Several bioinvasion scientists have announced launch of a bi-annual Invasions Newsletter. It will be an open-access digital magazine intended to meet the growing need for effective communication across the diverse community of researchers, practitioners, & policymakers. It will offer accessible insights into current research; communication & management strategies; novel technologies; research centers, groups, journals, networks, projects & resources; emerging policy trends; & past & upcoming meetings & events.
The initial issue is available here Among the topics addressed:
invasive plant biocontrol efforts in Zimbabwe,
setting national-level invasive species priorities in Chile,
conservation actions to recover invaded endemic forests in Galápagos Islands,
protecting ground-nesting birds from introduced predators,
IUCN ISSG’s assistance in tackling invasive species in Europe.
The organizers — Ana Novoa, Susan Canavan, Katelyn T. Faulkner, Piero Genovesi, Deah Lieurance, Dan Simberloff, Hsiao-Hsuan Wang, Tsungai Zengeya, & Laura A. Meyerson – invite us to contribute to future editions. Inform your global colleagues about your efforts and findings: fieldwork, model development, designing or implementing management interventions at a local, national or continental scale, or crafting policy frameworks.
outreach
To submit a contribution, contact any of the organizers.
Let’s ensure that tree-killing critters (with or without legs) get the attention they deserve!
Northern red oak – one of the species planted in Europe & China as part of sentinel garden project; photo by F.T. Campbell
During the USDA Interagency Forum on Invasive Species, Dr. Eliana Torres Bedoya, from the Bonello lab at Ohio State, provided insights gained from a sentinel garden project operating for the last five years.
The gardens were established in six locations: two in China in the Nanjing area, one each in Italy, Sweden, Ohio, and New Hampshire. The network required collaboration among scientists in several countries, a difficult task in itself. (Jiri Hulcr of the University of Florida has also stressed the importance of mutually beneficial collaborations.)
The focus was on detecting and identifying novel fungal pathogens abroad before they ever enter a country, in an approach called ex patria sentinel plantings. Altogether, 32 tree species were planted in at least one location. For example, Chinese and European tree species were planted in the U.S. to identify potential threats to China and Europe. Conversely, North American species were planted in Europe and China to detect potential threats to the U.S. As noted, the reciprocity is crucial to establishing and maintaining a long-term relationship.
Key information gained to date:
While the scientists isolated several potential pathogens from symptomatic plants, analysis of all plants’ leaf microbiomes showed that asymptomatic plants harbored many more potential pathogens that had not been isolated.
Healthy plants tend to harbor larger and often more diverse microbial communities. This study found that asymptomatic plants supported a significantly more abundant, richer, and taxonomically diverse leaf-associated fungal community than symptomatic plants. Importantly, this pattern pertains also to the subset of taxa classified as potential plant pathogens.
Detection of the full range of fungal pathogens requires that samples must be collected both early and mid-to-late in the growing season because microbes present differ.
Core leaf microbiomes were associated with specific tree species, no matter where they were planted. However, the constituents of the core microbiome were outnumbered by other organisms driven primarily by the location of the planting. This had been expected.
Other contributing factors – in declining order – were geographic location, tree species, season, and host health status. In other words, the phylogenetic relationship.
The drivers of fungal community composition interact in complex ways. For instance, the effect of the plant’s health on pathogenic fungal communities might depend on the host species. This relationship can be further modulated by seasonal variation and geographic context.
European & Asian trees planted in Ohio as part of the sentinel garden program; photo by P (E) Bonello
Implications:
Sentinel gardens can facilitate identification of novel host-pathogen interactions in symptomatic and asymptomatic plants, so they should be adopted / supported by governmental and regional phytosanitary agencies.
The findings demonstrate the need to expand surveillance beyond symptomatic plants – at both sentinel gardens and plant health border inspection stations. Phytosanitary agencies should employ both full microbial community molecular characterization to detect threats in asymptomatic plants and traditional symptom-based approaches. These modern approaches are described in Munck and Bonello 2018 (full reference at end of the blog).
Enrico Bonello (pers. comm.) thinks it is likely that similar context-dependent interactions among host and fungus species, season, and geography also drive disease infection and virulence.
