Category: animal invaders

The South African Report as a Model: U.S. Falls Short

Ailanthus – one of the invasive species shared by South Africa and the U.S.

A few years ago, I posted a blog in which I pointed to a report on South Africa’s response to bioinvasion as a model for the U.S. and other countries. South Africa has published its second report. This report outlines the country’s status as of December 2019 and trends since the first report (i.e. since December 2016). (I describe the report’s findings on South Africa’s invasive species situation in a companion blog.) Again, I find it a good model of how a country should report its invasive species status, efforts, and challenges. In comparison, many U.S. efforts comes up short.

U.S. Reports Need to Be More Comprehensive

The South African report provides a national perspective on all taxa. Various United States agencies have attempted something similar a few times. The report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1993  summarized knowledge of introduced species and evaluated then-current management programs.

The 2018 report by the U.S. Geological Service focused on data: the authors concluded that 11,344 species had been introduced and described the situation in three regions – the “lower 48” states, Alaska, and Hawai`i. However, the USGS did not evaluate programs and policies. The new USDA Forest Service report (Poland et al. 2021) describes taxa and impacts of invasive species in forest and grassland biomes, including associated aquatic systems. Again, it does not evaluate the efficacy of programs and policies.

The biennial national reports required by the Executive Order establishing the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) are most similar to the South African ones in intent. However, none has been comprehensive. For example, the most recent, issued in 2018, strives to raise concern by stating that invasive species effect a wide range of ecosystem services that underpin human well-being and economic growth. Some emphasis is given to damage to infrastructure. The report then sets out priority actions in six areas: leadership and prioritization, coordination, raising awareness, removing barriers, assessing federal capacities, and fostering innovation. NISC also issued a report in 2016 – this one focused on improving early detection and rapid response. NISC posted a useful innovation – a “report card” updating progress on priority actions — in October 2018.   It listed whether actions had been completed, were in progress, or were no longer applicable. However, the “report card” gave no explanation of the status of various actions; the most notable omissions concerned the actions dismissed as “not applicable”. Worse, no report cards have been posted since 2018. I doubt if those or any more comprehensive reports will be forthcoming. This reflects the increasing marginalization of NISC. The Council has never had sufficient power to coordinate agencies’ actions, and now barely survives.

U.S. Reports Need to Be More Candid

The authors of the South African report made an impressive commitment to honest evaluation of the country’s gaps, continuing problems, progress, and strengths. As in the first report, they are willing to note shortcomings, even of programs that enjoy broad political support (e.g., the Working for Water program).

It is not clear whether decision-makers have acted — or will act — on the report’s findings. That is true in many countries, including the United States. However, that is separate whether decision-makers have an honest appraisal on which to base action.

Assessment of South Africa’s Invasive Species Programs

Here is a summary of what the authors say about South Africa’s invasive species program. I want to state clearly that my intention is not to criticize South Africa’s efforts. No country has a perfect program, and South Africa faces many challenges. These have been exacerbated by COVD-19.  

The report identifies the areas listed below as needing change or improvement.

1) Absence of a comprehensive policy on bioinvasion. Such a policy would provide a vision for what South Africa aspires to achieve, clarify the government’s position, guide decision-makers, and provide a basis for coordinating programs by all affected parties (e.g., including conservation and phytosanitary agencies).

2) As in the first report, the authors call for monitoring program outcomes (results) rather than inputs (money, staffing, etc.) or outputs (e.g., acres treated). The authors also say data must be available for scrutiny. In those cases when data are adequate for assessing programs’ efficacy, they indicate that the control effort is largely ineffective.

3) Inadequate data in several areas. The report notes progress in developing and applying transparent and science-based criteria to species categorization as invasive (as distinct from relying on expert opinion). However, this change is taking time to implement, and sometimes results in species receiving a different rating. [I agree with the report that data gaps undermine understanding of the extent and impacts of bioinvasion, domestic pathways of spread, justification of expenditures, assessment of various programs’ efficacy (individually or overall), priority setting, and identifying changes needed to overcome programs’ weaknesses. However, I think filling these data gaps might demand time and resources that could better be utilized to respond to invasions – even when those invasions are not fully understood.]

4) Funding of bioinvasion programs by the National Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment has been fairly constant over 2012–2019, but this is a decline in real terms. The figure of 1 billion ZAR does not include spending by other government departments, national and provincial conservation bodies, municipalities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. Authors of the report expect funding to decrease in the future because of competing needs.

While at least 237 invasive species are under some management (see Table 5.1), funding is heavily skewed – 45% of funding goes to management of one invasive plant (black wattle); 72% to management of 10 species.

5) Need for policies to address the threat emerging from rising trade with other African countries, especially considering the probable adoption of the proposed African Continental Free Trade Area. Under this agreement, imported goods will only be inspected for alien species at the first port of entry, and most African countries have limited inspection capacity. [European pathologists Brasier, Jung, and others have noted the same issue arising in Europe, where imported plants move freely around the European Union once approved for entry by one member state.]

The authors of the South African report say programs’ efficacy would be considerably improved if species and sites were prioritized, and species-specific management plans developed. They warn that, in the absence of planning and prioritization, there is a risk that funding could be diluted by targeting too many species, leading to ineffective control and a concomitant increase in impacts.

In South Africa, regulations, permits, and other measures aimed at regulating legal imports of listed species are increasingly effective. However, there is still insufficient capacity to prevent accidental or intentional illegal introductions of alien species. There is also more enforcement of regulations requiring landowners to control invasive species. Six criminal cases have been filed and – as of December 2019, one conviction (guilty plea) obtained. However, the data do not allow an assessment of the overall level of compliance.

The report found little discernable progress on the proportion of pathways that have formally approved management plans. Management is either absent or ineffective for 61% of pathways. There has been no action to manage the ballast water pathway. On the other hand, in some cases, other laws focus explicitly on pathways, e.g., agricultural produce is regulated under the Agricultural Pests Act of 1983.

During the period December 2016 – December 2019, the Plant Inspection Services tested more than 12,000 plant import samples for quarantine pests and made 62 interceptions. The report calls for more detailed information from the various government departments responsible for managing particular pathways (e.g., the phytosanitary service), and for an assessments of the quality of their interventions.

The number of non-native taxa with some form of management has grown by 40% since December 2016 – although – as I have already noted — spending is highly skewed to a few plant species. The number and extent of site-specific management plans has also increased, apparently largely due to a few large-scale plans developed by private landowners. However, few of these plans have been formally approved by some unspecified overseer.

Citing the strengths and weaknesses described above, the current (second) report downgraded its assessment of governmental programs from “substantial” to “partial”.  

Comparison to U.S.

How does the United States measure up on the elements that need change or improvement?  I know of no U.S. government report that is as blunt in assessing the efficacy of our programs –individually or as a whole.

Nevertheless, each of the five weaknesses identified for South Africa also exist in the United States:

  1. Re: lack of a comprehensive policy, I think the U.S. also suffers this absence. This is regrettable since the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) was set up in 1999.
  2. Re: monitoring outcomes to assess programs’ efficacy, I think U.S. agencies do seem to be more focused on collecting data on programs’ results – see the Forest Service’ budget justification. However, I think too often the data collected focus on inputs and outputs.
  3. Re: data gaps, I think all countries – including the U.S. — lack data on important aspects of bioinvasion. I differ from the South African report, however, in arguing for funding research aimed at developing responses rather than monitoring to clarify the extent of a specific invasive species. Information that does not lead to action seems to me to be a luxury given the low level of funding.
  4. Re: funding, I find that, despite the existence of NISC, it remains difficult to get an overall picture of U.S federal funding of invasive species programs. Indeed, the cross-cut budget was dropped in 2018 at the Administration’s request. I expect all agencies are under-funded; I have often said so as regards key USDA programs. As in South Africa, funding is skewed to a few species that I think should be lower in priority (e.g., gypsy moth). 
  5. Re: upgrading invasive species programs to counter free-trade policies, I think U.S. trade policies place too high a priority on promoting agricultural exports to the detriment of efforts to prevent forest pest introductions. This imbalance might be present with regard to other taxa and pathways. See Fading Forests II here.

