Category: animal invaders

Invasive species cost more than extreme weather attributable to climate change; 17 times more than previously estimated!

ash tree killed by emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of (then) Mayor of Ann Arbor John Hieftje

Since the 1990s, scientists have been trying to the determine costs imposed by invasive species. They hope that measuring monetary costs will motivate political decision-makers to take more assertive actions to counter this ecological treat. As Daigne et al. (2021) point out, too few countries are implementing effective control and mitigation strategies. They say this inaction stems, largely, from undervaluing bioinvasions’ impacts by the general public, stakeholders and decision-makers.

A major step in this effort was creation of the InvaCost database. The goal was to provide a reliable, comprehensive, standardized and easily updatable synthesis of bioinvasions’ monetary costs worldwide.

Several publications based on this database appeared. I have blogged about studies published in 2021 or 2022: a) the costs of bioinvasions generally (Cuthbert et al. 2022);  b) the costs imposed by invasive species in protected areas (Moodley et al. 2022; c) a focus on the “worst” 100 invasives (as determined by the IUCN) (Ahmed et al. 2022); and d) assessing costs associated with various pathways of introduction (Turbelin et al. 2022).

The InvaCost database, as applied in these studies, demonstrated that bioinvasions impose tremendous costs –a minimum of US $1.288 trillion for the period 1970 – 2017. These costs increased on average three times per decade (Daigne et al. 2022).

Still, everyone has recognized that InvaCost data have significant limitations. First, three-quarters of the records in the original database came from North America, Oceania and Europe; and referred to animal taxa, even though plants are a major group of invaders. Also, a large proportion of total invasion costs – for all taxa – probably is undetected. Finally, the many non-market values of species and ecosystems are extremely difficult to calculate (Daigne et al. 2022).

As a result of these deficiencies, the earlier studies discussed in the blogs referenced above substantially underestimated the true costs associated with bioinvasion (Cuthbert et al. 2022).

Now a new study, led by Ismael Soto, finds that the underestimate is huge. Global costs associated with a subset of 162 species (17% of all the species in the InvaCost database) is nearly 17 times higher than reported in the InvaCost database.

Soto et al. (2025) applied species distribution models and macroeconomic data to interpolate these 162 species’ probable impacts in 172 countries  

Japanese knotweed – one of the invasive plants proving very costly in Europe, according to I. Soto

The newly identified costs were greatest in Europe; second place fell to North America. This is because both higher damage costs and management expenditures are linked to higher gross domestic product and extent of agricultural area, in addition to environmental suitability. Analysis of monetary costs per unit area revealed that ‘cost hot spots’ are predominantly located in densely populated urban areas and locations hosting key industries. These tend to be in coastal zones, i.e., Europe, the east coast of China, and the east and west coasts of the US.

cypress aphid Cinara cupressi – a threat to both native & plantation trees in Africa; photo by Blackman & Eastop via Wikimedia

The authors found that the greatest increase in estimated costs for countries in Africa and Asia. These countries had not previously recorded any economic costs arising from invasions by these 162 species. I have blogged about forest pest threats in Africa.

The authors also significantly increased estimated costs linked to invasive plants. Daigne et al. found that invasive insects caused ~90% of reported costs in the InvaCost database as of 2022. Vertebrates ranked second, plants third. In contrast, Soto et al. determined that invasive plants had the highest average estimated damage costs (US $42.10 billion) and management expenditures ($0.81 billion).

Substantial total costs were also reported for arthropods, mammals and birds. Reported damage and management costs were much lower for molluscs, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Daigne et al. suggest this might be due to their lower (observable) damage to human infrastructure, research biases leading to fewer studies, or disparities resulting from the filtering process used in their own study.

Williams et al. (2023) focus on insects, which cause damage primarily to agriculture, human health, and forestry. Insects constitute the highest number of species introduced as ‘Contaminants’ (n = 74) and ‘Stowaways’ (n = 43). They also impose the highest costs among species using these two pathways.

Forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database. I believe that this figure reflects significant under-reporting of these invasion events. Even at this paltry level of reported invasions, forest insects and pathogens were responsible for causing 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al. 2023). This discrepancy illustrates the huge economic cost associated with widespread mortality of trees. Yet authorities in most countries continue to provide completely inadequate resources to counter this threat.

The authors of these publications examining economic losses associated with bioinvasion all note that ecological damage is additional. Soto et al. note that bioinvasions contribute to 60% of already recorded global extinctions. Interestingly, the species ranked third using the criterion of monetary damage is the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum. This insect threatens flat-padded Opuntia cacti across the United States and in the center of endemism, Mexico.

a flat-padded Opuntia — vulnerable to the cactus moth; photo by F.T. Campbell

Soto et al. found a lag of ~46 years between first (reported) detection of an introduced species and the peak of damage costs. They suggest that the rising monetary cost reflects the species becoming more abundant or occupying a larger area. The authors also say this finding demonstrates the value of implementing mitigation measures as soon as possible. Their finding thus validates others’ advocacy for investing in prevention and rapid response measures (see Cuthbert et al. and Daigne et al.). Soto et al. were cheered by the fact that spending on management measures – when it was reported – often followed soon after a species’ detection – or even before (e.g., prevention).

But Decision-Makers Usually Delay – Why?

Prevention is a hard sell. Decision-makers find it difficult to justify management expenditures before impacts become obvious. By that time, of course, management of the invasion is extremely difficult and expensive – if it is possible at all. Ahmed et al. found particularly effective wording to describe this problem: bioinvasion costs can be deceitfully slow to accrue, so policy makers don’t appreciate the urgency of taking action. Another contributing factor is that when efficient proactive management succeeds in preventing any impact, it paradoxically undermines evidence of the value of this action!

Programs to minimize the economic and ecological consequences of bioinvasion are severely obstructed – if not doomed! – by the following difficulties:

  • Resources are in short supply. Experts find that demands to address other threats to agriculture or natural systems outcompete appeals to ramp up invasive species efforts.
  • Prediction is uncertain. Cuthbert et al. found that none of the species with the highest pre-invasion investment was among the top 10 costliest invaders in terms of damages. Cuthbert et al. do not discuss whether this is evidence that the prevention efforts were effective? Or, alternatively, that prevention efforts target the wrong species.
  • Harm is in the eye of the beholder. Stakeholders’ perceptions of whether an introduced species causes a detrimental impact vary. For example, Moodley et al. point out that species imposing the highest economic costs might not be the ones causing the greatest ecological harm.
  • Externalities. Those harmed by a bioinvasion often are different from those that decide whether to act. Ahmed et al. argue that this creates a moral dilemma.

These decisions are political — influenced by citizens’ expressed wishes. Changing decision-makers’ perceptions of what is important is up to us!!! Start a parade!!!

SOURCES

Ahmed, D.A., E.J. Hudgins, R.N. Cuthbert, .M. Kourantidou, C. Diagne, P.J. Haubrock, B. Leung, C. Liu, B. Leroy, S. Petrovskii, A. Beidas, F. Courchamp. 2022. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:1927–1946 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0

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

Diagne, C., B Leroy, A-C. Vaissière, R.E. Gozlan,  D. Roiz, I. Jaric,  J-M. Salles, C.A. Bradshaw, and F. Courchamp. 2021. High and rising econ costs of bioinvasions worldwide Published online: 31 March 2021

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

Soto, I., P. Courtois, A. Pili, E. Tordoni, E. Manfrini, E. Angulo, C. Bellard, E. Briski, M. Buric, R.N. Cuthbert, A. Kouba, M. Kourantidou, R.L. Macêdo, B. Leroy, P.J. Haubrock, F. Courchamp and B. Leung. 2025.  Using species ranges and macroeconomic data to fill gap in costs of biological invasions. Nat Ecol Evol doi: 10.1038/s41559-025-02697-5

Turbelin, A.J., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, D. Moodley, M. Kourantidou, A. Novoa, P.J. Haubrock, C. Bernery, R.E. Gozlan, R.A. Francis, F. Courchamp. 2022. Introduction pathways of economically costly invasive alien spp. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:2061–2079 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02796-5

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. 2023. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. Annual Review of Phytopathology Vol. 61, 2023

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

From Dire Wolves & a new “God Squad” to Rocket Launches on a remote atoll: rare wildlife in the crosshairs

whooping crane; photo by Jason Mracina via Flickr

We have already seen threats to the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972 from the Trump Administration. Now the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) faces severe risks.