Eliana Torres Bedoya (pers. comm.) clarifies that the leaf microbiome is the community of microorganisms living on and within tree leaves. These microbes can contribute to protecting trees against pathogens, enhance tolerance to environmental stressors such as drought or pollution, and influence how trees interact with their surroundings. Because the composition of the leaf microbiome responds to changes in climate, location, and tree species, it also serves as a valuable indicator of forest health and environmental change.
There are several approaches to studying microbial communities in leaves. One is the traditional, culture-based method, which relies on isolating and cultivating microorganisms on nutrient media. While this approach is effective for recovering fast-growing and easily culturable taxa, it has a major limitation: the vast majority of environmental microbes are not readily culturable under standard laboratory conditions. As a result, full understanding requires use of culture-independent methods. One technique widely used is metabarcoding. This technique involves extracting total DNA from leaf tissue and amplifying a phylogenetically informative genetic marker specific to the microbial group of interest (for example, the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region for fungi or the 16S rRNA gene for bacteria). The amplified regions are then sequenced using high-throughput sequencing platforms. After a series of processing steps, the sequences are clustered into Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs), which represent unique DNA sequences that can be used as proxies for microbial taxa present in the sample. Torres Bedoya and Bonello used the ASVs for comparative analysis.
Tilia cordata (linden) via Picaryl (seed wings make a great tea!)
In her presentation, Torres Bedoya provided examples of the complexities arising when trying to detect fungi associated with trees. Eleven potentially pathogenic fungal genera were found to be more abundant in asymptomatic Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) trees (a North American species) planted in both Europe and China. Five ASVs were more abundant in asymptomatic Fraxinus mandshurica trees (an Asian species) planted in Sweden. In this case, the season when the leaves were sampled explained a higher proportion of the variance in the community composition than did the health status of the host. Molecular methods detected 10 genera not revealed through isolation from little-leaf linden species (Tilia cordata) trees (a European species) planted in China and the US.
This “proof of concept” study considered only fungi associated with leaves. As shown above, learning the true plant health risk associated with any tree taxon’s leaves is already complicated and resource-demanding. To fully exploit the power of the ex patria sentinel plantings approach, phytosanitary officials must provide additional resources (land, people, equipment, money) to enable screening of all plant parts, above and below-ground, and all potentially pathogenic taxa, including nematodes, phytoplasmas, and viruses. These systems must be maintained over years.
Reference
Munck, I.A., Bonello, P. 2018. Modern approaches for early detection of forest pathogens are sorely needed in the United States. Forest Pathology 48 (5). doi:10.1111/efp.1445
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/
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 (Moodleyet al. 2022; c) a focus on the “worst” 100 invasives (as determined by the IUCN) (Ahmedet 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
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/
In early May I posted a blog about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget – saying that it would eliminate funding for nearly all USFS research & Forest Health Protection.
I can now provide some additional information.
The Administration has released a supplemental document providing a few details about the severe cuts it is proposing for USFS programs vital to countering bioinvasion in the coming fiscal year (FY2026), which starts October 1st. You can download this document at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/appendix_fy2026.pdf
Congress has the final say on appropriations – so please!!! inform your representative & senators about why these cuts are disastrous.
USFS [See pages 162-168 of the Appendix]
Research & Development
The Administration requests $0 for R&D. It says it will strategically use existing carryover balances to responsibly terminate research programs & close research stations. Thus, funding for R&D will decrease from the $301 million in FY24 to $44 million in FY26. The Forest Inventory & Analysis will be shifted to the National Forest System and funded at $21.5 million – less than program supporters are seeking.
The proposal does contain an “additional amount” of $26 million for dealing with the consequences of wildfires, hurricanes & other natural disasters that occurred in calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. I am confused about this funding.
State, Private, and Tribal Forests
The Administration requests $0 for S,P&T. Again, the proposal says the agency will use existing carryover balances to effectively & responsibly terminate these programs. The number of employees would be cut from 520 employees in FY24 to 37.