South African and U.S. agencies also face the same over-arching issues. For example, the U.S. priority-setting process seems to be a “black box.” Several USFS scientists (Potter et al. 2019) spent considerable effort to develop a set of criteria for ranking action on tree species that are hosts of damaging introduced pests. Yet there is no evidence that this laudable project influenced priorities for USFS funding.

SOURCES

Poland, T.M., P. Patel-Weynand, D.M Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M Lopez, editors. 2021. Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States. A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the US Forest Sector. Springer

Potter, K.M., Escanferla, M.E., Jetton, R.M., Man, G., Crane, B.S. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of United States tree species: Evaluating vulnerability to forest P&P threats, Global Ecology and Conservation (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00622.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

map of South Africa showing fynbos biome

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

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

Successes

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

Failures

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

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

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

PSHB symptoms on Vachellia sieberiana; photo by Trudy Paap

Polyphagous shothole borer

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

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

SOURCES

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Interior’s Invasive Species Plan: Let’s Implement It!

Posted by Scott J. Cameron, former Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget , US Department of the Interior

locations in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park where ohia trees were infected by rapid ohia death pathogen in 2017

In 2019 Congress passed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. Among other things, it directed the Department of the Interior to “develop a strategic plan that will achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, a substantive annual net reduction of invasive species population or infested acreage on land or water managed by the Secretary.”  This provision triggered a year-long process of public involvement and inter-bureau coordination. The result was a plan published in January 2021.  It represents the first attempt by Interior at a Department-wide multi-taxa, multi-year approach to invasive species.  It has the potential to spur integration of invasive species work across the Department’s many bureaus and to focus each bureau’s efforts on a set of common goals, strategies, and performance metrics.

While Congress’ language is open-ended, any planning exercise is constrained by the most recent President’s budget and existing law.  It is up to those of us who are not, or at least no longer, executive branch employees to advocate for plans unbound by those constraints. 

In that spirit, I offer eight recommendations to improve invasive species management. Four are within existing authorities; four more are outside the current budgetary and statutory framework.  Many more ideas are without a doubt worth pursuing.

Opuntia (prickly pear) cactus – common plant in western National parks and on Bureau of Land Management lands; under threat by cactus moth

First, within existing funding and legal authorities, the Department has unfinished business that it can act on now.

  1. Secure approval of the package of categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — now awaiting approval by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Over many years agencies have documented how invasive species control improves, rather than harms, the environment.  Absent an applicable NEPA categorical exclusion approved by CEQ, though, each such action needs to run the time- and money-consuming gauntlet of NEPA compliance. In the meantime, the invasive plants germinate, the invasive animals reproduce, and what might have been a localized and inexpensive problem has expanded geographically and in terms of cost and complexity.  In the Fall of 2020 Interior submitted hundreds of pages of documentation on numerous practices proven to control invasive species without harming the environment.  Due to time and staffing constraints at CEQ, these categorical exclusions still await action.  Interior and CEQ should take prompt steps to finish them.
  • Allocate to the US Geological Survey at least $10 million of the roughly $90 million remaining available to the Secretary in CARES Act appropriations for research on invasive zoonotic diseases. These are diseases like COVID-19 and West Nile virus that can move from one species to another.  Many zoonotic diseases fit the definition of invasive species, since they are not native to the United States and endanger human health.  In the case of COVID-19 funding is available to the Secretary of the Interior, without need for further Congressional action, from funds appropriated by the CARES Act. The availability of these funds will expire at the end of September 2021, so Interior should provide this research funding to USGS as soon as possible. 
  • Join the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the Western Governors Association (WGA) and the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. These groups have established “a framework to allow the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and WGA to work collaboratively to accomplish mutual goals, further common interests, and effectively respond to the increasing suite of challenges facing western landscapes.”  This provides a forum to improve coordination between the States and the federal government on the management of invasive species, and Interior needs to be part of that team.
  • Interior should work with USDA to accelerate and intensify efforts to systematically improve coordination between the interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council and the interagency National Invasive Species Council.  Both Councils have member agencies that practice vegetation management using similar tools and techniques, although for different purposes. The two Councils should identify a select number of initiatives in FY21 where their efforts would benefit both wildland fire management and invasive plant management .
swamp bay trees in Everglades National Park killed by laurel wilt; photo by Tony Pernas

Four steps to implement the strategic plan outside the scope of current law and the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget. I offer the following:

  1. Improve implementation of the Lacey Act program to list injurious species.  There are both legislative and administrative elements to this proposal.  

In a federal District Court decision on May 19, 2015, on a lawsuit filed by the Association of Reptile Keepers, the Court undid the longstanding Fish and Wildlife Service policy that the Lacey Act allowed FWS to ban interstate transport of injurious species. On April 7, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s view. These rulings mean that FWS authority only applies to international commerce.  Unfortunately, the court’s interpretation of the law and legislative history are reasonable, so Congress needs to amend the law to make it clear that FWS is explicitly authorized to regulate interstate commerce in injurious species. The Department of the Interior should work with the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget to develop the necessary bill language and submit it to Congress.

At the same time, the FWS injurious species listing process is notoriously slow, even causing Congress to occasionally list species legislatively.  The fact that these legislative initiatives have sometimes been promoted by Members of Congress who normally  are opposed to more federal regulation signals just how awkward the current FWS process is. Thus there might well be strong bipartisan support to amend the Lacey Act on the interstate commerce matter. Acting on its own authority, FWS should procure an independent third party review of the injurious species listing process and ask the contractor to make suggestions for “business process reengineering” to improve and streamline current practices, along with evaluating whether higher funding or new technology is needed.

  • The Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget should develop legislative language to submit to Congress for the 2022 Water Resources Development Act, that explicitly authorizes an aquatic nuisance species program in the Bureau of Reclamation.  It could parallel the relatively new authority enjoyed by the Army Corps of Engineers and mandate increased coordination between the two water agencies.
  • Any climate change legislation pursued by Congress and the Administration should include provisions for addressing invasive species.  Climate change will make some North American habitats more suitable for foreign organisms, as cold-intolerant species might be able to survive in more northern latitudes in the U.S. than previously was the case. Second, the disruptive effect of climate change on North American ecosystem structure and trophic relationships at any latitude will make those ecosystems more vulnerable to invasion. Finally, the spread of invasive species may in and of itself exacerbate climate change, such as through the increased carbon dioxide emissions from rangeland wildfires aggravated by the dominance of invasive cheatgrass.
  • The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Natural Resources Committee should each hold oversight hearings on how best to help state and local governments detect and respond to new invasive species that are not within the statutory purview of USDA/APHIS.  This is a complex topic, important for both ecological and financial reasons. Over the years several attempts to address it have failed.  A thoughtful review by Congress and the Administration, which perhaps would lead to passage of new statutory authority and funding, is worth exploring.

