB population to be detected was that in Brooklyn, New York, in 1996. Since then, seven more outbreaks have been detected in the United States [Poland et al. 2021; South Carolina press release] plus two in Canada. Several populations have been eradicated: a single population in Illinois, several populations in New Jersey, three populations in New York; a small outlying population in Ohio (APHIS newsletter Feb 2021); and two Canadian outbreaks.

Despite the U.S. and Canada having adopted regulations requiring treatment of wood packaging from China effective January 1999, ALB larvae continue to be detected in wood packaging from that country. Between 2012 and 2017, the ALB was intercepted six times in wood packaging made of Populus wood – each time originating from a single wood-treatment facility in China (Krishnankutty et al. 2020 – full citation at the end of the blog).

Port of Charleston; photo by Walter Lagrenne, South Carolina Port Authority

ALB Near Charleston, S.C.: Recently Detected; Must be Eradicated

The most recent detection is near Charleston, South Carolina. As usual, a beetle was found by a member of the public. Dendrological studies indicate that this infestation was seven years old at the time of its detection in May 2020, meaning it began about 2013 (Coyle et al. 2021). As the authors note, it has proved impossible to determine whether the South Carolina outbreak resulted from transport of infested wood from the Ohio outbreak or from China directly. Lots of visitors travel from the Midwest to South Carolina every winter. The center of the primary area of infestation includes a railway and an RV park which might be utilized by such travelers. On the other hand, two ports that receive high volumes of incoming shipping containers including wood packaging are nearby — Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA (Coyle et al. 2021). Charleston imported almost 666,000 containers (measured as 20-foot equivalents, or TEUs) in 2013.

Even under the best circumstances, eradicating an ALB infestation is difficult. Eradicating the Chicago outbreak took ten years [Poland et al. 2021]; eradicating the Brooklyn infestation took 23 years [APHIS ALB newsletter]. Massachusetts might be on the verge of eradicating the Worcester outbreak twelve years after it was detected because only one infested tree was found in 2020 [Felicia Hubacz at Northeast Forest Pest Council meeting, March 2021]

Eradication entails removing large numbers of trees – more than 171,000 in the Northeast and Midwest; and pesticide treatment of at least 800,000 [Poland et al. 2021]. Tens of thousands of trees must be inspected – especially in areas with significant woodland areas like the South Carolina site. In Clermont County, Ohio, 3,500,000 trees have been surveyed in the regulated area – which is 56 square miles [APHIS newsletter]

In South Carolina, APHIS and the state are already regulating 72.6 mi² — and that is before the full extent of the infestation has been delimited. This regulated area is larger than the Ohio and New York regulated areas, although smaller than that in Massachusetts (110 mi² Coyle et al.). As of February 2021, 4,425 infested trees have been identified (APHIS newsletter]. Ninety-eight percent are red maples; half of the others are willows (Coyle et al.) In May 2021, APHIS expanded the quarantine zone to 76.4 square miles (APHIS press release May 21, 2021).

So APHIS and South Carolina face a great deal of hard work. But acreage and numbers of trees affected don’t convey the real extent of the challenge.

The first challenge is anticipating the timing of events in the ALB life cycle. Scientists understand a great deal about the ALB life cycle. However, that knowledge all applies to areas with temperate climates such as the U.S. northeast, southern Canada, and Europe. South Carolina has a subtropical climate. How will the warmer climate affect the beetle’s speed of development, timing of emergence, etc. Already, dendrologial studies indicate that the ALB in South Carolina might complete development from egg to mature adult much faster – in less than a year rather than one to four years (Coyle et al.)

working conditions in the South Carolina swamps;
photo by David Coyle

An even bigger challenge will be trying to carry out searches for infested trees and standard responses. Removing infested trees and removing or applying pesticides to at-risk host trees is standard practice. Much of the regulated area has standing water and/or saturated soil. These conditions – plus the presence of venomous snakes and alligators – make visual surveys from the ground or by tree climbers difficult. Use of lifts and bucket trucks will be impossible. When infested trees are found, felling trees in swampy conditions presents a heighted risk for felling crews. And it will be impossible to operate the equipment needed to remove or chip infested trees (Coyle et al.). I believe it is impossible to use soil injection to treat at-risk trees under such conditions.

