Category: funding

Plant invasions grow everywhere

invasion of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)

A decade ago I posted a blog reporting that 39% of forests surveyed under the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) system were invaded by one or more invasive plants (Oswald et al. 2015). By regions, Hawai`i had the highest invasion intensity – 70%. The second highest density was in the eastern forests – 46%. Forests in the West ranked third, with 11% of plots containing at least one of the monitored invasive plant species. Finally, forests in Alaska and the Intermountain regions both had 6% of plots invaded.

I rejoice that US Forest Service scientists have continued to analyze their data on plant invasions. Analysis of the most recent data shows alarming increases in invasions everywhere since 2015. However, the scientists could not determine a nation-wide percentage because many areas in the West had not yet been surveyed anew. They did determine that the number of inventory plots containing invasive plant species rose in 58.9% of surveyed counties. Furthermore, in 73.2% of the counties the plots experienced an increase in species richness of invading plant species. While increases were observed in all regions, they were greater in the East than in the West — and in the USFS Southern region compared to the Northern region. Specifically, the proportion of forest plots in the East (USFS Southern and Northern regions) invaded has risen from 46% to 52.8%. In the Rocky Mountains they rose from 6% to 11%. In Hawai`i plots having invasive plants grew from 70% to 83.2%. Surveys in the Pacific Coast states have not yet been completed so this region is not included in the analysis (Potter et al. 2026). It is not clear to me how the current boundaries of the western regions – which are based on Bailey’s ecosystem boundaries relate to the 2015 boundaries, which were based on USFS official regions. Hawai`i is clearly the same.  

Porter et al. (2026) concluded that in the forests of the East plant invasions are so extensive that elimination of their impacts is practically impossible.  Their spread to new areas is unhindered now and, I would add, is likely to remain so without heroic counter measures.

Forests in the East have a greater mean richness of invasive plant species than do western forests. In particular, there is a profusion of shrubs and vines as well as trees. The West has a greater diversity of invasive forbs. The diversity of invasive grasses is high in both regions.

kudzu (Pueraria montana) spreading from edge into forest in Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

Potter at al. (2026) worry that the apparently lower level of plant invasions in the West might be an artifact of a higher proportion of plant species being at an earlier stage of invasion. That is, the species have not yet established sufficiently widely to be classified as invasive.

thicket of guava (Psidium cattleianum ) replacing ohia killed by ROD; Hawai`i Island; photo by F.T. Campbell

Of course, the situation in Hawai`i is much worse. Another, more detailed, discussion of invasive plant species in Hawai`i pointed out that relying on data reflecting canopy-level trees obscures the real picture. While “only” 29% of large trees across the Islands are non-native, about two-thirds of saplings and seedlings are. Potter et al. (2023) expected that plant succession will result in non-native tree species taking over the canopy. This likelihood exists regardless of the impact of rapid ‘ohi’a death since ‘ohi’a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) is not reproducing even when seed sources are plentiful and people remove invasive forbs and grasses Potter et al. (2023).

The nation-wide analysis of Potter et al. (2026) does not include forests on U.S. Caribbean islands, i.e., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. See here for a description of this situation. In summary, 33 of 57 (58%) of non-native tree species tallied by FIA surveyors are actual or potential high-impact bioinvaders. Furthermore, 21 (38%) of the non-native species occurred on at least 2% of the FIA plots – far above the seven species fitting this description in the continental U.S.

As these sources, and those with a broader perspective, demonstrate that we should not ignore invasions of our forests by non-native plants. These species erode forest productivity and provision of the full range of ecosystem services, hinder shifting (?) forest uses, and degrade biodiversity and habitat.

These invasions also impose extensive financial costs from lost or damaged resources (Potter et al. ( 2022). Potter et al. (2026) note that these negative outcomes depend on interactions between the traits of the non-native plants and the biomes being invaded. These impacts are greatly exacerbated in Hawai`i because more than 95% of native species on the Islands are endemic. This includes 67% of the large trees still present in the forests. As Potter et al. (2023) point out, extirpation of any of these species is a global loss.

ʻōhiʻa lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha); photo by F.T. Campbell

Data issues

Potter et al. (2026) note that in the Northern region only about 20% of plots were surveyed for invasive plants. They state that these difference in sampling intensity does not affect statistical analyses across broad scales.

The regional lists of invasive plants were developed by experts. They include those species thought at the time to be most damaging. Of course, there are other non-native plant species that might be present – and some might prove to be invasive over time (Potter et al. 2026). I have been unable to determine whether the regional lists are updated periodically. Because of this structure of the FIA system, these surveys can assess only spread of already-established species. It is not suitable for early detection of new species entering the forest.

For all these reasons, the analyses in Porter et al. (2026) probably underestimate the total abundance of non-native plant species in U.S. forests. Indeed, the time lag between introduction or even identification of invasive species and their eventual ecological and economic impact obscures their full impact. This ever-increasing invasion debt probably contributes to decisions not to implement effective countermeasures.  

Recommendations

How do we set priorities for responding to nearly unmanageable situations? We sharpen our focus on the most damaging pathways of introduction, the most vulnerable regions, and the most at-risk species.

The high-risk pathways are imports of plants for planting and wood – including but not limited to crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging.

Vulnerable regions start with the Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; and include many biodiversity-rich areas on the continent. We should enhance monitoring of these vulnerable regions by federal, state, and tribal agencies, conservation organizations, citizen scientists, and others. Surveys must report all non-native plant present, not just those already known to be invasive. These data will improve detection of new species and better inform us about factors affecting species’ spread.

Also, I support Potter et al.’s (2026) emphasis on the wildland-urban interface as an area of high human-environment conflict.These include, but are not limited to, plant invasions. The authors point out that we need new policy, management, and scientific tools to address threats in these vulnerable and too-often ignored social and ecological zones.

This increase in available information must be paired with management of the factors that facilitate invasion. Some of these are associated with ecosystems. But the key target must be plant species being brought into the region by people for various purposes. This is often for ornamental horticulture.

lesser celandine (Ficaria verna) dominating herb layer in a Virginia forest; photo by F.T. Campbell

We must ask state legislatures and Congress to empower  regulatory agencies – e.g., their state departments of agriculture and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – to be far more more assertive and pro-active. For example, they must give higher priority to the full range of ecological and economic impacts of invading plants, not just damage to agriculture.

Evans et al. (2024) urged prioritizing for state regulation those species in the ornamental trade that are projected to remain or become abundant under evolving climate conditions. Beaury et al. (2023) called for regulating the nursery trade at the national level – reflecting the scope of sales.   

SOURCES

Beaury, E.M., J.M. Allen, A.E. Evans, M.E. Fertakos, W.G. Pfadenhauer, B.A. Bradley. 2023. Horticulture could facilitate invasive plant range infilling and range expansion with climate change. BioScience 2023 0 1-8 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad069

Evans, A.E., C.S. Jarnevich, E.M. Beaury, P.S. Engelstad, N.B. Teich, J.M. LaRoe, B.A. Bradley. 2024. Shifting hotspots: Climate change projected to drive contractions and expansions of invasive plant abundance habitats. Diversity and Distributions 2024;30:4154

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

Potter, K.M., B.V. Iannone III, K.H. Riitters, Q. Guo, K. Pandit, C.M. Oswalt. 2026. US Forests are Increasingly Invaded by Problematic Non-Native Plants. Forest Ecology and Management 599 (2026) 123281

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

Potter, K.M., K.H. Riitters, B.V. Iannone, III, Q. Guo and S. Fei. 2024. Forest plant invasions in eastern US: evidence of invasion debt in the wildland‑urban interface. Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:207   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01985-y

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

Invasive plants threaten integrity of eastern U.S. forests

garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata); photo by Katja Schulz via Wikimedia

I welcome a recent series of studies documenting the extent of plant invasions in forests of the eastern United States and the socio-economic conditions that contribute to a state of affairs increasingly recognized as a crisis. I wish, however, that the authors had devoted more attention to the role of deliberate planting of non-native species and the resulting propagule pressure.

I summarize here findings of two studies written by largely the same scientists and relying on the same underlying data: surveys of forest plots conducted under the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. In this blog, if focus on the extent of invasive plant presence in the forests of the eastern United States. In an accompanying blog I will summarize the status of plant invasions in forests nation-wide.

As I have noted in earlier blogs, link a decade ago one or more invasive plant species had already invaded 46% of FIA plots in the eastern U.S. (Oswald et al. 2015). This situation has worsened. Updated data show that 52.8% of these plots contain invasive plants. In the USFS Southern Region, invasive plants have been documented on 55.3 million ha. In the Northern Region, they are found on 36.9 million ha. (Only ~20% of FIA plots in the Northern Region were surveyed for invasive plants.) In some counties of the 37 states constituting these two USFS regions, 80% of inventoried forest plots contain invasive plants. Areas with lower levels of invasion are found in parts of New England, the Great Lakes states, southern Appalachians, southeastern coastal plain, and western Texas and Oklahoma (Potter et al. 2026). Spread of these bioinvaders is largely unchecked – either throughout the East or “just” in the South. In any case, the extent and intensity of these invasions are so great that their complete removal – or elimination of their impacts – is “practically impossible” (Potter et al., 2024; Potter et al. 2026). [It is not clear whether the scientists mean “nearly” or “in practice”. Or that this difference is important.]

