Category: other realms

EAB in Eastern Europe – Worse (+ war!)

A special issue of the journal Forests (Vol. 13 2022) seeks to improve understanding of the root causes of exacerbated threats from insect pests. The issue contains 15 papers; most focus on geographic areas other than North America. The journal is open access!

Choi and Park (full citations below) link increased pest risk to climate change and increased international trade. They provide brief summaries of all 15 papers. My focus here is on two articles that provide updates on the status of the emerald ash borer (EAB Agrilus planipennis) in Russia and Ukraine. The article by Davydenko et al. also examines interactions between EAB and the invasive pathogen Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, which causes ash dieback disease. In other blogs I will look at insects linked to North America (both species from North America that threaten forests on other continents, and species in Russia that pose a threat to North America) and at the overall Russian experience.

I blogged about EAB invasion of Russia in April 2021 so this is an update.

Musolin et al. (2022) (full citations below) remind us that the EAB invasions of North America and Russia were detected almost simultaneously: in Michigan and Ontario in 2002 and in European Russia (Moscow) in 2003. They conclude that both invasions probably originated from a common source (most probably China). They date the introduction to the late 1980s or early 1990s; pathways might have been wooden crafts, wood packaging, or ash seedlings. Nate Siegert used dendrological studies to estimate a similar introduction date for the North American invasion.

European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) specimen in Belgium; photo by Jean-Pol Granmont

EAB has spread far in the intervening 30 + years. By early 2022, outbreaks were recorded in five Canadian provinces, 35 US states, 18 provinces and several cities in European Russia, and two provinces in Ukraine (Musolin et al. 2022) Davydenko et al. report that EAB had also established in eastern Belarus, but provide no details.

As demonstrated in the earlier blog and confirmed by Musolin et al. (2022) and Davydenko et al., the EAB has spread much faster to the southwest than directly West and to the Northwest. Davydenko et al. attribute the slower spread in the St. Petersburg area to the colder and wetter climate of this region – which is ~1200 km north of Ukraine. While the EAB reproduces in two cohorts in Eastern Ukraine, to the north the beetle requires more than one year to complete its life cycle, at least two years in the St. Petersburg area. In 2021, Musolin et al. 2021 speculated that pressure by the native parasitoid Spathius polonicus Niezabitowski might also be slowing EAB’s spread in the North. In 2022, Musolin does not address this possibility. (I note that APHIS has approved two Spathius species as biocontrol agents in the U.S.).

Musolin et al. (2022) and Davydenko et al. agree that the EAB poses real threat to ash in central and western Europe. In both the south (Davydenko et al.) and in the northwestern area around St. Petersburg ash grows in continuous stretches, linking Russia or Ukraine to Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland. These ash consist of both natural woodlands, and extensive plantings of both one of the European ash species, F. excelsior and the highly-susceptible North America green ash (F. pennsyvanica).  Furthermore, the EAB is an excellent hitchhiker on vehicles & railway cars. Davydenko et al. also consider the beetle to be a strong flyer. Musolin et al. (2022) cite a separate analysis in stating that EAB can probably invade most European countries. Only some regions of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and Great Britain are probably protected by their low temperatures.

Both articles were written too early to consider how the current war in the relevant area of Ukraine might affect spread of the EAB, although we know Ukrainians are cutting firewood. The war has certainly interrupted monitoring and other efforts.

The sources agree on EAB’s severe impacts. Musolin et al. (2022) notes that the beetle has killed millions of trees in the forests and urban plantings in North America, European Russia, and Eastern Ukraine. Davydenko et al. note that the Fraxinus genus is one of the most widely distributed tree genera in North America. They then assert that the EAB could virtually eliminate it. I know that North American scientists agree that the beetle threatens many species in the genus; but do they agree that the genus would be “virtually eliminated”?  Davydenko et al. think the EAB could pose similar threat to Euro ash F. excelsior.

Musolin et al.  2022 estimate that potential economic losses in Europe could reach US$1.81 billion. By this indicator, the species ranks fourth among the most “costly” invasive pests. Russia spent an estimated US$258.9 million between 2011 and 2016.

areas of Ukraine where studies conducted

Species’ varying vulnerability

Musolin et al. (2022) cite experience in the Moscow Botanical Garden as showing that only two Asian species — Chinese ash, F. chinensis, and Manchurian ash, F. mandshurica — are were resistant to the EAB. The beetle killed both North American ash (i.e., F. pennsylvanica and F. americana) and European ash (i.e., F. excelsior, F. angustifolia, and F. ornus).

Experience in the field in Ukraine (Davydenko et al.) suggests that F. excelsior is less vulnerable to EAB than F. pennsyvanica. The overwhelming majority of EAB infestations were found on the American species. Furthermore, although similar densities of EAB larvae were found in colonized branches of both species, the proportion of larvae that were viable was significantly higher on F. pennsyvnica (91.4%) than on F. excelsior (76.1%). However, the reverse was found in the Moscow and St. Petersburg regions. Davydenko et al. don’t address directly whether they think this discrepancy is attributable to climatic factors or to differences in vulnerability between trees growing in native forests vs. human plantings. They did note that all observed cases of infestation of the native F. excelsior in Ukraine occurred in artificial plantings rather than in natural woodlands.  

Interactions with Ash Decline

ash dieback disease – unfortunately pictured in the UK.
cc-by-sa/2.0 – © Adrian Diack – geograph.org.uk/p/6497286

Davydenko et al. studied parts of Eastern Ukraine where EAB was entering areas already infected by the invasive ascomycete fungus Hymenoscyphus fraxineus (cause of ash dieback, ADB). [Two of these regions — Luhansk and Kharkiv – have been the very center of the current war.] Other studies have shown that ~1 to 5% of F. excelsior trees exhibit some resistance to ADB. These trees are thus a potential foundation for future propagation and restoration of ash in Europe – if enough of them survive attack by EAB.

They found that F. excelsior is more resistant to EAB than F. pennsylvanica, but more susceptible to ADB.

The Luhansk and Kharkiv regions have both EAB and ADB; the Sumy region has only the pathogen. EAB probably invaded the Luhansk region by 2016 (although it was detected only in 2019). The proportion of ash trees (both native and introduced species) infested rose from ~ 10–30% in 2019 to 60 – 90% by 2020–2021. The EAB arrived later in the Kharkiv region, to the Northwest, but the proportion of infested trees was similar by 2021. Combining the two regions, 75% of F. pennsylvanica trees were EAB-infested, whereas only 31% of F. excelsior trees were.

Frequencies of infections by ADB were the reverse. Pooled data from all three study regions showed 21% of F. pennsylvanica trees were infected vs. 42% of F. excelsior. In the plots invaded by both EAB and ADB (in Luhansk and Kherson regions), 4%of F. pennsylvanica were affected by both invasive species vs. 14% of F. excelsior trees. Davydenko et al. conclude that ADB facilitates EAB attack on F. excelsior trees

The impact of EAB is seen in the fact that overall mortality rates were higher in F. pennsylvanica despite the fact that in the Sumy region mortality rates were higher in F. excelsior because of the disease (EAB was absent from this region).  On the other hand, EAB infests and kills F. pennsylvanica trees regardless of their prior health condition (i.e., regardless of presence/absence of ADB).

Still, fewer than half the F. excelsior trees in sites affected by both EAB & ADB (in Luhansk and Kherson regions) have died. Davydenko et al. think the survivors constitute a source of material for eventual propagation. These trees need to be carefully mapped – a task certainly not facilitated by the war!

Davydenko et al. conclude that

1. Invasion of EAB in Ukraine occurred 2–3 years before detection in 2019 [I think this is actually quite prompt for detection of EAB invasions]; the invasion is currently expanding both in terms of newly infested trees and invaded geographic area.

2. Fraxinus excelsior (at least when growing in the interior of forest stands) is more resistant to EAB than F. pennsylvanica (when growing in field shelterbelts).

3. Fraxinus excelsior is more susceptible to ADB than F. pennsylvanica.

4. Infection by ADB is likely to predispose F. excelsior to infestation by EAB.

5. Ash trees infected by ADB are predisposed for the colonization by ash bark beetles Hylesinus spp.  [I did not discuss these data.]

6. Inventory and mapping of surviving F. excelsior, affected by both ADB and EAB, is necessary to acquire genetic resources for the work on strategic, long-term restoration of devastated areas, thereby tackling a possible invasion of EAB to the EU.

I was surprised that Musolin et al. (2022) think EAB’s host shift from local Asian ash species to introduced North America ash planted in the Russian Far East and China triggered EAB outbreaks in Eastern China that contributed to the beetle’s introduction to North America and European Russia. American scientists apparently agree — Haack et al. (2022) refer to both this episode and a similar to one posited for Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) — that widespread planting of Populus plantations led to rapid expansion of ALB in northern China, and the pest-weakened wood was then used in wood packaging.

