Category: conservation priorities

Alarming Picture of Phytophthora Threats to Forests World-wide

Phytophthora dieback in West Australia


Prompted by the rising number of Phytophthora-caused diseases in forests on several continents, in 1999 the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) formed the IUFRO Working Party 7.02.09 ‘Phytophthora Diseases of Forest Trees’. Last spring This group published a global overview of Phytophthora diseases of trees (Jung et al. 2018; see full citation at the end of this blog).

The study covers 13 different outbreaks of Phytophthora-caused disease in forests and natural ecosystems of Europe, Australia and the Americas.

The picture is alarming!

Jung et al. state definitively that the international movement of infested nursery stock and planting of reforestation stock from infested nurseries have been the main pathway of introduction and establishment of Phytophthora species in these forests.  

The Picture: A Growing List of Diseases, Species, and Places Affected,

Jung et al. note that, during the past six decades, the number of previously unknown Phytophthora declines and diebacks of natural and semi-natural forests and woodlands has increased exponentially. The vast majority of these disease complexes have been driven by introduced invasive Phytophthora species. In 1996, 50 Phytophthora species were known. In the 20 years since then, more than 100 new Phytophthora species have been described or informally designated. One study (Tsao 1990) estimated that more than 66 % of all fine root diseases and more than 90 % of all collar rots of woody plants are caused by Phytophthora spp. Many of these had previously been attributed to abiotic factors or secondary pathogens. One example – surprising to me, at least – is that decline of mature beech trees in Central Europe is linked to Phytophthora rather than beech bark disease!

Several of the disease complexes described in Jung et al. 2018 are causing heartrending destruction of unique floras, e.g., jarrah, tuart, and other communities of western Australia and kauri forests of New Zealand. The authors expect increasing damage to the Mediterranean maquis in the future. They list these among other examples:

  1. Ink disease of chestnuts worldwide
  2. Oak declines and diebacks in Europe and North America
  3. Decline and mortality of alders (Alnus species) in Europe
  4. Decline and mortality of Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) in Europe and North America
  5. Kauri dieback in New Zealand link to earlier blog
  6. Decline and mortality of Austrocedrus chilensis and Juniperus communis in Argentina and Europe
  7. Diebacks of natural ecosystems in Australia
  8. Decline and dieback of the Mediterranean maquis vegetation
  9. Decline and dieback of European beech in Europe and the US
  10. Dieback and mortality of southern beech (Nothofagus species) in the United Kingdom and Chile
  11. ‘Sudden Oak Death’ and ‘Sudden Larch Death’ in the US and United Kingdom
  12. Leaf and twig blight of holly (Ilex aquifolium) in Europe and North America
  13. Needle cast and defoliation of Pinus radiata in Chile

Several of the Phytophthoras are causing severe damage on several continents:

  • P. cinnamomi in Europe, North America, and Australia
  • P. austrocedri in South America, Europe, and western Asia
  • P. ramorum in Europe and North America
  • P. lateralis in North America and Europe.

Often, the genetic makeup of the Phytophtoras species varies in these different locations. These differences indicate separate introductions and the existence of sexual reproduction and continuing evolution in response to conditions.

Why Phytophthoras are Spreading via the Plant Trade and Nursery Practices

First, Phytophthora species are able to survive unsuitable environmental conditions over several years as dormant resting structures in the soil or in infected plant tissues. When environmental conditions become suitable, the resting spores germinate – often prolifically. Since visible symptoms might not appear for considerable time after infection because the mechanism is progressive destruction of the fine root system, detection of the disease is delayed, further undermining control.

Second, most of the Phytophthora species causing  disease complexes were unnoticed as co-evolved species in their native environment. Often they were unknown to science before their introduction to other continents – where they become invasive on naïve plant species. Consequently, these species are not captured by the international plant health system, which is based on lists of recognized “pest” species.

Third, the common nursery practice of applying fungicides or fungistatic chemicals masks the presence of pathogens – another way plants pass unnoticed through phytosanitary controls. These chemicals do not, however, kill the pathogen. 

Fourth, the importation into receiving nurseries of plants from around the world provides ample opportunity for the introduced Phytophthoras to hybridize. The interspecific hybrids may differ in host range and virulence from the parent species, thus making predictions about the potential effects of an ongoing invasion even more difficult.

Fifth, the nurseries or plantings in gardens or restoration projects also provide suitable environments for prolific germination and spread.

All of these risks were first enumerated by the eminent British pathologist Clive Brasier a decade ago! (See Brasier et al. 2008 citation at the end of the blog.)

