The international movement of plant material, particularly plants for planting, is widely acknowledged as a principal driver of the global eruption of forest health epidemics (Brasier, 2008; Turbelin et al., 2017; Tanney et al. 2025; Burgess and Wingfield 2026). The international plant health (or phytosanitary) community in 2012 adopted ISPM#36, with the goal of reducing pest and pathogen introductions on nursery stock. (“Plants for planting” is the regulatory term for this stock.) However, the top pages of the International Plant Protection Convention’s (IPPC) website do not mention either this issue or the IPPC’s response – this international standard!
Actually, awareness of this risk dates to the 19th Century, at least in Europe. USDA entomologist Charles Marlatt campaigned for the United States to impose phytosanitary rules beginning in 1911. He published a bulletin warning that the U.S. had become a “dumping ground” for contaminated nursery stock from Europe and urged the Congress to act. Marlatt is most famous for requiring destruction of diseased cherry trees sent as a gift by Japan. Liebhold and Griffin, in their summary of these events, do not comment on the fact that Marlatt acted without Congressional authority, although destruction of the cherry trees received permission from President Taft. Diplomatic exchanges resulted in Tokyo sending a new batch of pest-free cherries – their descendants grace the Tidal Basin and other parts of Washington, D.C. to this day. At Marlatt’s urging, and following realization of the damage caused by white pine blister rust, Congress adopted the Plant Protection Act in 1912.
This shows that it is possible to protect America’s flora while still enjoying imported plants. But this requires prompt and decisive action, well-prepared in advance, without the likelihood of legal challenges.
Pathogen and Pest Invasions Are Predictable Outcomes
Tanney et al. (2025) say it this way: “We trade not just in plants but also in phytobiomes.” [The phytobiome is the community of microorganisms living on and within a plant.] Burgess and Wingfield (2026) pronounce that invasions are not anomalies but rather predictable outcomes of global commerce interacting with ecological susceptibility. The global nursery trade creates extensive networks that enable the continuous exchange of live plant material across continents. Unlike many others, Burgess and Wingfield (2026) focus not on ornamental horticulture but the repeated occurrence of devastating outbreaks in Eucalyptus and Pinus plantations across the Southern Hemisphere.
Despite a century of efforts to curtail harmful introductions and 70 years after formation of the IPPC, devastating arthropods and disease pathogens continue to be introduced.
Burgess and Wingfield (2026) list the following 11 pathogens introduced since the turn of the 20th Century: Cryphonectria parasitica, Cronartium ribicola, Ophiostoma ulmi/Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and the nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (pine wilt), Phytophthora ramorum, Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, Harringtonia lauricolia, ōhiʻa or myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii), and rapid ʻōhiʻa death (Ceratocycstis lukobia and huliohula).
To this list, I add beech leaf disease nematode (Litylenchus crenatae mccannii), the Euwallaceae/Fusarium complex, and, in Europe, lawson cypress root disease, along with numerous arthropods. These include emerald ash borer (Agrilus plannipennis), goldspotted oak borer (Agrilus auroguttatus), Erythrina gall wasp (Quadrastichus erythrinae). All have irreversibly shaped forest ecosystems in their introduced ranges. The forest losses have had numerous repercussions to human societies in the receiving regions.
Mitigation Can’t Keep Up Due to System Failures
Tanney et al. 2025 opine that the inevitable conclusion is that past and current mitigation efforts have been insufficient to keep pace. Nor do the failures result only from growing volumes of imports that overwhelm inspection services.
They point to another reason: limited acknowledgment and integration of phytobiome-associated risks into regulatory frameworks. The system ignores particularly fungal endophytes and latent pathogens with extended asymptomatic or presymptomatic phases.
Their telling illustration is the ash decline epidemic in Europe. Hymenoscyphus fraxineus is a harmless endophyte–saprotroph on its native Asian host (Fraxinus mandshurica). However, it was introduced to the naïve host European ash (Fraxinus excelsior), on which it became an aggressive necrotrophic pathogen that has killed millions of trees. Even if the organism had been detected (the authors thought this unlikely) before the outbreak was recognized, the detection would not have triggered a risk assessment or any phytosanitary measures. None of the approximately 200 species in the genus had been reported as a pathogen. In fact, a congener, H. albidus, has a similar endophyte– saprotroph life cycle on European ash without causing harm.