Again, the proposal contains an “additional amount” of $208 million for Forest Health Management to deal with the consequences of wildfires, hurricanes & other natural disasters that occurred in calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. $14 million of this sum is earmarked for assistance to states in the Northeast that are anticipating an outbreak of eastern spruce budworm (which has been spreading from Canada). In a highly unusual move, the proposal says this funding is not subject to a requirement that grant recipients provide matching funds from non-federal sources. [Is it a coincidence that Maine Senator Susan Collins chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee?]
National Forest System
Total funding for NFS would be $1.5 billion. This includes an “additional amount” of nearly $2.5 billion for expenses related to the consequences of wildfires, hurricanes & other natural disasters that occurred in calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024. $75 million of this amount is earmarked for construction or maintenance of shaded fuel breaks in the Pacific Northwest.
As I noted above, the Forest Inventory and Analysis program would be placed under the NFS.
I am particularly concerned that the budget proposal provides explicitly for $20 million to improve or maintain landscape & watershed conditions by preventing invasive plant infestations and installing aquatic organism passages, etc. There is no mention of programs intended to address damage caused by non-native insects and pathogens. It appears that the Administration proposes to drop all programs re: these organisms.
The overall objective of NFS programs is defined as managing the forests for productive use & resilience to catastrophic wildfire & provide broad range of ecosystem services. The budget allegedly prioritizes funding of programs designed to increase health & resilience of National Forests & Grasslands – including meeting multiple use requirements for resources on these lands.
The prose no longer says that timber production is the sole purpose of Nation forests – as the original budget stated.
APHIS appears to have survived – although the supplement provides minimal information (on pp. 85 – 87 of the Appendix).
The supplement contains a lengthy description of APHIS’ purpose — to protect America’s agricultural and natural resources from introduced pests. It requests $1.1 billion for FY2026. The only plant pest listed as a priority is exotic fruit flies. Personnel would be cut from 6,142 in FY24 to 5,092. I could find no specifics regarding funding for programs of interest – tree & wood pests, specialty crops, pest detection, and methods development.
Implications for Non-native Insects and Pathogens
Remember that USFS’s research and development program is intended to improve forest managers’ understanding of ecosystems, including human interactions and influences, thereby enabling improvements to the health and use of our Nation’s forests and grasslands. Most importantly to me, this program provides foundational knowledge needed to develop effective programs to prevent, suppress, mitigate, and eradicate the approximately 500 non-native insects and pathogens that are killing America’s trees.
The Forest Health Program provides technical and financial assistance to the states and other forest-management partners to carry out projects (designed based on the above research) intended to prevent, suppress, mitigate, and eradicate those non-native insects and pathogens. The program’s work on non-federal lands is crucial because introduced pests usually start their incursions near cities that receive imports (often transported in crates, pallets, or imported plants).
[FIA might inform all about where such pests are found — but it doesn’t address how to contain their spread, suppress their impacts, or restore the affected tree species.]
Eliminating either or both programs will allow these pests to cause even more damage to forest resources – including timber.
Both supporting research and on-the-ground management must address pest threats across all U.S. forests, including the more than 69% that are located on lands managed by others than the USFS. Already, the 15 most damaging of these pests threaten destruction of 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states. This is a rate similar in magnitude to that attributed to fire (Fei et al. 2019). [This estimate does not include loss of beech beech leaf disease.] It is ironic that the Administration considers the fire threat to be so severe that it has proposed restructuring the government’s fire management structure.
I remind you that the existing USFS R&D budget allocates less than 1% of the total appropriation to studying a few of the dozens of highly damaging non-native pests. I have argued that this program should be expanded, not eliminated. Adequate funding might allow the USFS to design successful pest-management programs for additional pests (as suggested by Coleman et al.).
As a new international report (FAO 2025) notes, genetic resources underpin forests’ resilience, adaptability, and productivity. Funding shortfalls already undercut efforts to breed trees able to thrive despite introduced pests and climate change (the latter threat is still real, although the Administration disregards it). I have frequently urged the Congress to increase funding for USFS programs – which are sponsored primarily by the National Forest System and State, Private, and Tribal, although some are under the R&D program.
I repeat: Please ask your Member of Congress and Senators to oppose these proposed cuts. Ask them to support continued funding for both USFS R&D and its State, Private, and Tribal Programs targetting non-native insects and pathogens. America’s forests provide resources to all Americans – well beyond only timber production and they deserve protection.