[In comparison, in the West less than 30% of FIA plots are invaded, on average. In Hawai`i, more than70% are (Potter et al. 2026).]

The scientists analyzing the FIA data warn that the extent and impact of plant invasions in eastern forests is undoubtedly worse than these data indicate. The records include only some of the non-native plant species present — those considered to be the worst invaders at the time regional lists were compiled – apparently in the first years of the 21st Century (Potter et al. 2026).

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) photo by Chuck Bargeron

The scientists emphasize the role of disturbance in promoting plant invasions. They cite various studies as well as the FIA data to document that forest edges facilitate non-native plant establishment and spread into forests. They stress various aspects of suburban development, including roads and other transportation corridors. It follows that invasion rates are highest in the “wildland-urban interface (WUI).” [The wildlife-urban interface is the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development; the zone where structures meet or intermix with undeveloped land and its vegetation.] They worry that the WUI is growing faster than any other land use type in the country – and especially rapidly in the East. As a result, the scientists expect more and worse invasions in the future (Potter et al., 2024 and Potter et al. 2026).

I appreciate that they highlight the uniqueness of WUI ecosystems. Housing development in the WUI has numerous effects on natural ecosystems, including habitat modification and fragmentation followed by diffusion of the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic activities into neighboring ecosystems at different scales. As regards specifically non-native plants, this transmission occurs through a combination of (1) human-driven disturbances to native ecosystems that promote plant invasion and (2) providing a source of non-native plant propagules in their yards and gardens. These plants can then spread into and establish in nearby ecosystems (in this case, forests). [I note that tree-killing arthropods and pathogens also can be introduced in the WUI.] (Scroll below “Archives” to “Categories”, click on “forest pests” and “wood packaging”.)

They also found that plant invasions are more strongly related to older, than more recent, land-cover changes. Survey plots that have been located in the WUI since 1990 or earlier had on average 2.6% more invasive plant cover and 0.33 more invasive plant species than those that were classified as being in the WUI in 2000 or 2010. Their explanation is that the WUI forests experienced decreased spatial integrity, increased forest-developed area edges, and falling proportions of forest in the surrounding landscapes. In addition, the human population in the vicinity might have grown. All these factors that would increase forest fragmentation and the plots’ susceptibility to invasion.

The other side of the coin is propagule pressure. Both Potter et al (2024) and Potter et al. (2026) note that the flora of residential landscapes – rural as well as suburban – is typically dominated by non-native plant species. Still, I think these studies downplay the impact of this ubiquity of non-native plants in all anthropogenic landscapes.

In discussing the higher invasion rates found in survey plots located in WUIs dating from the 1990s they made no mention of human activities that promote plant invasions. There are several. Plants growing in those older yards had one or two more decades to flower – and for their fruits and seeds to be transported into the forest by birds, wind, or water. Residents might have decided to beautify their neighborhood by planting shrubs or flowers in the woods. Maybe they succumbed to the temptation to dump yard waste in the woods – thinking it would be absorbed by “nature”. Since plant invasions take time to unfold, these additional years of human-mediated exposure are highly relevant. Another factor is that people who choose to live in wooded surroundings probably choose horticultural plants that thrive under such conditions – exactly those best able to establish beyond the property line.

Another opportunity to discuss these factors came from the discovery that plant invasion rates are higher in association with “interface” rather than “intermix” WUI forests. [“WUI interface forests” are those where settled areas abut wildlands. In “WUI intermix forests” the structures are scattered.] They speculate about reasons. Potter, et al. (2024) mention that invasions originating from older housing developments have had more time to establish (or at least to be detected) given the well-known lag associated with plant invasions.

I wish they had focused more on the probable difference in suburban development across time. While I was growing up in expanding suburbs in the 1950s, I observed that the earlier housing developments were either built on land that had been cleared to support agriculture or the builders cleared the forest to make construction easier and cheaper. More recently, wealthier buyers have sought residences on more wooded sites – so creating an “intermix” WUI. Potter et al. (2024) speculate that locations in the “interface” WUI are closer to high-density urbanization so have higher exposure to non-native plants. They do not discuss whether the “interface” WUIs are older, thus giving associated plantings longer years to proceed through the stages of bioinvasion.

burning bush (Euonymus alatus) invading a forest in Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

The Role of Deliberate Planting?

I recognize that these authors analyzed mountains of data. However, I wish they had incorporated the findings of numerous scientists who have analyzed the role of deliberate planting – especially ornamental horticulture – in facilitating introduction and spread of invasive plants. (Scroll below “Archives” to “Categories” and click on “invasive plants”. Also See Reichard and White 2001 and Mack 2000).

As I hope USFS scientists are aware, recent studies confirm the continuing role of ornamental horticulture in plant invasions. Kinlock et al. (2025) blog 440 found that more than 1,600 plant species sold by nursery and seed catalogs over 200 years had “naturalized” somewhere in the continental 48 states. They do not discuss what proportion of these species are truly damaging invaders. Fertakos and Bradley (2024) found that species were likely to establish if they were introduced to as few as eight locations. Beaury et al. (2024) found that half of 89 plant species recognized as invasive are sold in the same locations where they are invasive. Another 25 species are sold by one or more nurseries located in an area that is currently unsuitable for those species, but that will become more suitable for invasion as temperatures warm.

Potter et al. (2026) acknowledge that the ornamental plant trade is likely to continue introducing new plant species into U.S. forests. However, they recommend only updating the lists of invasive plants to be included in future surveys. Apparently these lists have not been updated since 2004.

Potter et al. (2024) go farther, urging efforts to encourage homeowners to plant more native and environmentally friendly private landscapes. They note that such advocacy is complicated by the fact that non-native – even invasive – species provide valued ecosystem and cultural services.

I add that the nursery industry and their customers enjoy enormous lobbying clout.

Many associations – native plant societies, regional or state invasive plant councils, etc. – are pursuing this approach. To research these efforts, visit the websites for the state native plant societies and the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council, Mid-Atlantic Invasive Plant Council, and Midwest Invasive Plant Network. These voluntary efforts have yielded some success. But they have not resulted in adequate protection for our ecosystems. Dr. Douglas Tallamy points out that even non-invasive, non-native plants disrupt food webs.

The insufficient attention to the role of the plant trade in articles intended to be comprehensive has crucially important impacts. As both Potter, et al. (2024) and Potter et al. (2026) affirm, determining which factors are most important in facilitating plant invasions of eastern American forests is the necessary foundation for identifying and implementing the most efficient and effective counter measures.

These scientists are employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If departmental leadership interpret their studies as justifying inaction on regulating plant sales, USDA’s regulatory agencies will not respond. And we will continue failing to curtail introduction and spread of damaging plant invasions.

I agree with the authors on the need for enhanced monitoring and management of WUI zones in the East to detect new species or new locations of invasion and the need to develop better tools for these purposes. However, I ask all stakeholders to follow Evans et al. (2024), who urge prioritizing for state regulation those species in the ornamental trade that are projected to remain or become abundant under evolving climate conditions. Or, more aggressively, follow Beaury et al. (2023)’s call for regulating the nursery trade in a manner consistent with the scope of the horticultural trade at the national level. That would require legislation, since the Federal Noxious Weed Act does not currently address long-established, widespread species. Beaury et al. (2023) also note that existing state restrictions are outdated, tend to include only a few weeds that plague agriculture rather than those that invade natural systems, and are irregularly enforced.

orchids in Everglades National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

I conclude by agreeing with the scientists that managing the disturbance component of plant invasions points to protecting particularly forests of high conservation value. They suggest adoption of land-use planning rules aimed at this goal. However, as they point out, such action will be extremely unlikely given the magnitude of predicted land-use changes in the country and powerful demographic factors driving them. I would add other barriers: the lobbying clout of the real estate industry and homeowners plus the local nature of zoning decisions.

SOURCES

Beaury, E.M., J.M. Allen, A.E. Evans, M.E. Fertakos, W.G. Pfadenhauer, B.A. Bradley. 2023. Horticulture could facilitate invasive plant range infilling and range expansion with climate change. BioScience 2023 0 1-8 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad069

Evans, A.E., C.S. Jarnevich, E.M. Beaury, P.S. Engelstad, N.B. Teich, J.M. LaRoe, B.A. Bradley. 2024. Shifting hotspots: Climate change projected to drive contractions and expansions of invasive plant abundance habitats. Diversity and Distributions 2024;30:4154

Fertakos, M.E. and B.A. Bradley. 2024. Propagule pressure from historic U.S. plant sales explains establishment but not invasion. Ecology Letters 2024;27:e14494  doi: 10.1111/ele.14494

Kinlock, N.L., D.W. Adams, W. Dawson, F. Essl, J. Kartesz, H. Kreft, M. Nishino, Jan Pergl, P. Pyšek, P. Weigelt and M. van Kleunen. 2025. Naturalization of ornamental plants in the United States depends on cultivation and historical land cover context. Ecography 2025: e07748 doi: 10.1002/ecog.07748

Oswalt, C.M., S. Fei, Q. Guo, B.V. Iannone III, S.N. Oswalt, B.C. Pijanowski, K.M. Potter. 2016. A subcontinental view of forest plant invasions. NeoBiota. 24:49-54 http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/48489

Potter, K.M., K.H. Riitters, B.V. Iannone III, Q. Guo and S. Fei. 2024. Forest plant invasions in the eastern United States: evidence of invasion debt in the wildland‑urban interface. Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:207 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01985-y

Potter, K.M., B.V. Iannone III, K.H. Riitters, Q. Guo, K. Pandit, C.M. Oswalt. 2026. US Forests are Increasingly Invaded by Problematic Non-Native Plants. Forest Ecology and Management 599 (2026) 123281

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

A New Year …Will there be a new priority on countering invasive species?

Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis); one of the species vulnerable to Phytophthora austrocedri; APHIS has determined it is too late to try to slow its spread. Photo by Nucatum amygdalarum via Wikimedia

On 30 December 2025, US Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins issued a Secretary’s Memorandum setting five new priorities for research and development. One is to protect agriculture from invasive species. Another is to resolve longstanding trade barriers due to sanitary and phytosanitary concerns.

The Secretary’s intention is to strengthen US agriculture to benefit both farmers and consumers. He justifies the action by claiming that President Lincoln’s original purpose in establishing USDA was to acquire and diffuse useful information on subjects connected with agriculture. According to this interpretation, Lincoln recognized that working to improve agriculture and secure the nation’s food supply would benefit everyone. The emphasis on research and development was reiterated by the almost simultaneous adoption of the Morrill Act of 1862, which created the system of land-grant universities and development of the Cooperative Extension System via the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.

The memorandum specifies five priority areas of research to be pursued by all USDA agencies and offices – to the maximum extent permitted by law and in accordance with any applicable regulations and procedural requirements.

  1. Increasing Profitability of Farmers & Ranchers — especially reducing volatility in profitability. Goals include reducing inputs or increasing mechanization and automation.
  2. Expanding Markets for US agricultural products. Two approaches are mentioned: generating science and data to resolve longstanding sanitary and phytosanitary trade barriers; and expanding use of agricultural commodities in novel biobased products and bioenergy.
  3. Protecting the Integrity of American agriculture from Invasive Species. The memorandum lists four examples of current invasive pest and pathogen threats: new world screwworm in Mexico; continued westward expansion of spotted lanternfly; persistence of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry flocks; and citrus greening. It notes that invasive species threaten both agriculture and natural resources. The research is to focus on new and effective methods for preventing, detecting, controlling,and eradicating these threats.
  4. Promoting Soil Health to Regenerate Long-Term Productivity of Land. The research is to promote soil health practices, increase water-use efficiency, & reduce the need for inputs.
  5. Improving Human Health through Precision Nutrition and Food Quality. Research on “precision nutrition” is said to improve understanding of how healthy dietary patterns impact individuals. Research will also focus on increasing foods’ nutritional content and quality.
Vaccinium myrtillus (photo by Anneli Salo via WikiMedia); one of several species in genera shared with North America that are infected by Phytophthora spp in the Italian alps

The memorandum also instructs USDA’s Office of the Chief Scientist (that is, the Under Secretary for Research, Education, & Economics) to coordinate these priorities within USDA and among key partners in other federal agencies.

Does This Policy Mean Substantially Stronger USDA Efforts to Counter Bioinvasions?

Can we expect new energy in USDA’s programs aimed at managing non-native forest pests and invasive plants that damage forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other natural systems? The first paragraph of the memorandum states that it is USDA policy to reaffirm a focus on the Department’s original objectives of maximizing and promoting American agriculture; ensuring a safe, nutritious, and secure food supply; enhancing rural prosperity; and protecting our National Forests & Grasslands. That is promising.

The explicit recognition that invasive species pose severe threats to both agriculture and natural resources is also promising. I welcome the inclusion of two plant pests among the examples. Livestock diseases usually receive far more attention in USDA pronouncements.

I note three caveats:

  • The prominence of enhancing markets for US agricultural exports (# 2). In the past, this longstanding emphasis has led to undercutting phytosanitary agencies’ ability to counter suspected — but incompletely understood — pest risks. I discussed the impracticality of determining a newly detected species’ probable impacts in Chapter 3 of my report, Fading Forests II.
  • The memorandum makes no reference to implementing stronger sanitary or phytosanitary policies. In my view, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has sufficient knowledge to support adoption of a more assertive regulatory stance with regard to both new introductions and spread within the country? Does the memorandum signal support for such a stance by high-ranking USDA officials?

These officials have often reminded APHIS that it is not a research agency.  However, its staff do “methods development” and it funds considerable research through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Programs – Section 7721 of the Plant Protection Act and a matching program for animal diseases.

  • The US Forest Service does have a research division – although the Trump Administration proposed its virtual elimination in early 2025. The Congressional appropriators have provided funding for USFS R&D – but those bills have not yet been enacted into law. I have complained for years that USFS R&D allocates too few resources (about 1% of the total budget) to research on introduced pests and disease pathogens. Might this new directive help fix this problem?

I hope the emphasis on protecting National Forests & Grasslands does not result in narrowing the types of invasive pests addressed.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

US imports continue falling … expected to sink further in 2026

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

The Neglected Agrilus

I, and many others, have given much attention to the emerald ash borer (EAB), a species in the Agrilus genus. This attention is deserved. In 30 years EAB has spread from then-localized infestations in Michigan and Ontario to natural and urban ash ecosystems across North America. The EAB is spreading in Europe, too.

coast live oak killed by GSOB at Heisey State Park, San Diego County, California; photo by F.T. Campbell

We have paid far less attention to a second Agrilus, the goldspotted oak borer (GSOB), Agrilus auroguttatus. In roughly 30 years, the GSOB infestation has become the primary agent of oak mortality across much of southern California, an area of roughly 37 million square miles. This is bigger than the combined land areas of West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.

While the number of trees killed has generally expanded slowly, there have been periods of explosive growth. For example, annual mortality was estimated to have reached 40,000 trees in 2017. The officially documented cumulative total is over 142,000. At least one scientist, Joelene Tamm, considers this number to be a significant underestimate; she estimates the true number of trees killed as probably close to 200,000. As she explains (see here), the USFS’ Aerial Detection Surveys is not very effective at capturing mortality within fragmented urban landscapes, narrow riparian corridors, or when the target species have sprawling canopies (as oaks do).

Ravaged oak forests grow on five mountain ranges. People losing valuable resources and paying to manage the invasion include

  • U.S. taxpayers — three National forests have lost oaks; a fourth Forest is on the brink;
  • Residents of California – trees killed in at least four State parks, 10 County parks, and two major private reserves;
  • Native Americans on at least five reservations
  • City dwellers and property owners: up to 300,000 coast live oak trees live in built-up sections of just one heavily infested city, Los Angeles.
areas vulnerable to GSOB

This damage is almost guaranteed to spread in the future. Three oak species host GSOB: coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California black oak (Q. kelloggii), and canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis). The ranges of black and canyon live oak stretch north along the Coastal Mountain Range and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range into southwest Oregon. The range of coast live oak reaches Mendocino County. A risk assessment concluded that GSOB could invade all these regions. Among urban areas, Santa Barbara faces the highest risk because of the large number of oaks in its urban forest. While this county has not yet been invaded by GSOB, the beetle is now in adjacent Ventura County – although at the other end of the county.

GSOB is transported to new locations primarily by the movement of firewood. This means of human-assisted spread almost certainly explains its initial introduction to from southeastern Arizona to California – in eastern San Diego County – in the 1990s. (See here for the explanation why it is unlikely that the beetle would have spread to California through natural dispersal.) It is blamed for the establishment of numerous disjunct populations that propelled its spread. These outbreaks led to recognition of invasions in additional counties in new counties in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, and 2024.

Death of these trees causes numerous ecological impacts. Oaks provide food, habitat, and climate control for hundreds of species. Oak mortality also increases the probability and severity of wildfire. The few natural enemies, including woodpeckers and some parasitoids, are not keeping GSOB populations in check. Urban trees provide important ecological services, including shade which reduces energy use and expense associated with air conditioning; they also reduce storm water runoff. Larger trees – those preferred by GSOB – provide more of these services. Dead oaks not only deny people of these services; they also demand prompt removal to prevent them falling on people or structures; this is done at considerable expense.

GSOB invasions are now known to be present in six counties: San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Since the state has opted out of leading management of the beetle (see below), coordination of these many players presents significant challenges on top of the usual difficulties that hinder most U.S. efforts to reduce threats from non-native forest insects and pathogens:

  • Detection of outbreaks occurs years after the pest’s actual introduction. Locations of disjunct outbreaks are difficult to predict. They fuel more rapid dispersal.
  • The host species are not important commercial timber sources, so key forest stakeholders do not act – despite the tree species’ great ecological importance.
  • USDA APHIS does not engage because GSOB has become a non-native tree-killing organism in a single state (although it was introduced from a separate state – Arizona).

Problems more specific to GSOB are:

  • Some authorities dismiss this invasion because the beetle is native in one U.S. state.
  • California State agencies and the National Park Service have not taken effective action to control movement of the principal vector – in this case, firewood.