McTaggart et al. (2016) flagged these issues a decade ago. They said that recent advances in gene sequencing technologies reveal a vast diversity of fungi causing asymptomatic infections. Some are endophytes, defined as fungi that, for all or part of their life history, asymptomatically colonize plant tissue. Some are pathogens with extended asymptomatic stages. When introduced to naïve hosts, some of either can erupt. Therefore, international phytosanitary measures, including the one significant effort to address the plants for planting pathway, ISPM#36, should focus more on phytobiomes as a biosecurity concern. (See my blog reporting Dr. Eliana Torres Bedoya on this topic.)
Tanney et al. (2025) are not alone in calling out the system’s failure. See Weed, Ayres, and Hicke (2013), Fei et al. (2019), Quirion et al. (2021) for North America; and Gougherty, Sitzia et al. (2021) and Martinac et al. (2025) for a global perspective. Raffa et al. (2023) say national and international phytosanitary policies and programs must reflect the true level of threat from introduced plant pathogens (of all Phyla and Kingdoms) and scientific limits.
Experts on ambrosia beetles – insects that have symbiotic relationships with fungi – say the same. Dell, Xu and Chi 2026 call for studies of Euwallaceae fornicatus’s broader phytobiome, especially bacterial communities, which are increasingly recognized as important components of the ambrosia beetle system.
Nor are Tanney et al. (2025) alone in calling on phytosanitary officials to stop using methods known to fail. That is, relying on visual inspections of plants and basing decisions on whether a pest has previously been designated.
A decade ago McTaggart et al. (2016) called for shifting from a name-based to a gene-based biosecurity risk mitigation approach. Burgess and Wingfield (2026) say officials must move beyond case-by-case responses to embrace broader preventative approaches that address the underlying mechanisms of pathogen emergence and spread.
As Tanney et al. (2025) and Bonello describe, the current international phytosanitary framework relies on symptomatic hosts carrying named pathogens. This approach ignores the facts:
- endophytes and latent pathogens with prolonged asymptomatic phases are
- ubiquitous – on and in leaves, buds, inflorescences, fruit, seeds, xylem, phloem, cambium, and bark. Phytobiomes are more species-rich on plants lacking disease symptoms.
- diverse – fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes. Some are known pathogens.
- challenging to identify. They often can’t be isolated using standard lab processes. If the genome has not already been sequenced and recorded in databases even sequencing-informative loci or barcodes might fail to identify the taxa. (Only ~150,000 species of an estimated 2.5 million fungi are so compiled.)
- in some cases, a significant threat to forest health when introduced to naïve realms.
- Scientists cannot predict impacts that might accompany introduction of nearly any of these organisms to a naïve host. Missing information pertains, inter alia, to endophyte identities and life histories, trees’ defenses, and the effects of the current and changing climate.
- Host ranges might shift during an organism’s life cycle, e.g., juvenile vs. mature/reproducing.
- Host jumps within the same host genus are likely (Tanney et al. 2025). They say that importing living plant into areas with congeneric endemic plants is highly risky.
- Most endophytes in woody plants can be horizontally transmitted by abiotic (e.g., wind, rain, and surface water movement) transmission and biotic (e.g., insect) vectors. Every colonized leaf might be a propagule! (Tanney et al. 2025)
- Microbes might reproduce both asexually and sexually. Sometimes dispersal of these propagule uses different modes, e.g., insect- and water-dispersed asexual spores combined vs. air-dispersed sexual spores.
- Endophytes can switch from being asymptomatic to pathogenic when hosts are stressed. Tanney et al. (2025) name several examples, including Fusarium circinatum – causal agent of pine pitch canker.
To protect our plant resources – in forests, in agricultural fields, in our gardens – scientists must be empowered to develop methods and policies that better account for unnamed and unknown organisms.
Tanney et al. (2025) note that there is some flexibility in the face of unknown threats. The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agreement) and ISPM#2 allow adoption of a temporary phytosanitary measure based on the information available, even when it is limited. APHIS’ NAPPRA program link takes this approach. I think countries could use this flexibility more often. (I discuss the SPS and IPPC system in greater detail in my report Fading Forests II. I provide a link at the end of this blog.)