SOURCES

Coyle, D.R., R.T. Trotter, M.S. Bean, and S.E. Pfister. 2021. First Recorded Asian Longhorned Beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) Infestation in the Southern United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2021) 12(1): 10; 1–6

Krishnankutty, S., H. Nadel, A.M. Taylor, M.C. Wiemann, Y. Wu, S.W. Lingafelter, S.W. Myers, and A.M. Ray. 2020b. Identification of Tree Genera Used in the Construction of Solid Wood-Packaging Materials That Arrived at U.S. Ports Infested With Live Wood-Boring Insects. Commodity Treatment and Quarantine Entomology

Poland, T.M., T. Patel-Weynand, D.M. Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M. Lopez. 2021. Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. Springer.

USDA APHIS Asian longhorned beetle monthly newsletter for March 2021. Sign up here https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/pests-diseases/asian-longhorned-beetle/ALB-eNewsletter

Posted by Faith Campbell

Pests in Northeastern Forests: What’s Alarming, What’s Not

map showing spread of beech scale, which facilitates beech bark disease

I recently participated in the 2021 annual meeting of the Northeast Forest Pest Council (virtual, of course). Speakers – most of them from state forestry agencies, but including students – presented a disturbing picture. Numerous established insects and diseases continue to spread. In some cases, they are resurging after weather-caused slow-downs. There are also a few bright spots.

The Alarming

To me the most alarming situation is that for American beech – because all three threats continue to expand.

Beech bark disease Since 2000, BBD has spread across southern Quebec into Ontario, Michigan, and Wisconsin; the Blue Ridge in Virginia; and central New Jersey.

Beech leaf disease Originally discovered near Cleveland in 2012, BLD has been spreading, primarily eastward.

BLD was detected for the first time in Massachusetts, in Plymouth and Bristol counties (on the coast North of Cape Cod). It might also be in Worcester. Both American and European beech trees of all sizes are affected; some of the largest are “on the verge” of death. (Felicia Hubacz)

The first detections in New Jersey are in Bergen and Essex counties – bordering southern New York. Both detections were by members of the public. Rosa Yoo says there is confusion about which state agency has the lead, so no official notices have been published (although the detection is recorded on the map). She hopes to establish long-term monitoring plots.

West Virginia now says that BLD is present in Tomlinson Run State Park in Hancock County. Kristen Carrington plans to focus detection efforts on the state’s norther panhandle which rises along the Pennsylvania border. She has established seven long-term monitoring plots.

Meanwhile, states where BLD was detected earlier continue to add new counties to the list of those infested. In New York, five new counties have been recorded. All the New York State finds have been on public lands, so the map doesn’t present the full picture (Carlson). In Connecticut, the disease is in all coastal counties and is more scattered in inland areas. Connecticut has set up some long-term monitoring plots. (Stafford)

New York is also trying to identify insect species associated with beech trees and beech litter – as a first step in trying to determine whether any vector the nematode that is thought to cause the disease. I suggest that it is also useful to understand which arthropod species might be at risk as beech decline. Don’t folks often lament the lack of this information for chestnut? Aren’t scientists praised for compiling initial lists for insects associated with ash?

Beech leaf mining weevil According to Jeff Ogden of the Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry, this weevil has defoliated trees on 5987 hectares. First detected near Halifax in 2012, the weevil is now found throughout Nova Scotia. Some trees near Halifax have died. Ogden believes the weevil could be spread on movement of logs with bark and leaf litter. Camping is very popular in Nova Scotia, so the firewood risk appears real.