Fortunately, a broadening alliance of locals is trying to fill the gaps. These efforts are truly encouraging. Concerned individuals and organizations in Southern California have put together a broad coalition that works to ensure an outbreak-wide response. Participants include staffers in the USDA’s Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service; the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; CalFire; California Department of Conservation; State parks; agencies of four counties; community Fire Safe councils; regional conservation agencies; several Resource Conservation districts; various Tribes and Tribal Nations; and University of California extension. In some counties, there are also geographically-focused coordinating bodies.

Money is scarce, but somehow they manage to carry out detection and monitoring, vigorous outreach and education projects, and — at some sites — treatment of vulnerable trees and removal of “amplifier” trees. Teams working under the umbrella of this coalition have developed GSOB-killing treatments for logs (firewood); search for tools to increase survey efficacy; investigate the area-wide impact of the beetle, and its interaction with drought. Scientists have also explored possible biocontrol agents in the species’ native habitat in Arizona. However, the two parasitic wasps found there are already present in California, where their parasitism rates are much lower.

Some of the participants have been willing to “go political” in search of resources and official actions.

Might this coalition be a model for addressing other pests?

As if GSOB were not a sufficient threat to California’s oaks, several other non-native pests are already established in the state. These include at least seven pests and pathogens:

  • sudden oak death pathogen;
  • three shot hole borers — polyphagous, Kuroshio, and Euwallaceae interjectus; they attack at least  Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), Canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis)
  • Mediterranean oak borer; attacks valley oak (Quercus lobata); blue oak (Q. douglasii); and Oregon oak (Q. garryana).
  • acute oak decline (bacterium Rahnellav victoriana);
  • foamy bark canker (caused by Geosmithia pallida); and
  • possibly two Diplodia fungi.

At least GSOB, SOD, and two of the shot hole borers have received official “zone of infestation” (ZOI) designation by the California Board of Forestry. This designation enables

  • the Board to specify required pest mitigation measures for any timber harvest;
  • the Board & the CalFire authority to enter private properties to abate pest problems if necessary.
  • calls attention to the presence of the pest within the Zone and provides the Department with a talking point to motivate landowners & land managers to address problems caused by the pest in question.

The southern California coalition includes these other bioinvaders in its efforts.

Lobbying by members of the coalition – especially John Kabashima – resulted in the state legislature providing funds to address the invasive shot hole borers (see here and here.)  

Summary of information in the brief  

Tardy detections

Although oak decline was observed in eastern San Diego County as early as 2002, and a GSOB was caught in a survey trap in 2004, the beetle’s role in killing these oaks was identified only in 2008. This detection was followed by the discovery of disjunct infestations were detected in towns surrounded by National forests first in Riverside County (2012), then in Orange County (2014) and Los Angeles County (2015). Outbreaks in San Bernardino County were detected in 2018 – although the beetle had probably been present since 2013. The LA County populations continued to spread, despite management efforts. The obvious danger prompted neighboring Ventura County to initiate surveillance trapping in 2023.  Sure enough, this sixth county found its first outbreaks in 2024. Most of the initial outbreaks have been on private land bordering or surrounded by National forests.

black oak in Cleveland National Forest killed by GSOB; photo by F.T. Campbell

Responses: State, County, and Federal

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) classifies GSOB as a level “B” pest. Pests in this category are known to cause economic or environmental harm; however, their distribution is considered to be “limited”. Efforts to eradicate, contain, suppress, or control the species are at the discretion of individual county agricultural commissioners.

There is some outside support – usually because of the link to increased fire danger. Grants from the National Forest Foundation have enabled local Fire Safe councils, CalFire, and the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD) to conduct surveys and in some cases removal of amplifier trees in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. However, the funds no longer support the earlier practice of spraying at-risk trees.

County-by-County

In Orange County, a coalition of academics from the University of California and scientists with CalFire and USFS are testing various pesticide applications and efficacy of removing heavily infested trees. The county has adopted an Early Detection Rapid Response Plan.

Since the first detection of GSOB in Los Angeles County in 2015, authorities have removed nearly 10,000 “amplifier” trees. Because the Santa Monica Mountains are home to 151,000 oaks, LA County Agricultural Commissioner of Weights and Measures, the Santa Monica Mountain Resource Conservation District (RCD), Los Angeles National Forest and UC Cooperative Extension established a joint “Bad Beetle Watch” program with Ventura County. The program is training agency personnel, tree professionals, and recreationists to detect GSOB. A state agency – Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority – is managing two outbreaks in the Santa Monica Mountains. The Los Angeles County Fire / Forestry Division is surveying the oak-dense San Fernando Valley and Santa Susana Mountains after GSOB was found nearby. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning agency will target oak-dense communities with advocacy for oak woodland health and warnings not to move firewood.

Most encouraging, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is considering declaring a local or state emergency related to the risk of the spread of GSOB in the County and to the Santa Monica Mountains.

Ventura County began trapping at green waste facilities and campgrounds in 2023. Now that GSOB has been detected, several agencies — CalFire, Ventura County Fire, Ventura County Resource Conservation District, California Coastal Conservancy, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, Ventura Fire Safe Council, Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council  as well as the state lands commission and Los Padres National Forest – are gearing up educational programs focused on the risk of GSOB spread to additional areas. The non-governmental organization Tree People helped to spark this effort. Efforts are under way to fund and formalize a regional coalition, with collaboration from California Department of Conservation, CAL FIRE, and UC Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Despite the damage to state parks and the clear nexus with firewood, the California State Park agency encourages – but does not require – campers and picnickers to purchase certified clean firewood on site from camp hosts.

Affected Tribal Lands

Among affected Native American reservations, the La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians has already removed almost one thousand large coast live oak trees in the Tribe’s campground; another thousand trees must be removed in coming years. Since 2019, the Tribe has been applying contact insecticides annually on 200 to 300 trees. In addition, the Tribe is planting seedlings and conducting research in partnership with UC Riverside, San Diego State University, and UC Irvine. Obtaining funds to develop management capacity is a constant challenge.

A second tribe, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, began a systematic survey of its lands in 2022. At that time, they found a light infestation in coast live oaks and some dispersal. Hundreds of dead trees are visible from highways bordering the Mesa Grande, Santa Ysabel, and Los Coyotes reservations. Even reservations that have no oaks on their land are affected because tribal members harvest acorns as a culturally important food.

Private Reserves

Two private reserves in Orange County responded aggressively to arrival of GSOB. The Irvine Ranch Conservancy started active management immediately after detection of GSOB in 2014. Their efforts –  annual surveys, treating lightly infested trees, and removing heavily infested or “amplifier” trees – have paid off: by 2023, only 21 of 187 coast live oaks surveyed had new exit holes – and in most cases only one or two. Weir Canyon is considered a successful control program.

Managers of the California Audubon Starr Ranch Sanctuary began monitoring for GSOB by 2016. No GSOB were detected until 2023. Difficult terrain impedes survey and response. Orange County Fire Authority hired contractors to remove amplifier trees and treat others. Monitoring continues.

Responses by Federal Agencies

The Angeles, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National forests all have extensive and evolving management plans for GSOB. Actions include annual surveys, tree removal and/or treatment, regulating concessionaires’ sources of firewood, and restricting wood harvest permits. Each forest has also partnered with appropriate counties, NGOs, FireSafe councils, and Resource Conservation districts to expand outreach, monitoring, and management. Many of the efforts are centered around communities within and adjacent to National Forest boundaries and recreation sites, since they are the main source of GSOB ingress. Success is not guaranteed. Six years of applying contact insecticides to high-visit recreation sites did not prevent establishment of at least two new infestations on private inholdings in Trabuco Canyon (Cleveland National Forest).

The fourth National Forest in southern California, Los Padres NF – which lies partially in Ventura and Los Angeles counties – has not yet found any GSOB but it is preparing. The Forest conducted a forest health training with heavy emphasis on GSOB in spring 2024 and is in the process of creating its own monitoring and management plan to include preemptive evaluation of environmental concerns under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and planning.

GSOB management is an important facet of the National Forest Wildfire Crisis Strategy implemented by all four National Forests in southern California. Challenges include steep and inaccessible terrain; wilderness designations; designation of sensitive habitat for wildlife, ecological, or heritage sites; and the sheer amount of land managed. Despite this, the forests have expanded their efforts each year. At the National Plant Board meeting in July, Sky Stevens reported that GSOB is one of the priority pests being addressed by the Forest Health Protection program. However, this program has been severely downsized by the Trump Administration, so its ability to assist is unclear. Budgets for individual National forests are also in limbo.

The Issue of Firewood

Several National parks located in California contain important oak forests and woodlands that are also at risk, especially given the importance of firewood in spreading the pest. Yosemite and Kings Canyon-Sequoia National parks and other campgrounds in the Sierra Nevada receive large numbers of campers from the Los Angeles area.