The Author:

Scott Cameron recently left the federal government, where he had served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the U.S. Department of the Interior. In that capacity he oversaw Department-wide budget, invasive species, natural resource damage assessment and restoration, environmental compliance and numerous administrative functions of this $14 billion agency with 65,000 employees. Previously, Scott held other civil service job (e.g., at the White House Office of Management and Budget) & political appointments in the federal government, on the staff of the Governor of California, and on Congressional staffs. While not in government, Scott led formation of the Reduce Risk from Invasive Species Coalition.

CISP welcomes 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.

Further information on the plant pests mentioned in the photo captions can be obtained at www.dontmovefirewood.org; click the “invasive species” button.

Projection: Alien Species Introductions Will Keep Going Up! Especially Arthropods!

Japanese knotweed

In 2017 I blogged about a study by Hanno Seebens and 44 coauthors that showed that the rate of new introductions of alien species has risen rapidly since about 1800 – and showed no sign of slowing down (a reference to the full article is at the end of this blog). Here’s a brief recap, followed by a 2020 update by Seebens and colleagues.

In 2017, Seebens et al. analyzed a database covering 45,813 first records of 16,926 alien species established in 282 distinct geographic regions. The year with the highest number of reported new detections was 1996 – 585, or an average of more than 1.5 sightings per day.

The authors found that the adoption of national and international biosecurity measures during the 20th Century had slowed introductions – but not sufficiently. Numbers of reported new introductions of fish and mammals had decreased since the early 1950s. However, first recorded introductions of vascular plant species remained high, and introductions of birds and reptiles also continued to rise, largely as pets in countries with strengthening economies.

For taxa introduced primarily accidentally on transport vectors or as contaminants of commodities (e.g., algae, insects, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates), they found a strong correlation between their spread and the market value of goods imported into the region of interest – existing biosecurity regimes had not slowed down the accumulation of these alien taxa.

As a consequence, the authors expected that the numbers of new alien species would continue to increase.

As you are aware, since 2015 I have posted 15 blogs about the continued detections of tree pests in wood packaging, which remains one of the major pathways despite the international regulation ISPM#15. I have found it harder to track insect and pathogen introductions on imported plants, but it surely continues apace.

2020 Study Projects Continuing Rise in Introductions, Especially Arthropods 

Hanno Seebens and a smaller set of coauthors (see full reference at the end of this blog) have now produced an estimate of probable introduction rates in the future.  They looked at taxon–continent combinations for seven major taxonomic groups and eight continents (excluding Antarctica).

They found an overall increase in established alien species between 2005 and 2050 of 36%.

The study predicted that by the mid-21st Century, there will be distinct increases in alien species numbers, particularly for Europe, but also for Temperate Asia and North America, and for invertebrates in all regions. Europe ranked highest in absolute numbers of new alien species (~2,543; a 64% increase). Temperate Asia was projected to receive about 1,597 species (a 50% increase); North America about 1,484 (a 23% increase); South America about 1,391 (a 49% increase); and the Pacific Islands about 132. Only Australasia could expect a slower rise in introductions. The predicted trajectories of alien species numbers were surprisingly similar for mainland and island regions across taxonomic groups.

Invertebrates showed the highest relative increases. Rates of new detections of alien species were projected to accelerate for arthropods other than crustaceans worldwide, especially for North America (!). The study also projected higher relative increases for aquatic vascular plants and terrestrial insects

All drivers of introduction and invasion are predicted to intensify in the future. This is despite adoption of increasing numbers of countermeasures in recent decades. Most countries’ capacity to proactively counter the rising tide of invasive species is still poor. Furthermore, the principal drivers – intensification of trade and transport, land-use change, and access to new source pools – is expected to continue operating as now – “business as usual”.

spotted lanternfly Holly Ragusa, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

Current Status of “New” Detections

Seebens et al. (2020) relied on the Alien Species First Records Database for first detection records up to 2005. More than half (54%) of the first-detection records in the database are vascular plants. Arthropods other than crustaceans made up 28% of the total, birds 6%, fishes 4%, mammals 3%, molluscs 2%, and crustaceans 2%. The 2020 study confirmed the earlier finding that the observed first-record rates of mammals changed at around 1950 from an increasing to a decreasing trend. Finally, the total numbers of non-native species in the Database is much lower in aquatic habitats. (The authors do not discuss whether this reflects actual introductions or gaps in reporting.)

In the database, Europe recorded 38% of all first records, North America 16%, Australasia 15%, South America 9%, Temperate Asia 9%, Africa 6%, Pacific Islands 5% and Tropical Asia 2%.

A comparison to the immediate past (1960-2005) showed that the rates of emerging non-native species were projected to accelerate during 2005-2050, especially for arthropods. As I noted above, North America is predicted to have high increases in absolute numbers. Increases are also predicted for birds. Declines are predicted for mammals and fishes.  

Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology

Projected increases for Australasia were consistently lower than in the past.          

Caveats:

1) The authors assumed that past patterns of alien species accumulation will continue in the future. They did not attempt to predict efforts to strengthen biosecurity regulations and mitigation strategies.  

2) Projections were calculated in the absence of data on many underlying drivers for the historic periods and some taxonomic groups. However, observed trends of newly-detected alien species numbers during the 20th century were surprisingly stable despite distinct political and socio-economic changes.

Seebens and colleagues conclude that implementation of targeted biosecurity efforts can reduce the numbers of new alien species becoming established. However, a significant decrease in rates of alien species numbers on a large scale can only be achieved by a coordinated effort that crosses political borders.

SOURCES

Seebens et al.  2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide available (free access!) at https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14435

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

Asian giant hornet – US & Canada Differ – What are the Implications? – Updated!

Asian giant hornet; photo from University of Florida Department of Entomology

Asian giant hornet (AGH) (Vespa mandarinia) is the world’s largest hornet, reaching sizes of 1.5 – 2 inches long. Its native range includes much of Asia. While media attention has focused on the hornet’s frightening size, the real threat is to honey bees (Apis spp.) and – especially – to the many important crops that bees pollinate.

Over the past year or so, several detections of the Asian giant hornet have been found in the Pacific Northwest – in British Columbia and Washington State. Four of the sites are within a few miles of each other. Two others are separated by miles of open water from the mainland sites. As of mid-October, 18 hornets had been detected in Washington State.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has partnered with the Washington Department of Agriculture to try to eradicate the hornet – which will not be easy! However, the Canadian Food Inspection Service (CFIA) has decided not to designate the hornet as a quarantine pest. This decision seems to threaten divergent approaches to the bioinvader. Fortunately, the Province of British Columbia is trying to eradicate its populations – so perhaps the diverging federal approaches will not result in facilitating the hornet’s establishment and spread.

Where the Hornet Is Known to Be

The first detected outbreak of the Asian giant hornet was in Nanaimo, British Columbia – on Vancouver Island. A single hornet was detected in August 2019. [A Canadian commenter said in March 2021 that this turned out to be a different species, V. soror.] A nest was detected in September and destroyed by local beekeepers and BC government officials. However, another hornet was found on the mainland – in White Rock, B.C. – in November 2019 [CFIA Decision Document]. In 2020, there have been several unconfirmed sightings in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island (van Westendorp, pers. comm.).

Meanwhile, beekeepers discovered two AGH outbreaks in Whatcom County, WA, on the U.S. side of the border. These discoveries were in December 2019 and May 2020. There were other, unconfirmed reports in both Washington and British Columbia. [USDA APHIS Environmental Assessment (EA)] Indeed, later in 2020, Washington reported a few more sightings — in the Birch Bay area, just south of Blaine and at a site about eight miles east of Blaine (van Westendorp, pers. comm.)