The Washington Post has reported that the Trump Administration is saying that scientists’ ability to revive extinct species through biotechnology justifies relaxing legal protections. The Post quoted Interior Secretary Doug Burgum as saying that innovation – not government regulation — will save species. He has already met with Dallas-based Colossal Biosciences about using its animals in federal conservation efforts, as well as for potential species restoration. I note that having a few “engineered” specimens living in a zoo is not the goal of the Act or sensible biodiversity conservation programs.

This is just the Administration’s latest maneuver aimed at reducing the Act’s protections, which have been in place since adoption of the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The Fish and Wildlife Service — an agency in the Interior Department — has sought White House comments on a proposed redefinition of “harm” under the act. The term is not defined in the text of the Act, so a rule change could allow for significant reductions in protections, especially regarding listed species’ habitats.

Already, President Trump and his administration have overridden endangered species protections. First, he demanded that the Bureau of Reclamation open water transfer systems to drain water from a Northern California river system to southern California. Ostensibly the action was to protect the area from the devastating wildfires, although scientists declared that a lack of water for firefighters was not the reason the fires caused so much damage. The water had been stored, in part, to protect the habitat of the delta smelt.

President Trump also has revived the long-dormant “God Squad.” a federal committee that can override protections for endangered species. Members include Secretary Burgum and five other high-level officials. It was created by Congressional amendment in the late 1970s, during the fight over whether to build the Tellico Dam on the Tennessee River. It is empowered to approve projects even if they result in the extinction of a species.

In February, Interior Secretary Burgum also rescinded guidance adopted by the Biden Administration aimed at minimizing ship strikes on the Rice’s whale, one of the most endangered marine mammals. He has also ordered staff to consider economic factors when deciding habitat protections.

Other threats came earlier. Elon Musk’s SpaceX launch site is only about 10 miles from Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, which provides winter habitat for one of the “iconic” endangered species, whooping cranes. The Midwestern population of piping plovers is also listed as endangered; it winters along the Gulf coast, including at Aransas. The Refuge is home to 400 bird species, primarily ducks, herons, egrets, ibises, and roseate spoonbills. The few studies of noise impacts on birds focus on nesting – which neither whoopers nor plovers engage in while at Aransas … Still ….

Another refuge — in the middle of the Pacific Ocean – is also under threat from rocket activities. The Post reports that the U.S. Space Force – a branch of the U.S. Air Force – will soon publish an Environmental Assessment regarding plans to build two landing pads on Johnston Atoll. The facilities are intended to expedite movement of military cargo around the globe – by transporting it on large commercial rockets. Johnson Atoll is an unincorporated U.S. territory consisting of four tiny islands about 800 miles southwest of Honolulu. Although tens of thousands of red-tailed tropicbirds, red-footed boobies and sooty terns nest on the atoll, the Space Force said in its notice of intent that it expects the construction and operation of the demonstration project will have no significant environmental impact. This finding has been criticized by several organizations, including the Conservation Council for Hawaii, National Wildlife Refuge Association, and Union of Concerned Scientists.   See also this statement by the American Bird Conservancy.

red-footed booby adult & nestling on Johnson Atoll; photo by Jordan Akiyama, USFWS via Flickr

One concern is that construction and operation could re-introduce various invasive species. The Post mentions yellow crazy ants; their acids can cause deformities in birds and, in some cases, deadly infections. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spent a decade eradicating the ants. I note that rats very often are introduced to remote islands by cargo ships and are a significant threat to ground-nesting birds.

red-tailed tropic bird swarmed by yellow crazy ants – on Johnson Atoll; photo by Sheldon Plentovich USFWS via Flickr

Congressional Republicans – who now control both houses of the legislature — are preparing amendments to the Endangered Species Act that would slash protections for at-risk species that are – or might later be – qualified for listing under the Act. One approach is to legislatively remove, or “delist,” those species that have gotten in the way of various activities. The Post names gray wolves and grizzly bears, which ranchers say prey on livestock; plus a lizard in Texas oil country; and the northern long-eared bat, which lives in forests that the timber industry wants to log.

range of northern long-eared map in US & Canada

Citing the fact that only 3% of listed species have recovered, Representative Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, wants to amend the Act to give more power to states. He also plans to limit courts’ power to review agencies’ decisions to remove protections for plants and animals.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Non-Native Moths in England: Ever Upward

Platyperigea kadenii — one of the moth species that feeds on native plant species introduced recently to Great Britain. Photo by Tony Morris via Flickr

Will phytosanitary agencies and the international system respond to continuing introductions of non-native species?

A new study confirms that introductions of insects continue apace, links this pattern to the horticultural trade, and examines the role of climate change in facilitating introductions. This study focuses on moths introduced to the United Kingdom (Hordley et al.; full citation at the end of the blog). The study sought to detect any trends in numbers of species establishing and the relative importance of natural dispersal vs. those assisted – intentionally or inadvertently – by human activities.

The authors determined that moths continue to be introduced by both processes; there is no sign of “saturation”. This finding agrees with that of Seebens and 44 others (2017; citation below), which analyzed establishments of all types of non-native species globally. The British scientists found that rapidly increasing global trade is the probable driver of the recent acceleration of human-assisted introductions. They emphasize the horticultural trade’s role specifically. Climate change might play a role in facilitating establishment of species entering the UK via human activities.

Hordley et al. found that long-term changes in climate, not recent rapid anthropogenic warming, was important in facilitating introductions of even those moth species that arrived without human assistance. As they note, temperatures in Great Britain have been rising since the 17th Century. These changes in temperature have probably made the British climate more suitable for a large number of Lepidoptera. The data show that the rate of natural establishments began rising in the 1930s, 60 years before anthropogenic changes in temperatures became evident. Hordley et al. point out that an earlier study that posited a more significant role for climate change did not distinguish between insect species which have colonized naturally and those benefitting from human assistance.

The authors expect introductions to continue, spurred by ongoing environmental and economic changes. Fortunately, very few of the introduced moths had any direct or indirect negative impacts. (The box-tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis) is the exception. [Box-tree moth is also killing plants in North America.]

boxtree moth; photo by Tony Morris via Flickr

Still, they consider that introductions pose an ongoing potential risk to native biodiversity and related human interests. Therefore, they advocate enhanced biosecurity. Specifically, they urge improved monitoring of natural colonizations and regulation of the horticultural trade.

Hordley et al. estimated the rate of establishment during the period 1900 – 2019 for (i) all moth species; (ii) immigrants (i.e., those introduced without any human assistance); (iii) immigrants which feed on native hosts; (iv) immigrants which feed on non-native hosts; (v) adventives (i.e., species introduced with human assistance); (vi) adventives which feed on native hosts; and (vii) adventives which feed on NIS hosts.

Their analysis used data on 116 moth species that have become established in Great Britain since 1900. Nearly two-thirds of these species – 63% – feed on plant species native to Great Britain; 34% on plant species that have been imported – intentionally or not. Data were lacking on the hosts of 3 species.

Considering the mode of introduction, the authors found that 67% arrived through natural colonization; 33% via human assistance. Sixty-nine percent of the 78 species that were introduced through natural processes (54 species) feed on plant species native to Great Britain; 31% (24 species) feed on non-native plants. Among the 38 species whose introduction was assisted by human activities, one-half (19 species) feed on native plant species; 42% (16 species) feed on introduced hosts.

Regarding trends, they found that when considering all moth species over the full period, 21.5% more species established in each decade than in the previous decade. This average somewhat obscured the startling acceleration of introductions over time: one species was reported as established in the first decade (1900–1909) compared to 18 species in the final decade (2010–2019).   

The rate of introduction for all immigrant (naturally introduced) species was 22% increase per decade. Considering immigrant species that feed on native plants, the rate of establishment was nearly the same – 23% increase per decade – when averaged over the 120-year period. However, a more detailed analysis demonstrated that these introductions proceeded at a steady rate until 1935, then accelerated by 11% per decade thereafter. In contrast, immigrants that feed on non-native plants have maintained a steady rate of increasing establishments – 13% per decade since 1900.

