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 21^st 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

https://fadingforests.org

Pest Threats to Plantations: Will At-Risk Countries Demand Improvements to IPPC?

pines in a plantation in Argentina killed by *Sirex noctilio*; photo by J. Villacide

A decade ago, Payn et al. (2015) compiled studies from around the globe to evaluate threats to widespread tree plantations. At that time, they said climate change posed the greatest threat to plantation forestry globally, in the forms of storm and flood damage and simultaneous warming and drying trends with extreme temperatures.

Still, the authors warned that forest health would be an increasingly important constraint to plantation productivity. They were optimistic, however, that modern breeding and other technologies could offset losses.

What is the current situation? The countries that depend on these plantations for fiber production are not demanding that leaders of the international phytosanitary structure build a more effective system to protect their investments. Instead, individual scientists struggle to better understand threats. Mostly, they propose expanded research.

Economic Importance of these Species

Eucalypts

“Eucalypts” comprises three genera in the family Myrtaceae: Angophora, Corymbia and Eucalyptus. These include more than 700 tree species native primarily to Australia. A few species are native to Indonesia, New Guinea and the Philippines (Paine et al. 2011; Crous et al. 2019). Some of these species have been extensively planted outside their native ranges for more than 100 years. These plantations have expanded rapidly in recent decades, especially in Southeast Asia and the Southern Hemisphere (Crous et al. 2019). Eucalypts are now the most widely planted hardwood timber in the world (Paine et al. 2011).

Eucalypt plantation in Brazil; photo by Jonathan Wilken via Wikimedia

Eucalypts’ popularity has been driven chiefly by their rapid growth; short rotation times including through coppicing; and adaptability to a very wide variety of sites and climatic conditions (Paine et al. 2011; Crous et al. 2019). Also, these trees are an important source of the short-fiber pulp required for production of high-quality paper used in modern office copiers and printers (Paine et al. 2011). Plantations are increasing even in Australia, where harvesting of native forests is increasingly being restricted (Paine et al. 2011).

Pines

Pines – a genus restricted naturally to the Northern Hemisphere – is second in global popularity. South America hosts 4.6 million hectares of pine plantations (Lantschner and Villacide 2025). South America is more dependent on forestry plantations for wood production than any other region. In 2012, 88% of its industrial roundwood was produced by non-native plantations. This far exceeded the global proportion of approximately 19%.

These intensively managed plantations have enabled Brazil and Chile to become “planted forest powerhouses.” Uruguay and, more slowly, Argentina are following the same path (Payn et al. 2015).

Documentation of the Damage

Euclaypts

The highly diverse eucalypts host an even greater diversity of fungi. As of 30 years ago, scientists were aware of more than 500 species of just one type, the leaf-infecting fungi. Additional fungi are associated with seeds, capsules, twigs, branches, and stems. Little is known about the vast majority of these fungi. Even species considered causal agents of important diseases have not yet been confirmed using Koch’s Postulates. Areas of origin for most is also unknown (Crous et al. 2019).

Crous et al. (2019) compiled information on 110 genera of fungi found on eucalypt foliage. Some genera include well-recognized primary pathogens. They name Austropuccinia and Calonectria, Coniella, Elsinoe, Pseudocercospora, Quambalaria and Teratosphaeria. Other genera are thought to include species that are opportunists that develop on stressed or dying tissues. Many other leaf fungi are putative pathogens, but unstudied. Additional fungi cause vascular wilts (e.g. Ceratocystidaceae), stem canker diseases (Cryphonectriaceae, Botryosphaeriaceae) and root diseases (e.g. Armillaria, Ganoderma) of eucalypts.

Crous et al. (2019) state that the rust Austropuccinia psidii is one of the most damaging of the foliage fungal pathogens. They consider it to be a greater threat to eucalypt plantations outside the trees’ native ranges. (The Myrtaceous species in Australia most damaged by A. psidii are in other genera.)

Two families of leaf fungi – Mycosphaerellaceae and Teratosphaeriaceae – include species that cause serious diseases. Pérez, et al. report a study in plantation in Uruguay that detected six new species. They also discovered new hosts for some known species. (Such initial detections of new fungal species in out-of-native-range plantations is a usual occurrence.)

Over the 100-year history of planting eucalyptus outside Australasia, dozens of leaf pathogens have been transported to novel regions. Crous et al. 2019 report the wide geographic breadth of many of these introductions. For example, Mycosphaerella heimii is crippling plantation forestry in five global regions – South America (Brazil and Venezuela); Asia (Indonesia and Thailand); Africa (Madagascar), Europe (Portugal); and in its presumably native Australia. A second species, M. marksii, has a similarly wide introduced range: Portugal, China and Indonesia, South Africa, Ethiopia, and Uruguay. Pérez et al. calls Mycosphaerella leaf diseases one of the most important impediments to Eucalyptus plantation forestry in Uruguay.

Although Crous et al. do not provide dates of detection, it appears that many of these leaf pathogens were introduced outside Australasia before the mid-990s, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) came into force. Together, these agreements govern what actions phytosanitary officials may take to curtail international movement of plant pests. (To see my critique of the WTO/IPPC system, visit here.) The possible exception might be Kirramyces gauchensis, a well-known pathogen of Eucalyptus grandis in South America (Argentina and Uruguay), Hawai`i, and Africa (Uganda and Ethiopia) (Pérez, et al. 2009). Crous et al. (2019) expect another genus, Quambalaria species, to become a threat to eucalypt plantation forestry globally in the future.

*Phoracantha semipunctata*; photo by Umo Schmidt via Flickr

Arthropod pests have also been spread to many Eucalyptus-growing regions in North and South America, Europe and Africa since the 1980s. Some species have colonized virtually all eucalypt-growing regions, e.g., Phoracantha semipunctata. Some have – so far – appeared on only one continent.

In an effort to determine how many of these introductions have occurred after adoption of the WTO/ IPPC system, I Googled the species named by Paine et al. (2011). I used the year 2000 as the cutoff date, to allow for detection lag. Among the insect species that fit this criterion are a lerp psyllid, a leaf beetle, and two gall wasps detected in North America; a true bug, two galling insects, and a leaf beetle in South Africa; and three psyllids in Europe.

Asia stands out as having very few introduced Australian insects plaguing eucalyptus plantations. Only one insect of Australian origin is causing significant damage in this region, Leptocybe invasa. It was detected after 2000, so it might have been introduced under the WTO/IPPC regime. Many widespread species, e.g., Phoracantha semipunctata, are notably absent. Instead, large numbers of endemic insects use these trees. This contrasts with the situation in the Southern Hemisphere, where few of the numerous native insects have shifted onto eucalypts.

New Zealand has detected only two new species of Australian origin since 1999 — two psyllids. This is despite the two nations’ proximity, the large volume of trade that passes between them, and the likelihood that at least some small sap-suckers might be introduced via aerial dispersal. New Zealand is famous for its strict phytosanitary (and sanitary) policies and programs.

Eucalyptus plantation in Kwa-Zulu, South Africa

Plantations’ vulnerability has been increased by expanding reliance on clonal, artificially-induced hybridization. Developers’ goals – and initial results – are enhanced adaptation to specific environments, desired fiber characteristics, and hybrid vigor. However, these vast areas planted in genetically identical trees are sitting ducks. An insect or pathogen that overcomes the host’s defenses can spread rapidly across the entire planting.