How to Improve Prevention
Some progress has been made in countering introductions of arthropods. Adoption of ISPM#15 regulates an entire pathway (crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made from wood). CISP applauds the approach but calls for more aggressive enforcement. (On this website, scroll down below “Archives” to “Categories”, click on “wood packaging”). I note that introductions via this pathway nevertheless continue: Lantschner et al. (2026) have identified seven independent introductions of Euwallacea fornicatus. Introductions to San Jose, California; Israel; South Africa; Brazil; Spain; and Türkiye occurred after most countries had begun implementing ISPM#15. The same is true of the introduction of the congener E. kuroshio to southern California. Nardi et al. (2026) demonstrate continuing introductions of woodwasps in wood packaging.
Unlike wood products, imported plants, especially those intended to be planted in the new location, must remain alive and healthy. It is extremely challenging to devise effective treatments to kill the arthropod or pathogen without harming the plant. Tanney et al. (2025) discuss the pros and cons of several options, including ionizing radiation, fungicide treatments, and various heat treatments. They note that more research is needed to assess the feasibility, efficacy, optimal dosage, and potential risks of devitalizing plants in high-throughput treatments.
New Tools for Prevention
So the focus remains on preventing introductions. Fortunately, new tools make possible new approaches.
Detection of Pathogens — Tanney et al. (2025), Carnegie et al. (2026), Burgess and Wingfield 2026, and Bonello (pers. comm.) point to the suite of new molecular, remote sensing, and artificial intelligence tools becoming usable for detecting pathogens. They and Dell, Xu and Chi (2026) stress that citizen science can extend the reach of formal surveillance.
Rapid Responses — Tanney et al. (2025) and Carnegie et al. (2026) concede that more work is needed to address such considerations as detecting DNA from nonviable cells, and to develop international standards. However, they assert that results from these tools are already sufficiently science-based to inform decision-making, specifically to implement rapid responses including precautionary quarantines and other measures along with intensive surveys and conducting triage assessments.
Inspection and Enforcement — Burgess and Wingfield (2026) call more generally for enforcing comprehensive phytosanitary treatments and certifications for the live plant and timber trades, and focusing inspection efforts on high-risk entry points. Port detection can be sped up and improved by applying rapid molecular diagnostic tools.
Risk Assessments — New tools and approaches can also improve risk assessments. I blogged earlier about advances in predicting which trees are likely highly damaged, if certain pest insects are introduced. See Mech et al. 2019; Raffa et al. 2023; Schulz et al. 2025; Uden et al. 2022. This is encouraging, although additional work on arthropods is still needed. Carnegie et al. (2026) and Hulcr (2026, USDA Interagency Symposium on Invasive Species, Annapolis Maryland) both note the need for continued investment in taxonomic surveys to generate baseline data.
Predicting the probable impacts of introduced pathogens is inherently more difficult.
- After introduction to novel systems pathogens sometimes evolve rapidly and becoming more aggressive and difficult to manage (Burgess and Wingfield 2026).
- Host jumps within the host genus are likely. This exacerbates the risk arising from importing living plants into areas with congeneric endemic plants. Under these circumstances the risk assessment must be especially careful in balancing economic and social benefits of trade w/ potential ecological, economic, and social consequences of invasion (Tanney et al. 2025; Burgess and Wingfield 2026). Tanney et al. (2025) recommend systematic studies of regularly traded species from areas of origin (or sites of production) to eventual destinations to provide a foundation for assessing the risk of phytobiomes arriving on imported plants. These studies would also help to determine effectiveness of management approaches.
A number of authors are exploring how to address these difficulties. For example, Tanney et al. (2025) advise using “omics”-based approaches to predict invasiveness, virulence, and host interactions. Caveat: same genes are present regardless of whether the organism is an endophyte on its native host or a pathogen on a naïve host. At the same time, host response must be assessed by combining omics-based approaches, sentinel plantings, and modeling.
Tanney et al. (2025) also recommend greatly expanding sentinel planting-based surveillance. Sentinel plant systems must be carefully managed to provide the necessary levels of information. Raffa et al. (2023) nivemdiscuss strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Eliana Torres Bedoya and Enrico Bonello blog warn that sentinel plantings must support screening all plant parts, above and below-ground, for all potentially pathogenic taxa, including nematodes, phytoplasmas, and viruses. Furthermore, samples must be analyzed from asymptomatic plants, not just those showing signs of disease. Finally, samples must be collected throughout the year. Carnegie et al. (2026) call for greater coordination within the country and with international colleagues (e.g., through the International Plant Sentinel Network (IPSN).