Three of the hornets found in spring 2020 were mated queens (Zhu et al. 2020), which means at least one colony successfully reproduced last year. One of the mated queens was the second detection in Whatcom County – in Custer, Washington. One article said that the locations of this spring’s queens meant either that the new queens travelled up to 35 kilometres (about 22 miles) before founding their nests or that they came from more than one colony. Either way, it probably means that giant hornets could spread faster than initially thought.

White Rock, BC and Blaine, Washington are a few miles apart on the Canada-U.S. border. Langley is 12 miles to the northeast of White Rock – in the Fraser Valley. Custer is 7 miles southeast of Blaine. Birch Bay is 5 miles south of Blaine. The most recent detection is 8 miles east of Blaine. So all these detections are in close proximity and might represent spread from a single introduction site – or maybe not!

Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley are on Vancouver Island, which is separated from the other locations by a significant distance and open water. The two island sites are about 30 miles apart. They surely represent one or more separate introductions.

One study found that a single hornet collected from Blaine, Washington differed genetically from  a single hornet collected at Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. This suggests separate introductions. However, too little is known about the hornet’s genetic variability across Asia to allow conclusions about possibly separate origins (van Westendorp, pers. comm.; Wilson et al. 2020).

Areas at Risk

The area at risk is potentially much broader than the Pacific Northwest. APHIS’ initial analyses, based on plant hardiness zones, indicated that the hornet could thrive in virtually all the lower 48 states. APHIS’s Environmental Assessment did not address vulnerable areas in Canada or – apparently – in Hawai`i.

Zhu et al. (2020) carried out an assessment of areas most at risk and the hornet’s potential rate of spread. They found that areas with warm to cool annual mean temperature, high precipitation, and high human activity were most likely to be suitable for the hornet. Areas meeting these criteria are found across western and eastern North America, Europe, northwestern and southeastern South America, central Africa, eastern Australia, and New Zealand. Most of central North America and California are less suitable.

Spread could be rapid in the Pacific Northwest: they predicted that the hornet could reach Oregon in 10 years, eastern Washington and British Columbia within 20 years. This prediction is based in part by experience with the invasive congener V. velutina in Europe; it has expanded by 78 km/year in France, 18 km/year in Italy.

Oregon is relying on beekeepers to detect the hornet, which they expect will arrive even earlier than 10 years from now. The Oregon Department of Agriculture has suffered severe budget cuts because of the Covid-19 crash in state tax collections, so the program is trying to save money. As of the beginning of October, none of the hundreds of citizen reports has been a Vespa of any species (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).

Pathways of Introduction

It is not known how the hornet reached North America. Reports from other countries indicate that they can hitchhike in shipments of empty plant containers, or in the straw in which the containers are packed. In addition, some Asian cultures regard the hornets as delicacies, so deliberate importation is possible. Both APHIS and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have intercepted such shipments (CFIA Decision document; USDA APHIS PPQ New Pest Response).

The Threat

The AGH typically feeds on a variety of terrestrial invertebrates including beetles, mantids, caterpillars, and spiders (EA). During the spring and summer, hornets attack their prey singly. However, in the Aautumn, hornet workers carry out mass attacks against other social Hymenoptera – including other species of Vespa, yellowjackets (Vespula spp.), various paper wasps (Polistes spp.), and honey bees (Apis spp.). Commercial honeybee colonies are typically lost when attacked en masse. They are especially vulnerable because they are more concentrated than wild bee colonies. [EA]

Commercial honeybee colonies pollinate a wide variety of crops, including tree fruits, cane fruits (berries), tree nuts, tomatoes, and even potatoes. Supplies of beef and milk might also be at risk because alfalfa hay is pollinated by bees. Of course, honey production would also be threatened. As USDA APHIS has stated, if the Asian giant hornet spreads it would become a new stress on top of the multiple existing causes of honeybee decline.

Also, there is a direct threat to people. The AGH has a painful sting that can result in anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, and other complications in susceptible people. Officials emphasize that most people will not be at risk of stings. However, beekeepers are – their usual Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is not adequate to ward off the hornet’s sting [APHIS EA & New Pest .

APHIS’ programmatic Environmental Assessment notes that the hornet might also pose a threat to vertebrates that nest in ground burrows and decayed trunks and roots near the ground. Burrows chosen by female hornets for nest construction can be surprisingly large, up to 60 cm (24 inches) in diameter. The EA notes that, in Washington State, badgers, marmots, ground squirrels, and other small mammals use dens or burrows. Among these, four pocket gophers and the American wolverine are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act in Washington State. [For a list, see the environmental assessment.] The EA does not discuss whether cavity-nesting birds might also be affected – although the hornets do prefer hollows near or at ground level. The authors of the EA expect vertebrates to abandon any burrows used by the hornet, so they would be displaced rather than harmed by pesticides applied by the program described below.  

APHIS program

APHIS and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) have begun an eradication program. I think eradication will be challenging because it will be very difficult both to find nests and to destroy them.

  • Hornets nest typically in forested areas or urban green spaces. There are lots of suitable places in the Pacific Northwest! These wooded areas are interspersed with farms, orchards, and settlements that will provide vulnerable insects as food sources.  
  • Nest destruction involves excavating a hole two meters by two meters. This digging must be in woodlands, often right next to trees.

The key to successful eradication is finding and destroying the nests before they produce reproductive females and males – in autumn. Nest detection will be carried out as follows [EA]:

  • Starting in April, the agencies bottle traps in trees near the 2019 detection points. The traps are baited with a solution of rice cooking wine and orange juice to attract the worker bees. (The rice wine is added to discourage honeybees from visiting the trap.)  Traps catches help define areas where nests are located.

WSDA successfully tracked radio-tagged workers to a nest in mid-October. That nest was in a tree hollow, not underground.

WSDA scientists think there were approximately 200 queens in that single nest. Two were vacuumed out during the initial extraction. Inside the nest they found 76 emergent queens and 108 capped cells with pupae that they believe were also queens. Three more queens were trapped in a bucket of water. This nest had approximately 776 cells; large nests can have up to 4,000.  WSDA believes there are other nests in the area; they continue to search.

APHIS’ original plan to use pesticides to kill hornets in the nest has been dropped. Washington plans now to use vacuum extraction followed by introduction of CO2 and excavation of the nest.  Washington has also not decided whether to deploy traps with the pesticide fipronil (S. Spichiger, pers. comm.)

WSDA has also asked members of the public to set out homemade hornet traps, and to report any suspicious sightings.

Canada Takes Opposite Tack

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) announced in February 2020 (CFIA Decision Document) that it will not attempt to regulate the Asian giant hornet as a quarantine pest for Canada. Therefore, CFIA will place no restrictions on the import or movement of any commodities that may harbor the Asian giant hornet. CFIA will, however, require permits for deliberate importation of the hornets.

CFIA’s reasoning appears to focus on two factors:

  • The hornet is an indirect threat to plant health (since AGH attacks pollinators. CFIA has traditionally regulated quarantine pests based primarily on significant direct threats to plant health.
  • Under the international phytosanitary system, countries that designate an organism to be a quarantine pest must put in place the necessary measures to prevent its entry into the country, as well as officially control the pest when present. CFIA states that “High uncertainties about the pathways of entry puts into question the ability to manage this risk, and ultimately the ability and feasibility of regulating V. mandarinia as a quarantine pest.”

Neither APHIS nor CFIA has authority to regulate threats to human health.