These hybrids also can act as “bridges,” facilitating spread of fungi to formerly resistant host species. Crous et al. (2019) fear that this process will undermine resistance in Eucalyptus pellita to the pathogen Teratosphaeria destructans. Plantations in Southeast Asia and South Africa now comprise hybrids between this resistant species and the highly susceptible Eucalyptus brassiana.

Pines

As with the eucalypts, the intensively managed pine plantations are comprised of fast-growing exotic species, all at the same developmental stage, and with minimal genetic diversity, planted to maximize wood production. These practices again lead to biological homogenization and reduced resilience to pests (Villacide and Fuetealba, 2025)

In the Southern Hemisphere, Sirex noctilio has become the most significant economic pest of Pinus species. These attacks can cause up to 80% mortality. Several other Sirex species have also been introduced, all apparently in the 1980s or earlier (Wilcken et al., 2025) – before adoption of the current international phytosanitary regime. However, in 2023, a new species, Sirex obesus, was discovered causing tree mortality in pine plantations in southeastern Brazil. This species is indigenous to the United States and Mexico.

Stazione et al. (2026) discuss two other non-native pine pests that established recently in South America.

Analysis of mitochondrial DNA of Orthotomicus erosus points to a western Eurasian lineage. The low genetic diversity of the introduced population in Argentina and Uruguay suggests a single or limited introduction event followed by regional spread.

The source region of Cyrtogenius luteus is more difficult to determine but is probably somewhere in China. The higher haplotype diversity might reflect multiple introductions. Again, shared haplotypes between Argentina and Uruguay countries indicates a contiguous regional spread, possibly driven by extensive pine plantations & intra-regional trade (Stazione et al. 2026)

Policy Aspects

Some scientists express concern about the failure of international phytosanitary measures. But are their countries speaking up in regulatory bodies, especially the International Plant Protection Convention?

Studies by Crous et al. (2019) and Pérez et al. (2009) clearly show that pathogens from Australia continue to be transported to regions where eucalypt plantations are grown. This happens despite most of the movement of genetic material being in the form of seeds – which should be less likely to transport pathogens than trade in plants. Pérez et al. (2009) explicitly raise concerns about the effectiveness of current quarantine procedures. Crous et al. (2019) state that quarantines continue to fail in many parts of the world.

Burgess and Wingfield (2017) list pathogens that have spread widely since the beginning of the 21st Century: Austropuccinia psidii, Calonectria (= Cylindrocladium) eudonaviculata (=Cylindrocladium buxicola), Ceratocystis lukuohia and C. huliohia introduced to Hawai`i. I add that insect-vectored diseases such as Euwallacea species carryingFusarium fungi have also experienced a burst of introductions around the globe since 2000.

Crous et al. (2019) attribute this failure partially to the enormous difficulty of applying effective quarantine to the huge volumes of planting material traded globally. Another factor is undoubtedly the poor understanding of microbial species, their pathogenicity, hosts, pathways of spread, even taxonomies. Some genera cannot be grown in culture.

Furthermore, pathogens’ impacts vary, possibly due to environmental conditions of the location or differing virulence on different hosts. Finally, with so many fungi and so little knowledge, it is difficult to separate true disease agents from multiple secondary infections.

Crous et al. (2019) express the hope that increased recognition of the importance of pathogens, along with improved detection and identification tools, will clarify patterns of spread. But is that enough? Are there no policy changes needed?

Crous et al. (2019) also warn us about additional pathways for spreading pathogens. Some potential pathogens of eucalypts have been moved on plants of other, related genera. Furthermore, Botryosphaeriaceae have been detected in the skins of mangoes (Mangifera indica) and avocados (Persea americana). Both of these fruits move globally in large volumes.

mangoes; photo by Obsidian Soul via Wikimedia

Regarding insects, Paine et al. (2011) focus on a concern that species native to the plantation countries and generalist herbivores from other parts of world will invade Australia and threaten eualypts in their native ranges. See other blog They also call for research to understand international pathways, develop detection methods, improve understanding of patterns of host suitability, susceptibility, and selection.

Villacide and Fuetealba (2025) note that while the introductory pathway for that new species, Sirex obesus, has not been determined, they suspect it might have been wood packaging materials. Villacide and another colleague (Lantschner and Villacide 2025) suggest an initial step would be for Argentina and other countries in the region to negotiate with Brazil to adopt more protective protocols governing trade in wood products, including wood packaging.

I have repeatedly advocated strengthening regulation of wood packaging. Such measures could improve protection of Earth’s forests from pests that use a well-documented high-risk introductory pathway. To see my arguments and underlying data, scoll down below the “archives” to “Categories” and click on “wood packaging”.

SOURCES

Burgess, T.I. and M.J. Wingfield. 2017. Pathogens on the Move: A 100-Year Global Experiment with Planted Eucalypts. Bioscience. Volume 67, Issue 1, January 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw146

Crous, P.W., M.J. Wingfield, R. Cheewangkoon, A.J. Carnegie, T.I. Burgess, B.A. Summerell, J. Edwards, P.W.J. Taylor, and J.Z. Groenewald. 2019. Folia pathogens o eucalypts. Studies in Mycology 94:125-298 (2019).

Lantschner, V. and J. Villacide. 2025. Invasion Potential of the Recently Established Woodwasp Sirex obesus. Neotropical Entomology. (2025) 54:117 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-025-01347-6

Paine, T.D., M.J. Steinbauer, and S.A. Lawson. 2011. Native and Exotic Pests of Eucalyptus: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011. 56:181-201

Payn, T., J-M. Carnus, P. Freer-Smith, M. Kimberley, W. Kollert, S. Liu, C. Orazio, L. Rodriguez, L. Neves Silva, M.J. Wingfield. 2015. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. Forest Ecology and Management 352 (2015)

Pérez,, C.A., M.J. Wingfield, N.A. Altier, and R.A. Blanchette. 2009. Mycosphaerellaceae and Teratosphaeriaceae associated with Eucalyptus leaf diseases and stem cankers in Uruguay For. Path. 39 (2009) 349–360 doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0329.2009.00598.x www3.interscience.wiley.com

Stazione, L., Soliani, C., Cognato, A. et al. Reconstructing the invasion history of the bark beetles Orthotomicus erosus & Cyrtogenius luteus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in South America. Biol Invasions 28, 49 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03779-6

Villacide, J. and A. Fuetealba. 2025. Pests in plantations: Challenging traditional productive paradigms in the Southern Cone of America. Forest Ecology and Management 597 (2025) 123127

Wilcken, C.F., T.A. da Mota, C.H. de Oliveir, V.R. de Carvalho, L.A. Benso, J.A. Gabia, S.R.S. Wilcken, E.L. Furtado, N.M. Schiff, M.B. de Camargo, M.F. Ribeiro. 2025. Sirex obesus (Hymenoptera: Siricidae) as invasive pest in pine plantations in Brazil. Scientific Reports. 2025. 15:22522 https://doi.org/10.1038/541598-025-06418-7

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

Threat to Native Myrtaceae in South America

*Blepharocalyx salicifolius –* a tree in the Myrtaceae native to South America on which found symptoms similar to those caused by Mycosphaerellaceae or Teratosphaeriaceae; photo by Pablo di Flores via Wikimedia

Pests that have followed their hosts to plantations outside the trees’ native ranges might threaten native plants in their new, introduced ranges. That is, the countries where the plantations are located.

Eucalypts

Eucalypts are now the most widely planted hardwood timber taxon in the world (Paine et al 2011). The 700 – 800 species in the three genera considered “eucalypts” (Angophora, Corymbia, and Eucalyptus) host a highly diverse fungal community — more than 500 species have been identified of just one type, leaf-infecting fungi (Crous et al. 2019).