Tanney et al. (2025) provide a convenient list of approaches they think will help close the knowledge gaps that challenge integrating attention to phytobiomes into phytosanitary decision-making.
Tanney et al. (2025) and Burgess and Wingfield (2026) advocate shifting the focus of risk assessments from specific pests to commodity-based or pathway risk assessments that consider unknown but plausible threats.
Horizon scanning is often described as helpful in predicting the next invasion. However, I have been disappointed by the usefulness demonstrated by some applications of the approach – at least in the absence of policies and resources to support a robust “rapid response”. At least in Cyprus blog and the United Kingdom, the main response to detection of one of the predicted species is only heightened monitoring — not attempted management!! According to Peyton et al. (2026), the British exercise failed to evaluate 78% of the 112 species that were introduced over the following decade. The vast majority were not evaluated because they were expected to have negligible impacts on biodiversity in Britain — but some turned out to be damaging.
Countries also need current data on which to base analyses and determine efficacy of programs. I regret that all American analyses of the risk associated with imported “plants for planting” rely on data collected by Liebhold et al. (2012) — which is from 2009!! Not only are these data 17 years old; APHIS has made major changes to its regulations in the interval — including implementation of the NAPPRA program.
The missing component often is rapid response – often justified by uncertainty regarding the introduced organism’s possible impacts.Wingfield and Burgess (2026) cite the example of Australia’s weak response to detection of myrtle rust, Austropuccinia psidii. Now established in the rainforests of eastern Australia (states of New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria) and an outbreak in Western Australia, myrtle rust threatens at least 76 species. Australia is home to 38% of all species in the vulnerable Myrtaceae family (Carnegie et al. 2026).
Burgess and Wingfield (2026) cite several lessons based on the Northern Hemisphere’s experience with pathogen introductions. They call specifically for more stringent phytosanitary standards, advanced diagnostic techniques, and risk-optimized surveillance. These should be backed up by collaborative resistance breeding programs for high-risk hosts. They note the need for international cooperation across science, policy, industry, and communities.
Proposed Amendments to Trade Regulations
Tanney et al. (2025) point to the value of shifting to a system that favors trading in propagative material with subsequent bulking up in the importing countries for domestic consumption. (See also my advocacy in Fading Forests II.) They concede that this approach is unlikely to be implemented. As a fallback, they suggest applying this approach to the highest-risk commodities, e.g., rhododendron plants. They note that these plants have transported Phytophthora ramorum.
Scientific Fields
Burgess and Wingfield (2026) point to the need for multidisciplinary research to integrate forest pathology with chemical, ecological and social sciences to anticipate pest emergence. I add: integrating plant pathology with invasion science. The two disciplines rarely interact. Paap et al. (2020) suggest a framework to bridge this gap. I noted that the recent IUCN survey regarding the need for an updated species conservation strategy, while it incorporates invasive species issues, did not mention regional phytosanitary organizations, such as EPPO or NAPPO, among the bodies with whom invasions scientists should build relationships.
Interestingly, a group of experts on invasive plants (Hulme et al. 2026) are trying to expand relationships among researchers even more broadly. They seek to integrate invasion science into on-going discussion of global megatrends. Megatrends are clusters of interdependent global trends observed today that together have the potential to cause significant shifts in environmental, economic, and social conditions. At present, government, industrial, and other leaders evaluating how societies might adapt to these changes are not even considering their probable effect on bioinvasions. At least bioinvasion scientists are starting to evaluate the effects of the megatrends.
The invasion scientists explored how 15 megatrends might affect arrival, establishment, spread, and impacts (environmental and economic) of invading non-native plants over the next 25 years. They grouped the trends into four larger gigatrends: “Anthropocene”, “Digital”, “Societal”, and “Technology”.
They expect most of the megatrends to increase invasion risks, especially by accelerating species arrival and spread. While trends grouped under “Technology” promise some improvements in detection and control tools, there are significant barriers to their adoption. This worrying statement should be addressed by the proponents of applying these measures I cited earlier.
Hulme et al. (2026) urge invasion scientists to persuade policymakers that by taking decisive action to steer these trajectories toward mitigating the growing global threat of bioinvasion.
The Need for Adequate Funding and Political Support
Burgess and Wingfield (2026) note that risk assessment, inspection, detection, and response programs need to be supported by investment in quarantine infrastructure, diagnostic laboratories, and emergency response funds to enhance readiness for new incursions.