SOURCES

Choi, W.I.; Park, Y.-S. Management of Forest Pests and Diseases. Forests 2022, 13, 1765. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111765

Davydenko, K.; Skrylnyk, Y.; Borysenko, O.; Menkis, A.; Vysotska, N.; Meshkova, V.; Olson, Å.; Elfstrand, M.; Vasaitis, R. Invasion of emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis and ash dieback pathogen Hymenoscyphus fraxineus in Ukraine-A concerted action. Forests 2022, 13, 789.

Haack RA, Hardin JA, Caton BP and Petrice TR (2022) Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM#15 implementation and regulatory changes. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:1069117. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1069117

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

Musolin, D.L.; Kirichenko, N.I.; Karpun, N.N.; Aksenenko, E.V.; Golub, V.B.; Kerchev, I.A.; Mandelshtam, M.Y.; Vasaitis, R.; Volkovitsh, M.G.; Zhuravleva, E.N.; et al. Invasive insect pests of forests and urban trees in Russia: Origin, pathways, damage, and management. Forests 2022, 13, 521.

Siegert, N.W.  2006.  17th USDA Interagency Research Forum on Gypsy Moth and Other Invasive Species. Annapolis, MD. January 10-13, 2006.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

New Publication on Threats to World’s Forests – including Invasives

­

Russian Taiga forest

In a new paper, “Forest Resources of the World: Present Status and Future Prospects,” Singh et al. affirm the importance of forests for terrestrial biodiversity, provision of multiple ecosystem services, and supporting the economic well-being of approximately 1.6 billion people directly. This equals about a quarter of Earth’s population. The authors conclude that achieving global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including poverty reduction, food security, and mitigating and adapting to climate change — all depend on sustaining forests.

According to the 2020 Global Forest Resource Assessment, Earth’s forested area comprises ~4.06 billion hectares, or 31% of the total land surface.More than half (54%) of all global forest area is found in five countries: the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the United States, and China. Tropical forests constitute 45% of this total; boreal forests, 27%; temperate forests, 16%; and subtropical forests, 11%. An estimated 93% (3.75 billion ha) regenerate through natural processes; 7% (290 million ha) is planted forest.

The extent of global forest area has been declining for decades but the rate of loss slowed significantly between 1990 and 2020. This reflects decreased deforestation in some countries and an increase in forest area in others. The latter is due to both afforestation and also natural forest growth. However, conversion of tropical forests to agriculture continues apace. From 2010 to 2020, the net loss of forest area was highest in Africa (3.9 million ha) and South America (2.6 million ha). Increases in net forest area occurred in Asia, Oceania and Europe. The status of the top 10 countries or territories in global forest resources as of 2020 is given in Table 1.2 of the chapter. [News sources document that rapid deforestation continues in Brazil, at least.]

Several trends are concerning to those of us who value primary or undisturbed forests. First, the area of naturally regenerating forest has decreased, while the area of planted forest has expanded – but only by 123 million ha. In the last decade, the rate of increase in the area of planted forests has also slowed.

Second, total carbon stock in forests declined from 668 gigatons to 662 gt in 1990–2020. This is only 6%, but it is trending in the wrong direction. As we know, forest conservation counters climate change in two ways: conserved forests are a carbon sink, while degraded or destroyed forests are a significant source of atmospheric CO2. In fact, forests are the 2nd largest storehouses of carbon, after oceans. Global forests sequester about one-third of total CO2 emission from the combustion of fossil fuels. Almost all forest carbon is found in living biomass (44%) and soil organic matter (45%).

Costa Rican rainforest; photo by eflon via Flickr

Third, primary forests are already severely reduced and continue to shrink. Primary forests are those composed of native species, and supporting relatively undisturbed ecological processes. They are irreplaceable for sustaining biological diversity. These forests are already severely reduced – they cover only ~ 1 billion ha. Since 1990, the extent of primary forest has decreased by 81 million ha. More than half are in Brazil, Canada, and Russia.

Singh et al. report that only about 10% of the world’s forests are set aside for biodiversity conservation. Again, trends are in the wrong direction. The rate of increase in the area of forest designated largely for biodiversity conservation has slowed. On the other hand, forest areas designated for other non-extractive purposes have increased: soil and water conservation, recreation, tourism, education, research, and the protection of cultural and spiritual sites.

Singh et al. are cheered by the fact that more than 2 billion hectares are under management with well-defined management plans. The extent of forests under management plans has increased by 233 million ha since 2000.

Singh et al. say that continuously increasing anthropogenic pressure is the main cause of deforestation and forest degradation in unmanaged forests. Citing projections that the world’s population will reach almost 10 billion by 2050, they say this growth will make reconciling the need for forest conservation with the basic requirements of humans for food, shelter, and fuel more difficult than ever.

I appreciate this honesty. Too many experts interviewed on the day that the global population was estimated at 8 billion made optimistic statements about the consequences. They mentioned Earth’s carrying capacity only in reference to First World people demanding excessive resources. There was minimal discussion of humanity’s carbon footprint and no reference to ever-increasing threats to biological diversity. Nor to the fact that people in developing countries want to raise their standards of living – which entails higher demand for resources, including energy. For an example, see The Washington Post editorial, here.

On the other hand, Ruby Mellen in the Post on 15 November mentioned that, according to the World Wildlife Fund, 75% of Earth’s ice-free land has been significantly altered by people, and two-thirds of mammal, fish, reptile, and amphibian species have become endangered in the last ~50 years. Unfortunately, the on-line version of the paper doesn’t have this specific article!

fires in Siberian forest in 2016; European Space Agency

Threats to Forests: Fire

Singh et al. rank fire as the most disastrous threat, affecting biodiversity and carbon sequestration potential.   According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, about 29% of the total geographical area in the world was affected by forest fires during 2001–2018; more than two-thirds of these fires occurred in Africa. U.S. media, however, focused on fires in the Amazon, temperate areas (U.S., Europe), and, sometimes, boreal forests or Australia. Singh et al. say that areas that are frequently affected by fire are prone to other types of disturbances like drought and outbreaks of insect pests.

tanoaks killed by Phytophthora ramorum in Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry

Threats to Forests: Diseases and Pests

I am glad that Singh et al. recognize the damage to forest productivity caused by disease and pest infestations. In doing so, they cite familiar sources – Clive Brasier, Peter Vitousek, Juliann Aukema, Gary Lovett, Sandy Liebhold, Kerry Britton, Bitty Roy, Hanno Seebens – regarding surges in pest attacks; the growing diversity of damaging pests; resulting changes in forest species composition and structure that impede ecosystem functions and productivity. Singh et al. follow these sources in calling for improved hygiene in nurseries, adoption of scientific silvicultural practices reducing physical damage to the vegetation, selection of genotypes that are resistant, and reinforcing national and international policies on quarantine and biosecurity measures to minimize pest impacts in the future. They also mention adoption of remote sensing technologies to detect the trees under stress and use of sentinel plantings. They list the 10 most important international agreements dealing with invasive species issues as the International Plant Protection Convention, Ramsar Convention, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Convention on Migratory Species, Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,  IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group, World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Global Invasive Species Program, and International Civil Aviation Organization, and Cartagena.

slash and burn agriculture in Bolivia; photo Neil Palmer

Threats to forests: Development Projects

Singh et al. consider development projects to be the third threat to forest conservation.  Their roads, powerlines, and other linear developments cause habitat loss and fragment landscapes. In their view, environmental impact assessments and other similar requirements are not yet sufficient to safeguard sustainable use of forest resources.

Policy Responses

Singh et al. call for more inclusive forest management structures to respond to the threat climate change poses to forests, industries, and forest-dependent communities. They all for partnerships that bring together researchers from several disciplines with forest managers and local stakeholders. Geoffrey M. Williams and others (including me) advocate for similar conservation approaches. (See pre-print here.)

In this context, Singh et al. mention several reports, plans, and agreements aimed at global forest conservation.  Participants in global fora have recognized the importance of forests in contributing to food security and sustainable development. Among agreements mentioned are the UN’s Strategic Plan for Forests 2030 and recommendations of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) published in 1994. The former tries to generate greater coherence, collaboration, and synergy across UN programs aimed at encouraging volunteer forest conservation by countries, international, regional, and local organizations, partners, and stakeholders. Unfortunately, they do not discuss the extent to which the 30-year old IISD recommendations have – or have not – been implemented.