As I described in a related blog, link dozens of leaf pathogens have been transported to countries hosting eucalypt plantations. Among them, two families – Mycosphaerellaceae and Teratosphaeriaceae – are prominent in both numbers of introductions and potential to cause serious diseases.

Pérez et al. (2009) reported that a relatively large number of Mycosphaerellaceae and Teratosphaeriaceae are found on Eucalyptusin Uruguay. The authors cite one troubling case of host shifting: Mycosphaerella lateralis is causing leaf disease on a Musa cultivar (banana!) which is not in the Myrtaceae.

A follow-up study by the same authors (Pérez et al. 2013) surveyed several native forests, paying special attention to those located close to Eucalyptus plantations. They found five species belonging to the Mycosphaerellaceae and Teratosphaeriaceae clades on native Myrtaceous trees; three of these had previously been reported on Eucalyptus in Uruguay. Those occurring on both Eucalyptus and native Myrtaceae included Pallidocercospora heimii, Pseudocercospora norchiensis, and Teratosphaeria aurantia. A fourth species, Mycosphaerella yunnanensis, not previously recorded in Uruguay, was found on the leaves of two native Myrtaceous hosts. Pérez et al. (2013) believe circumstances indicate that all these fungi have been introduced. They warn that these apparent jumps to new hosts have the potential to result in serious disease problems and they should be carefully monitored. This finding is more than a decade old; I have not found a more recent report.

On the global level, Pérez et al. (2013) report, at least 23 species of Mycosphaerellaceae and Teratosphaeriaceae have been found on non-Eucalyptus species in the Myrtaceae. These hosts are in several plant orders, including Myrtales, Proteales, Fabaes and Apiales. The authors express “considerable concern” about the apparent ease of movement in these fungi between hosts. I have been unable to learn more details about these introductions.

Arthropod pests have also been spread to many Eucalyptus-growing regions in North and South America, Europe, and Africa since the 1980s – but not to Asia or New Zealand (Paine et al. 2011). blog

*Myrrhinium atropurpureum* – another South American plant in the Myrtaceae on which symptoms found; photo by Prof. Atilio L, Botanical Garden of Uruguay

Pines

Pines – a genus restricted naturally to the Northern Hemisphere – is second in popularity for intensively managed plantations. South America has 4.6 million hectares of pine plantations (Lantschner and Villacide 2025). Most are in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina (Payn et al. 2015).

*Cinara cupressi;* photo by LBM via Wikimedia

As I reported in an earlier blog, some of the insect pests that followed pines to South America have entered native forests. The most alarming of which I am aware is the aphid Cinara cupressi. It attacks the native conifer Austrocedrus chilensis, which forms pure and mixed stands with southern hemisphere beech (Nothofagus spp.) across approximately 160,000 hectares (Villacide and Fuetealba 2025). Cordilleran cypress is also under attack by the oomycete Phytophthora austrocedri, an oomycete of unknown origin.

Some scientists express concern about phytosanitary measures … but are their countries speaking up in meetings of the International Plant Protection Convention?

Studies by Crous et al. and Pérez et al. clearly show that pathogens from Australia continue to be transported to regions where eucalypt plantations are grown – despite the fact that most of the movement of tree genetic material is in the form of seeds – which should be less likely to transport pathogens than trade in plants. Pérez et al. (2009) explicitly raise concerns about the effectiveness of current quarantine procedures. Crous et al. (2019) state that the quarantines continue to fail in many parts of the world.

See my critique of the international phytosanitary system under the IPPC by visiting the Fading Forest II report (see link below) and reading other blogs under the categories “invasive species policy” and “plants as vectors of pests”.

SOURCES

Crous, P.W., M.J. Wingfield, R. Cheewangkoon, A.J. Carnegie, T.I. Burgess, B.A. Summerell, J. Edwards, P.W.J. Taylor, and J.Z. Groenewald. 2019. Foliar pathogens of eucalypts. Studies in Mycology 94:125-298 (2019)

Lantschner, V. and J. Villacide. 2025. Invasion Potential of the Recently Established Woodwasp Sirex obesus. Neotropical Entomology. (2025) 54:117 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-025-01347-6

Paine, T.D., M.J. Steinbauer, and S.A. Lawson. 2011. Native & Exotic Pests of Eucalyptus: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011. 56:181-201

Payn, T., J-M. Carnus, P. Freer-Smith, M. Kimberley, W. Kollert, S. Liu, C. Orazio, L. Rodriguez, L. Neves Silva, M.J. Wingfield. 2015. Changes in planted forests & future global implications. Forest Ecology and Management 352 (2015)

Pérez, C.A., M.J. Wingfield, N.A. Altier, and R.A. Blanchette. 2009. Mycosphaerellaceae & Teratosphaeriaceae associated with Eucalyptus leaf diseases & stem cankers in Uruguay For. Path. 39 (2009) 349–360 doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0329.2009.00598.x www3.interscience.wiley.com

Pérez, C.A., M.J. Wingfield, N. Altier, and R.A. Blanchette. 2013. Species of Mycosphaerellaceae and Teratosphaeriaceae on native Myrtaceae in Uruguay: evidence of fungal host jumps. Fungal Biology Volume 117, Issue 2, February 2013.

Villacide, J. and A. Fuetealba. 2025. Pests in plantations: Challenging traditional productive paradigms in the Southern Cone of America. Forest Ecology and Management 597 (2025) 123127

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

Pest Threats to Eucalypts and Australia

*Chilecomadia valdiviana* – one of the South American moths that attack Eucalyptus; photo by Natural History Museum of London via Wikimedia

Fifteen years ago, Paine, Steinbauer, and Lawson (2011) worried that insects in South America, Africa, Asia, and Europe that adapt to attacking Eucayptus trees planted there might be introduced to Australasia and threaten the genus in its native range. Their analysis applies to species in all three genera considered to be “eucalypts” — Angophora, Corymbia and Eucalyptus.

Some insects native to those continents have made this host shift already. Paine, Steinbauer, and Lawson reported that such host switching was especially prevalent among lepidopterans. They name several from Brazil, the Chilean cossid moth, Chilecomadia valdiviana, and southern African Coryphodema tristis. In their view, Brazilian eucalypt plantations’ proximity to native vegetation facilitates host-switching. Still, at that time they thought that there were no established pathways for introduction of the South American moths to Australia.

Host-switching is exceptionally common in Asia. Paine, Steinbauer, and Lawson (2011) thought the risk was greatest from insects on native eucalypts in near-neighbors Papua New Guinea, Timor, and The Philippines. An earlier risk assessment evaluating 10 insect species from the region concluded that most are polyphagous and probably switched to eucalypts. Two woodborers – Agrilus opulentus and A. sexsignatus –seem to have coevolved with Eucalyptus deglupta in New Guinea and The Philippines.

According to the same authors, most of the insects that have switched hosts are either polyphagous or normally feed on other myrtaceous species native to these regions. Thus, the Brazilian moth Thyrinteina arnobia feeds on Psidium guajava and several other Myrtaceae. Sarsina violascens is also a pest of Psidium species, as well as species in the Asteraceae, and Oleaceae. And the foliar rust Austropuccinia psidii was first described from Psidium guajava in Brazil and boasts a wide host range in the Myrtaceae in South America. It has been introduced to many regions with plants in the Myrtaceae, notably Hawai`i, Australia, South Africa, New Caledonia, and New Zealand. At least 15 Myrtaceae species in Australia are threatened with extinction.