Detection and Eradication Efforts in British Columbia  (information from van Westendorp, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture)

In 2020, British Columbia has focused on detection surveillance. Target areas include vicinity of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island; Fraser Valley from White Rock in the West to Langley/Aldergrove in the East (along the US border); and after several credible (but non-verified) sightings, the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island. Because of resource limits, the surveillance effort has sought to engage local governments, border agencies, First Nations, forestry & mining companies, farmers, and beekeepers.  The ministry also placed numerous bottle traps and encouraged 170 beekeepers in the Fraser Valley to install and monitor traps in their apiaries. 

So far, only one AGH specimen has been sighted or collected in the three British Columbia survey areas during 2020 – the single specimen at Langley detected in May. However, the several detections along the U.S. side of the border (see above on recent detections) has spurred BC officials to intensify survey efforts in the Fraser Valley (van Westendorp). A specimen was collected adjacent to the US border in mid-October just north of the multiple detections in the US, and South of the Langley detection last spring (S. Spicher, pers. comm.).

British Columbia will continue to monitor well into the fall season and resume our surveillance in 2021 and 2022 (van Westendorp).

Hornets are clearly able to be transported and introduced. Vespa ducalis was detected in Vancouver, BC in 2019 and in Texas in 2020. Vespa velutina has become established in Europe (J. Vlach, Oregon Department of Agriculture, pers. comm).

SOURCES

CFIA Decision document: Vespa mandarinia (Asian giant hornet) February 2020. https://www.inspection.gc.ca/plant-health/plant-pests-invasive-species/insects/asian-giant-hornet/decision-document/eng/1593718645505/1593718645899

USDA APHIS Asian Giant Hornet Control Program in Washington State Final Environmental Assessment—July 2020

USDA AHIS PPQ New Pest Response

van Westendorp, Paul. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, pers. comm.

Wilson, T.M., J. Takahashi, S-Erik Spichiger, I. Kim, and P. van Westendorp. 2020. First Reports of Vespa mandarinia (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in North America Represent Two Separate Maternal Lineages in WA State, US, and BC, Canada. Annals of the Entomological Society of America · October 2020

Zhu, G., J. Gutierrez Illan, C. Looney, and D.W. Crowder. 2020. Assessing the ecological niche and invasion potential of the Asian giant hornet. PNAS Latest Articles ECOLOGY

NPS Report Published in Journal – Has it Been Implemented? Can it Be?

invasive lake trout in Yellowstone National Park

The National Park Service has a legal mandate to manage lands and waters under its jurisdiction so as to “preserve unimpaired” their natural and cultural resources (NPS Organic Act 54 U.S.C. § 100101, et seq.) Invasive species undermine efforts to achieve that mission. In 2000, the NPS adopted a program to coordinate management of invasive plants. It’s not as effective as needed – see the strategic plan.  

However, only recently has NPS begun trying to prioritize and coordinate programs targetting the many animals and animal diseases which threaten Park resources. These organisms range from emerald ash borer and quagga mussels; to pythons, goats, and pigs; to diseases such as white nose syndrome of bats and avian malaria in Hawai`i.

In 2017, NPS released an internal study of the pervasive threat to Park resources posed by invasive animals and discussed steps to overcome barriers to more effective responses (Redford et al., 2017; full citation at end of this blog). The Chief of the Biological Resources Division initiated this report by asking a Science Panel to evaluate the extent of the invasive animal problem, assess management needs, review best practices, and assess potential models that could serve as a service-wide organizational framework. The report was to pay particular attention to innovative and creative approaches including, but not limited to, new genomic tools. I summarized the Panel’s  findings and conclusions in a blog when its report appeared in 2017.

Significantly, the Panel’s final report states that “a general record of failure to control invasive species across the system” was caused principally by a lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership.

This report has now appeared in the form of a peer-reviewed article in the journal Biological Invasions by Dayer et al. 2019 (full citation at end of this blog). Although nine of the ten authors are the same on both reports there are substantive differences in content. For example, the journal article reiterates the principal findings and conclusions of the Panel’s final report, but in less blunt language.

What’s Been Watered Down

The toning down is seen clearly in the statements some of the panel’s six key findings.

Finding #1

            The panel’s report says:  invasive animals pose a significant threat to the cultural and natural values and the infrastructure of U.S. national parks. To date, the NPS has not effectively addressed the threat they pose.

            Dayer et al. says: the ubiquitous presence of invasive animals in parks undermines the NPS mission.

Finding #2

            The panel’s report says: managing invasive animals will require action starting at the highest levels, engaging all levels of NPS management, and will require changes in NPS culture and capacity.

            Dayer et al. says: coordinated action is required to meet the challenge.

Finding #4

            The panel’s report states: effective management of invasive animals will require stakeholder engagement, education, and behavior change.

            Dayer et al. says: public engagement, cooperation and support is [sic] critical.

Wording of the other three “key findings” was also changed, but these changes are less substantive.

Drayer et al. also avoid the word “failure” in describing the current status of NPS” efforts to manage invasive animal species. Instead, these authors conclude that the invasive species threat “is of sufficient magnitude and urgency that it would be appropriate for the NPS to formally declare invasive animals as a service-wide priority.”

Where the Documents Agree – Sort of

Both the Panel’s report and Dayer et al. state that invasive animal threats are under-prioritized and under-funded. They say that addressing this challenge must begin at the highest levels within the NPS, engage all levels of management, and will require investments from the NPS leadership.  Even within individual parks, they acknowledge that staffs struggle to communicate the importance of invasive animal control efforts to their park leadership, especially given competition with other concerns that appear to be more urgent. And they admit that parks also lack staff capacity in both numbers and expertise.

Also, both the Panel’s report and Dayer et al. urge the NPS to acknowledge formally that invasive animals represent a crisis on par with each of the three major crises that drove Service-wide change in the past: over-abundance of ungulates due to predator control; Yellowstone fire crisis (which led to new wildfire awareness in the country); and recognition of the importance of climate change.

The Panel suggested ways to update NPS’ culture and capacity: providing incentives for staff to (1) address long-term threats (not just “urgent” ones) and (2) put time and effort into coordinating with potential partners, including other park units, agencies at all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, private landowners, and economic entities. Dayer et al. mention these barriers but does not directly mention changing incentives as one way to overcome them.

Both the Panel’s report and Dayer et al. suggest integrating invasive animal threats and management into long-range planning goals for natural and cultural landscapes and day-to-day operations of parks and relevant technical programs (e.g., Biological Resources Division, Water Resources Division, and Inventory and Monitoring Division).

What is Missing from the Journal Publication

The Panel’s final report noted the need for increased funding. It said that such funding would need to be both consistent and sufficiently flexible to allow parks to respond to time-sensitive management issues. It proposes several approaches. These include incorporating some invasive species control programs (e.g., for weeds and wood borers) into infrastructure maintenance budgets; adopting invasive species as fundraising challenges for non-governmental partners (e.g., “Friends of Park” and the National Park Foundation); and adopting invasive species as a priority threat. Dayer et al. do not discuss funding issues.

The final internal report envisioned the NPS becoming a leader on the invasive species issue by 1) testing emerging best management practices, and 2) educating visitors on the serious threat that invasive species pose to parks’ biodiversity. As part of this process, the authors suggest that the NPS also take the lead in countering invasive species denialism.  Dayer et al. do not mention the issue of invasive species deniers.