A 2014 National Park Service resource guide for firewood management summarized federal plant pest regulations at the time. These have since changed because emerald ash borer is no longer federally regulated. The guidance advised Park staff to define their park’s forest resources, keep abreast of present and potential forest pest species, and act to manage risks from potentially infested firewood. Park concessioners are required to purchase and sell only locally grown and harvested firewood in accordance with state quarantines. However, California does not have relevant quarantines for either firewood as a commodity or for oak pests specifically. The websites of Yosemite and Kings Canyon-Sequoia National parks ask people not to bring firewood obtained from a source more than 50 miles from the parks.

California does participate in the Firewood Scout program, Firewoodscout.org  which advises campers on local sources from which to purchase their wood. Statewide, a consortium of several agencies, academia, and non-government agencies operates a “Buy It Where You Burn It” campaign that promotes this message with the public and firewood vendors.

Funding is a perpetual problem. No agency, not even CalFire, is funded to remove amplifier trees. The agency does use its crews to remove GSOB infested trees when they can. Most funding for treating infested trees comes from competitive grants awarded by CalFire or National Forest Foundation.

In 2012 the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (which is appointed by the Governor) officially designated a Zone of Infestation (ZOI) for GSOB. The Zone has been expanded as the infestation spread. The Zone of Infestation formally recognizes GSOB as a threat to California’s woodland resources and seeks to raise awareness among the governor, legislature, and public. The action was also intended to foster collaborative efforts to manage the beetle.

Joelene Tamm, Vice Chair of the California Forest Pest Council Southern California Committee (CFPC), is leading an initiative to address wildfire risks from invasive pests, including GSOB, South American Palm Weevil, and the invasive shothole borers. She presented a pest update with potential solutions to the California Board of Forestry (BOF) and followed up with a presentation to the BOF Resource Protection Committee, which is now identifying responsive actions. The Governor’s Wildfire Task Force is considering incorporating the topic into future meetings. The initiative’s core message is that the state must address the root cause of pest proliferation, as treating the symptom of wildfire alone is an unsustainable strategy (Tamm, pers. comm. August 2025).

For more details and sources, visit the GSOB brief here.

[I could find no recent updates about a third Agrilus, the soapberry borer (Agrilus prionurus), which is established in Texas from Mexico and was earlier said to kill the western soapberry (Sapindus saponaria var drummondii). It is established in at least 42 counties, reaching from the Dallas-Ft. Worth area to the Rio Grande valley.

soapberry borer; photo by Texas A&M Forest Service

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

Status of Hawaiian species threatened by bioinvasion

stand of Miconia under albizia overstory on Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell

As I will describe in another blog, participants in the annual meeting of the National Plant Board link in Honolulu learned the basics about the uniqueness of agriculture and native species on remote Pacific islands. I want to complement this information by reminding you about other Hawaiian and Guamaian species at risk – although did not learn anything new.

As Martin and Andreozzi pointed out, the Pacific islands import nearly all their food and other consumables. Considerable interest in some quarters in Hawai`i to increase agricultural production. However, large swaths of land in the low-elevation area surrounding Pahoa on the Big Island is completely dominated by the albizia (Falcataria Molucca) [see photo above]. J.B. Friday says it is cost-prohibitive to remove these trees in order to restore agriculture in the area. Local people are concerned because in storms the trees fall onto houses and roads, causing considerable damage.

I saw numerous clumps of the notorious invasive plant Miconia calvescens. Dr. Friday told me that conservationists now focus on keeping this plant out of key areas, not trying to eradicate it completely.

area being restored by volunteers; photo by F.T. Campbell

Local people trying to restore disease-damaged forests by planting other native plants and hand-clearing invasive plants. Some of the ohia seedlings infected by Austropuccinia psidii.

ohia seedling with symptoms of ohia rust (Austropuccinia psdii); detected by J.B. Friday; photo by F.T. Campbell

Dr. Friday showed me many areas where ʻōhiʻa trees have been killed by rapid ʻōhiʻa death. Since this mortality occurred a decade or more ago, other plants have grown up. Pic  In many if not most cases, this jungle includes dense growths of guava Latin the most widespread invasive tree on the islands (Potter). ‘Ōhi‘a trees continue to thrive in Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park – also on the Big Island – because the NPS makes considerable efforts to protect them from wounding by feral pigs. Demonstrates importance of fencing and mammal eradication in efforts to protect this tree species.

healthy ʻōhiʻa tree on cinder cone created by eruption of Kilauea Iki in 1959; photo by F.T. Campbell

I also saw healthy koa (Acacia koa) in the park, especially at sites along the road to the trail climbing Mauna Loa.

Regarding the wiliwili tree, I was told that it remains extremely scarce on Oahu.

wiliwili tree in flower; photo by Forrest Starr

I heard nothing about the status of naio – another shrub native to the Big Island – but on the dry western side of the island.

I rejoice that scientists are making progress in protecting and restoring Hawaii’s endemic bird species. Specifically, they are at the early stages of controlling mosquitoes that transmit fatal diseases. All 17 species of endemic honeycreepers that have persisted through the 250 years since Europeans first landed on the Islands are now listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Spp Act. The “Birds, not Mosquitoes” project has developed lab-reared male mosquitoes that, when they mate with wild female, the resulting eggs are sterile. (Male mosquitoes don’t bite, so increasing their number does not affect either animals or people.) Over time, the invasive mosquito population will be reduced, giving vulnerable native bird populations the chance to recover. Scientists began releasing these modified mosquitoes in remote forests on Maui and Kaua‘i in November 2023. In spring 2025, they began testing releases using drones. Use of drones instead of helicopters reduces the danger associated with flying close to complicated mountain rides in regions with variable weather.   This project should be able to continue; the Senate Appropriations Committee report for FY26 allocates $5,250,000 for this project.

American Bird Conservancy is sponsoring a webinar about this program. It will be Wednesday, August 27, 2025 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM ET. Sign up for the webinar here

thicket of guava on the Big Island, Hawai`i; photo by F.T. Campbell

Finally, scientists are releasing a biocontrol agent targetting strawberry guava, Psidium cattleyanum, the most widespread invasive tree on the Islands (Potter et al. 2023). Distribution involves an interesting process. A stand of guava is cut down to stimulate rapid growth. The leaf-galling insect Tectococcus ovatus reproduces prolifically on the new foliage. Twigs bearing the eggs of these insects are collected and tied into small bundles. The bundles are then dropped from helicopters into the canopies of dense guava stands, where they establish and feed – damaging the unwanted host.  

brown tree snake; photo via Wikimedia

Guam

Guam’s endemic birds have famously been extinguished by the non-native brown tree snake. Dr. Aaron Collins, State Director, Guam and Western Pacific, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, informed participants at the National Plant Board meeting about the extensive efforts to suppress snake populations in military housing on the island, reduce damage to the electric grid, and prevent snakes from hitchhiking to other environments, especially Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland.

The program began more than 30 years ago, in 1993. The program now employs 80 FTEs and has a budget of $4 million per year. It was initiated because live and dead snakes had been found in shipments and planes that landed in Hawai`i and the U.S. mainland. Avoiding the snake’s establishment on Hawai`i is estimated to save $500 million per year. The program is a coordinated effort by USDA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Defense. Probably this estimate helped advocates reverse a decision by the “Department of Government Efficiency” to defund the program.

The program enjoys some advantages over vertebrate eradication programs on the mainland. For example, since Guam has no native snakes, it can use poison, e.g., in mouse-baited traps that can be dropped from planes. A recent innovation is auto-resetting traps baited with mammals; they can electrocute numerous snakes per night.

SOURCE

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

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 http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm

Or

https://fadingforests.org

FY26 Funding: APHIS doing well; will Congress save the USFS?

effects of emerald ash borer — one of the non-native pests threatening forests across the North American continent; photo by Leslie A. Brice, taken in Maryland

Forest Service: What the Administration Proposed

According to the Washington Post, the Administration’s plans for shrinking the federal government would cut employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) by 35% by 2026 – a loss of ~32,000 employees. Of these, the USDA Forest Service (USFS) was targetted for significant losses. The Administration proposed to end the Research and Development program, firing 1,641 employees. The State, Private, and Tribal program would lose 94% of its staff of 580 people. The National Forest System was to be cut by 30%, or 1,603 people. These and cuts to additional USFS programs would have totaled 39% of the agency’s approximately 30,000 staff.

The Administration issued a plan to reorganize USDA. This plan called for phasing out the USFS’ nine Regional Offices. Apparently only two offices would remain: a reduced state office in Juneau and an eastern service center in Athens, Georgia. Seven of the current stand-alone Research Stations would be consolidated into a single location in Fort Collins. The proposal retains two separate entities: the Fire Sciences and Forest Products Laboratories.

How Congress’ Appropriations Committees Responded

As I reported earlier, the Congress has not accepted these proposed cuts to the USFS. Under normal circumstances provisions in Congressionally-enacted appropriations legislation should prevail over the Administration’s plan, but now, who knows?

beech leaf disease — one of many non-native diseases threatening our forests that need further research; photo by F.T. Campbell

USFS Research and Development Program

The House Appropriations bill provides $301,706,000 for the research account, including $34 million for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). The Senate bill provides more for the overall research program — $308.5 million; but a little less — $32 million – for FIA. I remind you that FIA data inform us about changes in the forest, including damage caused by introduced insects and pathogens. But these data do not identify or disseminate information about how such threats might best be countered.