Still, few non-native insects were damaging eucalypts in Australia’s native forests or plantations as of 2011. Those few are highly polyphagous. Several, if not most, were introduced in the first half of the 20^th Century.

Why so few? Paine, Steinbauer, and Lawson (2011) suggest three possibilities: (a) Australia’s diverse endemic insects already occupy most niches, so they exclude new, foreign competitors; (b) most introduced insects were not previously exposed to Myrtaceae in their native range; and (c) Australia has strong quarantine procedures aiming to limit introductions of non-native herbivores.

The fact that none of the introduced insects has adapted to feed significantly on mature eucalypts’ above-ground tissues seems to me to point to protection provided by the adult trees’ phytochemicals and leaf structure. Paine, Steinbauer, and Lawson (2011) discuss some aspects of leaf structure and wax coatings.

As to Australia’s quarantine procedures, as I reported before, the country has been much less proactive regarding plant pests and diseases that threaten tree species rather than agricultural crops. Significant new programs were established only after 2000, when Plant Health Australia (PHA) was incorporated. The PHA is supposed to facilitate preparedness and response arrangements between governments and industry for plant pests (once an alien pest has become established, management becomes responsibility of the land manager). In 2005, federal, state, and territorial governments and plant industry bodies signed a legally-binding agreement — the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD). 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.

Still, studies documented significant gaps in post-border forest biosecurity systems and the country’s response to the anticipated introduction of the foliar rust Austropuccinia psidii was disappointing. This prompted yet another initiative: development of the National Forest Biosecurity Surveillance Strategy (NFBSS) in 2018. The strategy was; accompanied by an Implementation Plan and appointment of a National Forest Biosecurity Coordinator. The forest sector fund a significant proportion of the proposed activities for the first five years. Still, Drs. Carnegie and Nahrung thought that in-country forest pest surveillance was still too fragmented.

Paine, Steinbauer, and Lawson (2011) consider the Asian spongy moths Lymantria dispar and Orgyia thyellina to pose serious threats. Five eucalypt species were assessed to be at risk of attack as are two preferred host oaks in Europe, Quercus pubescens and Q. robur. They note high volumes of imports from East Asia of containers, vehicles, and machinery, which are known to transport spongy moth egg-masses. It is not known whether the numerous natural enemies of Australia’s diverse lymantriid fauna [which includes four in the genus Lymantria] might provide some protection. These experts also worried that the highly polyphagous Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) might arrive in Australia. Eucalypts are not recognized as hosts.

Australia has adopted an enhanced surveillance program for ships arriving from Asian and European Lymantria ranges during female flight periods. Described here. Nahrung and Carnegie (2021) though that the high priority assigned to Lepidoptera exceeded the actual risk; only two non-native species had established in Australia over 130 years.

Paine, Steinbauer, and Lawson (2011) suggest several research topics aimed at reducing the risk to eucalypts in Australia. These include interactions between these insects and mechanisms by which insects adapt to new hosts; host chemistry and resistance mechanisms), chemical ecology (including host selection), population and community dynamics, including possible biocontrol agents, and pathway and risk analysis.

On the other hand, 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 noted that surveillance and management programs must expect and be prepared to respond to introductions of unanticipated species. They had found that 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.

SOURCES

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

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

Paine, T.D., M.J. Steinbauer, and S.A. Lawson. 2011. Native & Exotic Pests of Eucalyptus: A Worldwide Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011. 56:181-201

Native & Exotic Pests of Eucalyptus: A Worldwide Perspective

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

https://fadingforests.org

New Sirex established in South America … threat to pine plantations + threat to native conifer from North American aphid

pine plantation near Buenos Aires; photo by Biologicadero via Wikimedia

I have learned about the introduction of a North American woodwasp, Sirex obesus, in Brazil. Forestry interests in South America are worried that this woodwasp will cause significant damage to the pine plantations occupying 4.6 million hectares on the continent.

In July 2023, experts at the Estação Experimental de Ciências Florestais at ESALQ/USP in Itatinga, São Paulo, Brazil, investigated dead and symptomatic trees of several Pinus species and subspecies. They expected the causal agent to be Sirex noctilio – a woodwasp native to Europe and North Africa that has caused considerable damage to South American pine plantations since the 1980s (Wilcken et al.).

However, the pine species attacked were not typical hosts for S. noctilio (in Brazil, loblolly pine Pinus taeda). Instead, the infected trees were Caribbean pines, i.e., Pinus caribaea hondurensis, P. caribaea bahamensis, P. caribaea caribaea, P. maximinoi, P. tecunumani. The responsible woodwasp was identified as Sirex obesus. This species is native to the southwestern United States and northern and central Mexico (Wilcken et al.). This species is closely related to S. californicus (Wilcken et al.).

A second outbreak was found in November ~ 130 km away (still in São Paulo state). Scientists have not determined whether the two São Paulo outbreaks are related. Dr. Villacide reports (pers. comm.) that the two populations genetics have been compared, but he does not have the results.

A third population has been detected in a second, neighboring, state, Minas Gerais (Wilcken to Lantschner and Villacide).

This is the first record of S. obesus outside of North America (Wilckens et al.).

Little is known yet about this woodwasp’s probable impact. It is clear that it can oviposit in a wide range of pines. In its native range, S. obesus has been reported on three host species: Pinus ponderosa, P. teocote (twisted-leaf pine), and P. leiophylla (no common name; native to Chihuahua – mostly in Mexico, and border areas of New Mexico and Arizona]. In Brazil, as noted, it has been recorded on other species as well as the hybrids P. caribaea x P. elliottii and P. caribaea x P. tecunumanii (Wilcken et al.).

So for purposes of their risk assessment, Lantschner and Villacide assumed that S. obesus can affect any of the species commonly planted in the region: P. taeda, P. elliottii, P. ponderosa, P. contorta, P. caribaea, P. oocarpa, P. patula, P. radiata, and P. tecunumanii (Lantschner and Villacide).

The risk assessment predicts suitable climatic conditions for invasion by S. obesus in 48% of the areas where South American pine plantation occur, particularly in montane and high-altitude regions along the Andean corridor and central-eastern Brazil. Incorporating other factors – host distribution, proximity to invaded areas, and volume of wood imports from Brazil – identified the most vulnerable areas as in southern Brazil, northeast Argentina, the Argentine Patagonia, and central Chile (Lantschner and Villacide).

pine plantation in Argentina; photo by Tomas Asurmendi via pexels

Preliminary sampling (Wilcken et al.) indicates the impacts could be severe. Mortality varies by species: in the worst cases average mortality approached 43% on P. caribaea hondurensis but only 11% on loblolly pine (P. taeda). They expect mortality rates to increase. Another 30% of P.c. hondurensis trees are dripping resin, a sign of woodwasp oviposition. If these eggs hatch, those larvae will probably kill the affected trees. Such a result would increase total mortality of P.c. hondurensis from 43% to ~ 73%. For P. taeda, the current mortality rate of 11% could rise to 49% as an additional 38% of trees succumb. Following this logic, these areas could experience complete tree mortality within a few years. Given the extent of pine plantations, and possible mortality rates, even a partial spread of S. obesus could lead to significant econ losses.

As second factor is the number of generations per year; the higher the number, the faster woodwasp populations can increase. Wilckens et al. report that adult emergence in Pinus logs maintained in cages indicates that S. obesus could have two or three generations per year.