As they stress, prevention and preparedness cannot rest solely with scientists. Political commitment, regulatory authority, and industry engagement are indispensable. The efforts need the active participation of affected economic sectors, and sustained investment by governments, scientific institutions, industry, and society. The need for reliable, long-term funding and societal support is shared with all invasive species programs. Nearly all participants in the IUCN survey ranked this need at the top.
Property owners, the wood products and nursery industries, and governments from municipal to national have incurred substantial economic costs. Entire wooded ecosystems have been destroyed. Affected stakeholders, however, have not demanded that officials adopt more effective plant health strategies to reduce this risk. Scott Schlarbaum and I have released three “Fading Forest” reports trying to make this happen (links provided below). As shown here, many scientists are calling for action. To quote the late Congressman John Lewis in the context of civil rights, “If not now, when? If not you, who?”
SOURCES
Burgess, T.I. and M.J. Wingfield. 2026. Unveiling a Hidden Menace: Invasive Tree Pathogens, Less Known but Increasingly Threatening Southern Hemisphere Forests Annual Review of Phytopathology 64:18.1–18.2664:18.1–18.26
Carnegie, A.J., B.A. Summerell, C. Trollip F. Tovar, D.I. Smith, and J. McDonald. 2026. Sentinel trees for early detection of non-native forest pests and pathogens in Australia.
Front. For. Glob. Change 9:1801183. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2026.1801183
Dell, B., W. Xu, and N.M. Chi. 2026. Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer, a Global Threat to Forest Plantations, Green Infrastructure, and Biodiversity: Status, Challenges, and Solutions. Forests, 17, 832
Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, & A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect & disease invasions in United States forests
Gougherty, A.V. & Davis,T.J. (2024) Evolutionary history of host trees amplifies the dilution effect
of biodiversity on forest pests. PLoSBio. 22(2):e30024730
PLOSBiology |https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002473 February 27, 2024 1 / 1
Hulme, P.E., J.N. Barney, J.L. Bufford, J.A. Catford, J.A. Coetzee, C.C. Daehler, M.S. Dechoum, H. Jäger, A. Pauchard, P. Pyšek, D.M. Richardson, M. Vilà, E. Wandrag, J.R.U. Wilson. 2026. Seeds of change: Global megatrends will shape the future trajectory of plant invasions. BioScience , 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biag096
Lantschner, M.V., E. Ceriani-Nakamurakare, A.J. Johnson, A.I. Cognato, S.M. Smith, D.F. Gomez. 2026. Invasion history reconstruction and potential distribution of the ambrosia beetles Euwallacea fornicatus and E. perbrevis (Coleoptera: Scolytinae), two global emerging pests. J Pest Sci 99, 100 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-026-02070-w
Liebhold, A.M., E.G. Brockerhoff, L.J. Garrett, J.L. Parke, and K.O. Britton. 2012. Live Plant Imports: the Major Pathway for Forest Insect and Pathogen Invasions of the US. www.frontiersinecology.org
Martinac, M-L., F. Ningre, A. Dowkiw, N.Le Goff, B. Marcais. 2025. High host density favour ash dieback. Plant Pathology 2025, 74 (5) 10.1111/ppa.14099
Martinou, A.F., J. Demetirou, I. Angelidou, N. Kassinis, A. Melifronidou, J.M. Peyton, H.E. Roy, A.N.G. Kirschel. 2026. Multiple introductions of invasive alien species on a Mediterranean island predicted by horizon scanning. Biological Invasions 2026 28:41 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-025-03729-8
McTaggart, A.R., M.A. van der Nest, E.T. Steenkamp, J. Roux, B. Slippers, L.S. Shuey, et al. (2016) Fungal Genomics Challenges the Dogma of Name-Based Biosecurity. PLoS Pathog 12(5): e1005475. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005475