They also describe Forest Landscape Restoration as an effective strategy to restore the functionality of forests.Again, the focus is on a collaborative approach aimed at integrating efforts by all forestry-related stakeholders, e.g., scientific and academic organizations, local communities, indigenous peoples, and private sectors, including forest-based enterprises and NGOs.

Also praised is rising attention to trees outside forest. This includes fostering use of trees in agroforestry systems ranging from home gardens to farm forestry systems, shelterbelts, and woodlots. This approach helps to sustain the livelihoods of rural communities and maintain a stable and secure food supply. Meanwhile, it reduces dependence on natural forests

Singh et al. say community forest management and decentralized governance have gained acceptance. They describe examples from Gambia and Rwanda. They concede that such decentralization has its own risks and challenges. For example, e the most marginalized sections of the community must be ensured adequate capacity for robust conflict resolution.

Singh et al. advocate that all nations seek to increase their forest cover; affluent countries that are hampered by physical and climatic conditions should aid poorer nations in increasing and upgrading their forest cover. They suggest “recognition” and encouragement of countries that maintain forest cover above 30% of territory.

See also about loss of floral diversity and blog about IUCN’s global forest assessment.

SOURCE

Singh, M., N.N. Shahina, S. Das, A. Arshad, S. Siril, D. Barman, U. Mog, P. Panwar, G. Shukla, and S. Chakravarty. 2022. Forest Resources of the World: Present Status and Future Prospects. In Panwar, P., G. Shukla, J.­A. ­Bhat, S. ­Chakravarty­. 2022. Editors. Land Degradation Neutrality: Achieving SDG 15 by ­Forest Management; ISBN 978-981-19-5477-1 ISBN 978-981-19-5478-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5478-8

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Australia Builds Capacity to Address Forest Pests

Australian Eucalypts; photo by John Turnbull via Flickr

I congratulate Australian scientists for bringing about substantial improvements of their country’s biosecurity program for forest pests. While it is too early to know how effective the changes will be in preventing new introductions, they are promising. What can we Americans learn from the Australian efforts? [I have previously praised South Africa’s efforts – there is much to learn there, too.]

Australia has a reputation of being very active in managing the invasive species threat. However, until recently biosecurity programs targetting forest pests were minimal and ad hoc. Scientists spent 30 years trying to close those gaps (Carnegie et al. 2022). Their efforts included publishing several reports or publications (listed at the end of the blog) and an international webinar on myrtle rust. Scientists are hopeful that the new early detection program (described below) will greatly enhance forest protection. However, thorough pest risk assessments are still not routinely conducted for forest pests. (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022).

The native flora of Australia is unique. That uniqueness has provided protection because fewer of the non-native insects and pathogens familiar to us in the Northern Hemisphere have found suitable hosts (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Also – I would argue – the uniqueness of this flora imposes a special responsibility to protect it from threats that do arise.

Only 17% of Australia’s landmass is covered by forests. Australia is large, however; consequently, these forests cover 134 million hectares (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). This is the 7th largest forest estate in the world (Carnegie et al. 2022).

Australia’s forests are dominated by eucalypts (Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora). These cover 101 million ha; or 75% of the forest). Acacia (11 million ha; 8%); and Melaleuca (6 million ha) are also significant. The forest also includes one million ha of plantations dominated by Pinus species native to North America (Carnegie et al. 2022). A wide range of native and exotic genera have been planted as amenity trees in urban and peri-urban areas, including pines, sycamores, poplars, oaks, and elms (Carnegie et al. 2022). These urban trees are highly valued for their ecosystem services as well as social, cultural, and property values (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Of course, these exotic trees can support establishment and spread of the forest pest species familiar to us in the Northern Hemisphere. On the positive side, they can also be used as sentinel plantings for early detection of non-native species (Carnegie et al. 2022 and Nahrung and Carnegie 2020).

Despite Australia’s geographic isolation, its unique native flora, and what is widely considered to be one of the world’s most robust biosecurity system, at least 260 non-native arthropods and pathogens of forests have established in Australia since 1885 (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). [(This number is about half the number of non-native forest insects and pathogens that have established in the United States over a period just 25 years longer (Aukema et al. 2010).] As I noted, forest scientists have cited these introductions as a reason to strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system specifically as it applies to forest pests.

What steps have been taken to address this onslaught? For which pests? With what impacts? What gaps have been identified?

Which Pests?

Nahrung and Carnegie (2020) compiled the first comprehensive database of tree and forest pests established in Australia. The 260 species of non-native forest insect pests and pathogens comprise 143 arthropods, 117 pathogens. Nineteen of them (17 insects and 2 fungal species) had been detected before 1900. These species have accumulated at an overall rate of 1.9 species per year; the rate of accumulation after 1955 is slightly higher than during the earlier period, but it has not grown at the exponential rate of import volumes.

While over the entire period insects and pathogens were detected at an almost equal rate (insects at 1.1/year; pathogens at 0.9/year), this disguises an interesting disparity: half of the arthropods were detected before 1940; half of the pathogens after 1960 (Nahrung and Carnegie (2020). By 2022, Nahrung and Carnegie (2022) said that, on average, one new forest insect is introduced each year. Some of these recently detected organisms have probably been established for years. More robust surveillance has  just detected them recently. I have blogged often about an apparent explosion of pathogens being transported globally in recent decades.

In a more recent article (Nahrung and Carnegie, 2022), gave 135 as the number of non-native forest insect pests. The authors don’t explain why this differs from the 143 arthropods listed before.

damage to pine plantations caused by Sirex noctilio; photo courtesy of Helen Nahrung

Eighty-seven percent of the established alien arthropods are associated with non-native hosts (e.g., Pinus, Platanus, Populus, Quercus, Ulmus) (Carnegie et al. 2022). Some of these have escaped eradication attempts and caused financial impact to commercial plantations (e.g., sirex wood wasp, Sirex noctilio) and amenity forests (e.g., elm leaf beetle, Xanthogaleruca luteola) (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019).

About 40% of the alien arthropods were largely cosmopolitan at the time of their introduction in Australia (Carnegie et al. 2022). Only six insects and six fungal species are not recorded as invasive elsewhere (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). Of the species not yet established, 91% of interceptions from 2003 to- 2016 were known to be invasive elsewhere. There is strong evidence of the bridgehead effect: 95% of interceptions of three species were from their invaded range (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022). These included most of the insects detected in shipments from North America, Europe and New Zealand. These ubiquitous “superinvaders” have been circulating in trade for decades and continue to be intercepted at Australia’s borders. This situation suggests that higher interception rates of these species reflect their invasion success rather than predict it (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021).  

I find it alarming that most species detected in shipments from Africa, South America, and New Zealand were of species not even recorded as established in those regions (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021; Nahrung and Carnegie 2022).

Arhopalus ferus, a Eurasian pine insect often detected in wood from New Zealand; photo by Jon Sullivan – in New Zealand; via Flickr

Half of the alien forest pests established in Australia are highly polyphagous. This includes 73% of Asian-origin pests but only 15% of those from Europe (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021). Nahrung and Carnegie (2022) confirm that polyphagous species are more likely to be detected during border inspections.

PATHWAYS

As in North America and Europe, introductions of Hemiptera are overwhelmingly (98%) associated with fresh plant material (e.g. nursery stock, fruit, foliage). Coleoptera introductions are predominantly (64%) associated with wood (e.g. packaging, timber, furniture, and artefacts). Both pathways are subject to strict regulations by Australia (Nahrung and Carnegie 2021).

Eradication of High-Priority Pests

Eight-five percent of all new detections were not considered high-priority risks. Of the four that were, two had not previously been recognized as threats (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). One high-priority pest – expected to pose a severe threat to at least some of Australia’s endemic plant species – is myrtle rust, Austropuccinia psidii. Despite this designation, when the rust appeared in Australia in 2010, the response was confused and ended in an early decision that eradication was impossible.  Myrtle rust has now spread along the continent’s east coast, with localized distribution in Victoria, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and – in 2022, Western Australia.   `

Melaleuca quinquenervia forest; photo by Doug Beckers via Wikimedia

There have been significant impacts to native plant communities. Several reviews of the emergency response criticized the haste with which the initial decision was made to end eradication (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). (A review of these impacts is here; unfortunately, it is behind a paywall.)

A second newly introduced species has been recognized as a significant threat, but only after its introduction to offshore islands. This is Erythina gall wasp Quadrastichus erythrinae (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). DMF Although Australia is home to at least one native species in the Erythrina genus, E. vespertilio,, the gall wasp is not included on the environmental pest watch list.