As Jung et al. 2018 point out, the scientific community has repeatedly urged regulators to require the use of preventative system approaches for producing Phytophthora-free nursery stock (see references in the article). Scientists have provided research-based guidance to reduce the risk of infestation. Such measures are being implemented by only some nurseries in the US. For example, USDA APHIS has specific requirements for nurseries that ship hosts of P. ramorum in interstate commerce after the nurseries or the plants have tested positive.  More broadly, APHIS, the states, and the nursery industry are in the second round of pilot testing of an integrated measures approach to managing all pests under the Systems Approach to Nursery Certification (SANC) program

At the international level, the International Plant Protection Convention has adopted ISPM#36, which also envisions greater reliance on systems approaches.  However, the preponderance of international efforts to protect plant health continue to rely on visual inspections that look for species on a list of those known to be harmful. Yet we know that most damaging Phytophthoras were unknown before their introduction to naïve ecosystems.

Furthermore, use of fungicides and fungistatic chemicals is still allowed before shipment.

As pointed out by several experts beginning with Dr. Brasier but including  Liebhold et al. 2012, Santini et al. 2013, Jung et al. 2016, Eschen et al. 2017, this approach has failed to halt spread of highly damaging pathogens. (I note that the list of such pathogens is not limited to Phytophthoras; see the description of ohia rust in Hawai`i, Australia, and New Zealand).

Jung et al. 2018 also call for increasing the genetic resistance of susceptible tree species. The authors regard this as the most promising sustainable management approach for stabilizing declining natural ecosystems and for reintroducing susceptible tree species at sites with high disease impact. See my blogs about efforts to enhance U.S. tree-breeding posted earlier this year.


SOURCES

Brasier CM. 2008. The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathology 57: 792–808.

Jung T, Orlikowski  L, Henricot B, et al. 2016. Widespread Phytophthora infestations in European nurseries put forest, semi-natural and horticultural ecosystems at high risk of Phytophthora diseases. Forest Pathology 46: 134–163.

Jung, T., A. Pérez-Sierra, A. Durán, M. Horta Jung, Y. Balci, B. Scanu. 2018. Canker and decline diseases caused by soil- and airborne Phytophthora species in forests and woodlands. Persoonia 40, 2018: 182–220   Open Access!

Liebhold AM, Brockerhoff  EG, Garrett  LJ, et al. 2012. Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 10: 135–143.

Santini A, Ghelardini L, De Pace C, et al. 2013. Biogeographic patterns and determinants of invasion by alien forest pathogens in Europe. New Phytologist 197: 238–250.

Tsao PH. 1990. Why many Phytophthora root rots and crown rots of tree and horticultural crops remain undetected. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 20: 11–17

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.

 

 

Report Lists Non-Native Species in the U.S.

Ailanthus altissima

Several scientists at the United States Geological Service (USGS) have published a report and accompanying datasets that attempts to provide a publicly accessible and comprehensive list of non-native species established in United States.

Led by Annie Simpson and Meghan C. Eyler, a team of six scientists worked six years (2013–2018). They reviewed 1,166 authoritative sources to develop a list of 11,344 unique names – most of them binomials (genus and species), a few genera, plus some viruses.

This was a Herculean effort that produced very valuable products. We are all in their dept!

Simpson and Eyler point out that knowing which species are non-native to a region is a first step to managing invasive species. Lists compiled in the past were developed to serve a variety of purposes, including watch lists for preventing invasions, inventory and monitoring lists for research and modeling, regulatory lists for species control, and non-regulatory lists for raising awareness. As a result, they are not comprehensive.

Among the sources these authors consulted in preparing the list were peer-reviewed journal articles, books, brochures, circulars, databases, environmental assessments, technical reports, graduate theses, and websites.

Data – by Region

The report also notes which non-native species were established in each of three regions: the “lower 48” states, Alaska, and Hawai`i. Not surprisingly, more than half the non-native taxa are established in the vast area (nearly 7.9 million km2) comprising the “lower 48” states – 6,675 taxa. Almost half of the total number of non-native taxa have established in the tiny geographic region (only 28,311 km2) of Hawai`i – 5,848 taxa.  One-tenth as many non-native taxa – 598 – are reported as established in Alaska (1.7 million km2).

This report includes taxa that are not native to any part of the specific region, but established (naturalized) somewhere in the region. An “established” species must have at least one population that is  successfully reproducing or breeding in natural systems. The list includes domesticated animals and plants introduced for crops or horticulture when the taxon has escaped cultivation or captivity and become established in the wild. Species listed range from feral hogs (Sus scrofa) to plum pox virus and citrus canker to ohia rust (Puccinia psidii).