Also alarming is the resurgence of hemlock woolly adelgid across the region. HWA had been suppressed for a few years by harsh winters, but that reprieve is over. HWA is in 52 of 55 West Virginia counties (Kristen Carrington). Newly detected outbreaks are found across Pennsylvania and in the Adirondacks of New York. HWA continues to spread north – slowly – in New Hampshire and Vermont. In Nova Scotia, the outbreak detected in 2018 is spreading slowly to the West (Jeff Ogden).

All states are releasing a variety of biocontrol agents, often Laricobius nigrinus but also L. osakensis. Various agents have been released for decades — for example, Connecticut has released more than 125,000 agents over more than 20 years. I do hope the two Laricobius beetles prove to be more effective in controlling the agelgid.

Several states note that elongate hemlock scale (Fiorinia externa) is now at least as damaging as the adelgid.

Pennsylvania is growing hemlocks for restoration purposes; New Jersey has begun a similar program. See my earlier blog about efforts to breed hemlocks resistant to the adelgid, available here.

Spotted lanternfly is now established in nine states — from Ohio and West Virginia to Connecticut. It continues to spread. In the longer-established infestation areas of southeastern Pennsylvania, black walnut has been severely damaged by early instar larvae. In New Jersey, eight counties are under quarantine, but the insect has been detected much more broadly. The newest state is Connecticut, which found populations in several counties and is drafting quarantine regulations. Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont have found some egg masses or evidence of infestation on goods entering from Pennsylvania, but not yet an established population.

The Not So Alarming — but Still Concerning

Asian Longhorned Beetle Massachusetts is consistently finding fewer trees infested by the ALB. In 2020, they found only one! It was isolated in the middle of a golf course. Intensive surveys and trapping in the vicinity found no other infested tree.

This is great news! However, I worry that resources will be withdrawn too soon – especially with APHIS’ need to fund an eradication program for the same pest in a swampy forest area in South Carolina where it will be difficult to work. Already Massachusetts reported that it has fewer traps and staff, and some difficulties accessing the lure.

Early Detection Efforts

New Jersey and West Virginia have carried out surveys of sassafras stands for the redbay ambrosia beetle (also here). West Virginia is also surveying for Phytophthora ramorum (the sudden oak death pathogen) and walnut twig beetle (vector of thousand cankers disease). Funding for surveys of the former probably came from USFS Forest Health Protection; for the latter, from APHIS. I applaud these “early detection” efforts.

Too Late for “Early Detection” but Getting Welcome the Attention

New Hampshire noted rising concern about Jumping worms. The state has received 48 complaints since 2017; 43 of these were in 2020. This led to a spirited discussion about invasive worms’ impacts. Don Eggen noted that concern focuses on soils in unglaciated regions. Non-native worms can destroy the duff layer. Most of the research has been carried out in the Midwest. See my earlier blogs about invasive earthworms here.

Tim Tomon reported that the USFS Morgantown WV research office has sampled the Allegheny NF. They have found other invasive earthworms but not jumping worms. Rosa Yoo of New Jersey alerted participants to the jumping worm research and management group – JWORM

Other Updates

Beech leaf disease

The USDA Forest Service has published a Pest Alert on BLD. Google it now. When a url becomes available I will update this notice. The flyer includes contact information for a site that provides both detection training and a place to record your finds.

Sudden Oak Death

The EU1 strain was detected in forest trees in Del Norte County, California in autumn 2020. This detection was both the first officially confirmed detection of P. ramorum in Del Norte County and the first detection of the EU1 strain in forest trees in California. The source is unclear. The nearest infestation is 12 miles away, along the Winchuk River in Curry County, OR; those trees are infected with the NA1 strain. The nearest known EU1 infestation is about 35 miles away. The site of the California EU1 infestation has minimal California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica). This detection has led to designation of Del Norte County as officially infested; it becomes the 16^th California county so designated. [Information from the California Oak Mortality Task Force newsletter for December 2020, available here.]