Four of the recently detected species were considered to be high impact. Therefore eradication was attempted. Unfortunately, these attempts failed in three cases. The single success involved a pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus hunanesis. See Nahrung and Carnegie (2021) for a discussion of the reasons. This means three species recognized as high-impact pests have established in Australia over 15 years (Nahrung and Carnegie (2021). In fact, Australia’s record of successful forest pest eradications is only half the global average (Carnegie and Nahrung (2019).

Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) conclude that improving early detection strategies is key to increasing the likelihood of eradication. They discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various strategies. Non-officials (citizen scientists) reported 59% of the 260 forest pests detected (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). Few alien pests have been detected by official surveillance (Carnegie et al 2022). However, managing citizen scientists’ reports involves a significant workload. Futhermore, surveillance by industry, while appreciated, is likely to detect only established species (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019).

Interception Frequency Is Not an Indicator of Likelihood of Establishment

Nahrung & Carnegie (2021) document that taxonomic groups already established in Australia are rarely detected at the border. Furthermore, only two species were intercepted before they were discovered to be established in Australia.

Indeed, 76% of species established in Australia were either never or rarely intercepted at the border. While more Hemiptera species are established in Australia, significantly more species of Coleoptera are intercepted at the border. Among beetles, the most-intercepted family is Bostrichid borers (powderpost beetles). Over the period 2003 – 2016, Bostrichid beetles made up 82% of interceptions in wood packaging and 44% in wood products (Nahrung and Carnegie 2022). This beetle family is not considered a quarantine concern by either Australian or American phytosanitary officials. I believe USDA APHIS does not even bother recording detections of powderpost beetles. Nahrung and Carnegie (2021) think the high proportion of Bostrichids might be partially explained by intense inspection of baggage, mail, and personal effects. While Australia actively instructs travelers not to bring in fruits and vegetables because of the pest risk, there are fewer warnings about risks associated with wood products. 

Nahrung & Carnegie (2021) concluded that interception frequencies did not provide a good overall indicator of likelihood of risk of contemporaneous establishment.

Do Programs Focus on the Right Species?

Although Hemiptera comprise about a third of recent detections and establishments, and four of eight established species are causing medium-to-high impact, no Hemiptera are currently listed as high priority forestry pests by Australian phytosanitary agencies (Nahrung & Carnegie (2021). On the other hand, Lepidoptera make up about a third of the high-priority species, yet only two have established in Australia over 130 years. Similarly, Cerambycidae are the most frequently intercepted forest pests and several are listed as high risk. But only three forest-related species have established (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020). (Note discussion of Bostrichidae above.).

Unlike the transcontinental exchanges under way in the Northern Hemisphere, none of the established beetles is from Asia; all are native to Europe. This is especially striking since interceptions from Asia-Pacific areas account for more than half of all interceptions Nahrung and Carnegie (2021).

Interestingly, 32 Australian Lepidopteran and eight Cerambycid species are considered pests in New Zealand. However, no forest pests native to New Zealand have established in Australia despite high levels of trade, geographic proximity, and the high number of shared exotic tree forest species (Nahrung and Carnegie 2020).

STRUCTURE OF PROGRAM

The structure of Australia’s plant biosecurity system is described in detail in Carnegie et al. (2022). These authors call the program “comprehensive” but to me it looks highly fragmented. The federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR,[recently renamed the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, or DAFF) is responsible for pre-border (e.g., off-shore compliance) and border (e.g., import inspection) activities. The seven state governments, along with DAFF, are responsible for surveillance within the country, management of pest incursions, and regulation of pests. Once an alien pest has become established, its management becomes the responsibility of the land manager. In Australia, then, biosecurity is considered to be a responsibility shared between governments, industry and individuals.

Even this fragmented approach was developed more recently than one might expect given Australia’s reputation for having a stringent biosecurity system. Perhaps this reflects the earlier worldwide neglect of the Plant Kingdom? Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) describe recent improvements. Until the year 2000, Australia’s response to the detection of exotic plant pests was primarily case-by-case. In that year Plant Health Australia (PHA) was incorporated. Its purpose was to facilitate preparedness and response arrangements between governments and industry for plant pests. In 2005, the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD) was created. It is a legally-binding agreement between the federal, state, and territorial governments and plant industry bodies. As of 2022, 38 were engaged. It sets up a process to implement management and funding of agreed responses to the detection of exotic plant pests – including cost-sharing and owner reimbursement. A national response plan (PLANTPLAN) provides management guidelines and outlines procedures, roles and responsibilities for all parties. A national committee (Consultative Committee on Emergency Plant Pests (CCEPP) works with surveys to determine invaded areas (delimitation surveys) and other data to determine whether eradicating the pest is technically feasible and has higher economic benefits than costs..

Austropuccinia psidii on Melaleuca quinquenervia; photo by John Tann via Flickr

Even after creation of EPPRD in 2005, studies revealed significant gaps in Australia’s post-border forest biosecurity systems regarding forest pests (Carnegie et al. 2022; Carnegie and Nahrung 2019). These studies – and the disappointing response to the arrival of myrtle rust – led to development of the National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy (NFBSS) – published in 2018; accompanied by an Implementation Plan. A National Forest Biosecurity Coordinator was appointed.

The forest sector is funding a significant proportion of the proposed activities for the next five years; extension is probable. Drs. Carnegie and Nahrung are pleased that the national surveillance program has been established. It includes specific surveillance at high-risk sites and training of stakeholders who can be additional eyes on the ground. The Australian Forest Products Association has appointed a biosecurity manager (pers. comm.)

This mechanism is expected to ensure that current and future needs of the plant biosecurity system can be mutually agreed on, issues identified, and solutions found. Plant Health Australia’s independence and impartiality allow the company to put the interests of the plant biosecurity system first. It also supports a longer-term perspective (Carnegie et al. (2022). Leading natural resource management organizations are also engaged (Carnegie, pers. comm.).

Presumably the forest surveillance strategy (NFBSS) structure is intended to address the following problems (Carnegie and Nahrung 2019):

  • Alien forest pests are monitored offshore and at the border, but post-border surveillance is less structured and poorly resourced. Australia still lacks a surveillance strategy for environmental pests.
  • Several plant industries have developed their own biosecurity programs, co-funded by the government. These include the National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy (NFBSS).

Some pilot projects targetting high risk sites were initiated in the early 2000s. By 2019, only one surveillance program remained — trapping for Asian spongy (gypsy) moth.

  • The states of Victoria and New South Wales have set up sentinel site programs. Victoria’s uses local council tree databases. It is apparently focused on urban trees and is primarily pest-specific – e.g., Dutch elm disease. The New South Wales program monitors more than 1,500 sentinel trees and traps insects near ports. This program is funded by a single forest grower through 2022.  

Dr. Carnegie states: “With the start of the national forest biosecurity surveillance program in December 2022, the issues and gaps identified by Carnegie et al. 2022 are starting to be addressed. The program will conduct biosecurity surveillance specifically for forest pests and pathogens and be integrated with national and state biosecurity activities. While biosecurity in Australia is still agri-centric, a concerted and sustained effort from technical experts from the forest industry is changing this. And finally, the new Biosecurity Levy should ensure sustained funding for biosecurity surveillance.”

There is a separate National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement (NEBRA), adopted in 2012. It is intended to provide guidelines for responding, cost-sharing arrangements, etc. when the alien pest threatens predominantly the environment or public amenity assets (Carnegie et al. (2022). However, when the polyphagous shot hole borer was detected, the system didn’t work as might have been expected. While PSHB had previously been identified as an environmental priority pest, specifically to Acacia, the decision whether to engage was made under auspices of the the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD) rather than the environmental agreement (NEBRA). As a result, stakeholders focused on environmental, amenity and indigenous concerns had no formal representation in decision-making processes; instead, industries that had assessed the species as a low priority (e.g., avocado and plantation forestry) did (Nahrung, pers.comm.).

Additional Issues Needing Attention

Some needs are not addressed by the National Forest Pest Strategic Plan (Carnegie et al. 2022) (Nahrung, pers. comm.):

1) The long-term strategic investment from the commercial forestry sector and government needed to maintain surveillance and diagnostic expertise;

2) Studies to assess social acceptance of response and eradication activities such as tree removal; 

3) Studies to improve pest risk prioritization and assessment methods; and

4) Resolving the biosecurity responsibilities for pests of timber that has been cut and used in construction.

In 2019, Carnegie and Nahrung (2019) called for developing more effective methods of detection, especially of Hemiptera and pathogens. They also promoted national standardization of data collection. Finally, they advocated inclusion of technical experts from state governments, research organizations and industry in developing and implementing responses to pest incursions. They note that surveillance and management programs must be prepared to expect and respond to the unexpected since 85% of the pests detected over the last 20 years—and 75% of subsequently mid-to high-impact species established—were not on high-priority pest list. See Nahrung and Carnegie 2022 for a thorough discussion of the usefulness and weaknesses of predictive pest listing.