Of the total 11,344 taxa, 157 are established in all three regions. These included 125 vascular plants (especially grasses and asters); 13 arthropods, 11 mammals; 6 birds; 3 mollusks; 1 bryozoan. One of the ubiquitous plant species is tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). I find it entirely appropriate that the cover photo shows this tree – the photo was taken 8 miles from my home in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Nearly three-quarters (71.4%) of the non-native species in Alaska are plant species. More than half (59.7%) of the non-native species in the “lower 48” region are also plants. Nearly all the remainder of the non-native species in both regions are some kind of animal. Fungi constitute only 1.8% of the non-native species in the “lower 48” region; all the rest of the groups (Bacteria, Chromista, Protozoa, Virus) constitute less than 1% of the non-native species recorded in either region.

By contrast, in Hawai`i, animals make up 69.7% of the listed non-native species; most are invertebrates. Plants constitute 29.8% of the Hawaiian list.

Gaps, by Taxon

The authors recognize that invertebrates and microbes are under-represented because species are still being discovered; non-charismatic and difficult-to-identify species tend to be overlooked; and the species composition of any nation in this era of globalization is constantly subject to change.

I have noted some gaps among the pathogens: the absence of some of the Phytophthora that have been detected infecting shrubs and herbaceous plants in California,  e.g., Phytophthora cambivora, siskiyouensis, tentaculata;  and the “rapid ohia death” pathogens, Ceratocystis huliohia and C. lukuohia. Dr. Simpson is aware of these gaps and is soliciting sources to help add these organisms – especially the various Phytophthora species – to the next version of the list.

Simpson and Eyler note that the relative geographic distribution of the list at its current state seems to reinforce three well established premises: that tropical island systems are particularly vulnerable; that higher latitudes host fewer but are not invulnerable; and that species diversity in general decreases with increasing latitude.

 Comparisons to Other Databases

After standardizing the names in the list by comparing them to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), Simpson and Eyler also reviewed the USGS BISON database, which has more than 381 million occurrence records for native and non-native species in the U.S. and Canada, covering 427,123 different taxa. (The BISON database contains significantly more species occurrences for the U.S. than the largest invasive species database, EDDMapS, which contained 4.4 million species occurrences as of June 2018.) Simpson and Eyler had to evaluate which of these taxa met their definition of non-native, since most species occurrence records in the USGS BISON are not labeled as non-native in the original records.

Comparing the BISON and non-native lists, Simpson and Eyler found that the BISON list contained a larger number of occurrence records for non-native taxa: a total of 13,450,515.However, the BISON list does not provide complete coverage of non-native species: it includes records for 77% of list of non-native species Simpson and Eyler found in Alaska, 75% of the “lower 48” sublist, but only 37% of the Hawaiian sublist.

Simpson and Eyler state their intention to continue updating the list of non-native species, they welcome contributions to it from area experts, and they urge integration of new occurrence data into invasive species database such as EDDMapS.

Indicators of Non-Native Species Richness

Figure 3 in the report (above) maps the number of non-native taxa in BISON at the county level. Figure 4 displays the proportion of non-native to native species in BISON. Higher percentages are generally evident in coastal areas and other regional hotspots. For example, the proportion in Hawaiian counties is greater than 33%. Additional data are needed to perform a more in-depth analysis of non-native species richness and abundance.

UPDATE! New Report in the Works

In June 2021, USGS announced that it was updating its Comprehensive List of Non-Native Species Established in 3 Major Regions of the U.S. so that the document more closely aligns with the parameters of the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species. The new USGS dataset is to be called the US Register of Introduced and Invasive Species. The list in the current draft includes 15,364 records. About 500 of these records are in Alaska, 6,000 in Hawai`i, and 8,700 in the conterminous 48 States.

One of the lead authors, Annie Simpson, contacted invasive species experts seeking feedback and suggested additions – based on authoritative resources such as peer reviewed journal articles, pest alerts, databases, books, and technical bulletins. She sought input by 25 July, 2021.

The published version of this dataset will be made freely available on USGS’ ScienceBase (https://www.sciencebase.gov), and all reviewers will be acknowledged in the dataset’s abstract.

SOURCE

Simpson, A., and Eyler, M.C., 2018, First comprehensive list of non-native species established in three major regions of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1156, 15 p.