The Senate bill specifically retains the USFS’ five regional offices and experimental forests. The report accompanying the bill specifies funding for several issues, especially needle blights on loblolly pine and western conifers and poor regeneration of white oak (Quercus alba). The only other topic of research mentioned in the bill is fire research. I fear that might led to decreased attention to non-fire aspects of introduced tree-killing insects and pathogens – which collectively threaten a similarly sized area of America’s forests.

USFS State, Private, and Tribal Forestry program

The House bill provides $281 million for the forest health program. The bill specifies that this funding “includes forest health management, invasive plants, and conducting international programs and trade activities.” This would seem to restore funding for the Forest Health Management program – both the “cooperative lands” and “federal lands” subprograms. However, I found no language specifying funding levels for each subprogram.

The Senate bill provides $38 million more — $319.5 million — for the forest health program. The report specifies that the Cooperative lands forest health management program should be funded at $42 million. However, the Appropriations Committee allocated significant proportions of this total to specific projects. Nearly a quarter of the appropriation targets the spruce budworm outbreak in the eastern U.S. Also, $2 million is earmarked for management of the sudden oak death pathogen in the forests of Oregon and California. Another $3 million funds a pilot program for management of the highly invasive plant cogongrass. Other priorities are programs targetting Western bark beetles and invasive woody plant species – although no funding levels are specified.

dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

The Senate bill also provides $19.6 million to support Congressionally-directed components of Forest Resource Information and Analysis; I don’t understand whether this is  within or separate from the FIA program.

Under the National Forest System, the Senate bill instructs the USFS to spend at least $2 million per year on recovery of species of plants and animals listed under the Endangered Species Act, presumably including whitebark pines.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is relatively well-off under the Administration’s plans. This agency is expected to lose 15% of employees – 1,180 people. According to Acting Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine Matthew Rhoads, 400 APHIS employees have accepted the Administration’s deferred resignation offer. Leaving are many program leaders – including the previous Deputy Administrator, Mark Davidson. While APHIS is allowed to hire to refill some positions, the future remains uncertain. I note a positive here: the new Farm Security Plan emphasizes efforts to combat bioterrorism, including APHIS’ safeguarding role. While I welcome that priority, I fear that the focus might be quite narrow, leaving out threats to natural resources such as native forest trees.

The impact of the proposed USDA reorganization on APHIS is unclear. The plan envisions continued reductions of the workforce and moving more than half of the remaining USDA employees away from Washington, D.C. to five regional offices.

APHIS also has done well under the House and Senate appropriations process. The House Appropriations Committee issued a press release touting its work as “Champions of U.S. farmers, agriculture, and rural communities”. The first example of this supportive effort reads: “Continuing critical investments in agricultural research, rural broadband, and animal and plant health programs.” Funding for APHIS is described as supporting the Trump Administration and its mandate from the American people. The Office of Management and Budget is said to have prioritized protecting American agriculture from foreign pests and diseases.

The Senate’s report instead cites traditional justifications for funding APHIS. It said that the appropriated funds will help protect the nation’s animal and plant resources from diseases and pests. (As usual, the examples cited are all animal diseases: chronic wasting disease, new world screwworm, and avian influenza.)

The reports accompanying both bills say agricultural quarantine – preventing pest introduction – is an important responsibility of the federal government. I am cheered by this statement since the Trump Administration puts such emphasis on shedding responsibilities.

Unlike the USFS, funding levels for most APHIS programs are unchanged from this year. (Of course, inflation has reduced the amount of work that can be carried out using the same amount of money.) The following table shows funding for programs of interest during the current year (FY2025) and levels proposed by the House and Senate bills for Fiscal Year 2026 (which begins on October 1).

                                                                        Figures in millions of dollars (rounded up)

FY2025 enacted            FY26 House                 FY26 Senate

APHIS total                                  $1,148                          $1,146                          $1,168

Plant health subtotal                   $387.5                                                              $388.6

Agric. quarantine                      $35.5                            $35.5                            $35.5

Field crop and rangeland           $12                               $11                               $11.5

Pest detection                           $29                               $28.5                            $29

Methods development               $21.5                            $21.5                            $21.5

Specialty crops                          $206.5                          $216.3                          $208.5

Tree and wood pests                  $59                               $59                               $58.6

Emergency preparedness and response* $44.5         $44.5                            $44.3

* this fund is apparently for both animal and plant emergencies

The Senate and House bills contain identical language authorizing the Secretary “in emergencies which threaten any segment of [US] agricultural production …, [to] transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the agencies or corporations of [USDA] such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious diseases … in accordance with sections … 431 and 442 of the Plant Protection Act … and any unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with such transferred amounts”. The House report reminds the Administration that this language means that the emergency fund is intended to enhance, not replace, use of funds transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation when confronting pest or disease outbreak emergencies. I have long sought increased funding for APHIS to respond quickly when a new invasive organisms is detected. Such flexibility is necessary because the regular process for adopting an appropriation stretches over about three years.

Also, both bills support continuation of APHIS’ feral swine management program. However, they prioritize funding projects in areas with the highest pig populations. I think this is backwards from the perspective of efficiency – although it might build political support for the program.

The House report mentions management of Arundo canes, said to be depleting groundwater levels in western states; eastern spruce budworm in the Northeast; spread of the southern pine beetle and spotted lanternfly; and invasions by the non-native shrub glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus).

The Senate report notes that two strains of the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum and here – the EU1 and NA1 strains – pose major threats to Douglas-fir-tanoak forests in Oregon and California and the associated quarantines restrict exports of logs. Therefore, the report says funding for addressing this threat should be no lower than the FY24 level. (Oregon senator Jeff Merkley is the top Democrat on the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee.)  

I am thrilled to see that the House report requires APHIS to report within a year on recommendations to enhance existing protocols to better protect Hawai`i from bioinvasion. The report is to evaluate the feasibility of APHIS working with the state to improve biosecurity, prevent invasive species establishment, and mitigate damage from those already there. The report is to evaluate the risk of invasive species arriving via movement of people, baggage, cargo, and other items.

endemic honeycreepers of Hawai`i

Finally, the “Big Beautiful Bill” adopted by the Congress in June, increased funding for APHIS’ Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention (Plant Protection Act Section 7721) from $75 million to $90 million – but only for Fiscal Year 2026. This grant program continues to be crucial to funding vital programs. This year the program has funded more than 300 projects. I wonder – might forest pathologists prepare a proposal for next year that would fund a study to improve America’s phytosanitary program regarding pathogens? Two possible study topics might be 1) evaluating the efficacy of APHIS’ current regulations in preventing introduction of fungal pathogens, oomycetes, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes on imported plants and/or 2) identifying currently unknown microbes resident in regions that are important sources of origin for traded plants, vulnerability of hosts in the U.S., and new technologies for detecting pathogens

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

American elms: progress on breeding resistance

America elms on a street in Southeast District of Columbia; photo by F.T. Campbell

I applaud recent developments regarding one of the most devastating and widespread non-native tree-killing diseases, “Dutch” elm disease (DED). Brief descriptions of ecological importance of elms, the disease’s impact in North American and Europe, and difficulties in managing the rapidly evolving causal pathogens here.  (See also a review of the ecological value of American elm here.)

Restoring America elm would be wonderful, so I rejoice at steps forward.

One task is to improve detection of the disease in forests. Currently detection is tardy because it relies on observation of visual symptoms followed by molecular confirmation. This process demands considerable time and labor; it is also error-prone. Earlier molecular detection methods also are labor intensive, costly, & have operational limitations.

A group of scientists led by Jian Jin and Songlin Fei are testing whether new spectral imaging & artificial intelligence can improve early detection. (See the publication by Wei et al.; full citation at the end of this blog.) Their goal is to detect subtle changes associated w/ disease developments before visual symptoms appear. The new technology — high-precision leaf spectral imagers — is already in use for agr crops. The devices needed are inexpensive and hand-held/portable. Can collect hyper- or multi-spectral images of a whole leaf in the field. This systems is also non-destructive & rapid.

To test applicability of this technology, the scientists inoculated the fungus responsible for DED into trees with known – and varying — disease susceptibilities. Then they collected spectral images of leaves from those trees to test accuracy of analyses conducted via both traditional machine learning & state-of-art deep learning models. These collections were made at three different times: 96 hours after inoculation / before visual symptoms; 4 weeks after inoculation / during visual symptom development; 15 weeks / foliar symptoms noticeable. They recorded the declining status of the using the traditional visual symptoms – wilting, yellowing, browning of leaves.

While detection accuracy varied by time of specimen collection and genetic heritage of the particular tree, machine-learning-based spectral & spatial analysis of high-resolution hyper & multi-spectral leaf images did detect DED symptoms. This advance would help detect pockets of disease in the forest and might be useful in screening elm genotypes for susceptibility to the pathogen. This latter ability would support resistance breeding programs.

However, further study is needed to determine whether light conditions, seasonal variations, or interactions with other pathogens might influence leaves’ spectral signature. Furthermore, scientists should test application of the process to additional elm genotypes. As Enrico Bonello and others have pointed out, however, the ideal would be to detect infection before even the start of symptoms – in other words, to detect even more subtle changes.