SOURCES

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

Carnegie A.J. and H.F. Nahrung. 2019. Post-Border Forest Biosecurity in AU: Response to Recent Exotic Detections, Current Surveillance and Ongoing Needs. Forests 2019, 10, 336; doi:10.3390/f10040336 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests

Carnegie A.J., F. Tovar, S. Collins, S.A. Lawson, and H.F. Nahrung. 2022. A Coordinated, Risk-Based, National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Program for AU Forests. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:756885. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.756885

Nahrung H.F. and A.J. Carnegie. 2020. NIS Forest Insects and Pathogens in Australia: Establishmebt, Spread, and Impact. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:37. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00037 March 2020 | Volume 3 | Article 37

Nahrung, H.F. and A.J. Carnegie. 2021. Border interceps of forest insects estab in AU: intercepted invaders travel early and often. NeoBiota 64: 69–86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.64.60424

Nahrung, H.F. & A.J. Carnegie. 2022. Predicting Forest Pest Threats in Australia: Are Risk Lists Worth the Paper they’re Written on? Global Biosecurity, 2022; 4(1).

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Tree Planting – Warning from New Zealand

Pinus radiata plantation in New Zealand; photo by Jon Sullivan

As countries and conservation organizations ramp up tree planting as one solution to climate change, I worry that many of the plantings will use species not native to the region – with the risk of promoting more bioinvasions. My second fear is that inadequate attention will be paid to ensuring that the propagules thrive.

Warning from New Zealand

New Zealand has adopted a major afforestation initiative (“One Billion Trees”). This program is ostensibly governed by a policy of “right tree, right place, right purpose”. However, Bellingham et al. (2022) [full citation at end of blog] say the program will probably increase the already extensive area of radiata pine plantations and thus the likelihood of exacerbated invasion. They say the species’ potential invasiveness and its effects in natural ecosystems have not been considered.

Bellingham et al. set out to raise the alarm by evaluating the current status of radiata, or Monterrey, pine  (Pinus radiata) in the country. They note that the species already occupies ~1.6 M ha; the species makes up 90% of the country’s planted forests. Despite the species having been detected as spreading outside plantations in 1904, it is generally thought not to have invaded widely.

The authors contend that, to the contrary, radiata pine has already invaded several grasslands and shrublands, including three classes of ecosystems that are naturally uncommon. These are geothermal ecosystems, gumlands (infertile soils that formerly supported forests dominated by the endemic and threatened kauri tree Agathis australis), and inland cliffs. Invasions by pines – including radiata pine – are also affecting primary succession on volcanic substrates, landslides on New Zealand’s steep, erosion-prone terrain, and coastal sand dunes. Finally, pine invasions are overtopping native Myrtaceae shrubs during secondary succession. Bellingham et al. describe the situation as a pervasive and ongoing invasion resulting primarily from spread from plantations to relatively nearby areas.

kauri; photo by Natalia Volna, iTravelNZ

The New Zealanders cite data from South America and South Africa on the damaging effects of invasions by various pine species, especially with respect to fire regimes.

Furthermore, their modelling indicates that up to 76% of New Zealand’s land area is climatically capable of supporting radiata pine — most of the country except areas above 1000 m in elevation or receiving more than 2000 mm of rainfall per year. That is, all but the center and west of the South Island. This model is based on current climate; a warmer/drier climate would probably increase the area suitable to radiata pine.

These invasions by radiata pine have probably been overlooked because the focus has been on montane grasslands (which are invaded by other species of North American conifers). [See below — surveys of knowledge of invasive plants’ impacts.]

Bellingham et al. recognize the economic importance of radiata pine. They believe that early detection of spread from plantations and rapid deployment of containment programs would be the most effective management strategy. They therefore recommend

1) taxing new plantations of non-indigenous conifers to offset the costs of managing invasions, and

2) regulating these plantations more strictly to protect vulnerable ecosystems.

They also note several areas where additional research on the species’ invasiveness, dispersal, and impacts is needed.

Survey of Awareness of Invasive Plants

A few months later a separate group of New Zealand scientists published a study examining tourists’ understanding of invasive plant impacts and willingness to support eradication programs (Lovelock et al.; full citation at end of the blog). One of the invasive plant groups included in the study are conifers introduced from North America and Europe. These conifers are invading montane grasslands, so they are not the specific topic of the earlier article. The other is a beautiful flowering plant, Russell lupine.  These authors say that both plant groups have profound ecological, economic, and environmental impacts. However, the conifers and lupines are also highly visible at places valued by tourists. Lovelock et al. explored whether the plants’ familiarity – and beauty – might affect how people reacted to descriptions of their ecosystem impacts.

Visitors from elsewhere in New Zealand were more aware of invasive plants’ impacts and more willing to support eradication programs for these species specifically. Asian visitors had lower awareness and willingness to support eradication of the invasives than tourists from the United Kingdom, Europe, or North America. This pattern remained after the tourists were informed about the plants’ ecological impacts. All groups were less willing to support eradication of the attractive Russell lupine than the conifers.

Conifers invading montane grasslands are perhaps the most publicized invasive plants in New Zealand [as noted above]. Lovelock et al. report that New Zealand authorities have spent an estimated $NZ166 million to eradicate non-native conifers over large tracts of land on the South Island. Still, only about half the New Zealand visitors surveyed were aware of the ecological problems caused by wild conifers.

invasive lupines in New Zealand; photo by Michael Button via Flickr

Russell lupine (Lupinus × russellii) is invading braided river systems, modifying river flows, reducing nesting site availability for several endangered birds, and provides cover for invasive predators. While initially planted in gardens, the lupines were soon being deliberately spread along the roads to ‘beautify’ the landscape. Foreign tourists often specifically seek river valley invaded by the lupine because pictures of the floral display appear in both official tourism promotional material & tourist-related social media. It is not surprising, then, that even among New Zealanders, only a third were aware of the lupines’ environmental impacts.

The oldest participants (those over 60) had the lowest acceptance of wild conifers. Participants 50–59 years old were most aware of ecological problems caused by wild conifers. Participants 30–39 years old showed the highest acceptance of wild conifers and lowest awareness of ecological issues.

Female participants showed a higher preference for the landscape with wild conifers (45.90%) than males (36.89%). Female participants were also half as aware of ecological problems (25.62% v. 46.12% among male participants).

Nearly all survey participants (96.1%) preferred the landscape with flowering lupine; only 19.4% were aware of associated ecological problems. New Zealand domestic visitors were more aware. After the impacts of lupines were explained, half decided to support eradication. However, the same proportion of all survey participants (42.5%) still wanted to see lupines in the landscape.

Once again, participants older than 50 were more aware of ecological problems arising from lupine invasions.  Both men and women greatly preferred the landscape with Russell lupins.

While the authors do not explore the ramifications of the finding that younger people are less aware of invasive species impacts, I think they bode ill for future protection of the country’s unique flora and fauna. They did note that respondents had a high level of acceptance overall for these species on the New Zealand landscapes.

While the study supported use of simple environmental messaging to influence attitudes about invasive species, also showed that need to consider such social attributes as nationality and ethnicity. So Lovelock et al. call for investigation of how and why place of origin and ethnicity are important in shaping attitudes towards invasives. Conveying conservation messages will be more difficult because tourist materials often contain photographs of the lupines. Much of this information comes from informal media such as social media, which are beyond the control of invasive species managers.

SOURCES

Bellingham, P.J., E.A. Arnst, B.D. Clarkson, T.R. Etherington, L.J. Forester, W.B. Shaw,  R. Sprague, S.K. Wiser, and D.A. Peltzer. 2022. The right tree in the right place? A major economic tree species poses major ecological threats. Biol Invasions Vol.: (0123456789) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02892-6  

Lovelock B., Y. Ji, A. Carr, and C-J. Blye. 2022.  Should tourists care more about invasive species? International and domestic visitors’ perceptions of invasive plants and their control in New Zealand.  Biological Invasions (2022) 24:3905–3918 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02890-8

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Boxwood Blight – Another Failure of the Global Phytosanitary System

boxwood garden at Gunston Hall – home of founding father George Mason; Virginia; photo by Roger 4336 via Wikimedia

Boxwood blight is a disease caused by a group of fungal pathogens. While boxwoods are horticultural plants in the U.S. – important ones! – they are keystone forest species in several regions of the tropics and subtropics.