The report and accompanying data tables are available here.

South African report

In an unrelated but similar development, South Africa has issued a report on its invasive species — 2017 The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa. The report 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. The report notes that 775 invasive species have been identified to date, of which 556 are listed under some national regulatory program. Terrestrial and freshwater plants number 574 species; terrestrial invertebrates number 107 species. (This total does not include the polyphagous shot hole borer, which was detected too recently.) 107 species are considered by experts to be having either major or severe impacts on biodiversity and/or human wellbeing. Alien species richness is highest in the savanna, grassland, Indian Ocean coastal belt and fynbos biomes, lower in the more arid Karoo and desert biomes. South Africans are particularly focused on the reductions in surface water resulting from plant invasions. The decades-old “Working for Water” program has two goals: providing employment and development opportunities to disadvantaged individuals in rural areas, and managing invasive alien plants.

The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa is available 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.

Scientists Document Alarming Declines in Insects

Luquillo Forest in Puerto Rico

While I usually blog about insects (and plant pathogens) that have invaded new ecosystems and are killing native plant species, I am aware that insects are numerous and vitally important components of the ecosystems in which they evolved. I join others in noting with concern evidence that insect populations in wide-apart areas have declined at very high rates. Insects appear to be affected by the Sixth Extinction Event (concept described here and here) as much as or possibly more than various vertebrate and plant taxonomic groups.

The Zoological Society of London and World Wildlife Fund published this week the 2016 version of the Living Planet report. Based on an analysis of 3,700 vertebrate species (birds, fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles), the authors concluded that global wildlife populations have fallen by 58% since 1970 (Morelle; see references at the end of the blog).

Dirzo et al. in 2014 provided a very interesting discussion of the impacts of species’ declines in numbers and local extinctions – short of complete extinction. They asserted that “declines in numbers of individuals in local populations and changes in the composition of species in a community will generally cause greater impacts on ecosystem function than global extinctions. Dirzo et al. noted the importance of invertebrates, especially insects, in ecosystem functioning. They stated that the smaller fauna – including insects – “arguably are more functionally important” than charismatic megafauna and called for improved monitoring and study of such taxa, particularly invertebrates,

In their study, Dirzo et al. estimated that, since 1970, Lepidoptera – an order containing many important pollinators – had declined 35% in abundance globally over 40 years. Declines of other insect orders were considerably more. One study they cited found an overall 45% decline for all invertebrate populations over 35 years. More recent studies find decline rates that considerably exceed the estimated decline of 58% in global abundance of wild vertebrates over a 42-year period (Morelle; Hallmann et al.)

A year ago, Hallmann et al. reported a 76% decline in the biomass of flying insects over a 27-year period in Germany. There were seasonal variations; in midsummer, when insect biomass is highest, the decline was 82%. The study was carried out in nature protection areas – that is, places set aside and protected to conserve biological diversity. Hallmann et al. predict cascading effects on food webs and jeopardy to ecosystem services, including pollination, herbivory and breakdown of detritus, nutrient cycling and providing a food source for higher trophic levels such as birds, mammals and amphibians.

Hallmann et al. said that changes in weather, land use, and habitat characteristics could not explain this overall decline. Declines occurred in both nutrient-poor habitat types (e.g., heathlands, sandy grasslands, and dunes) and nutrient-rich habitats (grasslands, margins and wasteland), as well as in pioneer and shrub communities.

Another of the few studies looking at insects broadly, a study of flying insect biomass in the United Kingdom, found a biomass decline at only one of the four sites. Hallmann et al. note that the British researchers used considerably different sampling methods that targetted primarily high-flying insects (and caught mostly members of one fly family) whereas their own Malaise traps caught  insects flying close to the ground and a much wider diversity of taxa.

Taxon-specific studies have also found severe declines in insect populations.

Hallmann et al. concluded that the scale of decline in insect biomass – throughout the growing season, and irrespective of habitat type or landscape configuration – suggest that large-scale factors must be involved. As noted, their data did not support either landscape changes or climate change as explanatory factors – although they admit that they did not exhaustively analyze the full range of climatic variables that could potentially impact insect biomass. Hallmann et al. did think that agricultural intensification (e.g. pesticide usage, year-round tillage, increased use of fertilizers and frequency of agronomic measures) was a plausible cause of insect biomass decline given the reserves’ limited size in typically fragmented western-European landscapes. The noted that the protected areas might serve as insect sources which might be counterbalanced by the surrounding agricultural fields, which might act as sinks or ecological traps.