Adventive species (those introduced via human assistance) increased by 26% per decade. The data showed no signs of saturation. The rates of introduction were similar for adventives that feed on both native plants (22%) and non-native hosts (26%). Again, additional analysis demonstrated a break in rates for adventives that feed on native hosts. The rate was steady until the 1970s, then significantly increased during the years up to 2010. (The scientists dropped data from the final decade since lags in detection might artificially suppress that number.)

In summary, Hordley et al. found no significant differences in trends between

  • the number of species that established naturally (20%) vs. adventives (26%).
  • immigrant or adventive species that feed on native vs. non-native hosts.

The authors discuss the role of climate change facilitating bioinvasion by spurring natural dispersal, changing propagule pressure in source habitats, changing the suitability of receiving habitat, and changing in pathways for natural spread, e.g., altered wind and ocean currents. They recognize that the two modes of colonization – adventives and immigrants – can interact. They stress, however, that the two colonization modes require different interventions.

Although their findings don’t support the premise that a surge of natural colonizers has been prompted by anthropogenic warming, Hordley et al. assert that climate clearly links to increased moth immigration to Britain and increased probability of establishment. They note that even so assisted, colonists still must overcome both the natural barrier of the English Channel and find habitats that are so configured as to   facilitate breeding success. They report that source pools do not appear to be depleted — moth species richness of neighboring European countries greatly exceeds that in Great Britain.

I would have liked to learn what factors they think might explain the acceleration in both natural and human-assisted introductions of species that feed on plant species native to Great Britain. In 2023 I noted that scientists have found that numbers of established non-native insect species are driven primarily by diversity of plants – both native and non-indigenous.

Hordley et al. assert that Great Britain has advantages as a study location because as a large island separated from continental Europe by the sea – a natural barrier – colonization events are relatively easy to detect. However the English Channel is only 32 km across at its narrowest point. I wonder, whether this relatively narrow natural barrier might lead to a misleadingly large proportion of introduced species being natural immigrants. I do agree with the authors that moths are an appropriate focal taxon because they are sensitive to climate and can be introduced by international trade. Furthermore, Britain has a long tradition of citizen scientists recording moth sightings, so trends can be assessed over a long period.

Hordley et al. stress that they measured only the temporal rate of new species’ establishments, not colonization pressure or establishment success rate. They had no access to systematic data regarding species that arrived but failed to establish. Therefore, they could not deduce whether the observed increase in establishment rates are due to:

(1) more species arriving—due either to climate-driven changes in dispersal or to accessibility of source pools; or

(2) higher establishment success due to improved habitat and resource availability; or

(3) both.

Hordley et al. noted two limitations to their study. First, they concede that there is unavoidably some subjectivity in classifying each species as colonizing naturally or with human assistance. They tried to minimize this factor by consulting two experts independently and including in the analysis only those species on which there was consensus.

Second, increases in detection effort and effectiveness might explain the recent increases in establishment rates. They agree that more people have become “citizen scientists” since 1970. Also, sampling techniques and resources for species identification have improved considerably. They note, however, that Seebens et al. (2018) tested these factors in their global assessment and found little effect on trends.

Hordley et al. believe that they have addressed a third possible limitation – the lag between introduction and detection – by running their analyses both with and without data from final decade (2010-2019). The results were very similar qualitatively.

SOURCE

Hordley, L.A., E.B. Dennis, R. Fox, M.S. Parsons, T.M. Davis, N.A.D. Bourn. 2024. Increasing rate of moth species establishment over 120 years shows no deceleration. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2024;1–10. DOI: 10.1111/icad.12783

Seebens, H. et al. 2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications. January 2017. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14435

Seebens, H. et al. 2018. Global rise in emerging IAS results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1719429115

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Feral pigs – 20 years of APHIS engagement

feral hogs in state wildlife area, Florida; photo by Craig Oneal via Flickr

Most invasive species detection and control programs suffer from inadequate funding. Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are the exception. True, feral hogs are widely considered among the most damaging of invasive species. They are conspicuous. And they cause damage to agricultural crops – thus energizing a politically powerful constituency. (The extent of that damage is open to question; see my discussion below.) Can we learn from the political success of this program to build support for countering other invasive species?

[Several forest pests are also listed as among the “100 worst” invasive species: Asian longhorned beetle, chestnut blight, gypsy or spongy moths, Dutch elm disease, Phytopthora cinnamomi. Many invasive plant species present in the United States are also listed. These bioinvaders have not elicited the same level of response.]

According to a US Department of Agriculture report (USDA 2018), feral hogs only recently spread throughout the United States. In 1982, they were thought to inhabit only a small percentage of counties in 17 states. As of 2018, they were recognized as present in ~ 43% of all counties in the country; those counties were in 38 states and three US territories. USDA APHIS lists the following impacts from feral hog activities: damage to crops (including tree seedlings), livestock pastures and feed supplies, other kinds of property, and natural resources. In addition, feral pigs might transmit disease to the human food supply and possibly to livestock, and occasionally threaten public safety. In response, APHIS proposed to develop a national response. The goal was to reduce the risks and damages and encourage better coordination among the states and with Canada and Mexico. Since environmental conditions and laws vary among states, APHIS provides resources and expertise while allowing operational flexibility. The early focus was on primarily northern states where eradication was considered viable. By 2019, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, and New York had been declared “pig free”.

The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program was officially established as by the 2018 Farm Bill. It was funded at $75 million over the five-year life of the 2018 Farm Bill – or ~$15 million per year. The program is implemented jointly by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. According to the website, USDA focused these efforts where feral swine pose the highest threat.

APHIS has published a report covering the initial 2014 – 2018 program. I expect they will shortly publish a report covering 2018- 2023. My quick review of the available but outdated report shows that nearly all the pig removal projects funded by the program aimed to protect property, particularly agriculture. Protection of natural resources benefited from far fewer projects. The states funding natural resource  projects most generously were Washington (92% of projects!); Illinois (62%); Nevada (48%); Florida (47%); Idaho and Missouri (both at 44%); Wisconsin and New Hampshire (both at 41%); Ohio (35%); Utah (34%); and Arizona (32%). Some of the Western states have considerable land managed by federal agencies; this might explain their relative focus on natural resources. Pennsylvania allocated only 1% of its projects to protecting natural resources. West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands allocated none. I hope this tilt lessens in more recent years – although the program will clearly always be focused on agriculture.

There were no programs in five states: Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Note that the summary of the draft Senate Farm Bill says this program would be funded at $75 million per year in future. This would increase funding 15 fold. I think this is probably a mistake in writing the summary; that the total funding would continue to be $75 million over five years.

I also reviewed the annual report issued by the APHIS Wildlife Services program’s National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC). The Center lists 17 publications by NWRC staff and cooperators dealing with various aspects of feral pig management [other than swine fever transmission]. Topics included feral pigs’ social structure; factors that influence reproductive rates; factors that influence efficacy of bait/trap programs; in-field methods to determine animal’s weight; and the extent to which hunters, farmers and the public accept various control techniques.

feral hog damage in a corn field; photo by Craig Hicks, USDA APHIS

Two of the studies – Didero et al. and VerCauteren et al. – aim to answer a fundamental economic question of feral hog management: how to determine the level of damage feral hogs cause to agricultural crops. Interestingly, authors of both studies conclude that existing data do not allow that determination. According to VerCauteren et al., understanding of wild pig damage is limited largely to one kind of damage — rooting – as it affects some natural resources (e.g., wetlands), some crops (e.g., grains, nuts, and beans), and some property (e.g., golf courses and cemeteries). They found few reports documenting damage from other behaviors or effects on pasture, livestock, sensitive species, public recreation spaces, and historical sites. Furthermore, they could not generalize the findings of even those studies that attempt to link the level of damage to pig population density. This is because these studies use many different metrics. They say that designing studies to capture the full scope of damage even in a local area will be complex because of the variety of resources at risk and of mechanisms by which damage might occur (e.g., rooting, consuming plants or animals, wallowing …). VerCauteren et al. suggest specific approaches that should be applied in future studies so that economic estimates will be consistent, shareable, and repeatable. I encourage you to read the articles to learn details of what is known about feral hog damage.  