Common Ground: Status of Invasive Animals in the Parks

The Panel’s report and Dayer et al. describe the current situation similarly:

  • More than half of the National parks that responded to the internal survey (245 of the 326 parks) reported problems associated with one or more invasive animal species.
  • The total number of species recorded was 331. This is considered to be an underestimate since  staffs often lack the ability to thoroughly survey their parks – especially for invertebrates.
  • Invasive species threats to Parks’ resources have been recognized for nearly 100 years. The original report notes that 155 parks reported the presence of one or more exotic vertebrate species in 1977. At that time, exotic animals were the fourth most commonly reported source of threats. In 1991, parks identified 200 unfunded projects to address exotic species, costing almost $30 million.
  • Only a small percentage of non-native animal invasions are under active management. Dayer et al. stated that 23% have management plans at the park unit level, and only 11% are reported as being ‘‘under control”.
  • Individual parks have effective programs targetting specific bioinvaders (examples are described in Redford et al;  a brief summary of these efforts is provided in my previous blog.    

Common Ground on Some Solutions

The report and Dayer et al. promote the same steps to improve invasive animal management across the Service. Both note that the NPS is adopting formal decision support tactics to update and strengthen natural resource management across the board. More specific steps include

  • establishing a coordination mechanism that enables ongoing and timely information sharing.
  • mainstreaming invasive species issue across the NPS branches or creating a cross-cutting IAS initiative among the Biological Resources Division, Water Resources Division, Inventory and Monitoring Division, Climate Change Response Program, and the regional offices.

While both documents call on the NPS to develop and test emerging technologies, the Panel’s final  report is more detailed, providing, in Table 5, a list of several areas of special interest, including remotely triggered traps, species-specific toxicants, toxicant delivery systems, drones, environmental DNA, and sterile-male releases. Dayer et al. mention eDNA and metabarcoding for ED/RR, biocontrol, and gene drives to control invasive pathogens. (Neither document discusses possible concerns regarding use of CRISPR and other gene-altering technologies, other than to say there would be public concerns that would need to be addressed.)

Both documents note the necessity of working with resource managers beyond park boundaries to detect and manage species before they arrive in parks. They note that developing and operationalizing such partnerships requires time and resources. Furthermore, invasive species prevention, eradication, and containment programs can be effective only with public support. They suggest strengthening NPS’ highly regarded public outreach and interpretation program to build such support, including through the use of citizen scientists.

The Panel’s final report said that the NPS should recognize that the condition of the ecosystem is the objective of efforts.  Its authors recognized that achieving this goal might require reconsidering how ecosystem management is organized within NPS so interacting stressors (e.g.,  fire) and management levers (e.g., pest eradication/suppression, prescribed fire) would be addressed. For this, the NPS would need to create a focused capacity to address the pressing issue of invasive animals in such a way that fosters integrated resource management within parks, focusing on fundamental values of ecosystem states, and not eradication targets. Dayer et al. called for the same changes without specifically labelling “condition of the ecosystem” as the goal.

Publication of Dayer et al. prompted me to find out what progress the NPS has made in responding to the “key findings” in the Panel’s final report (neither publication calls them “recommendations”). 

The National Park Service has acted on the recommendation to appoint an “invasive animal coordinator” within the Biological Resources Division. That person is Jennifer Sieracki. However, I wonder whether a person located in BRD is of sufficient stature to influence agency policy across all divisions. It is not clear whether there is active coordination with the national-level invasive plant coordinator.

Dr. Sieriaki responded to my query by noting the following new efforts 1) to improve outreach to partners and the public, and 2) to expand formal and informal partnerships with local, state, federal and tribal entities and local communities near parks.

  • NPS should soon finalize two formal partnerships with other agencies and organizations for outreach and management of invasive animal species.
  • NPS is working with researchers at the US Geological Survey to expand an existing modeling tool for identifying potential suitable habitat for invasive plant species to include invasive insects. This will help staff focus on the most likely locations for introductions and thus assist with early detection and control.
  • NPS has created a Community of Practice so NPS employees can seek each other’s advice on addressing invasive animal issues. A workshop of regional invasive species coordinators is planned for the coming months to guide direction of the service-wide program and identify other top priorities. (Seriacki pers. comm.)

I also wonder whether the NPS can achieve the top-level coordination and outreach to the public called for by both reports while complying with the terms of Public Law 116-9 – the John N. Dingle Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, which was enacted a year ago. Title VII, Section 10(i)  of this law limits spending to carry out invasive species program management and oversight to 10% of appropriated funds. Less than 15% may be spent on investigations (research), development activities, and outreach and public awareness efforts (Section 10(h)). The law does allow spending for investigations regarding methods for early detection and rapid response, prevention, control, or management; as well as inspections and interception or confiscation of invasive species to prevent in-park introductions.

For more information, see my previous criticism of NPS failure to address invasive species issues here.

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.

See also my earlier discussion of the new legislation here.

SOURCES

Dayer, A.A., K.H. Redford, K.J. Campbell, C.R. Dickman, R.S. Epanchin-Niell, E.D. Grosholz, D.E. Hallac, E.F. Leslie, L.A. Richardson, M.W. Schwartz. 2019. The unaddressed threat of invasive animals in U.S. National Parks.  Biol Invasions

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02128-0

Redford, K.H., K. Campbell, A. Dayer, C. Dickman, R. Epanchin-Niell, T. Grosholz, D. Hallac, L. Richardson, M. Schwartz. 2017. Invasive animals in U. S. National Parks: By a science panel. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/BRD/NRR—2017/1564. NPS, Fort Collins, Colorado. Commissioned by the NPS Chief of Biological Resources Division. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/594922

Jennifer Sieracki, Invasive Animal Coordinator, Biological Resources Division, National Park Service

Feral Hogs: Report Warns, “Spreading Fast, Act Early”

feral hogs in Missouri; photo by Missouri Department of Conservation

A new report by several experts confirms fears that the feral pig threat is widespread and re-emphasizes the value of taking action early. (I have blogged several times about efforts to manage damaged caused by feral hogs – see here and here.  

Lewis et al. (full reference at end of blog) used two national-scale data sets to estimate historical, current, and future potential population size of wild pigs in the U.S. from 1982 to 2016.

They found that both wild pig distribution and abundance have nearly tripled over this period (from ~2.4 to 6.9 million). If no effective action is taken and pigs spread to all available habitat, the U.S. wild pig population could reach ~21.4 million at some unspecified future date. This would represent a 210% increase above the 2016 population; or a 784% increase above the 1982 population.

The authors cite successful control of wild pigs in Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, and Nebraska as evidence of the value of early detection and rapid response.

Lewis et al. provide brief summaries of economic and ecological damage caused by feral hogs. They damage a wide range of ecological communities, especially riparian areas, grasslands, and deciduous forests. Biological diversity is hurt through habitat destruction, direct predation, and competition for resources. In addition, wild pigs can host a suite of viruses, bacteria, and parasites, many of which can be transmitted to other wildlife, humans, and livestock.

The report notes that much of the recent spread of pigs has been caused by widespread and illegal releases of wild animals for sport hunting. Other contributing factors are land-use patterns, because hogs do well in agricultural areas. Warmer winter temperatures and increased forest mast production are also to blame – both related to climate-change

Wild pigs can persist in a range of environments, including cold northern climates, arid regions, and mixed forests. That is, all regions of the continental U.S. The vast majority of states – especially in the West, North, and East – could see major expansions in wild pig populations if animals are allowed to become established over currently unoccupied habitat.

While states that have had large established wild pig populations – e.g., Texas, California, and Florida – will not see major expansions, damage is already severe and widespread. Texas alone has an estimated 2.5 million feral hogs!

Preventing the alarming expansion of feral hog populations outlined above, Lewis et al. call for adoption and implementation of proactive management. The priority is to quickly identify and eradicate populations that invade unoccupied habitat. This applies particularly to those states which currently have low populations of feral hogs.