S. obesus seems to prefer a different climate than S. noctilio. As noted, S. obesus seems to prefer montane and high-altitude climates. S. noctilio is concentrated in lowland temperate and humid regions (Lantschner and Villacide). The newly introduced species might substantially broaden the geographic area where pine plantations might be at risk – although further research is needed to clarify this point.

S. obesus also appears to be spreading at a rapid rate — ~46 km / year. At this rate, Lantschner and Villacide say it could spread throughout all major pine plantation areas in Brazil in less than years.

Sirex woodwasps kill trees by injecting a symbiotic wood decay fungus and a phytotoxic mucus into the tree when ovipositing. The toxin weakens the tree, allowing the fungus to spread, typically killing the tree in as little as three–four months. In North America S. obesus is associated with Amylostereum chailletti. While this species has not yet been confirmed in Brazil, (Wilckens et al.). Brazilian scientists are exploring whether S. obesus might adopt the fungus already present, Amylostereum areolatum, which is associated with S. noctilio.

Two insect species known to feed on woodwasps have emerged from logs infested with S. obesus: Ibalia leucospoides (Hymenoptera: Ibaliidae) and a species of Schlettererius (Hymenoptera: Stephanidae). While these two predators have not proved to be effective controls of woodwasps by themselves, they might become part of a control program. The parasitic nematode, Deladenus siricidicola (Nematoda: Neotylenchidae) used successfully in several South Hemisphere countries to control S. noctilio has not been found in Brazil (Wilckens et al.).

Scientists don’t know the pathway by which S. obesus entered Brazil. Wilckens believes it was via wood packaging; technicians from the Ministry of Agriculture have found some pallets associated with imports that lacked the ISPM#15 mark (Wilckens et al.).

Both Lantschner and Villacide and Wilcken et al. stress the vulnerability of South American pine plantations to introduction of damaging pests. The plantations are reportedly intensively managed, even-aged, regularly spaced monocultures. These conditions can facilitate invasive species establishment and spread by providing abundant host resources and reduced natural enemy pressure. Lantschner and Villacide cite Michael Wingfield that in plantation forestry, introduction of a single pest species can damage large areas of valuable timber.

mortality caused by *Sirex noctilio* in a pine plantation in Argentina; photo courtesy of Jose Villacide

The family Siricidae contains more than 120 species distributed across the forests of the Northern Hemisphere. In their native ranges they are typically minor or secondary pests (Wilckens et al.). Woodwasps have demonstrated that they can be transported in international commerce – S. noctilio alone has invaded pine stands (native or exotic) in nine countries in Oceania, Africa, and South and North America. Three other species in the family — Urocerus gigas, Urocerus flavicornis and Tremex fuscicornis – have been detected in South America (Wilckens et al.). If each represents a unique threat, countries with widespread pine plantations should enhance their phytosanitary programs. Exporting parties, e.g., the United States and European Union, should assist in efforts to prevent spread of these wood borers. One major step would be to strengthen regulations governing wood packaging material. [To see my criticisms of shortfalls of the ISPM#15 system, scroll down the list of blogs to “Categories” and click on “wood packaging”.]

Lantschner and Villacide cautionthat their assessment is based on a limited record of S. obesus occurrences in its native range. This range might be restricted by factors other than climate, including geographic barriers or biotic interactions (natural enemy pressure or interspecific competition). If so, the species’ potential invasive range might be larger than the climate-based models predict.

Recommendations for management strategies

I applaud Lantschner and Villacide for proposing immediate steps to improve management of the threat posed by introduction of S. obesus. These recommendations should prioritize enhanced phytosanitary inspections of wood products moving between high-risk regions and other South American countries. They suggest that Brazil adopt bilateral agreements with its major trading partners which would specify protocols for woodwaspdetection and quarantines. [Since many of these countries already have established populations of S. noctilio they probably do not have strong phytosanitary measures targeting wood borers at present.] Lantschner and Villacide advise creation of targeted surveillance programs in southern Brazil, northeastern Argentina, Argentine Patagonia, and central Chile. They should focus on sites near major transportation hubs and border crossings. Less intense surveillance should be instituted in regions they classified as medium risk. Again, the focus should be on major points of entry for imported goods and on plantations located near the Brazilian border. They note that preventing spread of S. obesus into new areas will require not only national efforts but also regionally coordinated monitoring, research, and forest health policies.

Lantschner and Villacide also identify priority areas for future research. These include clarifying S. obesus’shost range, the environmental conditions that enable the woodwasp to establish and persist beyond its native range, dispersal rates, and whether S. obesus exhibits pulse-like pop dynamics[long periods of low density interrupted by sudden outbreaks] seen in S. noctilio.

Dr. Villacide (pers. comm.) reports that Brazilian scientists are trying to delimit the extent of the outbreaks. Public and private scientists in other countries with pine plantations have begun developing responses. Dr. Villacide has posted a video from a recent online seminar sponsored by the Southern Cone Forest Health Group. Go to https://youtu.be/uVU6CpFNhlQ?si=lqXtwJTtz5rKXfL3 or
https://sanidadforestalconosur.org/

A wider prespective

Dr. Villacide’s attention to Sirex obesus is part of his broader work on pest issues in South America’s commercial plantations. In another publication (Villacide and Fuetealba 2025; full citation at the end of this blog), he explores how to make these plantations sustainable in the face of rising threats from pests – both introduced and native to the region. Dr. Villacide and Alvaro Fuetealba report that every year 1.2 million hectares of plantations in the Southern Cone are affected by pests. Their vulnerability of will be worsened by the extreme weather events expected under climate change.

These plantations present vast areas of homogeneous stands: ~97% of the Southern Cone planted area consists of exotic tree species – mainly Pinus and Eucalyptus. Typical plantations are high density and managed intensively – including thinning, pruning, and fertilizing – to prompt rapid growth. As Villacide and Fuetealba point out, while these practices maximize wood production efficiency, they also lead to biological homogenization and reduced resilience to pests.

They report that pine plantations are under attack by wood and bark borers that have followed pines to the region, including Sirex noctilio, Orthotomicus erosus, and Cyrtogenius luteus; and now the newly detected Sirex obesus (above). At least two fungal pathogens — Fusarium circinatum and Dothistroma septosporum – have also been introduced. The principal threat to pine plantations from native pests comes from leaf-cutting ants (Atta and Acromyrmex).Eucalyptus plantations are plagued by several insects that have arrived from Australia, including Phoracantha semipunctata, Thaumastocoris peregrinus, and Leptocybe invasa. Pests native to the region that attack Eucalyptus are the Chilean carpenter worm (Chilecomadia valdiviana) and the leaf-cutting ants.

Cordilleran cypress; photo by LBM 1948 via Wikimedia

Threat to native conifer

More worrying to me is that introduced pests have entered native forests. Villacide and Fuetealba report that the aphid Cinara cupressi is attacking the native conifer Austrocedrus chilensis. Cordilleran cypress, also called Chilean or Patagonian cedar, is an endemic, monospecific tree in the Cupressaceae family. In southern Argentina and Chile the species forms pure and mixed stands with southern hemisphere beech (Nothofagus spp.) across ~ 160,000 ha. The profile Cinara cupressi on the Global Invasive Species Database is unclear about how many species are in the species complex and their places of origin.

Cordilleran cypress is also under attack by the oomycete Phytophthora austrocedri, an oomycete of unknown origin. This pathogen is of unknown origin. It is now thought to have been present in Argentina since at least the 1960s. P. austrocedri has also been ntroduced to Europe, western Asia, and North America.