I rejoice that one set of NWRS studies focuses on Missouri.  As I have blogged previously, Missouri has operated an aggressive program since the 1990s. I appreciate that APHIS is trying to learn how Missouri officials determined which approaches work best, and built support for the program among farmers, landowners, hunters, etc.

NWRC staff and cooperators also studied some other issues relating to invasive species impacts.  One study sought to predict the level of suppression of brown treesnakes that must be achieved to protect birds that might be reintroduced on Guam. A second study sought to find out whether invasive coqui frogs can survive in the colder climates of high elevations in Hawai`i. There is concern that the frogs might compete with native birds for food.  

SOURCES

Didero, N.M., K.H. Ernst, S.C. McKee, and S.A. Shwiff. 2023. A call and suggested criteria for standardizing economic estimates of wild pig damage. Crop Protection 165:106149. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106149

United States Department of Agriculture National Feral Swine Damage Management Program Five Year Report FY14 – FY18

United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services. 2024. Innovative Solutions to Human Wildlife Conflicts. National Wildlife Research Center Accomplishments, 2023.

VerCauteren, K.C., K.M. Pepin, S.M. Cook, S. McKee, A. Pagels, K.J. Kohen, I.A. Messer, M.P. Glow,  N.P. Snow. 2024. What is known, unknown, and needed to be known about damage caused by wild pigs. Biol Invasions (2024) 26:1313–1325          https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03263-z

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

California bill – model for other states?

invasion of wild/black mustard Brassica nigra; photo by carlbegge via Flickr

A California state legislator has proposed a bill to expand state efforts to counter invasive species. Should we support it – and others like it in other states?

The bill is Assembly Bill 2827 introduced by Assembly Member (and former Majority Leader) Eloise Reyes of the 50th Assembly District. She represents urban parts of southwestern San Bernardino County, including the cities of Rialto, Colton, and Fontana.

According to media reports, Reyes was prompted to act by the current outbreak of exotic fruit flies, which as of some months ago resulted in detections in 15 California counties.

The bill is much broader than agricultural pests, however. It would find and declare that it is a primary goal of the state to prevent the introduction, and suppress the spread, of invasive species within its borders.  I applaud the language of the “findings” section:

(a) Invasive species have the potential to cause extensive damage to California’s natural and working landscapes, native species, agriculture, the public, and economy.

(b) Invasive species can threaten native flora and fauna, disrupt ecosystems, damage critical infrastructure, and result in further loss of biodiversity.

Paragraph (c) cites rising threats associated with increased movement of goods, international travel, and climate change — all said to create conditions that may enhance the survival, reproduction, and spread of these invasive species, posing additional threats to the state.

(d) It is in the best interest of the state to adopt a proactive and coordinated approach to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species.

California sycamore attacked by invasive shot hole borer; photo by Beatriz Nobua-Behrmann

The bill calls for

  • The state agencies, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to develop and implement pertinent strategies to protect the state’s agriculture, environment, and natural resources.
  • The state to invest in research, outreach, and education programs to raise awareness and promote responsible practices among residents, industries, and visitors.
  • State agencies to coordinate efforts with federal, local, and tribal authorities.

However, the bill falls short when it comes to action. Having declared that countering bioinvasion is “a primary goal of the state”, and mandated the above efforts, the bill says only that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (which has responsibility for plant pests) is to allocate funds, if available, to implement and enforce this article. Under this provision, significant action is likely to depend on holding agencies accountable and providing increased funding.

removing coast live oak killed by goldspotted oak borer; photo by F.T. Campbell

Would this proposed legislation make a practical difference? I have often complained that CDFA has not taken action to protect the state’s wonderful flora. For example, CDFA does not regulate firewood to prevent movement of pests within the State. It has not regulated numerous invasive plants or several wood-boring insects. These include the goldspotted oak borer; the polyphagous and Kuroshio shothole borers; and the  Mediterranean oak borer.

On the other hand, CDFA is quick to act against pests that might enter the state from elsewhere in the country, e.g., spongy moth (European or Asian), emerald ash borer and spotted lanternfly.

I hope Californians and the several non-governmental organizations focused on invasive species will lobby the legislature to adopt Assembly Bill 2827. I hope further that they will try to identify and secure a source of funds to support the mandated action by CDFA and other agencies responsible for managing the fauna, flora, and other taxa to which invasive species belong.

I applaud Ms. Reyes’ initiative. I hope legislators in other states will consider proposing similar bills.

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

Europe outlaws “ecocide”

American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus); photo by Will Brown via Wikimedia; one of invasive animals deliberately introduced to Europe in the past

In February 2024 the European Parliament approved legislation outlawing “ecocide” and providing sanctions for environmental crimes. Member states now have two years to enshrine its provisions in national law.

The new rules update the list of environmental crimes adopted in 2008 and enhance the sanctions. The goal is to ensure more effective enforcement. Listed among the offenses are:

  • the import and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases,
  • the import of invasive species,
  • the illegal depletion of water resources, and
  • pollution caused by ships.

This action followed an in-depth analysis of the failures of the previous EU environmental directive, first adopted in 2008 (Directive 2008/99/EC). The review found that:

  • The Directive had little effect on the ground.
  • Over the 10 years since its adoption few environmental crime cases were successfully investigated and sentenced.
  • Sanction levels were too low to dissuade violations.
  • There had been little systematic cross-border cooperation.

EU Member states were not enforcing the Directive’s provisions. They had provided insufficient resources to the task. They had not developed the needed specialized knowledge and public awareness. They were not sharing information or coordinating either among individual governments’ several agencies or with neighboring countries.

The review found that poor data hampered attempts by both the EU body and national policy-makers to evaluate the Directive’s efficacy.

The new Directive attempts to address these weaknesses. To me, the most important change is that complying with a permit no longer frees a company or its leadership from criminal liability. These individuals now have a “duty of care”. According to Antonius Manders, Dutch MEP from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), if new information shows that actions conducted under the permit are “causing irreversible damage to health and nature – you will have to stop.” This action reverses the previous EU environmental crime directive – and most member state laws. Until now, environmental crime could be punished only if it is unlawful; as long as an enterprise was complying with a permit, its actions would not be considered unlawful. Michael Faure, a professor of comparative and international environmental law at Maastricht University, calls this change revolutionary.

Lorton Prison; via Flickr

Another step was to make corporate leadership personally liable to penalties, including imprisonment. If a company’s actions cause substantial environmental harm, the CEOs and board members can face prison sentences of up to eight years. If the environmental harm results in the death of any person, the penalty can be increased to ten years.  

Financial penalties were also raised. Each Member state sets the fines within certain parameters. Fines may be based on either a proportion of annual worldwide turnover (3 to 5%) or set at a fixed fine (up to 40 million euros). Companies might also be obliged to reinstate the damaged environment or compensate for the damage caused. Companies might also lose their licenses or access to public funding, or even be forced to close.

Proponents of making ecocide the fifth international crime at the International Criminal Court argue that the updated directive effectively criminalizes “ecocide” — defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

Individual member states also decide whether the directive will apply to offences committed outside EU borders by EU companies.

Some members of the European Parliament advocate for an even stronger stance: creation of a public prosecutor at the European Union level. They hope that the Council of Europe will incorporate this idea during its ongoing revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. To me, this seems unlikely since the current text of the Convention, adopted by the Council in 1998, has never been ratified so it has not come into force.

The Council of Europe covers a wider geographic area than the European Union – 46 member states compared to 27. Members of the Council of Europe which are not in the EU include the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania; several mini-states, e.g., Monaco and San Remo; and countries in arguably neighboring regions, e.g., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.

While I rejoice that invasive species are included in the new Directive, I confess that I am uncertain about the extent to which this inclusion will advance efforts to prevent spread. The species under consideration would apparently have to be identified by some European body as “invasive” and its importation restricted. As we know, many of the most damaging species are not recognized as invasive before their introduction to a naïve environment. On the other side, the requirement that companies recognize new information and halt damaging actions – even when complying with a permit! – provides for needed flexibility.

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

Read both: a short call to action (41 pp) based on a long report (952 pp!) Then Act!!!