The situation with boxwood blight is yet another example of a too-frequent pattern for plant pathogens. This pattern applies even to plant taxa that are important to the ornamental horticulture industry – not only plants that are important in natural ecosystems. [See other blogs posted here under the category “plants as pest vectors”, e.g., here. The boxwood blight pathogens:  

  • are of unknown origin;
  • have a wide range of known hosts; additional hosts probable;
  • have been introduced to many new sites over about 30 years;
  • have caused considerable economic, aesthetic, and ecological harm;
  • are a threat to centers of endemism;
  • have no known methods to treat plants in forests;
  • are spread by international plant trade;
  • complicate detection by having hosts that sometimes are asymptomatic; or symptoms can be suppressed by fungicides;
  • apparently few efforts to apply phytosanitary measures to prevent further spread.

Also typical: concerned scientists are trying to promote adoption of phytosanitary measures. This takes the form of a study by Barke, Coop and Hong (full citation at the end of the blog; unless otherwise stated, information in this blog is from this source). They use several models based largely on climatic factors to predict additional geographic areas where else boxwood blight might establish.

I think it is most unfortunate that the U.S. horticultural industry prefers to avoid federal regulation despite the significant costs to its members. Instead, it has advocated for a primarily voluntary response (see below). This undermines efforts to restructure regulatory programs to improve phytosanitary agencies’ management of pathogens. Since the U.S. is such a powerful player on this issue, reducing pressure on APHIS to find more effective measures has global implications. I recognize that preventing transmission of unknown and cryptic pathogens is an intrinsically difficult task. However, tackling this problem should be a top priority for people concerned about retaining healthy floral communities.

Specifics About Boxwood Blight

Boxwood blight is caused by two ascomycete fungi, Calonectria pseudonaviculata [synonym Cylindrocladium buxicola] and Calonectria henricotiae. Both can infect and blight boxwood foliage, resulting in rapid plant death. C. henricotiae is known from only five countries in Europe; C. pseudonaviculata is currently established in 24 countries in three geographic areas: Europe and western Asia; New Zealand; and North America (30 US states and British Columbia). The disease caused by C. pseudonaviculata could spread well beyond its currently invaded range in these regions.

range of Buxus sempervirens; via Wikimedia

Native plants in the family Buxaceae grow in tropical or subtropical areas around the world. Plants in the genera Buxus, Didymeles, Haptanthus, Pachysandra, Sarcococca, and Styloceras are found in some areas of western and southern Europe; Turkey and the Caucuses into Iran; several countries in southeast and east Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia); coastal Australia; high elevation areas of Africa, including Madagascar; parts of South America (southern Brazil, Uruguay, northern Argentina, and southern Chile, and foothills of the Andes); parts of Central America and the Caribbean. Asia is home to about 40 species of Buxus, four species of Pachysandra, and 11 species of Sarcococca.  In the Andes region, all five species of Styloceras are endemic. Central America and the Caribbean are home to about 50 species of Buxus; there are 37 species endemic to Cuba! Madagascar has nine endemic Buxus species.

Many Buxus species occur in small and isolated distributions resulting from both natural causes (e.g., island endemism) and anthropogenic disturbances (including deforestation and invasions of by other non-native pests, such as the box tree moth Cydalima perspectalis in Europe and western Asia).

In native stands of Buxus sempervirens in Georgia and northern Iran, where C. pseudonaviculata was detected in 2010, the disease has caused rapid and intensive defoliation of boxwood plants of different ages. [See also Lehtijarvi, Dogmus-Lehtijarvi and Oskay. Boxwood Blight in Turkey: Impact on Natural Boxwood Populations and Management Challenges. Baltic Forestry 2017, vol. 23(1)] Infected plants are also vulnerable to attacks by secondary opportunistic pathogens that can lead to eventual death. Damage to these forests could lead to reductions in soil stability and subsequent declines in water quality and flood protection, changes in forest structure and composition, and declines in Buxus-associated biodiversity (at least 63 species of lichens, fungi, chromista and invertebrates might be obligate).

Barke, Coop and Hong expect excessive heat and seasonal dryness at one extreme and excessive cold at the other to limit areas in North America and Europe/central Asia where the disease can establish. Areas with oceanic rather than continental climates are probably more vulnerable. However, heat and aridity barriers could be overcome by artificial irrigation of horticultural plantings.

Indeed, the conditions favoring C. pseudonaviculata establishment – warm temperatures and high humidity or water on the leaves – are commonly found in production nurseries. Overhead irrigation exacerbates the risk. Production nurseries also have large numbers of host plants in close proximity – so it is easy for disease to spread (Douglas). 

I am reminded that the causal agent of sudden oak death, Phytophthora ramorum,  has been spread from production nurseries located in hot, dry areas that were considered unsuitable to the pathogen – because conditions inside the nursery were suitable.

wild Buxus on island of Corsica; photo by Sten Porse via Wikimedia

As I noted, the origin of C. pseudonaviculata is unknown. Barke, Coop and Hong think it is most likely in eastern Asia, which is thought to be the likely native region of box tree moth. However, they cannot rule out some other center of diversity for Buxaceae species e.g., the Caribbean or Madagascar.

Barke, Coop and Hong call for additional studies to

  1. Explore potential effects of climate change on establishment risk, especially higher latitude areas expected to see increasing humidity, precipitation, and rising temperatures.
  2. Determine ability of C. pseudonaviculata microsclerotia to survive higher temperatures, e.g. in parts of the U.S. Deep South that may have ideal growing conditions during cool seasons.
  3. Modify the CLIMEX model developed for this study to predict the potential distribution of C. henricotiae, a closely related but genetically distinct species with greater tolerance of higher temperatures.

They call for a strict phytosanitary protocol for risk mitigation of accidental intro, with effective surveillance for early detection, and development of a recovery plan.

Regulatory (non) Response

Boxwood blight was first detected in the United Kingdom in mid-1990s; then in New Zealand in 2002. Only then was the causal agent determined. It was first detected in the U.S. in October 2011 (in Connecticut). It was quickly determined to be established in the mid-Atlantic region. Apparently the British, other European countries, and APHIS all decided the pathogen was too widespread to regulate (Douglas).

The U.S. is relying on a voluntary program. The nursery industry, through its Horticultural Research Institute (HRI), and the National Plant Board developed guidance for best management practices – updated as recently as 2020. 

boxwood blight symptoms; Oregon State University; via Flickr

In contrast, APHIS has acted to regulate the boxwood tree moth, Cydalima perspectalis. The moth was first detected in North America near Toronto in 2018. U.S. nurseries in six states received infected plants in spring 2021. On May 26, 2021, APHIS prohibited importation of host plants from Canada, including boxwood (Buxus spp), Euonymus (Euonymus spp), and holly (Ilex spp).

In July 2021, the moth was detected in Niagara County, New York. It was thought that the moths had flown or been blown into the area from Canada.  New York adopted an intrastate quarantine of three counties (Erie, Niagara, and Orleans) in December 10, 2021. APHIS followed with an interstate quarantine on March 23, 2022.

SOURCES

Barke, B.S., L. Coop and C. Hong. 2022.  Potential Distribution of Invasive Boxwood Blight Pathogen (Calonectria pseudonaviculata) as Predicted by Process-Based and Correlative Models. Biology 2022, 11, 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11060849 www.mdpi.com/journal/biology

Douglas, S.M. Fact sheet; Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CAES/DOCUMENTS/Publications/Fact_Sheets/Plant_Pathology_and_Ecology/2020/Boxwood-Blight-(1).pdf?la=en&hash=A4C6AF39765F27FDDEB5B4DC3FD3B6F3

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Invasions cost protected areas more than $22 billion in 35 years

Burmese python in Everglades National Park; photo by Bob Reed, US FWS

Scientists continue to apply data collected in an international database (InvaCost; see “methods” section of Cuthbert et al.; full citation at end of this blog) to estimate the economic costs associated with invasive alien species (IAS). These sources reported $22.24 billion in economic costs of bioinvasion in protected areas over the 35-year period 1975 – 2020. Because the data has significant gaps, no doubt invasions really cost much more.

Moodley et al. 2022 (full citation at end of this blog) attempt to apply these data to analyze economic costs in protected areas. As they note, protected areas are a pillar of global biodiversity conservation. So it is important to understand the extent to which bioinvasion threatens this purpose. 

Unfortunately, the data are still too scant to support any conclusions. Such distortions are acknowledged by Moodley et al. I will discuss the data gaps below a summary of the study’s findings.

The Details

Of the estimated $22.24 billion, only 4% were observed costs; 96% were “potential” costs (= extrapolated or predicted based on models). Both had generally increased in more recent years, especially “potential” costs after 1995. As is true in other analyses of InvaCost data, the great majority (73%) of observed costs covered management efforts rather than losses due to impacts. The 24% of total costs ascribed to losses, or damage, exceeded the authors’ expectation. They had thought that the minimal presence of human infrastructure inside protected areas would result in low records of “economic” damages.