Contacting your Representative and Senators is particularly important if they serve on the Appropriations committees.
House Appropriations Committee members:
Republicans: AL: Robert Aderholt, Dale Strong; AR: Steve Womack; AZ: Juan Ciscomani; CA: Ken Calvert, David Valadao, Norma Torres; FL: Mario Diaz-Balart, John Rutherford, Scott Franklin; GA: Andrew Clyde; ID: Michael Simpson; IA: Ashley Hinson; KY: Harold Rogers; LA: Julia Letlow; MD: Andy Harris; MI: John Moolenaar; MO: Mark Alford; MS: Michael Guest; MT: Ryan Zinke; NC: Chuck Edwards; NV: Mark Amodei; NY: Nick LaLota; OH: David Joyce; OK: Tom Cole, Stephanie Bice; PA: Guy Reschenthaler TX: John Carter, Chuck Fleishmann, Tony Gonzales, Michael Cloud, Jake Ellzey; UT: Celeste Maloy; VA: Ben Cline; WA: Dan Newhouse; WV: Riley Moore
Democrats: CA: Pete Aguilar, Josh Harder, Mike Levin; CT: Rosa DeLauro; FL: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Frankel; GA: Sanford Bishop; HI: Ed Case IL: Mike Quigley, Lauren Underwood; IN: Frank Mrvan; MD: Steny Hoyer, Glenn Ivey; ME: Chellie Pingree; MN: Betty McCollum; NJ: Bonnie Watson Coleman NY: Grace Meng, Adriano Espaillat, Joseph Morelle; NV: Susie Lee; OH: Marcy Kaptur; PA: Madeleine Dean; SC: James Clyburn; TX: Henry Cuellar, Veronica Escobar; WA: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez; WI: Mark Pocan
Senate Appropriations Committee members:
Republicans: AK: Lisa Murkowski; AL: Katie Britt; AR: John Boozman (AR); KS: Jerry Moran; KY: Mitch McConnell; LA: John Kennedy; ME: Susan Collins; MS: Cindy Hyde-Smith; ND: John Hoeven; NE: Deb Fischer; OK: Markwayne Mullin; SC: Lindsey Graham; SD: Mike Rounds TN: Bill Hagerty; WV: Shelley Moore Capito;
Democrats: CT: Chris Murphy; DE: Chris Coons; GA: Jon Ossof; HI: Brian Schatz; IL: Richard Durbin; MD: Chris van Hollen; MI: Gary Peters; NH: Jeanne Shaheen; NM: Martin Heinrich; NY: Kirsten Gillibrand; OR: Jeff Merkley; RI: Jack Reed; WA: Patty Murray; WI: Tammy Baldwin
Addendum
Maintaining the USFS State, Private, and Tribal (SPT) programs is essential to
complying with laws adopted by the Congress (see second page).
meeting the USFS mission of sustaining“the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”
ensuring future economic and ecological benefits to Americans.
More than two-thirds of U.S. forests are privately owned or managed by state, local, or tribal governments. These forests provide many benefits, including 89% of America’s timber harvest.[i] SPT is the only federal program providing technical, financial, & educational assistance to these non-federal landowners.
Among the many threats to American forests, the Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) focuses on the threat from insects and pathogens introduced from abroad. More than 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states is at risk to non-native pests already established in the country.[ii] From 2011 to 2020, sap feeders, e.g., hemlock woolly adelgid, killed trees on 635,000 acres; foliage feeders, e.g., spongy moth, killed trees on 948,884 acres.[iii] Additional pests will be introduced and kill more trees.
Non-native pests are introduced primarily in crates, pallets or other packaging made of wood; and in imported plants. These imports – and the pests – usually land in cities or suburbs and establish there. Initially they cause widespread death of urban trees and impose high costs on local governments and property owners who must remove dying trees. The pests also spread. Hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, sudden oak death, and beech leaf disease have all spread to National forests from cities or suburbs.