U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters; lets lobby these people! photo by Wikimedia

Twenty-three  scientists based around the world published a Letter to the Editor titled “Overwhelming evidence galvanizes a global consensus on the need for action against Invasive Alien Species” It appears in the most recent edition of Biological Invasions (2024) 26:621–626.

The authors’ purpose is to draw attention to the release of a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ (IPBES).  

The report was issued in September 2023. It is described as the most comprehensive global synthesis of the current knowledge on the bioinvasion process and the impacts of invasive alien species (952 pages!). Its preparation took nearly a decade. Most important, it represents the first consensus among governments and scientists worldwide on the magnitude and extent of the threats that bioinvasions pose to nature, people, and the economy.

The proposed solutions are astoundingly broad and ambitious: transformation of how governments and societies perform. I don’t disagree! However, we need interim steps – “bites of the elephant.”  In my view, the report falls short on providing these.

Our challenge: join others in bringing this analysis to decision-makers’ attention. Can we pull out information that will help persuade U.S. decision-makers – governmental and non-governmental – that the  threat is both urgent and solvable? How do we more effectively advocate for the aggressive, science-based action that we all know is needed?

(I hope that the fact that the report was prepared under the auspices of the Convention on Biodiversity, to which the U.S. is not a party, does not intensify the challenge for us.)

Why we need to restructure the behavior of governments and societies

Bioinvasions are facilitated by policies, decision-making structures, institutions, and technologies that are almost always focused on achieving other goals. Species transport and introduction are driven by policies aimed at promoting economic growth – especially trade. Later stages of invasions, i.e., establishment and some spread, are accelerated by certain uses of land and sea plus climate change. For example, activities that fragment habitats or cause widespread habitat disturbance provide ready places for bioinvasions. Rarely are those who gain by such policies held accountable for the harms they produce via bioinvasions.

To address these unintended consequences, the IPBES report calls for “integrated governance.” Its authors want coordination of all policies and agencies that touch on the indirect drivers, e.g., conservation; trade; economic development; transport; and human, animal, and plant health. Policy instruments need to reinforce – rather than conflict with — strategic invasive species management across sectors and scales. This involves international agreements, national regulations, all governmental sectors, as well as industry, the scientific community, and ordinary people – including local communities and Indigenous Peoples.

The report also calls for establishment of open and inter-operable information systems. This improved access to information is critical for setting priorities; evaluating and improving regulations’ effectiveness; and reducing costs by avoiding duplication of efforts.

Critically important information that is often unspoken:

  • Indirect causes underlying the usual list of human activities that directly promote bioinvasions are the rapid rise of human population and even more rapid rise in consumption and global trade.
  • Biosecurity measures at international borders have not kept pace with the growing volume, diversity, and geographic origins of goods in trade.
  • Continuation of current patterns is expected to result in one-third more invasive species globally by 2050. However, this is an underestimate because today’s harms reflect the consequences of past actions – often from decades ago. Drivers of invasions are expected to grow in both volume and impact.
  • We can prevent and control invasive alien species – but that success depends on the availability of adequate, sustained resources, plus capacity building; scientific cooperation and transfer of technology; appropriate biosecurity legislation and enforcement; and engaging the full range of stakeholders. These require political will.
  • A major impact of bioinvasion is increased biotic homogenization (loss of biological communities’ uniqueness). This concerns us because we are losing the biotic heterogeneity that provides insurance for the maintenance of ecosystem functioning in the face of ongoing global change.
  • The IPBES study asserts that successfully addressing bioinvasions can also strengthen the effectiveness of policies designed to respond to other drivers, especially programs addressing conservation of biological diversity, ensuring food security, sustaining economic growth, and slowing climate change. All these challenges interact. The authors affirm that evidence-based policy planning can reflect the interconnectedness of the drivers so that efforts to solve one problem do not exacerbate the magnitude of others and might even have multiple benefits.

More Key Findings

  • Overall, 9% (3,500) of an estimated 37,000 alien species established in novel environments are invasive (those for which scientists have evidence of negative impacts). Proportions of invasives is high among many taxonomic groups: 22% of all 1,852 alien invertebrates; 14% of all 461 alien vertebrates; 11% of all 141 alien microbes; and 6% of all 1,061 alien plants. (The discussion of probable undercounts relates to aquatic systems and certain geographic regions. However, I believe these data are all undermined by gaps in studies.)
  • Invasive alien species – solely or in combination with other drivers – have contributed to 60% of recorded global extinctions. Invasive species are the only driver in 16% of global animal and plant extinctions. Some invasive species have broader impacts, affecting not just individual species but also communities or whole ecosystems. Sometimes these create complexoutcomes that push the system across a threshold beyond which ecosystem restoration is not possible. (No tree pests are listed among the examples.)

dead whitebark pine in Glacier National Park; photo by National Park Service

  • The benefits that some non-native – even invasive – species provide to some groups of people do not mitigate or undo their negative impacts broadly, including to the global commons. The report authors note that beneficiaries usually differ from those people or sectors that bear the costs. The authors cite many resulting inequities.
  • There are insufficient studies of, or data from, aquatic systems, and from Africa; Latin America and the Caribbean; and parts of Asia.
  • The number of alien species is rising globally at unprecedented and increasing rates. There are insufficient data specifically on invasive species, but they, too, are thought to be rising at similar rates.
  • Horticulure is a major pathway for introducing 46% of invasive alien plant species worldwide.
  • Regarding invasive species’ greater impact on islands,the IPBES report mentions brown tree snakes on Guam and black rats on the Galapagos Islands. It also notes that on more than a quarter of the world’s islands, the number of alien plants exceeds the total number of native ones. See my blogs on non-native plants on Hawai`i and Puerto Rico. In addition, I have posted several blogs regarding disease threats to rare bird species in Hawai`. The IPBES report does not mention these.  

Where the Report Is Weak: Interim Steps

  • The report endorses adoption of regulated species (“black”) lists.
  • The report emphasizes risk analysis of species. Unfortunately IPBES’ analysis was completed before publication of the critique of risk analysis methods by Raffa et al. ( (2023) (see references). However, we must take the latter into consideration when deciding what to advocate as U.S. policy.
  • The report authors call for more countries to adopt national legislation or regulations specifically on preventing and controlling invasive species. (They note that 83% of countries lack such policies). They also list the many international agreements that touch on invasive species-relevant issues. However, Raffa et al. found that the number of such agreements to which a country is a party bears no relationship to the numbers of alien species detected at its border or established on its territory.
  • The challenge to risk assessment posed by multiple sources of uncertainty can be managed by recognizing, quantifying, and documenting the extent of that uncertainty.

Beech leaf disease – one of many non-native pests that were unknown before introduction to a naive ecosystem. Photo by Jennifer Koch, USDA Forest Service

  • I appreciate the report’s emphasis on the importance of public awareness and engagement, but I thought the discussion of effective campaigns lacked original ideas.

The report did not fulfill its own goal of fully exploring unappreciated impacts of policies in its discussion of habitat fragmentation. For example, the report notes that grazing by feral alien ungulates facilitates the spread of invasive alien plant species. However, it does not mention the similar impact by livestock grazing (Molvar, et al. 2024).

SOURCES

Molvar, E.M., R. Rosentreter, D. Mansfield, and G.M. Anderson. 2024. Cheat invasions: History, causes, consequences, and solutions. Hailey, Idaho: Western Watersheds Project, 128 pp.

Raffa, K.F., E.G. Brockerhoff, J-C. GRÉGOIRE, R.C. Hamelin, A.M. Liebhold, A. Santini, R.C. Venette, and M.J. Wingfield. 2023. Approaches to forecasting damage by invasive forest insects and pathogens: a cross-assessment. BioScience 85 Vol. 73 No. 2 (February 2023) https://academic.oup.com/bioscience  

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

Birds v. mosquitoes: hope in Hawai`i

‘i‘iwi (Drepanis coccinea) – formerly very common from low to high elevations; photo by James Petruzzii_U

The endangered honeycreepers (birds) of Hawaiian forests are receiving the attention they deserve – and desperately need. There is good news! Promising and significant efforts are under way, matched to a recent strategic plan.  However, it is too early to know their results.