Villacide and Fuetealba advocate several actions to might diversify tree species in the plantations to reduce their vulnerability to pests. They note that this recommendation builds on foundational ecological theory, including the resource concentration and natural enemy hypotheses. Diversity-promoting actions should reach beyond any plantation to the landscape level. Managers should consider connectivity of susceptible stands, the number of nutritionally optimal host trees in the landscape, and the availability and quality of hosts in adjacent stands.

Villacide and Fuetealba say mixed plantations can provide additional ecological and economic benefits, such as enhanced stand-level productivity; production of a wider range of commercial and subsistence products; and greater resistance and resilience to natural disturbances, e.g., extreme weather events.

They warn that designing and implementing mixed plantations must reflect ecological interactions and pest dynamics as well as management. There is need for regionally coordinated experimental plantations where scientist could test how variables such as tree species composition, density and spatial arrangement, and silvicultural practices influence pest dynamics, forest productivity, and ecosystem resilience under local conditions. They suggest incorporating sentinel plantings both early-warning systems and decision-support tools at plot and regional scales. Researchers should evaluate pest-specific responses, productivity trade-offs, long-term forest health outcomes under different scenarios.

Since the plantations extend across a multinational region with few natural barriers and uniform silvicultural practices, as well as high levels of trade, so do the pest problems. Therefore, the response must also be regional – e.g., regional experimental plantations and living laboratories. A collaborative approach linking researchers, forest managers, and policymakers is essential to translate experimental findings into practice and develop adaptive, ecol grounded silvicultural strategies. Long-term ecological trials must be embedded in operational contexts and aligned across countries.

SOURCES

Lantschner, V. and J. Villacide. 2025. Invasion Potential of the Recently Established Woodwasp Sirex obesus. Neotropical Entomology. (2025) 54:117 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-025-01347-6

Villacide, J. and A. Fuetealba. 2025. Pests in plantations: Challenging traditional productive paradigms in the Southern Cone of America. Forest Ecology and Management 597 (2025) 123127

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

Wood Packaging Pest Risk: changing trade patterns might reduce it

Michigan’s champion green ash – killed by emerald ash borer

As readers of this blog know, I worry when volumes of imports rise (scroll down the webpage to “categories”, then scroll down to the “wood packaging” category), especially when the rise is rapid and supply chains are in chaos – as they are now. As I reported a month ago, U.S. imports from China landing at U.S. west coast ports grew by significant amounts during January through April 2025 as importers sought to get their goods before a threatened strike by longshoremen and high tariffs mandated by President Trump. The blog provides specific proportional increases for the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma. After a dip in May and June [as reported in both the Washington Post article and that by M. Angell] – in response to President Trump announcing a 145% tariff on goods from China – imports surged again in July when this tax was postponed (see below).

These spurts in imports worried me because wood packaging from China has a nearly 30-year history of higher-than-average failure to comply with phytosanitary regulations (see Haack et al. 2022; full citation at the end of this blog; and earlier blogs). I fret that when importers are in a rush neither exporters nor importers pays much attention to whether the crates and pallets have been treated in accordance with ISPM#15 to prevent insect infestation.

The surge in imports was across the board. Indeed, other countries saw even higher growth in exports to the United States than did China. According to the Journal of Commerce (JOC), www.joc.com containerized imports from all exporters reached an all-time high in July 2025 — 2.6 million TEUs Over the six-month period January through June, 12.53 million TEUs [Robb] (otherwise measured as approximately 6.3 million 40-ft containers). JOC also recorded single-digit declines in import volumes from all regions in May and June.

In a blog in March 2025 I noted that the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had processed 36.6 million shipping containers holding imports in Fiscal Year 2023 – which ended in September 2023. Together, Mexico and Canada provided 30% of U.S. imports in 2022. So probably ~25 million shipping containers arrived via ship from Asia, Europe, and other overseas trading partners.

Note that the CBP reports containers, while the JOC reports TEUs [TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit; standardized measure of container]. Most sea-borne containers are actually 40 feet long; CBP numbers probably refer predominantly to 40-feet containers. The numbers reported by the two sources are not equivalent. The trends do match, however.

container ship at Hai Phong container port; photo by Nathan.cima via Wikimedia

Origins

Despite the spurts in volumes of incoming containers, total imports from China have declined from previous years. According to Angell, the 1.228 million TEU imported from China in July was 8% lower than the number of TEUs from China in July 2024. Importers have shifted to suppliers in Southeast Asia. Containerized imports from that region rose 24% over the previous July, reaching records of 542,414 TEUs in June and 581,803 in July. In fact, the U.S. imported more goods from Southeast Asia in the months March – June than from China (Wallis 2025).

The second greatest increase was in imports from countries on the Indian subcontinent. They also reached a record in July of 152,630 TEUs – 21% above July 2024.

Vietnam and India have much better records of compliance with ISPM#15 than does China: only one of 257 consignments from Vietnam and three of 1,549 consignments from India inspected over the period 2010 – 2020 harbored pests. Thus, from the perspective of introduction of non-native tree-killing insects, the shift to Southeast Asia and India is a plus. However, this improvement might not last. I expect that the 50% tariff on most goods from India that came into effect in late August 2025 will result in a steep fall-off in imports from that country.

Imports from Southern Europe also rose 7% from a year earlier to 155,587 TEUs. Imports from Northern Europe were essentially flat over the July 2024 – July 2025 period.

Ports

Shifts in trade patterns also appear in port data. The Port of Los Angeles received 542,940 TEUs in July, a 10% increase from a year earlier and the highest monthly total for the port since August 2024. However, it was Houston that saw the strongest year-over-year import growth; the 184,418 TEUs entering in July 2025 volume were 18.5% higher than the number imported in July 2024. Imports from Southeast Asia saw a 63% increase; those from China rose by 9.8% [Angell].

As you might remember, pest detections by CBP have risen at ports in America’s southeast: at the National Plant Board meeting in July, representatives of APHIS and state phytosanitary agencies expressed surprise about this finding. I reminded the group that ports in that region had been receiving higher import volumes in recent years, including from Asia through the widened Panama Canal. I added that there had been problems with dunnage in the port of Houston.

De Minimis packages

As of 29 August 2025, the United States is imposing tariffs on small-value imports that previously could enter the country tax-free. In 2016, the U.S. raised the threshold from $200 to $800. Importers of these packages not only avoided paying taxes on this newly expanded list of items. They also were subjected to minimal processing, including inspections (Chapell). This change coincided with on-line shopping becoming the norm. De minimis shipments started to dominate cargo entering the U.S. According to a press release from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, cited by NPR, the number of de minimis shipments grew from 140 million in 2014 to 1.36 billion in 2024.

Not coincidentally, phytosanitary officials have expressed growing concern about on-line sales of plant species considered invasive in one or more states, and exacerbated appearance of items infested by plant pests. These concerns have been voiced at National Plant Board meetings since at least 2021. At that meeting, then APHIS Deputy Administrator Osama el-Lissy said that managing

e-commerce was a priority of the new Biden Administration. The topic has been on the NPB agenda since then. Two kinds of shipments raise concern: those by North American suppliers that send plants or other items that violate regulations of the destination state, and those from abroad. All recognize that persuading foreign suppliers to comply with U.S. regulations is nearly impossible. At this year’s meeting, Acting Deputy Administrator Matt Rhoads conceded that APHIS has not yet figured out how to curtail this risk. The volume of illegal imports can be huge: an illegal shipment of tens of thousands of black pine (Pinus thunbergii) seedlings was sent to Georgia. State officials found out about the importation and stopped sale of the plants. Although the Trump Administration’s decision to end the de minimis exemption was not prompted by the plant health risks, it will probably help reduce it.