The most effective way to protect America’s forests is to find and kill the pests where they first appear – usually in city trees. Waiting to act until a pest reaches National Forest boundaries means failure. Instead, we should expand the Forest Health Management (FHM) Cooperative Lands program to quickly detect, contain, and – if possible – eradicate the pests. With higher appropriations, the STP FHM program could tackle more of the 53 tree species under threat. At present, only four of these species benefit from 95% of FHM projects – eastern oaks, loblolly and ponderosa pines, and hemlocks.[iv]
USFS Research and Development (R&D) program
FHM adopts strategies based on knowledge of pests’ life histories and traits gained through research conducted or sponsored by the USFS R&D program. CISP urges you to support continued funding for the USFS Research and Development (R&D) program. However, we advocate a realignment: raise the proportion of research funding allocated to invasive species from the current paltry level of 1% to 5%. Funding for studying non-native pests has decreased 70% since FY2010 despite new pests attacking our forests. As a result, the Forest Service is hampered from developing effective programs to prevent, suppress, and eradicate most non-native pests.
Another crucial strategy for reducing loss of tree species to non-native pests is breeding trees able to thrive despite introduced pests. Currently these projects are supported – inadequately – by all three USFS divisions: R&D, SPT, and National Forest System (NFS).
The model program is the Dorena Genetic Resource Center. The Center has bred Western white pine and Port-Orford-cedar trees resistant to introduced pathogens; these trees are now being planted. Promising projects target the pathogens killing whitebark pine, American chestnut, American elm, and Hawaiian koa. Projects at earlier stages address ash, beech, and ʻōhiʻa.
Lesson: federal dollars, wisely invested, can mitigate the damage caused by invasive species. CISP asks you to support continuing these programs so that America can restore threatened trees to our forests.
Complying with the Law
The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1974
Section 2 (a) Findings …—
(1) most of the productive forest land of the United States is in private, State, and local governmental ownership, and the capacity of the United States to produce renewable forest resources is significantly dependent on such non-Federal forest lands;
(b) Purpose.—… authorize[s] the Secretary …, with respect to non-Federal forest lands … to assist in—
…
(3) the prevention and control of insects and diseases affecting trees and forests;
(c) Priorities.—In allocating funds … , the Secretary shall focus on the following national private forest conservation priorities, …:
…
(2) Protecting forests from threats, including … invasive species, insect or disease outbreak, … and restoring appropriate forest types in response to such threats.
(e) Policy. … it is in the national interest for the Secretary to work through and in cooperation with State foresters, or equivalent State officials, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector …
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
Sec. 401(a) FINDINGS.—(1) high levels of tree mortality resulting from insect infestation (including the interaction between insects and diseases) may result in — (A) increased fire risk; … (E) degraded watershed conditions; (F) increased potential for damage from other agents of disturbance, including exotic, invasive species; and (G) decreased timber values;
…
(3) the hemlock woolly adelgid is— (A) destroying streamside forests throughout the midAtlantic and Appalachian regions; (B) threatening water quality and sensitive aquatic species; and (C) posing a potential threat to valuable commercial timber land in northern New England;
(4)(A) the emerald ash borer … has quickly become a major threat to hardwood forests …; and (B) … threatens to destroy more than 692,000,000 ash trees in forests in Michigan and Ohio alone, and between 5 and 10 percent of urban street trees in the Upper Midwest;
…
(11)(A) often, there are significant interactions between insects and diseases; (B) many diseases (such as white pine blister rust, beech bark disease, and many other diseases) can weaken trees and forest stands and predispose trees and forest stands to insect attack; and (C) certain diseases are spread using insects as vectors (including Dutch elm disease and pine pitch canker); …
(b) … The purposes of this title are— (1) to require the Secretary to develop an accelerated basic and applied assessment program to combat infestations by forest-damaging insects and associated diseases; (2) to enlist the assistance of colleges and universities …, State agencies, and private landowners to carry out the program; and (3) to carry out applied silvicultural assessments.
Sec. 402 Definitions
…
(3) FOREST-DAMAGING INSECT. … means … (D) a gypsy moth; (E) a hemlock woolly adelgid; (F) an emerald ash borer; … and (I) such other insects … identified by the Secretary.
[i] Oswalt, S.N., .W.B. Smith, P.D. Miles, & S.A. Pugh. Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 Uport WO-97SDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report WO-97. March 2019
[ii] Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35 17371–17376
[iii] Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17
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/