The great majority (83%) of reported management costs were reactive, that is, undertaken after the invasion had occurred. In terrestrial environments, there were significantly higher bioinvasion costs inside protected areas than outside (although this varied by continent). However, when considering predicted or modelled costs, the importance was reversed: expected management costs represented only 5% while these “potential” damages were 94%.

Higher expenditures were reported in more developed countries – which have more resources to allocate and are better able to carry out research documenting both damage and effort. 

More than 80% of management costs were shouldered by governmental services and/or official organizations (e.g. conservation agencies, forest services, or associations). The “agriculture” and “public and social welfare” sectors sustained 60% of observed “damage” and 89% of “mixed damage and management” costs respectively. The “environmental” and “public and social welfare” sectors together accounted for 94% of all the “potential” costs (predicted based on models) generated by invasive species in protected areas; 99% of damage costs. With the partial exception of the agricultural sector, the economic sectors that contribute the most to movement to invasive species are spared from carrying the resulting costs.

Lord Howe Island, Australia; threatened by myrtle rust; photo by Robert Whyte, via Flickr

Invasive plants dominated by numbers of published reports – 64% of reports of observed costs, 79% of reports of “potential”. However, both actual and “potential” costs allotted to plant invasions were much lower than for vertebrates and invertebrates. Mammals and insects dominated observed animal costs.

It is often asserted that protected areas are less vulnerable to bioinvasion because of the relative absence of human activity. Moodley et al. suggest the contrary: that protected areas might be more vulnerable to bioinvasion because they often host a larger proportion of native, endemic and threatened species less adapted to anthropogenic disturbances. Of course, no place on Earth is free of anthropogenic influences; this was true even before climate change became an overriding threat. Plenty of U.S. National parks and wilderness areas have suffered invasion by species that are causing significant change (see, for example, here, here, and here).

Despite Best Efforts, Data are Scant and Skewed

Economic data on invasive species in protected areas were available for only a tiny proportion of these sites — 55 out of 266,561 protected areas.

As Moodley et al. state, their study was hampered by several data gaps:

  1. Taxonomic bias – plants are both more frequently studied and managed in protected areas, but their reported observed costs are substantially lower than those of either mammals or insects.
  2. The data relate to economic rather than ecological effects. The costliest species economically might not cause the greatest ecological harm.
  3. Geographical bias – studies are more plentiful in the Americas and Pacific Islands. However, studies from Europe, Africa and South America more often report observed costs. The South African attention to invasive species (see blogs here, here, and here), and economic importance of tourism to the Galápagos Islands exacerbate these data biases.
  4. Methodological bias – although reporting bioinvasion costs has steadily increased, it is still erratic and dominated by “potential” costs = predictions, models or simulations.

I note that, in addition, individual examples of high-cost invasive species are not representative. The highest costs reported pertained to one agricultural pest (mango beetle) and one human health threat (mosquitoes).

Great Smokey Mountains National Park; threatened by mammals (pigs), forest pests, worms, invasive plants … Photo by Domenico Convertini via Flickr

As these weaknesses demonstrate, a significant need remains for increased attention to the economic aspects of bioinvasion – especially since political leaders pay so much greater attention to economics than to other metrics. However, the reported costs – $22.24 billion over 35 years, and growing! – are sufficient in the view of Moodley et al. to support advocating investment of more resources in invasive species management in protected areas, including – or especially – it is not quite clear — preventative measures.

SOURCES

Cuthbert, R.N., C Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P.J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion cost reveals insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May, 2022, 153404

Moodley, D., E. Angulo, R.N. Cuthbert, B. Leung, A. Turbelin, A. Novoa, M. Kourantidou, G. Heringer, P.J. Haubrock, D. Renault, M. Robuchon, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, F. Courchamp, C. Diagne. 2022.  Surprisingly high economic costs of bioinvasions in protected areas. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or www.fadingforests.org

What Do Invasive Species Cost?

brown tree snake Boiga irregularis; via Wikimedia; one of the species on which the most money is spent on preventive efforts

In recent years a group of scientists have attempted to determine how much invasive species are costing worldwide. See Daigne et al. 2020 here.

Some of these scientists have now gone further in evaluating these data. Cuthbert et al. (2022) [full citation at end of blog] see management of steadily increasing numbers of invasive, alien species as a major societal challenge for the 21st Century. They undertook their study of invasive species-related costs and expenditures because rising numbers and impacts of bioinvasions are placing growing pressure on the management of ecological and economic systems and they expect this burden to continue to rise (citing Seebens et al., 2021; full citation at end of blog).

They relied on a database of economic costs (InvaCost; see “methods” section of Cuthbert et al.) It is the best there is but Cuthbert et al. note several gaps:

  • Only 83 countries reported management costs; of those, only 24 reported costs specifically associated with pre-invasion (prevention) efforts.
  • Data comparing regional costs do not incorporate consideration of varying purchasing power of the reporting countries’ currencies.  
  • Data available are patchy so global management costs are probably substantially underestimated. For example, forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database, but constitute 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al., in prep.) .

Still, their findings fit widespread expectations.  

These data point to a total cost associated with invasive species – including both realized damage and management costs – of about $1.5 trillion since 1960.  North America and Oceania spent by far the greatest amount of all global money countering bioinvasions. North America spent 54% of the total expenditure of $95.3 billion; Oceania spent 30%. The remaining regions each spent less than $5 billion.

Cuthbert et al. set out to compare management expenditures to losses/damage; to compare management expenditures pre-invasion (prevention) to post-invasion (control); and to determine potential savings if management had been more timely.

Economic Data Show Global Efforts Could Be – But Aren’t — Cost-Effective

The authors conclude that countries are making insufficient investments in invasive species management — particularly preventive management. This failure is demonstrated by the fact thatreported management expenditures ($95.3 billion) are only 8% of total damage costs from invasions ($1.13 trillion). While both cost or losses and management expenditures have risen over time, even in recent decades, losses were more than ten times larger than reported management expenditures. This discrepancy was true across all regions except the Antarctic-Subantarctic. The discrepancy was especially noteworthy in Asia, where damages were 77-times higher than management expenditures.

Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of overall management spending goes to prevention. Of the $95.3 billion in total spending on management, only $2.8 billion – less than 3%  – has been spent on pre-invasion management. Again, this pattern is true for all geographic regions except the Antarctic-Subantarctic. The divergence is greatest in Africa, where post-introduction control is funded at more than 1400 times preventive efforts. It is also significant for Asia and South America.

Even in North America – where preventative actions were most generously funded – post-introduction management is funded at 16 times that of prevention.

Cuthbert et al. worry particularly about the low level of funding for prevention in the Global South. They note that these conservation managers operate under severe budgetary constraints. At least some of the bioinvasion-caused losses suffered by resources under their stewardship could have been avoided if the invaders’ introduction and establishment had been successfully prevented.

While in the body of the article Cuthbert et al. seem uncertain about why funding for preventive actions is so low, in their conclusions they offer a convincing (to me) explanation. They note that people are intrinsically inclined to react when impact becomes apparent. It is therefore difficult to motivate proactive investment when impacts are seemingly absent in the short-term, incurred by other sectors, or in different regions, and when other demands on limited funds may seem more pressing. Plus efficient proactive management will prevent any impact, paradoxically undermining evidence of the value of this action!

Aedes aegypti mosquito; one of the species on which the most money is spent for post-introduction control; photo by James Gathany; via Flickr

Delay Costs Money

The reports contained in the InvaCost database indicate that management is delayed an average of 11 years after damage was first been reported. Cuthbert et al. estimate that these delays have caused an additional cost of about $1.2 trillion worldwide. Each $1 of management was estimated to reduce damage by $53.5 in this study. This finding, they argue, supports the value of timely invasive species management.

They point out that the Supplementary Materials contain many examples of bioinvasions that entail large and sustained late-stage expenditures that would have been avoided had management interventions begun earlier.

Although Cuthbert et al. are not as clear as I would wish, they seem to recognize also that stakeholders’ varying perceptions of whether an introduced species is causing a detrimental “impact” might also complicate reporting – not just whether any management action is taken

Cuthbert et al. are encouraged by two recent trends: growing investments in preventative actions and research, and shrinking delays in initiating management. However, these hopeful trends are unequal among the geographic regions.

Which Taxonomic Groups Get the Most Money?