Nearly two and a half years ago, I blogged about efforts by a multi-agency consortium (“Birds, Not Mosquitoes” ). It was working to suppress populations of non-native mosquitoes, which vector two lethal diseases: avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) and avian pox virus (Avipoxvirus). A single bite from an infected mosquito is enough to weaken and kill birds of some species, e.g., the ‘i‘iwi.

The threats from these diseases – and their spread to higher elevations as mosquitoes respond to climate change – pile on top of – other forms of habitat loss and inroads by other invasive species. All of the 17 species of honeycreeper that have persisted until now are listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Four are in danger of extinction within as little as 1 – 2 years. These are ‘Akeke`e (Loxops caeruleirostris), ‘Akikiki (Oreomsytis bairdi)), Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill, (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), and `Akohekohe (Palmeria dolei).

Akikiki; photo by Carter Atkinson, USGS

All these bird species are endemic to the Hawaiian archipelago — found nowhere else on Earth. They are already remnants. Nearly 80 bird species have gone extinct since people first colonized the Hawaiian Islands 1,500 years ago. Eight of these extinctions were recognized in October 2021.  Extinction of the final cohort would compromise the integrity of unique ecosystems as well as the Islands’ natural and cultural heritage.

I rejoice to report that the federal government has responded to the crisis. In late 2022 several Interior Department agencies adopted a multiagency Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds. The strategy specifies responsibilities for the key components of the program. These include: a) planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT); b) translocating birds to higher elevation sites on other Hawaiian islands; c)  establishing captive populations of at-risk birds; and d) developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions. All these activities are being developed and conducted through intensive consultation with Native Hawaiians.

On August 8, 2023, the Secretary of Interior announced the allocation of $15,511,066 for conservation and recovery efforts for Hawaiian forest birds. About $14 million of the total was from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). The funds are being channelled primarily through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ($7.5 million) and the National Park Service (NPS) ($6 million). Other sources of funding are the “State of the Birds” Program (FWS – $963,786); the national-level competitive Natural Resource grants program (NPS – $450,000); and the Biological Threats Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS – $100,000).

What Is Under Way

I do worry continuing these efforts will be harder once their funding is subject to annual appropriations. However, they are a good start!

Steps have been taken on each of the four key component of the Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian Forest Birds:  

a) Planning and implementing landscape-level mosquito control using Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT – see below) to reduce the mosquito vector of avian malaria.

  • The Consortium has obtained all necessary state permits, regulatory approval of the approach by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and done required consultations under the Endangered Species Act.
  • The Department of the Interior has funded a public-private partnership between the National parks and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to develop, test, and carry out the first deployments of IIT. These occurred in May 2023 at high-elevation sites on the island of Maui. The next releases are planned for Kaua`i.
  • Consortium participants are carrying out the consultations and scientific preparations need to support the next deployment on the Big Island.

b) Translocating birds to higher elevation sites on the one island where they exist – Hawai`i.

  • Initial planning has begun to guide translocation of the endangered Kiwikiu (Maui parrotbill) and Akohekohe to higher-elevation, mosquito-free, habitats on the Big Island.

c) Establishing captive populations of the most at-risk species

  • To facilitate captive breeding of the four most endangered species, the two existing aviaries in Hawai`i need to be expanded. Space must be provided for at least 80 more birds. A contract has been signed for construction of this new aviary space.

d) Developing next-generation tools that increase the scope or efficacy of these actions.

  • Lab capacity has been expanded to monitor the effectiveness of IIT, as well as for developing next-generation mosquito control tools.
those who decide funding work here … & they work for us!!!!

The Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT) explained

The incompatible insect technique has been used successfully elsewhere to combat mosquitoes that transmit human diseases. Many insect taxa – including mosquitoes – harbor a naturally-occurring bacteria (Wolbachia). This bacterium has more than one strain or type. When a male mosquito with one type of Wolbachia mates with a female mosquito bearing a different, incompatible type, resulting eggs do not hatch. The IIT project releases male mosquitoes that have an incompatible strain of the bacterium than do local females. (Male mosquitoes do not bite animals seeking a blood meal, so releasing them does not increase the threat to either birds or people.) Implementation requires repeat treatment of sites at a cost of more than $1 million per site per year. It is hoped that this cost will fall with more experience.

Funding for the Strategy’s Four Components

As I noted above, much of the funding for these efforts has come from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). Grants under this one-time statute are intended to cover project costs for perhaps five years. Other sources of funds are Congressional appropriations to Interior Department agencies under programs which presumably will continue to be funded in future years. These include the “State of the Birds” program; Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation, especially its §6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; and State Wildlife Grants administered by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. However, funding under these programs is never guaranteed and competition is fierce. I hope participants – and the rest of us! – can be effective in lobbying for future funds required to save Hawaii’s birds from extinction.

a) Deploying IIT

Over Fiscal Years 2017 – 2021 (ending September 2021), Interior Department agencies supported the IIT program by:

  • Providing $948,000  to the State of Hawai`i from “State of the Birds”, State Wildlife Grants, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) §6;
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  provided $545,000 plus staff time’ 
  • National Park Service  provided $1.2 million for IIT preparations at Haleakala National Park and surrounding state and Nature Conservancy lands
  • U.S. Geological Survey provided about $7.05 million in research on Hawaiian forest birds, invasive mosquitoes, and avian malaria.

The State of Hawai’i allocated $503,000 and employee staff time.

In addition,

  • the National Fish and Wildlife Fund provided a total of $627,000 in grants to TNC and American Bird Conservancy for Wolbachia IIT.
  • TNC committed to supporting some of the initial costs to deploy Wolbachia IIT for the first site in Hawai`i through a contractor (see below)
  • American Bird Conservancy provided funding for coordination and public outreach.

In FY2022 (which ended in September 2022),

  • NPS provided $6 million for on-the-ground work on Maui, also development and initial production of Wolbachia IIT.
  • Interior Department Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to engage with Native communities’ members

b) Moving endangered birds to mosquito-free areas at high elevations on the Big Island

This is planned to begin by 2030. Interior committed unspecified funds to planning and consultation with Native Hawaiians.

c) Rearing captive birds

 FWS supports operation of the two existing aviaries through two funding channels: $700,000 annually provided directly to the aviaries, plus another $500,000 per year through ESA §6through the State of Hawai`i. The San Diego Zoo – which operates the aviaries — provides $600,000 – $800,000 per year in the form of in-kind services, staffing, veterinarians, and administrative support. Interior’s Office of Native Hawaiian Relations provided in-kind services to support to engagement with Native Hawaiian community members

d) Regarding exploration of “next-generation” mosquito control tools

The FWS provided $60,000 to a scientific laboratory to study precision-guided Sterile Insect Technique (pgSIT) tools to protect bird species threatened by avian malaria.

Funding for the portions of these programs dependent upon annual appropriations is uncertain. Current signs are promising: House and Senate bills to fund for the current year (Fiscal Year 2024) – which began in October 2023! – both support at least some aspects of the program. According to American Bird Conservancy, the Senate appropriations bill has allocated $2.5 million to parts of the program. According to the Committee report, the House appropriations bill allots $4.7 million to the State of the Birds program to respond to urgent needs of critically endangered birds. The report goes on to direct the FWS to “incorporate adaptation actions into new and revised recovery plans and recovery implementation strategies, such as with the mosquito vector of avian pox & malaria in the revised Hawaiian Forest Birds recovery plan. …” Per the report, the Appropriations Committee “continues to encourage the [NPS] to respond to the urgent landscape-scale needs of critically endangered forest birds with habitats in national parks.” The report then specifies species threatened by non-native mosquitoes carrying avian malaria and other pathogens. Finally, the report allocates $500,000 to the U.S. Geological Survey for research on the Hawaiian forest birds.

Meanwhile, the American Bird Conservancy is preparing to advocate for $20 million for FY25 through “State of the Birds” Activities and associated NPS and USGS programs. The details of this amount have not yet been laid out.

CISP will support this request and urges you to do so also. We will suggests ways to help when we know more.