While Hallman et al. did not specify the types of pesticides being used by the German farmers operating near their study areas, in recent years there has been growing concern about widespread use of neonicotenoids, which appear to pose a threat to bees and possibly other insects. Three sources of information are the European Food Safety Agency; Xerxes Society; and petition pertaining to regulation of seeds treated by neonicotenoids submitted by the Center for Food Safety.

This month, Bradford Lister and Andrés García published a study that compared numbers of the insects and insectivores (birds, frogs, lizards) in Puerto Rico’s tropical rainforest in 2012 to results of Lister’s studies there in 1976 and 1977. Overall arthropod biomass in Puerto Rico’s Luquillo rainforest fell 10 to 60 times since 1970s (Lister and Garcia). Numbers of insects in the vegetation collected by sweep nets decreased to a fourth or an eighth of what they had been. The catch rate of ground-dwelling arthropods caught in sticky traps fell 60-fold (Guarino).

Lister and Garcia attribute the crash in arthropod numbers to climate change, especially rising maximum temperatures. They note that over the same 40-year period, the average high temperature in the rainforest increased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). Lister and Garcia cite several studies indicating that tropical invertebrates are adapted to a narrow band of temperatures.

Lister and Garcia also measured declines among insect-feeding vertebrates. The biomass of anole lizards dropped by more than 30%. Some anole species disappeared from the interior forest (Guarino). Declines in number of coqui frogs (Eleutherodactylus spp) began in the 1970s. Currently, three of 16 species are extinct, and the remaining 13 species are classified in some category of endangered or threatened. Disease caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is not a factor at the elevations where study done.

Anolis gundlachi; photo by Joe King

Citing data from other researchers, Lister and Garcia report that numbers of insectivorous birds captured in mist nets fell 53% between 1990 and 2005.

Lister and Garcia sought to explain why there were simultaneous, long-term declines in arthropods, lizards, frogs, and birds over the past four decades in the relatively undisturbed rainforests of northeastern Puerto Rico. They concluded that climate warming has been a major factor driving reductions in arthropod abundance, and that these declines have in turn precipitated decreases in forest insectivores in a classic bottom-up cascade.

As supporting evidence, Lister and Garcia cite

(1) Declines across varied species and communities that occurred in parallel with rising temperatures.

(2) Simultaneous declines of all arthropod taxa in their own and others’ studies – pointing to an overriding environmental factor that has had ubiquitous, adverse effects on forest arthropods regardless of taxonomic affiliation, stratum occupied, or type of niche exploited.

(3) Declines in arthropod abundance that occurred despite major decreases in their predators – and, presumably, reduced predatory pressure..

Lister and Garcia note that there have been almost no significant human perturbations in the Luquillo forest since the 1930s, and that pesticide use in Puerto Rico fell nearly 80% over the past 40 years with the decrease in agricultural activity on the island. Some of the insect trend data came from studies carried out in the Luquillo Long Term Ecological Study site.

Lister and Garcia say that major weather perturbations have also had an impact. Over the 36-year time span, there have been five major hurricanes and eight severe droughts. They note that the island’s vegetation regenerated rapidly after hurricanes Hugo and Maria; insect populations regenerated rapidly after Hurricane Georges.  La Niña episodes led to an immediate increase in the abundance of canopy invertebrates, whereas El Niño episodes caused declines.

Of course, some insects are under threat from loss of their primary food plants to invasive species.  I note particularly the Palamedes swallowtail butterfly (Papilio palamedes), which depends on redbay and swamp bay, and an estimated 21 species of North American butterflies and moths believed to specialists or largely dependent on ash.

Palamedes swallowtail; photo by Vincent P. Lucas

 

 

In some cases, e.g., hemlock woolly adelgid and Asian longhorned beetle, neonicotenoids, specifically imidacloprid, is an essential tool to controlling a tree-killing invasive insect.

 

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.

SOURCES

Dirzo, R., H.S. Young, M. Galetti, G. Ceballos, N.J. B. Isaac, B. Collen. 2014. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401

Guarino, B. 2018. ‘Hyperalarming’ study shows massive insect loss. 2018. The Washington Post October 15 2018

Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. 2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12 (10): e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0185809

Lister, B.C. and A. Garcia. 2018. Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/10/09/1722477115

Morelle, R. Science Correspondent, BBC News. 2018. World wildlife ‘falls by 58% in 40 years’ https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622

 

 

South Africa’s unique flora put at risk by polyphagous shot hole borer

The polyphagous shothole borer (PSHB) and its fungal symbiont Fusarium euwallaceae are killing trees in South Africa as well as in California.