Japanese black pine bonsai at National Arboretum; photo by Ragesoss via Wikimedia

Imports during the Pandemic: will we soon see a jump in new detections?

We already know that import volumes first fell dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, then rebounded to record levels. According to David Lynch (citation below), in 2021 the Port of Los Angeles handled more than 535,000 incoming shipping containers in May 2021. During that month and three others in 2021, the number of arriving containers exceeded the single busiest month in 2019 (476,000) [p. 257]. Other ports also saw increased volume. Lynch discusses how this import surge stressed capacity of ports, warehouses, and transportation systems (truckers and railroads). He does not examine how this surge might have affected traders’ compliance with wood packaging treatment requirements or phytosanitary agencies’ ability to enforce those rules. Those agencies’ funding had decreased during the pandemic drought.

Five years have passed since this disruptive swing from low numbers to record-breaking quantities. Will we begin to see evidence — trees stressed by newly introduced insects or pathogens?

SOURCES

Angell, M. Journal of Commerce. Whipsaw from Trump’s tariffs drove US container import record in July. August 13, 2025. https://www.joc.com/article/whipsaw-from-trumps-tariffs-drove-us-container-import-record-in-july-6062634

Chappell, B. 2025. This rule made many online purchases dirt cheap for U.S. consumers. Now it’s ending. National Public Radio All Things Considered August 28, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/28/nx-s1-5519361/de-minimis-rule-tariffs-consumers-imports-trump

Lynch, D.J. 2025. The World’s Worst Bet: How the Globalization Gamble Went Wrong (and what would make it right) Public Affairs, New York

Robb, L. Journal of Commerce. US retailers project big year-over-year import declines to close out 2025. August 8, 2025. https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-project-big-year-over-year-import-declines-to-close-out-2025-6060323

Wallis, K. Surging Southeast Asia volumes strain Intra-Asia Capacity. https://www.joc.com/article/surging-southeast-volues-strain-intra-asia-capacity-6078465

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

How do we prevent their introduction?

healthy eastern hemlock in Shenandoah National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

PestLens reports newly detected insects and pathogens that seem to pose a threat to North American forests.

Insects on hemlock – Tsuga spp

a) Adelges lepsimon (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) – found infesting Tsuga dumosa (Himalayan hemlock) trees in Bhutan.

b) bark beetle Pityokteines spinidens (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) – infesting Tsuga canadensis trees in an arboretum in the Czech Republic. Affected trees showed branch dieback, entry holes, and internal galleries.

Eastern hemlock has already been greatly reduced by hemlock woolly adelgid.

loblolly pine; photo by dcrjsr via Flickr

2. Several fungi infesting loblolly pine – Pinus taeda

needle chlorosis and drying, canopy dieback, and root necrosis on loblolly pines in Brazil is caused by the fungi Ilyonectria leucospermi, I. protearum, I. robusta, and I. vredehoekensis (Sordariomycetes: Hypocreales).

PestLens is supposed to alert APHIS to threats; I hope the agency is paying attention!

The USFS Southern Research Station reports that it is investigating brown spot needle blight, caused by the fungal pathogen called Lecanosticta acicola. The report says the pathogen has been present in the U.S. for more than 100 years, but does not indicate an origin. Other sources show it as widespread in both North America and Europe. The USFS notes two recent significant outbreaks, one affecting more than a million acres of loblolly pine in the Southeast, the second on eastern white pine in the Northeast. The pathogen also infects other species. .

You can subscribe to PestLens and receive weekly alerts – go to the website.

Posted by Faith Campbell

Wood packaging pest risk — will we pay for the crazy import rush in early 2025?

The Washington Post has summarized data on the number of container ships travelling from China to U.S. west coast ports for the first half of 2025. It compares those numbers to the same period in 2024.

For the first four months, the trips exceeded 2024 levels, often by considerable amounts, as importers sought to get their goods before President Trump imposed high tariffs. Thus, the number of container ships arriving at Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma during each month:

January: 17% increase
February: 32% increase
March: 14% increase
April: 5% increase

In May, landings from China decreased by 33%! Those ships arriving also carried fewer containers.

When measured by the value of imported goods, imports from China fell 20% nationwide when we compare April 2024 to April 2025. This decrease was seen at four of the five west coast ports; the exception was Tacoma.

When President Trump “paused” the 145% increase in tariffs on Chinese goods, the prices shippers charge for transporting containers doubled – from less than $3,000 per container to $6,000. This change probably portends a rebound in import volumes.

I always worry about containers from China (see Haack et al. 2022; full citation at the end of this blog; and this blog). For more than 30 years they have too often been the means by which wood-boring insects are introduced to North American forests. I fret even more when import volumes are rising – especially when importers are in a rush. I suspect that neither exporters nor importers pay much attention to whether the crates and pallets have been treated properly.

ash tree killed by EAB — the risk of woodborers introduced in wood packaging; photo courtesy of John Hieftje, former mayor of Ann Arbor, Michigan

I have asked the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection for comment, but have not yet received a reply.

Please note that these data do not include information about imports from other Asian countries … or shipments destined for U.S. ports in the Gulf or Atlantic (via the expanded Panama Canal) or to Canadian ports.

SOURCE

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org

Call for new approach to biological conservation – integrating bioinvasion

whitebark pine in Glacier National Park killed by white pine blister rust

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) is a major global policy driver around the world for more effective action to preserve biodiversity from current and future threats. (However, the United States has not joined the underlying treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). So its importance is probably less in the United States than in countries that take part.) This relatively new Framework was adopted at the 15^th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD in December 2022 after four years of negotiations. However, cynics note that the 196 countries that are parties to the CBD have rarely met previous ambitious goals set at earlier COP.

Hulme et al. have just published a paper [full reference at the end of this blog] addressing how invasive species and this Framework’s target may interact. They note that conserving biodiversity costs money. Many of the countries hosting diverse and relatively intact ecosystems lack sufficient resources, capability, or robust governance structures for this conservation.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets out ambitious global targets to reduce biodiversity loss by 2030 so as to maintain the integrity of ecosystems and their constituent species. Of the 23 targets, one – Target 6 – addresses bioinvasion. Countries endorsing the CBD have committed to eliminating, minimizing, reducing and/or mitigating invasive species’ impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. This is to be accomplished by identifying and managing introduction pathways; preventing introduction and establishment of priority invasive species; reducing rates of introduction and establishment of known or potential invasive species by at least 50% by 2030; and eradicating or controlling invasive species, especially in priority sites.

I rejoice that the CBD parties have recognized invasive species as a major driver of biodiversity loss in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. I wish conservation organizations’ and funders’ activities clearly reflect this finding.

This is the challenge raised by Hulme et al.: countries must integrate efforts to counter bioinvasions into overall conservation programs. Success in curbing bioinvasion depends upon achieving almost all other KMGBF targets. And this is a two-way street: the more holistic approach offers greater likelihood of successful biodiversity conservation.