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

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Guidance on Nature-Based Solutions

whitebark pine in Glacier National Park killed by white pine blister rust; National Park Service photo

As I noted in the accompanying blog, the U.S. Department of Interior has also weighed in on how to mitigate climate change as part of the Nation’s response to COP24 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Interior’s Nature-Based Solutions “Roadmap” (citation at the end of the blog) is 480 pages long! It includes lots of pictures and extensive lists of examples of various types of projects. The document reviews “nature-based” restoration techniques, the benefits they provide in various realms (ecosystem, economy, social values); and the challenges or barriers likely to be encountered. These analyses cover six types of ecosystems – coastal (further divided into five subgroups), forests, grasslands (two types), inland wetland habitats, riverine habitats (three subgroups), and built environments. The obvious emphasis on aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats reflects the Department’s responsibilities. The threat from invasive species is recognized in each case. Plus there are separate chapters discussing management/removal of invasive pests and pathogens, plants, and vertebrates in all types of ecosystems.

The document’s purpose is to provide Interior’s staff – and others who are interested – with reliable information on determining the conditions and goals under which “nature-based” strategies perform best, the benefits they are likely to provide, instructive examples, and additional resources. Much of the information is intended to help staff persuade skeptics that a “nature-based” approach can solve a climate-related problem, such as sea level rise, as well as, or better than, “grey” infrastructure. This includes discussion of: construction and maintenance costs, efficacy in solving a specific problem, and managing conflicts over land use. Also, it considers benefits to other realms, for example, protecting biodiversity and providing opportunities for recreation and mental and physical well-being.

I will focus on aspects dealing with forests. These occur in several chapters. Each chapter has a brief description of the climate and other services provided by that ecosystem type, followed by sections on ways forward (“Technical Approach”), factors affecting site suitability, tools and training resources, likely benefits and outcomes (economic and ecological), barriers and solutions, and examples of projects.

The forest chapter (Chapter 10) discusses forest conservation and restoration with an emphasis on improving forest health, including fuels management, reforestation, and addressing threats from native and non-native pests. One proposed solution is thinning. This measure is said to enhance tree health and promote invasive plants. The “Roadmap” does not recognize that experts consider thinning is helpful in managing native pests such as mountain pine beetle but not non-native pests.

I was startled to find another suggestion – to plant native tree species that are resistant to non-native pests to restore stands. The “Roadmap” refers readers to the National Park Service Resilient Forests Initiative for Region 1 [which reaches from Virginia to Maine]. The Initiative encourages collaboration among parks with similar issues; provides park-specific resource briefs for 39 parks in the Region; and offers management strategies for a host of problems. These include invasive species control, prescribed fire, deer management, silvicultural treatments, tree planting, and fencing. My confusion is that – as far as I know – there are no sources of trees resistant to the non-native pests plaguing forests of the Northeast, e.g., beech, butternut, chestnut, hemlocks, ash, and oaks.

test planting of pathogen-resistant whitebark pine seedlings in Glacier National Park; photo by Richard Sniezko

In the “Tools” section Chapter 10 lists forest restoration guides published by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the International Union of Forest Research Organizations. The “Examples” section includes a few thinning projects.

Chapter 16 advises on enhancing urban forests, which provide many benefits. The chapter stresses the importance of ensuring that projects’ budgets can support protecting trees from such risks as flooding, fire, pests, disease, “invasive species” (presumably other than insects or pathogens), and climate change. The authors note that urban trees are often more susceptible to pests because of their proximity to human activities that facilitate pests’ spread. However, there is no mention that such pests spread to nearby natural forests. They warn against planting a single tree species. An issue noted but not discussed in detail is the use of non-native species in urban forests, some of which have already become invasive.

Three chapters discuss invasive species per se — insects and pathogens (Chap. 26), plants (Chap 27), and vertebrates (Chap. 28) Each chapter summaries invasion stages and stresses the importance of preventing new introductions, detecting them early, and responding rapidly. Most of the text deals with managing established populations – with the emphasis on applying integrated pest management (IPM).  Each raises caveats about biological control agents possibly attacking non-target organisms. Again, the authors emphasize the necessity of ensuring availability of adequate resources to carry out the program.

Chapter 26 addresses Invasive and Nuisance Insects and Pathogens. Examples listed include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, spongy moth, Dutch elm disease, sudden oak death, laurel wilt, white pine blister rust, chestnut blight and butternut canker. (All these invaders are profiled under the “invasive species” tab here). The examples also include several native pests, e.g., mountain pine beetle, southern pine beetle, and several pathogens, including Swiss needlecast. I am confused by a statement that priorities for management should be based on pests’ traits; my understanding of the science is that other factors are more important in determining a pest’s impact. See, for example, Lovett et al. 2006.This chapter reiterates the impractical advice to plant trees resistant to the damaging pest. I also wonder at the following statement:

“The process of detection and prevention will need to continue over time to prevent reintroductions or reinvasions of nuisance or invasive pests and pathogens. In some cases, long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread.” [p. 425] I believe long-term management will required in all cases!

The tools listed in the chapter include various DOI websites re: training and funding; the USDA website listing states’ plant diagnostic laboratories; a USDA IPM “road map”; The Nature Conservancy’s guidebook for assessing and managing invasive species in protected areas; the DOI Strategic Plan; and the University of Georgia’s Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health.

Chapter 27 discusses invasive and nuisance plants. It starts by noting that an estimated 5,000 non-native plant species are stablished in the US. While not all are invasive, there is still potential for these plants to spread and cause harm. The authors state that controlling such plants reduces fire risk and lowers demand for water in arid areas.

The authors say early management is crucial to eradicate or control invasive plant species. Because plant invasions cross property lines, agencies must form partnerships with other agencies and private landowners. Because invasive and nuisance plant species are so widespread, managers must set priorities. The “Roadmap” suggests focusing on sites at the highest risk, e.g., heavily trafficked areas. Continued effort will be necessary to prevent reinvasions or reintroductions. However, long-term management and containment can be incredibly costly and labor-intensive.

lesser celandine invade bottomlands of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

The “Roadmap” complains that many invasive and nuisance plant species are still offered for sale; in fact, that this is the primary pathway by which invasive plants enter the US, (While which we have known this for decades, it is encouraging to see a U.S. government report say:  “Advocating for federal regulation and cohesive local policies for preventing invasive [plant] sales is essential to avoid disjointed state rulings.” – even if it does not specify which agencies should take the lead.  

In the “Tools” section the chapter lists two USFS guides on managing invasive plants; two California Invasive Plant Council guides; the Interior Department’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan; EDDMapS (a University of Georgia site on which members of the public can report invasive species); and the TNC guidebook for Assessing and Managing Invasive Species in Protected Areas.

Chapter 28 addresses invasive & nuisance vertebrates (called “wildlife”). It notes that invasive animals are present in more than half of all US National parks. It briefly mentions the Lacey Act as providing legal power to curb the introduction and spread of these animals. It does not discuss strengths and weaknesses of this statute, both of which are substantial. This chapter repeats the odd wording from the pest and pathogen chapter – that in some cases long-term management will be required to contain and prevent spread of invasive species. I find it doubtful that short-term actions will be effective in virtually all cases.

Tools listed include Interior guides on IPM, funding sources, and protecting aquatic systems along with the Department of Interior’s 2021 Invasive Species Strategic Plan. Other tools include the USDA guide on IPM, EDDMapS, and the TNC guidebook.

Forests were also mentioned in the discussion of assisted migration of coastal wetlands to avoid drowning by rising seas (Chapter 1). The text notes that forests upland from coastal wetlands might be killed – either as a result of waterlogging as sea levels rise or as deliberate action to make room for the new marsh. Mortality in either case will reduce carbon sequestration. The authors also note the probability that invasive plants – shrubs in the woods, Phragmites on the edge of the wetland — will be present and have to be controlled.

SOURCES

Lovett, G.M, C.D. Canham, M.A. Arthur, K.C. Weathers, R.D. Fitzhugh. 2006. Foret Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol 56 No. 5 May 2006.

Warnell, K., S. Mason, A. Siegle, M. Merritt, & L. Olander. 2023. Department of the Interior Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap. NI R 23-06. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/department-interior-nature-based-solutions-roadmap.

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 “Self-Introduced” & “Door-Knocker” Species Tell Us?