Mech, A.M., K.A. Thomas, T.D. Marsico, D.A. Herms, C.R. Allen, M.P. Ayres, K.J. K. Gandhi, J. Gurevitch, N.P. Havill, R.A. Hufbauer, A.M. Liebhold, K.F. Raffa, A.N. Schulz, D.R. Uden, & P.C. Tobin. 2019. Evolutionary history predicts high-impact invasions by herbivorous insects. Ecology & Evolution 9(21): 12216–12230. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5709
Nardi, D., K.E. Wagner, S.F. Ward, A.M. Liebhold, E.G. Brockerhoff, R.M. Turner, J.J. Riggins. 2026. Global movement of woodwasps (Hymenoptera: Siricidae) inferred from border interception records Biol Invasions (2026) 28:167 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03881-9
Paap, T., M.J. Wingfield, T.I. Burgess, J.R.U. Wilson, D.M. Richardson, and A. Santini. 202 Harmonising the fields of invasion science and forest pathology NeoBiota Vol 62 2020 pages 301-332
Peyton, J.M., S. Rorke, D.C. Aldridge, O.L. Pescott, K. Dehnen- Schmutz, D.G. Noble, J. Sewell, A.J.A. Stewart, T. Adriaens, B.C. Beckmann, J. R. Britton, J. Brodie1, P.M.J. Brown, I.C.N. Cavadino, P.F. Clark, A.M. Dunn, J.Foster, C. Harrower, M.C. Harvey, M.C. Jackson, T. Jones, C.A. Maggs, G. Martin, F. Mathews, A.C. Mill, D. Murphy, E. Paganini, R. Payne, W. Rabitsch, T. Renals, K. Schönrogge, R.H. Shaw, G.C. Smith, P.D. Stebbing, P.A. Stroh, H. Tidbury, E. Tricarico, J. Vallet, K.J. Walker, L.E. Wood, C.A. Wood, B. Woodcock, H.E. Roy. 2026. Assessing the success of a horizon scanning approach in predicting invasive non-native species arrival. J Appl Ecol. 2026; 63: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70217
Quirion BR, Domke GM, Walters BF, Lovett GM, Fargione JE, Greenwood L, Serbesoff-King K, Randall JM & Fei S (2021) P&P Disturbances Correlate With Reduced Carbon Sequestration in Forests of the Contiguous US. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:716582. [Volume 4 | Article 716582]
doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.716582
Rabaglia, R.J., S.A. Dole, and A.I. Cognato. 2006. Review of American Xyleborina (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Occurring North of Mexico, with an Illustrated Key. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 99: 1034–1056.
Raffa, K.F., E.G. Brockerhoff, J-C. Gregoirem, R.C. Hamelin, A.M. Liebhold, A. Santini, R.C. Venette, and M.J. Wingfield. 2023. Approaches to Forecasting Damage by Invasive Forest Insects and Pathogens: A Cross-Assessment. Bioscience Vol. 73, No. 2. February 2023.
Schulz, A.N., N.P. Havill, T.D. Marsico, M.P. Ayres, K.J.K. Gandhi, D.A. Herms, A.M. Hoover, R.A. Hufbauer, A.M. Liebhold, K.F. Raffa, K.A. Thomas, P.C. Tobin, D.R. Uden, A.M. Mech. 2025. What Is a Specialist? Quantifying Host Breadth Enables Impact Prediction for Invasive Herbivores
Ecology Letters 28: e70083. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70083
Tanney, J.B., M. Kemler, M. Vivas, M.J. Wingfield, and B. Slippers. 2025. Silent invaders: the hidden threat of asymptomatic phytobiomes to forest security. New Phytologist 2025 247: 533–545 doi: 10.1111/nph.70209
Uden, D.R., A.M. Mech, N.P. Havill, A.N. Schulz, M.P. Ayres, D.A. Herms, A.M. Hoover, K.J.K. Gandhi, R.A. Hufbauer, A.M. Liebhold, T.D. Marsico, K.F. Raffa, K.A. Thomas, P.C. Tobin, C.R. Allen. 2022. Phylogenetic risk assessment is robust for forecasting the impact of European insects on No Am conifers. Ecological Applications 33(2): e2761. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2761
Weed, A.S., M.P. Ayers, J.A. Hicke. 2013. Consequences of climate change for biotic disturbances in North American forests. Ecological Monographs, 83(4), 2013, pp. 441–470
Posted by Faith Campbell
We welcome comments that supplement or correct factual information, suggest new approaches, or promote thoughtful consideration. We post comments that disagree with us — but not those we judge to be not civil or inflammatory.
For a detailed discussion of the policies and practices that have allowed these pests to enter and spread – and that do not promote effective restoration strategies – review the Fading Forests report at http://treeimprovement.utk.edu/FadingForests.htm
Or