File:Erythrina humeana, blomme, Manie vd Schijff BT, b.jpg

Erythrina humeana in the Manie van der Schijff Botanical Garden, Pretoria

The pest complex’s presence was detected in August 2017 through an international sentinel tree program – the first detection of a tree pest under the program. Under the ‘sentinel plantings’ program, staff at botanical gardens and arboreta monitor their holdings – often exotic species growing outside of their natural range – and alert program partners when they detect damage caused by insects or pathogen not previously known to pose a risk. The International Plant Sentinel Network (IPSN) was launched in 2013. Botanical gardens and arboreta in South Africa joined the international effort in 2016 (Paap et al. 2918 – see list of sources at the end of this blog).

PSHB-caused tree mortality was initially detected in the KwaZulu-Natal National Botanical Gardens in Pietermaritzburg in August 2017. Affected trees were London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) (Paap et al. 2018).

A beetle collected in 2012 in Durban, 50 km away from Pietermaritzburg, has now been determined to belong to the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex – indicating that the invasive insect and fungal species have been established in South Africa for several years (Paap et al. 2018). [Interestingly, 2012 is also the year that Dr. Akif Eskalen detected PSHB in a backyard avocado in southern California – setting off the detection, research, and slow-the-spread efforts now under way there.]

 

2018-10-01 PSHB - South Africa

locations of PSHB detections in South Africa; map from http://polyphagous-shot-hole-borer.co.za/

South African authorities were immediately concerned because the beetle-fungus complex attacks such a broad range of trees (species in 58 plant families).  Hosts include several species native to southern Africa – including cabbage tree (Cussonia spicata), common calpurnia (Calpurnia aurea), monkey plum (Diospyros lycioides),  two species of coraltree (Erythrina humeana and E. lysistemon), huilboerboon (Schotia brachypetala), honey flower (Melianthus major), two alders (Cunonia capensis and Nuxia floribunda), and red orchid bush (Bauhinia galpinii). Also at risk are several commercial crop trees such as avocado (Persea americana), macadamia nut (Macadamia integrifolia), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), peach (Prunus persica), orange (Citrus sinensis) and grapevine (Vitis vinifera) and several ornamentals, including maple, holly, wisteria, oak and Camellia (Paap et al. 2018).

South Africa is home to a highly unique flora. Indeed, the “Cape Floral Kingdom” is the smallest of the six floral regions on Earth. For more about South Africa’s botanical importance, go here or here.

Rapid spread of the beetle-fungus complex appears likely because one of the most important reproductive hosts, castor bean (Ricinus communis) is a widespread woody weed in the KwaZulu-Natal region (Paap et al. 2018).

By July 2018, it was clear that PSHB was established in several parts of the country (see map). In George — a city along the southern coast, due east of Capetown, the beetle and fungus are affecting a wide range of indigenous and exotic trees in the botanical garden and the region‚ including box elder‚ Chinese and Japanese maple‚ oak‚ plane trees‚ Kapok trees‚ paper bark acacia‚ wild plum‚ dwarf corral and common corral (Chambers 2018).

In Johannesburg, a concerned citizen tracking the pest complex’ spread thinks that the beetle-fungus combination has already infested well over 100,000 of Johannesburg’s trees and is on track to damage or kill millions more (there are an estimated 6 – 10 million trees in Johannesburg, nearly all exotic) (Weltz 2018).

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.

SOURCES

Chambers, D.  “A 2mm beetle is laying waste to George’s trees” Sunday Times. 30 May 2018 https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/sci-tech/2018-05-30-a-2mm-beetle-is-laying-waste-to-georges-trees/

Johannesburg Urban Forest Alliance. The Shot Hole Borer Beetle is destroying our Urban Forest http://www.jufa.org.za/pshb.html

Paap, T., Z.W. de Beer, D. Migliorini, W.J. Nel,  M.J. Wingfield. 2018. Australasian Plant Pathology https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-018-0545-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13313-018-0545-0

Weltz, A. Beetle Mania The Nasty Insect that is Killing the Trees of Johannesburg. Yale Environment 360; Published at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. https://e360.yale.edu/features/beetle-mania-the-nasty-insect-that-is-killing-the-trees-of-johannesburg

Farm Bill Update – Please Thank Your Senators Right Away!