Woldstedtius flavolineatus – one of at least 13 taxa of non-native ichneumonid wasps established in restoration forests in Hawaiian Forest National wildlife rfefuge; photo by Torgrim Breiehagen for the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre; via Wikipedia

As we know, non-native insects and pathogens pose a significant and accelerating threat to biodiversity in forests and other ecosystems. They undermine some conservation programs and reduce ecosystem services and quality of life in urban areas. Nevertheless, damaging introductions continue.  

Two recent articles have advocated accelerating biocontrol programs. These articles have reminded us  of ongoing failures of international and national biosecurity programs, including that of the US. The articles also make interesting suggestions regarding ways to be more pro-active in preventing introductions.

1. “Self-introductions” of invaders’ enemies

Weber et al. (full citation at end of blog) provide many examples of unintentional “self-introductions” of natural enemies of arthropod pests and invasive plants. In fact, “self-introductions” of natural enemies of arthropod pests might exceed the number of species introduced intentionally. These introductions have been facilitated by the usual factors: the general surge in international trade; lack of surveillance for species that are not associated with live plants or animals; inability to detect or intercept microorganisms; huge invasive host populations that allow rapid establishment of their accidentally introduced natural enemies; and lack of aggressive screening for pests already established.

Among the examples illustrating failures of biosecurity programs:

  • Across six global regions, nearly two-thirds of parasitoid Hymenoptera species were introduced unintentionally. The proportion varies significantly by region. For example, four-fifths of these insects in New Zealand arrived accidentally.
  • The  unintentional spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter (Homalodisca vitripennis) and a biocontrol agent Cosmocomoidea ashmeadi has been so rapid among islands in the Pacific Ocean (including Hawai`i) they are considered ‘biomarkers’ of biosecurity failures.
  • Regarding the United States specifically, an estimated 67% of beneficial insects introduced to Hawai`i and 64% of parasitoid Hymenoptera introduced to the mainland U.S. were accidental “self-introductions.”

Weber et al. consider their figures to be underestimates. The situation is particularly uncertain regarding pathogens that kill arthropods. Many microbial species are not yet described.

spotted lanternfly; photo by Stephen Ausmus, USDA

In some cases, these “self-introduced” arthropods have proved beneficial. Two examples are Entomophaga maimaiga and Lymantria dispar nucleopolyhedrovirus (LdNPV), which help control the spongy moth (Lymantria dispar). In other cases the “self-introduced” creatures are pests themselves. A prominent example is the invasion by the spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula). This was facilitated by the widespread presence of the highly invasive plant Ailanthus altissima. It illustrates what Weber et al. call “receptive bridgehead effects.” That is, once an invasive pest is well-established, the chance that its natural enemies will find a suitable host and also establish in the pest’s invaded range is much higher.

Weber et al. reaffirm that there are many good reasons not to allow such random invasions of diverse non-native species – including their natural enemies. Deliberately introduced biocontrol agents are chosen after determining their efficacy, host-specificity, and climatic suitability. Random introductions, on the other hand, might favor generalist species, which could threaten non-target species. Accidental introductions might also be accompanied by pathogens and hyperparasitoids that could compromise the efficacy of biocontrol agents.

In short, unintentionally introduced natural enemies might have about the same level of success in controlling the target pest’s populations as do intentionally introduced agents. However, unintentional introductions of both pests and pathogens carry additional risks of non-target impacts and contamination with their own natural enemies that would hamper the efficacy of the biocontrol agent. Weber et al. conclude that delays in releasing a deliberately chosen and evaluated biocontrol agent reduce the probability that it will successfully establish instead of an unintentionally introduced organism.

cactus moth larva on Opuntia; photo by Doug Beckers via Flickr

It is especially likely that an arthropod – whether or not a biocontrol agent – will spread within a geographic region. Weber et al. say both the U.S. and Canada have received more than a dozen species intentionally introduced into the other country. They also cite spread of the cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum, into Florida from several Caribbean countries. The cactus moth has spread and now threatens the center of diversity of flat-padded Opuntia cacti in the American southwest and Mexico.

Another example is California: 44% of invading terrestrial macroinvertebrates that have established in the state came from populations established elsewhere in the US and Canada (Hoddle 2023). This number exceeds the total number of invasive macroinvertebrates in the state that originated anywhere in Eurasia (Weber et al.).

True, it is very difficult to prevent natural spread. But a lot of this spread is facilitated by human activities, e.g., transporting vectors such as living plants, firewood, outdoor furniture or storage “pods.” I have complained often — here and here and here — that interstate movement of invasive plant pests is particularly poorly controlled.

Some scientists and regulators have responded to these situations by improving phytosanitary programs. California officials, in 2019, set up a program to fund projects aimed at developing integrated pest management strategies for species thought to have a high invasion potential before they arrive. I urge other states to do the same. This would probably be most effective in controlling the target species – and in relation to cost — if developed by regional consortia.

Weber et al. suggest that given continuing unintentional introductions of non-native species, phytosanitary agencies need to focus on those invasion pathways that are particularly likely to result in invasions, e.g. live plants, raw lumber (including wood packaging), and bulk commodities e.g. quarried rock. 

The authors also suggest research opportunities that arise from biocontrol agents’ “self-introductions”. These include:

  • Comparing actual host ranges to those predicted by laboratory and other studies;
  • Quantifying the role of Allee effects, for example by studying the spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter and its biocontrol agent across the Pacific region;
  •  Using molecular analyses to disentangle multiple routes of entry (e.g., the “invasive bridgehead effect”) and hybridization.

2. Door-knocker species

Hoddle (2023) suggests further that early detection programs should focus on “door-knocker” species — those likely to enter and cause significant negative impacts. In an earlier article (Hoddle, Mace and Steggall 2018) argued that the benefits of a pro-active biocontrol program outweigh the costs. The authors say the information gained would cut the time needed to deploy effective biocontrol. Ultimately, this could reduce the prolonged and even irreversible ecological and economic disruption from invasive pests, associated pesticide applications, and lost ecological services.

Asian citrus psyllid  (Diaphorina citri); USDA photo by Justin Wendell; Hoddle cites this species as one that a pro-active biocontrol program should have targetted

Hoddle calls funding pro-active biocontrol research programs before they’re needed as analogous to buying insurance. The owners of insurance policies hope not to need them but benefit when catastrophe strikes. Furthermore, the information gained from early research might identify natural enemy species that could “self-introduce” along with the invading host. Finally, proactive research might clarify whether the increasing number of natural enemy species that are “self-introducing” pose a threat to non-target organisms.

Recognizing the difficulty of identifying an “emerging invasive species” before its introduction, Hoddle endorses other components of prevention programs:

  • Collaborating with non-U.S. scientists to identify and mitigate invasion bridgeheads. Such efforts would both lessen bioinvasion threats and possibly aid in determining native ranges and facilitating location of natural enemies.
  • Sentinel plantings, such as those established under the International Plant Sentinel Network. These plantings can also support research on natural enemies of key pests.
  • Integrating online platforms, networks, professional meetings, and incursion monitoring programs into “horizon scans” for potential invasive species. He mentions specifically PestLens; online community science platforms, e.g., iNaturalist; international symposia; and official pest surveillance, e.g., U.S. Forest Service’s bark beetles survey and surveys done by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and border protection stations.
date palm mealybug (Pseudaspidoproctus hyphaeniacus); threat to native Washingtonia palms of California; one of pests tracked by PestLens

Weber et al. also support the concept of sentinel plant nurseries – especially because accidental plant and herbivore invasions often occur at the same points of entry.

Both Weber et al. and Hoddle urge authorities not to strengthen regulations governing biocontrol introductions. Weber et al. say that would be to make perfect the enemy of the good. The need is to balance solving problems with avoiding creation of new problems.

SOURCES

Hoddle, M.S., K. Mace, J. Steggall. 2018.   Proactive biological control: A cost-effective management option for invasive pests. California Agriculture. Volume 72, No. 3

Hoddle. M.S. 2023. A new paradigm: proactive biological control of invasive insect pests. BioControl https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-023-10206-5

Weber, D.C. A.E. Hajek, K.A. Hoelmer, U. Schaffner, P.G. Mason, R. Stouthamer, E.J. Talamas, M. Buffington, M.S. Hoddle, and T. Haye. 2020. Unintentional Biological Control Chapter for USDA Agriculture Research Service. Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior Laboratory. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=362852

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