Posted by Faith Campbell

Congressional Action to Protect Trees from Non-Native Pests

Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont has reintroduced his bill to improve programs intended to prevent introduction of non-native forest pests and enhance efforts to reduce their impacts. The latter provisions include support for breeding trees resistant (or tolerant) to the pest. I hope H.R. 1389 will be adopted – then spur new efforts to conserve and restore forest trees! Please follow my suggestion below.

The Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act H.R. 1389 is co-sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Annie Kuster & Chris Pappas (NH), and Elise Stefanik (NY).

For updates, visit https://www.congress.gov/search?q={%22congress%22:[%22117%22],%22source%22:%22all%22,%22search%22:%22HR%201389%22}&searchResultViewType=expande

When he introduced the bill, Rep. Welch said

“Invasive species are devastating to forests which are a central part of Vermont’s economy and our way of life. This bill will fund efforts to revitalize damaged forests and highlight the need for making this a priority within the federal government.”

Major provisions of H.R. 1389:

Expands USDA APHIS’ access to emergency funding to combat invasive species when existing federal funds are insufficient and broadens the range of actives that these funds can support.
Establishes a grant program to support institutions focused on researching methods to restore native tree species that have been severely damaged by invasive pests.
Authorizes funding to implement promising research findings on how to protect native tree species.
Mandates a study to identify actions needed to overcome the lack of centralization and prioritization of non-native insect and pathogen research and response within the federal government, and develop national strategies for saving tree species.

As I have described in earlier blogs, the measures adopted by federal and state governments to prevent non-native pathogen and insect pest introductions – and the funding to support this work – have been insufficient to meet the growing challenges. In just the past decade, several new tree-killing pests have been detected: polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, spotted lanternfly, two rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogens, Mediterranean oak beetle, velvet longhorned beetle. Over the same period, the Asian longhorned beetle has been detected in Ohio and South Carolina; the emerald ash borer expanded its range from 14 to 35 states; the redbay ambrosia beetle and its associated fungus spread from five states to 11; a second strain of the sudden oak death fungus appeared in Oregon forests; and whitebark pine has been proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

During this same period, funding for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection program has been cut by about 50%; funding for USFS Research projects targetting 10 high-profile non-native pests has been cut by about 70%.

One reason for this disconnect between need and resources is that the non-native tree pest problem is largely out of sight and therefore does not lend itself to the long-term public attention needed to remediate the threats. It is up to us to raise the political profile of these issues.

On the positive side, the passage of time has brought forth new solutions, a deeper understanding of the genetics of plants and animals, new measures for igniting public awareness and invasive identification, new technologies and strategies for helping trees adapt, and a recognition of what resources and organization it will take to mount a proper solution to the problem.

“Project CAPTURE” (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation) has proposed priority species for enhanced conservation efforts. Top priorities in the continental states are listed below. A separate study is under way for forests in Hawai`i, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

Florida torreya (Torreya taxifolia)
American chestnut (Castanea dentata)
Allegheny chinquapin (C. pumila)
Ozark chinquapin (C. pumila var. ozarkensis)
redbay (Persea borbonia)
Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
pumpkin ash (F. profunda)
Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana)
Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus)
butternut (Juglans cinerea)
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
white ash (Fraxinus americana)
black ash (F. nigra)
green ash (F. pennsylvanica).

For a brief explanation of Project CAPTURE, see my earlier blog here. For an in-depth description of the Project CAPTURE process and criteria for setting priorities, read Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, and G. Man. 2019. Important Insect and Disease Threats to United States Tree Species and Geographic Patterns of Their Potential Impacts. Forests 2019, 10. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/58290

Please ask your representative to co-sponsor H.R. 1389. Please ask your senators to sponsor a companion bill. For more information, contact Alex Piper at Alex.Piper@mail.house.gov or 202-306-6569 .

H.R. 1389 is endorsed by Vermont Woodlands Association, American Forest Foundation, Center for Invasive Species Prevention, the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition,, Entomological Society of America, and North American Invasive Species Management Association.

Posted by Faith Campbell