A second task is to breed American elms that can survive – even thrive – despite the continuing presence of the disease-causing pathogens. I rejoice here, too. So far, scientists have found varying levels of resistance in large “lingering” elms. This resistance appears to be heritable. Scientists are preparing reports of this progress for publication.

The USFS Northern Research Station is leading efforts of multiple partners to find and screen resistance of large elms across several regions. In New England, the principal partner is The Nature Conservancy; in the upper Midwest partners include the Army Corps of Engineers and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, In the lower Midwest the USFS is working with Metroparks Toledo, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Appalachia Ohio Alliance and others. The Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative is helping to coordinate these efforts.

American elm has a huge range – covering much of the United States east of the Great Plains. Map Restoring the species to that range requires efforts throughout that range – so as to capture the genetic variability within the species and perpetuate its adaptations to the wide range of ecological conditions.

While restoring this magnificent and ecologically important tree species is worthwhile per se, a second motivation has emerged: using elms to restore riparian and wetland ecosystems now being harmed by loss of ash trees to the emerald ash borer.

Knight et al. (full citation at the end of this blog) note that these efforts’ success will depend not only on developing elms that can survive DED. It is also necessary to determine restoration strategies and silvicultural treatments that will promote the young trees’ ability to flourish despite challenges by storms, floods, competition with other plants, and wildlife feeding.

This team of USFS researchers describe ongoing tests of reintroduction strategies & silvicultural requirements in the Service’ Region 9. They note that reintroduction focuses on a single species. The goal of ecosystem restoration requires considering a broader range of factors. Both are important components for the success.

Testing Elm Reintroduction Factors

Research projects they describe include testing results of planting both bare-root seedlings and containerized stock. The latter approach is more labor-intensive but appears to provide better survival. When competing vegetation was removed & then controlled to prevent regrowth, large containerized trees had excellent survival & rapid growth. They also documented the value of caging trees to prevent deer browsing.

Other research projects explore elm seedlings’ ability to tolerate cold, floods, and shade. Scientists in New England and Wisconsin are observing how well progeny from various crosses between DED-tolerant American elms & local survivor trees are enduring the regions’ winters. One test is deploying progeny from paternal lines that are from different plant cold hardiness zones. It will be important to identify and plant trees that are adapted to local environmental conditions on top of being resistant to the DED pathogen.

Another group of tests investigates flood tolerance. Even minor dips or rises on floodplains lead to very different flooding intensities. Some of these experiments also consider shade tolerance. This is because managers hope can establish understory trees poised to grow rapidly by planting elm seedlings before harvest or mortality of canopy trees (e.g., ash). In one experiment in floodplain forests in Ohio, so far many elm seedlings have survived extensive spring & fall flooding. The seedlings are thriving across a range of microsite light environments. Even competition from invasive herbaceous plants does not appear to have impeded the elms’ survival.

DED has two methods of infecting nearby elms: that pathogen is either vectored by beetles that burrow below the tree’s bark, or through direct fungal contact via grafting of roots. Scientist do not yet know whether trees that tolerate DED infections caused by beetle attacks can withstand infection via root grafts. An experiment using paired elms was initiated in 2011. At the time of their writing, the trees had not yet grown sufficiently large to form root grafts – necessary before scientist could begin the experimental inoculations.

Finally, these many plantings have revealed some “unknown unknowns” — factors not previously identified. Knight et al. describe two studies:

1) Under the National Elm Trials, scientists are studying growth, stress and pest resistance, and horticultural performance of DED-tolerant American elm cultivars & other elm species and hybrids in 16 states. (See details here.)

2) A system of sentinel restoration sites has been established. Multiple DED-tolerant American elm selections have been planted in eight locations in four states to be an “early warning” system to identify additional pathogens of concern. Knight cites detection of a wood wasp at one site in Ohio and competition of thick grass and feeding by rodent on their roots in Minnesota.

Testing Restoration Strategies

As Knight et al. remind us, Eastern forests experience many forms of disturbance, including non-native pests and plants, increases in deer populations, land clearing, grazing, & climate change. Foresters want to know whether DED-resistant American elms might be used in restoration plantings in response to these natural and anthropogenic disturbance? They value elm for its ability to thrive in a wide variety of conditions. Furthermore, the species supports a diverse array of insect herbivores, which then support higher trophic levels, e.g., birds (Tallamy 2009). Another factor, not mentioned by Knight et al., is that even vulnerable elms can grow to some size before they are killed by DED. Knight et al. say multiple studies are testing use of American elm as one of several native species to be plant in ash ecosystems devastated by EAB. In northern Minnesota, the experiment is occurring in wet forest ecosystems formerly dominated by black ash. In Ohio researchers are observing elms planted in riparian systems where green ash forests used to be found. They report that early data indicate good initial survival of American elm in both studies.

The Nature Conservancy’s Connecticut River Program planted over 1900 disease-tolerant American elm cultivars at 76 sites in four New England states over the decade 2010 – 2021. Several DED-tolerant selections and their progeny were planted. Survival has varied considerably, they think depending on site factors, e.g., ice flows, height and density of competing vegetation, climate, damage from voles, deer browsing, others.

More recently, the partners have moved away from crossing survivor elms with cultivars because that results in too many related progeny, insufficient genetic diversity. In addition, the trees would not be adapted to the planting site because one parent was not local).

The Nature Conservancy’s participation has been funded by a grant of ~$2.4 million from a private foundation. TNC is helping to identify “lingering” or “survivor” American elm and restore them to floodplains and urban forests across New England. TNC has also funded groundbreaking research at the USFS to accelerate the breeding program and develop best practices for American elm reintroduction.  

The Vermont chapter has been particularly active. Since 2014 it has been managing experimental elm trees plantings at 10 TNC natural areas and 26 partner-owned sites across the state. This effort has yielded ~7,000 trees that represent 142 novel crosses between 23 survivor elms identified by TNC in New England & several varieties identified by USFS from other parts of the country. Scientists plan to inoculate these trees in spring 2026. The trees’ vulnerability to the pathogen will then be evaluated over two years.

Knight et al. expect that in a decade or less these and other research projects will contribute needed understanding of various American elm propagules’ cold tolerance, flood tolerance, shade tolerance, response to competing vegetation, & root grafting. This information will allow managers to maximize survival of planted elm trees. It will also demonstrate how to usefully employ elms in ecosystem restoration. They caution that guidelines will probably vary to fit specific situations & site characteristics e.g., forest type, competing species, local hydrology, etc.

Knight et al. also identify topics that require additional research. The first factor mentioned are social & ecological contexts of restoration strategies. Social context will guide the formulation of a more strategic approach — setting goals, addressing such questions as the public perception & value of American elm in urban & forest areas, forest manager goals for incorporation of American elm, & municipal requirements for urban trees. It is essential to determine the long-term durability of resistance. Also need to explore how best to promote spread of DED-tolerant genes given the high numbers of local, non-resistant elms across the landscape. scale strategies.

Knight et al. note that need experimental plantings in additional parts of the species’ enormous range to identify potential problems, test performance on different soil types and in different climates. Need experiments to identify interactions among elm genetics and abiotic & biotic environ variables to guide silvicultural, site preparation, and planting strategies. I have observed apparently thriving American elms along roadways in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

thriving American elm at the Fairfax County landfill in Lorton; photo by F.T. Campbell

I believe no one is protecting them. Certainly other elms in the area have died. So far I have not found people trying to find “lingering” or “survival” elms here.  I seek people who want to work with these trees!

dead American elm on National Mall in Washington, D.C., close to the Lincoln Memorial; photo by F.T. Campbell; other nearby elms are also dead

The USDA Forest Service is not the only entity engaged in breeding American elms. The University of Minnesota is supporting an American elm breeding program through its Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pest Center (MITPPC) (see Bernardt citation at end of blog). Scientists are identifying DED-resistant elms in the wild, cloning and testing them, and replanting the strongest candidates across urban and natural landscapes. Their goal is to reintroduce the more resilient clones across Minnesota’s urban and natural landscapes, restoring lost canopy and biodiversity while preparing forests for a future stressed by climate change.

Bernardt describes the usual four essential steps: identification of trees that appear to be resistant; propagation of clones from those trees; growing sufficient numbers of these; and testing them for resistance. The Minnesota program – like many similar programs for breeding the many tree species being killed by non-native pests – ask the public to help in searching for “survivor” trees—American elms that appear to be withstanding Dutch elm disease even as others around them succumb.

The article summarizes the next steps and challenges. It notes, for example, that using clones rather than seedlings is essential because resistance is not reliably passed on during sexual reproduction. (However, Cornelia Pinchot Wilson has told me that colleagues should soon publish articles demonstrating that resistance is heritable.)  Furthermore, the clones must be grown for several years—often five or more—until the trees are large enough to be tested for resistance. The article does not indicate whether the earlier step of propagating elm clones is challenging or easy. It has been difficult for other species, e.g., chestnuts, whitebark pine, ash, and koa.