About 42% of management costs ($39.9 billion) were spent on diverse or unspecified taxonomic groups. Of the costs that were taxonomically defined, 58% ($32.1 billion) was spent on invertebrates [see above re: forest pests]; 27% ($14.8 billion) on plants; 12% ($6.7 billion) on vertebrates; and 3% ($1.8 billion) on “other” taxa, i.e. fungi, chromists, and pathogens. For all of these defined taxonomic groups, post-invasion management dominated over pre-invasion management.  

When considering the invaded habitats, 69% of overall management spending was on terrestrial species ($66.1 billion); 7% on semi-aquatic species ($6.7 billion); 2% on aquatic species ($2.0 billion); the remainder was “diverse/unspecified”. For pre-invasion management (prevention programs), terrestrial species were still highest ($840.4 million). However, a relatively large share of investments was allocated to aquatic invaders ($624.2 million).

Considering costs attributed to individual species, the top 10 targetted for preventive efforts were four insects, three mammals, two reptiles, and one alga. Top expenditures for post-invasion investments went to eight insects [including Asian longhorned beetle], one mammal, and one bird.

Asian longhorned beetle

Just two of the costliest species were in both categories: insects red imported fire ant(Solenopsis invicta) and Mediterranean fruitfly (Ceratitis capitate). None of the species with the highest pre-invasion investment was among the top 10 costliest invaders in terms of damages. However, note the lack of data on fungi, chromists, and pathogens. (I wrote about this problem in an earlier blog.)

Discussion and Recommendations

Cuthbert et al. conclude that damage costs and post-invasion spending are probably growing substantially faster than pre-invasion investment. Therefore, they call for a stronger commitment to enhancing biosecurity and for more reliance on regional efforts rather than ones by individual countries. Their examples of opportunities come from Europe.

Drawing parallels to climate action, the authors also call for greater emphasis on during decision-making to act collectively and proactively to solve a growing global and inter-generational problem.

Cuthbert et al. focus many of their recommendations on improving reporting. One point I found particularly interesting: given the uneven and rapidly changing nature of invasive species data, they think it likely that future invasions could involve a new suite of geographic origins, pathways or vectors, taxonomic groups, and habitats. These could require different management approaches than those in use today.

As regards data and reporting, Cuthbert et al. recommend:

1) reducing bias in cost data by increasing funding for reporting of underreported taxa and regions;

2) addressing ambiguities in data by adopting a harmonized framework for reporting expenditures. For example, agriculture and public health officials refer to “pest species” without differentiating introduced from native species. (An earlier blog also discussed the challenge arising from  these fields’ different purposes and cultures.)

3) urging colleagues to try harder to collect and integrate cost information, especially across sectors;

4) urging countries to report separately costs and expenditures associated with different categories, i.e., prevention separately from post-invasion management; damage separately from management efforts; and.

5) creating a formal repository for information about the efficacy of management expenditures.

While the InvaCost database is incomplete (a result of poor accounting by the countries, not lack of effort by the compilers!), analysis of these data points to some obvious ways to improve global efforts to contain bioinvasion. I hope countries will adjust their efforts based on these findings.

SOURCE

Cuthbert, R.N., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P. J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May 2022, 153404

Seebens, H. S. Bacher, T.M. Blackburn, C. Capinha, W. Dawson, S. Dullinger, P. Genovesi, P.E. Hulme, M.van Kleunen, I. Kühn, J.M. Jeschke, B. Lenzner, A.M. Liebhold, Z. Pattison, J. Perg, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, F. Essl. 2021. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Glob Change Biol. 2021;27:970-982.

Williams, G.M., M.D. Ginzel, Z. Ma, D.C. Adams, F.T. Campbell, G.M. Lovett, M. Belén Pildain, K.F. Raffa, K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Santini, R.A. Sniezko, M.J. Wingfield, and P. Bonello 2022. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. submitted

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

Global Loss of Floristic Uniqueness

Hakalau Forest, Hawai“i; nearly 90% of Hawaiian flora is unique to the Islands

A recent article by Yang et al. 2021 (full citation at the end of this blog) seeks to determine the extent to which introduced plants reduce the uniqueness of regional floras. They analyzed data from 658 regions covering about 65.7% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface and about 62.3% of the planet’s known plant species.

They found strong homogenization of plant species’ taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity results from introductions of plant species to ecosystems beyond their native range. Homogenization caused by regional extinctions of native floral species occurs much less frequently.

There are two aspects of a region’s floral uniqueness. One is the number of species that it shares with other regions. This is taxonomic uniqueness. The other is the distinctiveness of the evolutionary history of the region. When several species are endemic to a region’s flora, and lack close relatives in other regions, that equals phylogenetic uniqueness.

The effect of a species introduction differs depending on which of these aspects one focuses on. Thus, naturalization of a species closely related to native species (e.g., a congeneric species) will have less impact on the phylogenetic floristic uniqueness of the region than naturalization by a distantly related species. Taxonomic uniqueness, however, will be affected to the same degree, irrespective of the phylogenetic distance between the naturalized and native species.

Yang et al. found strong homogenization of plant diversity. They found that species introductions increased the taxonomic similarity in 90.7% of all regional pairs and phylogenetic similarity in 77.2% of all region pairs. Most homogenization results from introductions of plant species to ecosystems beyond their native range. Homogenization caused by regional extinctions of native floral species occurs much less frequently.

This loss of regional biotic uniqueness or distinctiveness changes biotic interactions and species assemblages. These, in turn, have ecological and evolutionary consequences at larger scales and higher levels.

The degree of homogenization between regions’ floras depends on three factors:

1) The distance between the donor and recipient regions. Since nearby regions share more species, an introduction from a more distant origin is more likely to be a novel species and so contribute to homogenization of “donor” and “receiving” floras.

2) Climatic similarity, especially temperature. A plant species introduced from a climatically similar but geographically distant place is more likely to establish than a species from a different climatic zone. As a result, the recipient area’s flora is changed to more closely resemble the flora of the donor region with which it shares climatic conditions – regardless of the distance between them.

3) The level of exchange of goods and people between two regions. The higher the rate of exchange between two regions, the greater the chance that a species will be introduced and become established. Yang et al. used the existence of current or past administrative relationships (e.g., colonial relationship) between two regions as a proxy for intensity of trade and transport between donor and recipient regions. They found that floras of regions with current or past administrative links have taxonomically become more similar to each other than the floras of regions with no such links.

flora of the Cape Floral Kingdom – South Africa; photo from Michael Wingfield

Establishment of introduced species can increase floristic similarity of the donor and recipient regions (= floristic homogenization) when the species is native to one of the two regions and naturalizes in the other, or when it is not native to both regions and naturalizes in both. On the other hand, a species introduction can decrease the floristic similarity of the two regions (i.e., enhance floristic differentiation) when the species is not native to both regions but naturalized in only one.  

Homogenization hotspots differed slightly depending on whether one focused on taxonomic or phylogenetic aspects.

The regions with the greatest average increase in taxonomic similarity with other regions due to naturalized alien species were New Zealand, portions of Australia, and many oceanic islands. The Australasian situation probably reflects its long biogeographic isolation from other parts of the globe and its highly unique native flora. As a result, nearly all non-native plants introduced to Australasia strongly increase levels of its floristic similarity to the rest of the world. Oceanic islands have species-poor floras with large proportions of unique endemics. They have also received high numbers of naturalized alien plants.

Hotspots of phylogenetic homogenization on continents are the same as those for taxonomic homogenization, but this is not true for islands. Yang et al. think this is because islands’ native floras were established by natural colonization from nearby continental floras so – despite subsequent speciation – they retain their phylogenetic relationship to the donor areas’ floras.  

Yang et al. concede that they lacked high-quality data on native and naturalized alien species lists for a third of Earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface, especially Africa, Eastern Europe, and tropical Asia. They believe, however, that data from these regions are unlikely to change the overall finding.  (Scientists are beginning to compile lists of forest pests in Africa). link to blog

Yang et al. note that introduction and naturalization of alien species are likely to increase in the future, thusaccelerating floristic homogenization. The ecological, evolutionary and socioeconomic consequences are largely unknown.They call for stronger biosecurity regulations of trade and transport and other measures to protect native vegetation.

SOURCE

Yang, Q., P. Weigelt, T.S. Fristoe, Z. Zhang, H. Kreft, A. Stein, H. Seebens, W. Dawson, F. Essl, C. König, B. Lenzner, J. Pergl, R. Pouteau, P. Pyšek, M. Winter, A.L. Ebel, N. Fuentes, E.L.H. Giehl, J. Kartesz, P. Krestov, T. Kukk, M. Nishino, A. Kupriyanov, J.L. Villaseñor, J.J. Wieringa, A. Zeddam, E. Zykova  and M. van Kleunen. 2021. The global loss of floristic uniqueness. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS (2021) 12:7290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27603-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