The same approach can be applied within states. Officials can use one data set to identify areas where wild pigs are currently absent and the predicted population density data to designate priority areas to counter spread. Such efforts should include public education and outreach, regulatory enforcement, and surveillance.

Lewis et al. note that implementation of the proposed strategy will require a coordinated effort among federal, state, and local governments and the public. They call especially for state regulations classifying feral hogs as an invasive and harmful species supported by action to halt pig translocation for the purposes of recreational sport hunting.

The authors promised that the findings of the study would be applied by the National Feral Swine Damage Management Program, which is led by USDA APHIS. One of the “tactics” to achieve Objective 2.4 in the APHIS Strategic Plan for 2019-2023 says the agency will “expand feral swine damage management for agricultural, livestock, property, ecological and human health and safety purposes.”  Still, states will find it challenging to take any actions opposed by hunters.

At the end of June 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a $75 million program called the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program (FSCP). (This works out to about $15 million per year.) The program is a joint effort by the  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and APHIS. It was established by the 2018 Farm Bill. Additional information is available at the program webpage.  

The webpage describes how to apply for funding for projects lasting up to three years. The pilot projects will consist broadly of three coordinated components: 1) feral swine removal by APHIS; 2) restoration efforts supported by NRCS; and 3) assistance to producers for feral swine control provided through partnership agreements with non-federal partners. 


The initial funding will target specific locations in the South that have experienced recent increases in wild pigs (shown on the map below). The goal is to reduce the numbers of pigs (and associated damage) in those identified localized areas of the South. These “pilot” areas have been identified by the USDA Secretary as under threat from feral swine. The first round of projects – 20 projects – are targetted at a few counties in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. APHIS has determined these states and California have highest feral swine populations. 

The new program builds on successes in recent years. Funding of APHIS’ feral hog program at about $20 million per year has helped several states become “pig free”. Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey and New York are currently monitoring (using eDNA and scat dogs) to make sure that the pigs are truly gone.

   

SOURCE

Lewis, J.S., J.L. Corn, J.J. Mayer, T.R. Jordan, M.L. Farnsworth, C.L. Burdett, K.C. VerCauteren, S.J. Sweeney, R.S. Miller. 2019. Historical, current, and potential population size estimates of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in the United States. Biological Invasions, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 2373-2384.

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.

Timely reminder: Don’t Move Invasive Species!

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has teamed up with the North American Invasive Species Management Association and The Nature Conservancy to sponsor the first-ever national PlayCleanGo Awareness Week beginning Saturday – June 1-8. The program’s goal is to help outdoor enthusiasts understand how they can help stop the spread of invasive plants and pests—while still enjoying the great outdoors.

APHIS’ announcement suggests some helpful steps people going outdoors can take:   

  • Before moving from one location to another, clean your shoes with a brush to remove any soil, plants or seeds that might be trapped in your treads. This action will help prevent your accidentally spreading damaging microscopic organisms or invasive weeds to new areas.  
tanoaks killed by Phytophtora ramorum (sudden oak death) Big Sur, California
  • Avoid giving hitchhiking pests a free ride in your firewood by purchasing your firewood where you plan to burn it or taking only heat-treated firewood with you. Careless movement of wood can spread tree-killing beetles and other pests that can harm our forests. 
tangle of dead ash in Michigan killed by emerald ash borer
photo by Ned Siegert, USDA Forest Service
  • If you are driving, remove any visible pests, plants, soil, or egg masses from your vehicle, RV or camper. It only takes a few minutes to stop tree-killing insects and other potentially harmful plant pests from traveling with you to your next destination.  
spotted lanternfly
photo by Holly Raguza, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

  The website hprovides educational materials as well as such tools for interaction as pledges and hashtags!

Help spread the word while doing your part.

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.

Progress in Combatting Invasives – with Caveats

Missouri Makes Progress in Eradicating Feral Hogs – Despite Sabotage

Feral hogs have expanded their range in the U.S. from 17 to 38 states over the past 30 years. Their populations grow rapidly because feral hogs can breed any time of the year and produce two litters of one to seven piglets every 12 to 15 months. [See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019]

hog “sounder” in a trap in Missouri
Missouri Department of Conservation

Missouri’s program is increasingly successful: the numbers of hogs removed has risen from 5,358 in 2016, to 6,561 in 2017, to 9.365 in 2018. [See MDC Press Release, January 25, 2019] I have previously praised Missouri’s scientifically-based program to eradicate feral hogs – here and here (Missouri has extensive material on feral hogs posted here)  

According to the Missouri Department of Conservation’s feral hog elimination team leader, Mark McLain, said “This strategic approach is important because if we leave even a few feral hogs behind in an area, they can reproduce quickly and put us back where we started.”

According to McLain, hunting is not an effective method for eliminating feral hog populations. “For over 20 years, unregulated hunting of feral hogs was allowed in Missouri, during which time our feral hog population expanded from a few counties to over 30 counties,” he said.

In 2017, MDC, the Corps of Engineers, and the LAD Foundation established regulations against feral hog hunting on lands owned and managed by these three organizations. Other agencies have passed regulations similar to MDC’s to eliminate hog hunting on land they own.

However, illegal releases of feral hogs continue. The February 2019 press release (referenced below) describes several examples of the problems such releases cause. McLain said that those who release feral hogs face hefty fines. Hunting, especially with dogs, pushes the hogs onto neighboring property, which causes problems for neighbors. The hogs travel back and forth between the properties, escaping and causing more damage. Trapping with no hunting interference is the best method to eliminate them.

MDC advises landowners to seek help from the Department and USDA APHIS. These agencies providetechnical advice and training; conduct on-site visits; and loan equipment.

Are feral hog programs in other states using the same methods? Are they as successful?

SOURCES

Missouri Department of Conservation. More than 9,300 Feral Hogs Eliminated from Missouri in 2018. Press Release. January 25, 2019.

Missouri Department of Conservation. Interference with feral hog trapping sites costs trappers time, taxpayers money. Press Release. February 21, 2019.

Florida Looks to Biocontrol to Makes Progress Against Some of its Worst Invasive Plants

Brazilian peppertree tangle
John Randall, The Nature Conservancy
www.bugwood.org

Until recently, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) was considered the worst invasive tree or shrub in Florida. It threatened to convert the everglades “sea of grass” into a thicket of exotic trees which could not support native wildlife. Thanks to the biocontrol agent Oxyops vitiosa, melaleuca is considered to be under maintenance control on public conservation land in the state. Still, melaleuca control demands about $2 million per year because of the huge area previously (and still) affected by the tree.

Now Florida is about to release biocontrol agents to attack Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). In Florida, Brazilian peppertree is found from Monroe County in the south to St. Johns, Levy, and Nassau counties in the north plus Franklin County in the Panhandle. An estimated 283,000 hectares of south and central Florida are invaded. The South Florida Water Management District alone is spending approximately $1.7 million per year (as of 2011) to control it.

Brazilian peppertree invades disturbed sites such as canal banks and fallow farmlands. Of greater concern to me are the many natural communities invaded – Brazilian peppertree infests more natural areas in Florida than any other invasive plant species. Invaded ecosystems include pinelands, hardwood hammocks, and critically important mangrove forests. The coastal mangroves are valued because of their high productivity, wildlife habitat, and shoreline protection and stabilization.