To confirm whether a specific tree is resistant, the team typically tests each tree twice, since environmental factors like location and weather can influence outcomes. Trees that pass these tests move on to the next stage: reintroduction plantings in natural areas and parks. These field-growing trees serve two important roles. First, they contribute to restoring elm populations in natural and urban landscapes. Second, these trees can be observed over the long term to confirm whether they exhibit persistent resistance and are adapted to local environmental conditions.

The project’s success, the researchers say, hinges on collaboration. State agencies, local governments, and community members all play critical roles. Among those helping have been the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Izaak Walton League, and Three Rivers Park District.

The article reminds us that resistance breeding is a long-term process. As noted above, clones must be grown for years before they can be tested.

Also, resistant trees aren’t immune to the pathogen. Instead, they survive despite the disease in sufficient numbers to restore the species to some of its former range and ecological role.

Finally, the trees must also survive the every-day challenges of life as a tree: storms, animal feeding, and other pests and diseases – native and non-native. The article mentions elm yellows disease but not elm zig-zag sawfly which has been moving West (it was detected in Ohio in 2023 and Wisconsin in 2024). Nor does it mention the fungus Plenodomus tracheiphilus, which is killing American elms in Alberta.   Breeding program staff can help – for example, the Minnesota program now uses larger protective tubes to better shield the young trees from wildlife.

The Minnesota program plans to establish seed orchards. They hope that by planting trees confirmed to be resistant near to each other, they will cross-pollinate and produce seeds that are more likely to carry resistance, possibly even combining different resistance genes. Trees in these orchards would capture a broad range of resistance traits, helping future generations of elms stand strong against Dutch elm disease.

Program leaders Ryan Murphy and Ben Held also hope new technologies for studying genes will enable discovery of the genetic basis for resistance to DED. Identifying resistance genes or markers would make producing resistant trees a lot easier. It would also enable breeders to build up genetic diversity more deliberately.

SOURCES

Bernhardt, C. 2025. “Reviving a Giant” July 2025. University of Minnesota. Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pest Center. Website?

Knight, K.S., L.M. Haugen, C.C. Pinchot, P.G. Schaberg, & J.M. Slavicek. Undated. American elm (Ulmus americana) in restoration plantings: a review.

Wei, X.; Zhang, J.; Conrad, A.O.; Flower, C.E.; Pinchot, C.C.; Hayes-Plazolles, N.; Chen, Z.; Song, Z.; Fei, S.; Jin, J. Machine Learning-based Spectral and Spatial Analysis of Hyper-and multi-spectral Leaf Images for Dutch Elm Disease Detection and Resistance Screening. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2023, 10, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2023.09.003.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

USFS appropriations – Senate actions

The Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted its bill appropriating funding for the USDA Forest Service for Fiscal Year 2026, which begins on 1 October. Once the bill passes the full Senate, negotiators for the Senate and House committees must agree on a compromise.

The Senate bill provides a total of $8.6 billion for the Forest Service. This includes $308,497,000 for the Research and Development program. This is an increase of $8.5 million above funding for the current year. The Senate bill specifically supports retaining the five regional offices and experimental forests. Remember, the Trump Administration had proposed to eliminate the Research program – other than Forest Inventory and Analysis. The Committee’s report link specifies that the USFS should prioritize projects requested by or benefitting the agency’s mission, not requests by external entities. The benefit to the agency and public should be stated before a project is initiated.  The report specifies funding for several issues, including

  • $3 million to continue collaborative research to determine distribution & movement of the pathogens that cause needle blight on loblolly pine.
  • Funding to maintain Experimental Forests in the Northeast. These are described as important for assessing the long-term response of eastern white pine & northern hardwoods to various forest management prescriptions, controlled burning & natural factors, such as insects, disease, weather events and climate change. While the wording is somewhat confusing, I believe this is funded at $6 million.
  • $1 million to support Outbreak Timber Salvage Research related to drought & needle tip blight & Ips beetle outbreaks in the West.
  • $3 million to support Needle Blight Mitigation collaborative research.
  • Several program areas related to fire, including understanding the risk in the wildland-urban interface.

Finally, the bill would fund Forest Inventory and Analysis at $32 million.

a white oak in Maryland; photo by Bob Gutowski via Flickr

There is particular attention to white oaks (Quercus alba). The report notes that this species occupies 103 million acres in E U.S. The species is critical for wildlife, biodiversity, & forest products. The Committee instructs the USFS to report on its efforts, including monitoring & research, to regenerate white oak on National forests as well as state, tribal, and private lands. The Committee recognizes importance of seed stock & tree nurseries in these efforts.

The bill also restores funding for the State, Private, and Tribal Forestry program. It provides $319.5 million for this, an increase of $16 million above the current level. Again, the Trump Administration had proposed to eliminate funding for the SPT program. The Senate report specifies that the Cooperative lands forest health management program should be funded at $42 million. However, the Committee also allocated significant proportions of this total to specific projects:

  • $10 million (nearly a quarter of the total) to support mitigation efforts targeting the spruce budworm outbreak in the eastern US.
  • $3 million for a Cogongrass Management Pilot Program
  • $2 million for management of the sudden oak death pathogen in the forests of Oregon and California
  • Prioritizing – but without specifying funding levels – of the Western Bark Beetle Initiative and helping urban areas restore and improve their forests and combat exotic invasive woody plant species.  

There is also $19.6 million to support Congressionally-directed components of Forest Resource Information and Analysis – which is apparently separate from the FIA program.

The Senate bill also continues support for the USFS International Programs.

Under the National Forest System, the Committee instructs the USFS to spend at least $2 million per year on recovery of species of plants and animals listed under the Endangered Species Act. This category includes whitebark pines but not other tree species decimated by non-native pests.

whitebark pine with Clarke’s nutcracker; photo by Walter Siegmund

While I am disappointed that the Senate report makes few reference to non-native pests other than the loblolly needle blight, I rejoice that the Committee explicitly endorses the importance of USFS programs to sustain forest health across all landscapes – not just in National forests – and the Research program’s status as the premier such entity around the world.  

Reminder: the House Appropriations bill provides $301,706,000 for the research account – almost $7 million less than the Senate. The House’ allocation for the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is $34 million. Thus, there is a $9 million difference in funding levels – a significant challenge to reconcile. How will funding for the already-underfunded invasive species programs fare?

The House bill provides $280,960,000 for the State, Private, and Tribal forestry program. This is $38 million less than the Senate bill. The available report did not specify funding levels for the Forest Health Management program – either the “cooperative lands” or “federal lands” subprograms. As I note above, the Senate bill increases funding for the cooperative lands account, but then earmarks all the increase.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org

American Forest Congress calls for “urgent” action to counter forest pests

Eastern deciduous forest – Great Smoky Mountains National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

Organizers of the American Forest Congress claim the meeting has influenced the direction of forest conservation and management in America since 1882. As examples they cite creation of the U.S. Forest Service, the establishment of the eastern National Forests, new community-based and collaborative approaches to forestry, and efforts to advance the leadership of women within the forest community.  

During its meeting in Washington, D.C. in July 2025, the Ninth Forest Congress adopted a resolution re: threat from forest pests and pathogens:  

Resolved: to recognize and address the urgent risk posed by exotic and native pests and pathogens and invasive species to long-term health, productivity and sustainability of America’s forests.

Provide adequate and sustained resources for a cooperative stewardship program to monitor and address these risks across landscapes and ownerships.

Convene regional partnerships with participation of state, federal and tribal authorities, private landowners, NGOs, universities and other interested stakeholders to identify key forest health risks, develop regional approaches and attract needed resources to implement and sustain them.

Brian Milakovsky, senior forester at the New England Forestry Foundation helped gather an ad hoc group of forest health experts and foresters from across the eastern seaboard to draft the resolution

The Committee now plans to organize a follow-up event sometime in 2025 to discuss what is needed to build a more diverse and robust funding pipeline for pest and pathogen work. Their concern was elevated by the Trump Administration’s proposal to stop funding for the USFS’ State, Private and Tribal Forestry program.

healthy hemlock forest, Cook Forest State Park, Pennsylvania; photo by F.T. Campbell

The New England Forestry Foundation has a direct stake in these programs. The Foundation manages 41,000 acres of land in five New England states and works with diverse landowners in the region to improve forest management. The Foundation hopes to expand both on-the-ground work and advocacy in response to the threats from non-native insects and pathogens. While they are focusing on developing an IPM program on their own lands, they recognize that they must address the pest and pathogen levels of the surrounding landscape – that is, they wish to support the federal and state forest health experts who are trying to address these issues at the largest scale.

In Maine the Foundations is trying to manage destruction by the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA), beech bark disease, beech leaf disease, winter moth, red pine scale, and browntail moth. The emerald ash borer is arriving – and threatens to decimate green ash forests covering entire hillsides – with repercussions for water supplies, flooding, etc.

This resolution presents a great opportunity to revive discussions about the non-native forest pest issue with federal and state government officials, fellow conservationists, and the foundations that fund conservation work. Let’s work individually and together to put real muscle into these programs.

One of the possible ways is to persuade Congress to adopt the bill under development by Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont. The bill as introduced in the previous session is available here. Please ask your senators to sponsor it in this session – perhaps as a component of the (overdue) 2024 Farm Bill.

USDA photo via Rawpixel

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Or

https://fadingforests.org