U.S. Senate

In May I blogged about adoption by the House of Representatives of its version of the Farm Bill, which will govern a wide range of policies for the next five years. I reported that the bill included weakened versions of a provision CISP has been seeking to establish programs to support long-term strategies to counter non-native, tree-killing insects and pathogens, e.g., biocontrol and breeding of trees resistant to pests.

I also reported that the House Farm bill contains provisions to which there is significant opposition from the larger environmental community. Several would gut some of our country’s fundamental environmental laws which have protected our health and natural resources since the early to mid-1970s. These provisions would:

  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management to decide for themselves whether an activity might “jeopardize” an endangered species (eliminating the need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service) (Section 8303 of the House Bill);
  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to avoid preparing an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a long list of actions which currently must be assessed. That is, they could claim a “categorical exclusion” when taking a wide variety of “critical” actions aimed at addressing several goals. These include countering insect and disease infestations, reducing hazardous fuel loads, protecting municipal water sources, improving or enhancing critical habitat, increasing water yield, expediting salvage of dead trees following a catastrophic event, or achieving goals to maintain early successional forest. These “categorical exclusions” would apply to projects on up to 6,000 acres. (Sections 8311 – 8320); and
  • Require the EPA Administrator to register a pesticide if the Administrator determines that the pesticide, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practices, is not likely to jeopardize the survival of a species listed under the Endangered Species Act or to alter critical habitat. That is, the Administrator would not be required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service when making such determinations unlike under current law. (Section 9111).

The Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill in late June. Unfortunately, the Senate bill does not include the long-term restoration program CISP seeks. However, it doesn’t include the above attacks on environmental laws, either.

With the current Farm Bill set to expire on September 30th, there is considerable pressure to adopt a final version soon.  House and Senate staffers have been meeting to find common ground. Representatives and Senators who are on the joint Conference Committee – charged with working out the final bill – will hold their first meeting next week, on September 5th.

In preparation for the meetings of the Conference Committee, 38 Senators have written to their two colleagues who will lead the Senate conferees. Their letter voices strong opposition to changing long-standing environmental law:

“These harmful riders, spread throughout the Forestry, Horticulture, and Miscellaneous titles of the House bill, subjected the legislation to unnecessary opposition on the House floor and now complicates [sic] the bipartisan cooperation needed to pass a final conference report.

Again, we write to express our strong opposition to gutting bedrock U.S. environmental and public health protections with provisions that threaten our air, water, lands, and wildlife.”

Senators signing the letter are:

California: Feinstein & Harris;    Colorado: Bennet;    Connecticut: Murphy & Blumenthal;    Delaware: Carper & Coons;    Florida: Nelson;    Hawai`i: Hirono & Schatz;    Illinois: Durbin & Duckworth;    Maryland: Cardin & Van Hollen;    Massachusetts: Warren & Markey;    Minnesota: Klobuchar &  Smith;    Michigan: Peters;    Nevada: Cortez Masto;    New Hampshire: Shaheen & Hassan;    New Jersey: Menendez & Booker;    New Mexico: Udall & Heinrich;    New York: Gillibrand;    Oregon: Wyden & Merkley;    Pennsylvania: Casey; Rhode Island:    Reed & Whitehouse;    Vermont: Sanders;    Virginia: Warner & Kaine;    Washington: Murray & Cantwell;    Wisconsin: Baldwin.

If your Senators signed the letter, please email, call, or write to thank them immediately. If your Senators didn’t  – please urge them to express their support for its content.

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.

 

 

 

The 2018 Farm Bill – It’s Complicated!

As you might remember, the Center for Invasive Species Prevention and the Vermont Woodland Owners Association last year proposed several amendments to the Farm Bill that we hoped would strengthen the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s programs on non-native insects, plant pathogens, and invasive plants. These proposed amendments are here and here.

Two of our amendments sought to strengthen funding for long-term strategies to counterpests and restore pest-depleted tree species to the forest. We intended these proposals to be implemented together.  They were put forward as two proposals only because they fell into different sections, called “titles”, of the Farm Bill.

Our first proposal would create a grant program managed by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to fund research focused on biocontrol and genetic manipulation of the pests; enhancement of host-resistance mechanisms for tree species; and development of other strategies for restoration. U.S. government agencies, state cooperative institutions, academic institutions with a college of agriculture or wildlife and fisheries, and non-profit organizations would all be eligible for funding.