Brazilian peppertree infestation in the Everglades
Tony Pernas, USDI National Park Service
www.bugwood.org

Dense stands of Brazilian peppertree shade out and may kill food plants used by white-tailed deer – key prey for the endangered Florida panther. Other mammals and birds might be poisoned by toxic resins in the bark, leaves and fruits — although some birds feed extensively on the fruits – and thereby contribute to spread of the invasive plant.

Existing options for management of Brazilian peppertree, including chemical, mechanical, and physical control measures, have been used with some success against this weed. However, applying these strategies repeatedly to prevent regrowth is costly and labor intensive. Furthermore, such practices can be detrimental to native vegetation. For example, mangroves are particularly sensitive to both herbicides and the soil disturbances associated with mechanical control

After more than 20 years of searching, Florida hopes it has identified useful biocontrol agents. USDA APHIS is seeking public comment on the proposed release of two insect species, Calophya latiforceps  (a leaf galling psyllid) and Pseudophilothrips ichini (a thrips) as biological control agents targetting Brazilian pepper.

Much as I sympathize – Brazilian peppertree is a highly damaging invasive plant and there are no other effective control measures – I have questions. First, the psyllid is sedentary; dispersal would be by wind. Would this limit its efficacy?

More troubling is host specificity. The Environmental Assessment (available here) reveals that the thrips can reproduce in low numbers on several non-target plant species, including the Hawaiian sumac Rhus sandwicensis. True, the proposal is to release the biocontrol agents on the continent, not on Hawai`i. But insects have often been transported inadvertently to Hawai`i – and the islands’ plant species have often proved highly vulnerable to attack by non-native species (I confess that the most recent examples are pathogens, e.g., ‘ōhi‘a rust and rapid ‘ōhi‘a death.)

APHIS is accepting comments on the Environmental Assessment until March 29. Please consider providing your views. Again, the document is available here.

RESULTS

In June 2019, APHIS announced that it would issue permits for release of the two biocontrol agents on the continent – starting in Florida – without any restrictions. APHIS dismissed my concerns about the potential threat to native Hawaiian plants — Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa. See the agency’s responses in Appendix 7.

As regards the potential threat to the two Hawaiian species from the thrips Pseudophilothrips ichini APHIS chose to ignore my two greatest concerns:

1) that insects are introduced accidentally to Hawai`i frequently – so the threat from this thrips must be considered.

2)  if introduced to Hawai`i, P. ichini would have ample resources to maintain high population levels and so could put constant pressure on Rhus sandwicensis and Dodonaea viscosa even ‘though neither plant itself supports more than one generation of the thrips.

In response to my query as to who in Texas would be consulted re: possible release of the biocontrol agents in that state, APHIS replied the chief state plant regulatory official (head of plant pest issues in the state Department of Agriculture) and the APHIS representative in the state. No conservation authorities are designated. Nor would APHIS prepare a new environmental assessment – although the current one cites data almost exclusively for Florida.

One good response: in response to my concerns that the psyllid Calophya latiforceps is too sedentary to spread through the hundreds of thousands of acres invaded by Brazilian pepper, APHIS clarifies that a mass rearing and release program is under development.

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.

South African report: Rigorous, Honest, and a Model for U.S. and Others

Density of invasive plants in South Africa

map available here

 

Last month, in my blog about the US Geological Survey’s report on invasive species  I announced release of a report by South Africa on its invasive species management programs – available here.  Because this report is unusual in both its rigor and its honesty, I’m returning to it here. I think it is a model for our country and others.

The report provides the basics. That is, it analyzes pathways of introduction and spread; number, distribution and impact of individual species; species richness and abundance of alien species in defined areas; and the effectiveness of interventions. Of the 775 invasive species identified to date, 556, or about 72%, are listed under some national regulatory program. Terrestrial and freshwater plants number 574 species; terrestrial invertebrates number 107 species. A different set of 107 species, or about 14%, are considered by experts to be having major or severe impacts on biodiversity and/or human wellbeing. The highest numbers of alien species are in the savanna, grassland, Indian Ocean coastal belt, and fynbos biomes. South Africans are particularly focused on the reductions in surface water resulting from plant invasions. Much of the control effort is under the egis of the decades-old “Working for Water” program.

Also, the report has features that are all-too-rare in work of its kind. First is the authors’ focus on rigor – of data sources and interpretation of those data using standardized criteria. Second – and even more important – is their call for analyzing the efficacy of the components of invasive species program. They insist on the need to measure outcomes (that is, results), not just inputs (resources committed) and outputs (“acres treated”, etc.). Inputs are far easier to measure and are, unfortunately, the mainstay of how most U.S. efforts are tracked – if they are tracked at all.

As they note, measure of inputs and outputs are not useful because they provide no guidance on the purpose of the action or treatment or of its effectiveness in achieving that purpose.

(For earlier CISP advocacy of measuring outcomes, visit the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species and read the bullet points under “Recommendations for a Comprehensive National Response”.)

The report has been praised by international conservationists, including Piero Genovesi – chair of the IUCN’s Invasive Species Specialist Group. British ecologist Helen Roy says that, to her knowledge, it is “the first comprehensive synthesis of the state of invasive species by any country.”

 

How well are programs working?

The authors’ focus on rigor includes being scrupulously honest in their assessments of current program components. They note deficiencies and disappointments, even when the conclusions might be politically inconvenient. To be fair, all countries struggle to achieve success in managing bioinvasions. And South Africa is, in many ways, a developing country with a myriad of economic and social challenges.

So it is probably not surprising that, for most factors analyzed, the authors say data are insufficient to determine the program’s impact. Where data are adequate, they often show that programs fall short. For example, they conclude that control measures have been effective in reducing populations of established invasive species, usually plants, in some localized areas but not in others. While the situation would arguably have been worse had there been no control, current control efforts have not been effective in preventing the ongoing spread of IAS when viewed at a national scale. Only one of South Africa’s 72 international ports of entry has consistent inspection of incoming air passengers and cargo – and even those inspections are not carried out outside of regular working hours (e.g., nights and weekends).

The authors are even critical of the “Working for Water” program – which is the basis for most control efforts in South Africa and enjoys wide political support. WfW has two goals: providing employment and development opportunities to disadvantaged individuals in rural areas, and managing invasive alien plants. Despite substantial funding, the WfW program has supported control teams that have reached only 2% – 5% of the estimated extent of the most important invasive plants. Furthermore, programs structured to provide employment have not ensured use of the most efficient control strategies.

 

What’s needed in South Africa — and around the world

The authors conclude that South Africa needs new processes to monitor and report on bioinvasions in order to achieve evidence-based policy and management decisions. They call for (1) more research to determine and assess invasive species impacts; (2) better monitoring of the effectiveness of current control measures; and (3) the development of methods to look at the impact of bioinvasions and their management on society as a whole.

The authors say it is important for South Africa to improve its management of invasive species because their impacts are already large and are likely to increase significantly. They note that improving management efficiency will require difficult choices and trade-offs. They recommend a focus on priority pathways, species, and areas. They also stress return on investment.

 

I don’t know how this report has been received in South Africa. I hope government officials, media observers, landowners, political parties, and other stakeholders appreciate the honesty and expertise involved. I hope they take the analyses and recommendations seriously and act on them.

(Preparation of the report was was overseen by a team of editors and contributing authors employed by the South African National Biological Diversity Institute (SANBI) and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology at (C.I.B). Drafts were widely circulated to contributing authors and other stakeholders for comments. An independent review editor will be appointed to assess the review process and recommend any ways to strengthen the process for future reports.)

 

Meanwhile, how do we Americans apply the same rigor to analyzing our own efforts?

 

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.