The same authors point out that some of the 22 other targets address rapidly evolving introductory pathways e.g.,

Target 15 – increasing international and domestic tourism;
Target 12 – encroachment of urban areas near protected areas;
Target 10 – development of intensive agriculture or aquaculture systems near protected areas;
Target 7 – species rafting on plastic marine pollutants; and
Target 8 – growing risk from species shifting ranges in response to climate change.

pallet graveyard behind camp store & snack bar art Lake MacDonald, Glacier National Park; photo by F.T. Campbell

Other targets relate to management of established invasive species, e.g.,

Target 1 – planning and priority-setting for allocation of limited resources among the various threats to biodiversity;
Identifying factors that pose risks to highly-valued species, e.g., threatened species (Target 4) and species that provide important ecosystem services (Target 11);
Target 19—obtaining necessary financial resources.

A final group of targets are intended to guide all conservation efforts. These goals include integrating biodiversity concerns in decision-making at every level (Target 14); reducing harmful economic incentives and promoting positive incentives (Target 18); and several targets addressing issues of equity, benefit sharing, and access to information. Hulme et al. assert that the threat posed by bioinvasions must be incorporated into policies, regulations, planning and development processes and environmental impact assessments across all levels of government.

Hulme et al. decry an imbalance as to which KMGBF targets have been the focus of attention from governments, conservation organizations, and media. These stakeholders have concentrated on

Target 3, which calls for extending legal protection to 30% of lands and waters by 2030;
Target 4, which promotes maintaining genetic diversity within and among populations of all species;
Target 7, which encourages reducing harmful pollution;
Target 15, which urges businesses to decrease biodiversity risks arising from their operations; and
Target 21, which advocates ensuring equitable and effective biodiversity decision-making.

Even when stakeholders have looked at Target 6, they have focused primarily on how to quantify the numbers of species being introduced to novel ecosystems. Hulme et al. argue that conservationists should instead concentrate on the challenge of achieving the target. They note that bioinvasion is worsening despite implementation of many long-term management programs. As they note, numbers of introduced species globally have increased, these species are occupying larger geographic areas, and the species’ measured impacts have risen to astounding levels (see my previous blog about new cost estimates). This same point was made two years ago by Fenn-Moltu et al. (2023) [full citation at the end of this blog]; they found that the number of invasive species-related legislation and treaties to which a country adheres did not relate to either the number of insect species detected at that country’s border or the number of insect species that had established in that country’s ecosystems.

As conservationists, Hulme et al. remind us that not all damages are monetary: invasive species threaten more than half of all UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Hulme et al. say achieving Target 6 presents several scientific challenges – most of which have been discussed by numerous other authors. Introduction pathways are changing rapidly. There is great uncertainty regarding current and especially future propagule pressures associated with various pathways. Information about particular species’ impacts and where they are most likely to be introduced is insufficient. Management costs are routinely underestimated. Perhaps most challenging is the need to judge programs’ effectiveness based not simply on outputs (e.g., number of acres cleared of weeds) but on outcomes in relation to reducing the subsequent impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

I note that several environmental organizations endorsed a “platform” that discussed this last point a decade ago. [I have rescued the NECIS document from a non-secure website; if you wish to obtain a copy, contact me directly through the “comment” option or my email.] Unfortunately, the coalition that prepared this document no longer exists. Even when conservation organizations have invasive species efforts, they are no longer attempting to coordinate their work.

I greatly regret that Hulme et al. continue a long-standing misrepresentation of international border biosecurity controls as consisting primarily of inspections — of imported commodities, travellers, and associated transport conveyances. I have argued for decades that inspections are not effective in preventing introductions. See Fading Forests II Chapter 3 (published in 2003); Fading Forests III Chapter 5 (published in 2014); “briefs” describing pathways of introduction prepared for the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases – in 2014 and in 2018.

The weaknesses of visual inspection are especially glaring when trying to prevent introductions via wood packaging material and living plants — also here.

Hulme et al. propose a politically astute approach to finding the resources to strengthen countries’ efforts to curtail invasive species’ spread within their borders. Recognizing that no country has unlimited resources to allocate to managing invasive species, they suggest concentrating slow-the-spread efforts on preventing damage to legally protected areas. Furthermore, authorities should avoid designating as new “protected areas” places that are already heavily invaded – or at risk of soon becoming so. As they note, programs aimed at protecting these areas often engage conservation stakeholders, decision-makers, even potential non-governmental donors. In other words, there is a foundation on which to build.

To buttress their argument, Hulme et al. cite evidence that bioinvasions threaten these areas’ integrity. For example, Cadotte et al. (2024) found that bioinvasion is one of most frequently identified threats identified in a survey of 230 World Heritage sites; and that they pose a greater degree of concern than other threats to biodiversity. They reiterate that managing invasive species is one of the most effective interventions aimed at protecting biodiversity.

The task remains complex. Hulme et al. note that accurate information about pressure caused by invasive species is not easily quantified using remote sensing. It requires expensive on-the-ground data collection. Even current methods for ranking invasive species have crucial gaps regarding species’ potential impact and the feasibility of their control. Choosing management strategies also requires assessing potential unintended effects on biodiversity and other GBF Targets, e.g., pollution from pesticides (Target 7).

Still, the context remains: successful management of bioinvasions to support the integrity of protected areas depends on the integrative approach described above.

Hulme et al. note a contradiction within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Target 10 calls for the agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry industries to adopt sustainable practices, but doesn’t raise the issue of these sectors’ role in the introduction and spread of invasive species. They say guidelines have been developed for sustainable forestry production. These guidelines recommend that commercial plantation forests not plant non-native tree species within 10 km of a protected area. Hulme et al. also suggest applying a “polluter pays” fine or bond to forestry businesses that use invasive species without sufficient safeguards to prevent escape. These funds could be accessed to support invasive species management in protected areas, particularly surveillance. (Target 19 mandates obtaining more funds for this purpose). They add that these aquaculture, agriculture, horticulture and forestry sectors should take action to prevent the local feralization of alien crops and livestock.

Target 8 calls for minimizing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. Hulme et al. note numerous scientific challenges here, including understanding how specific ecosystems’ and native species’ are vulnerable to altered climates, along with how specific invasive species’ are responding to an altered climate regime.

These same authors provide specific recommendations to the global conservation community to put in place a more holistic perspective. Some recommendations deal with data integration. Others call for major undertakings: i.e., developing a protected area management toolkit at a global scale. This action will require significant investment in capacity-building of protected area managers plus international cooperation and technology transfer (Target 20). Hulme et al. suggest funding this effort should be a priority for any resources leveraged from international finance (Target 19).

Hulme et al. also propose changes in the conservation approaches advocated by the CBD and IUCN. Specifically, they call for more explicit consideration of current and future impacts of bioinvasions and their management — on protected areas. The needed activities fall into six areas:

(1) reduce risks associated with various pathways;

(2) plan for range-shifting invasive species;

(3) mitigate invasive species’ impacts on biodiversity and (4) on ecosystem services;

(5) ensure new protected areas (including urban green spaces and infrastructure corridors) are largely free of established (“legacy”) invasive species; and

(6) provide managers sufficient resources to take effective action.

SOURCES

Fenn-Moltu, G., S. Ollier, O.K. Bates, A.M. Liebhold, H.F. Nahrung, D.S. Pureswaran, T. Yamanaka, C. Bertelsmeier. 2023. Global flows of insect transport & establishment: The role of biogeography, trade & regulations. Diversity & Distributions DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13772

Hulme, P.E., Lieurance, D., Richardson, D.M., Robinson, T.B. 2025 Multiple targets of Global Biodiversity Framework must be addressed to manage invasive species in protected areas. NeoBiota 99: 149–170. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.99.152680

Posted by Faith Campbell

https://fadingforests.org