Our second proposal would provide long-term funding to a similar array of organizations to support research into and deployment of strategies for restoring pest-resistant genotypes of native tree species to the forest. We suggested funds be drawn from the McIntyre-Stennis program. Successful grant applicants would be required to integrate several components into a cohesive forest restoration strategy:

  • Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material;
  • Production of sufficient numbers of  propagules of pest-resistant native trees to support landscape scale restoration;
  • Site preparation in native trees’ former habitat;
  • Planting of native tree seedlings; and
  • Post-planting maintenance of the trees.

Furthermore, priorities for competitive grants issued by this second fund would be based on the level of risk to forests in the state where the activity would take place, as determined by the following criteria:

  • Level of risk posed to forests of that state by non-native pests, as measured by such factors as the number of such pests present there;
  • Proportion of the state’s forest composed of species vulnerable to non-native pests present in the United States; and
  • Pests’ rate of spread via natural or human-assisted means.

 

Several coalitions presented these two proposals – in various forms – to the House and Senate Agriculture committees earlier this year.

 

ACTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Stefanik Amendment

In the House, Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY21) inserted a modified version of CISP’s proposed amendments into the Farm Bill (H.R. 2) . Ms. Stefanik’s speech on the House floor introducing her amendment, and support of that amendment by Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania and Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-TX) can be heard here; scroll to time 25.16

The Stefanik amendment includes some of the key provisions advocated by CISP but it also differs in significant ways. That is, it relies on an existing grant-making program, the Competitive Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environmental Grants program. This program funds proposals pursuing numerous purposes, including pest management and genetic tree improvement. Rep. Stefanik’s amendment adds a new purpose, restoring forest tree species native to American forests that have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by non-native pests. It is unclear whether this approach will significantly increase resources available for breeding trees resistant to non-native pests.

Another difference is that institutions receiving funds would have to demonstrate that their activity is part of a broader strategy that includes at least one of the following components:

1) Collection and conservation of genetic material;

2) Production of sufficient numbers of propagules to support the tree’s restoration to the landscape;

3) Site preparation of former native tree habitat;

4) Planting; and

5) Post planting maintenance

The original CISP proposal required any funded program to incorporate all of these components.

The Stefanik amendment would award grants based on the same three criteria proposed by CISP.

While we are disappointed that research underlying tree restoration has merely been added to an already-long list of purposes under the Competitive Forestry, Natural Resources, and Environmental Grants program, this approach might be the best we can hope for. There had been considerable opposition to our proposal because it would have changed the formula under which McIntire-Stennis funds are apportioned to the states. Adopted in 1962, the existing formula is based on each state’s

1) area of non-Federal commercial forest land;

2) volume of timber cut annually;

3) total expenditures for forestry research from non-Federal sources;

4) base amount distributed equally among the States.

 

The Faso Amendment

The House also accepted an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Faso (R-NY19) that would require APHIS and the US Forest Service to collaborate on surveillance to detect newly introduced tree-killing pests. The agencies would also report to Congress by 2021 on which pests are being detected on imports of wood packaging and living plants (APHIS’ so-called “plants for planting”) and the geographic origins of those pests. Rep. Faso’s speech introducing the amendment and supportive statements by Reps. Thompson and Conaway can be heard here; scroll to time 32 (immediately after the Stefanik amendment).

 

The Welch Bill

Meanwhile, as I blogged earlier, Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) has introduced a separate bill (H.R. 5519) that contains modified versions of several CISP proposals.

Rep. Welch’s bill would do two things: strengthen APHIS’ access to “emergency” funds to respond to invasive pests, and create a competitive grant program to support research on biological control of plant pests or noxious weeds, enhancing host pest-resistance mechanisms, and other strategies for restoring tree species. These studies must be part of comprehensive forest restoration research. Eligible institutions would include federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations. Funding  would come from a USDA corporation, the Commodity Credit Corporation so they would not be subject to annual appropriations.

The House has taken no action on Rep. Welch’s bill.

 

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE FARM BILL – AND CISP’s BOTTOM LINE

On 17 May,  the House of Representatives failed to pass the Farm Bill. No Democrats voted for the bill. About 30 Republicans also voted against the bill – not because they objected to its contents, but because they wanted to force a vote on an immigration bill. House leaders now promise a new vote on the Farm Bill on June 22nd.

Is this good news? As I said, it is complicated! The House bill contains several provisions to which there is significant opposition. The most controversial is a requirement that recipients of food stamps prove that they are working. Other provisions – which have not received much attention in the media, would:

  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management to decide for themselves whether an activity might “jeopardize” an endangered species (eliminating the need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service) (Section 8303);
  • Allow the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to avoid preparing an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a long list of actions which currently must be assessed. That is, they could claim a “categorical exclusion” when taking a wide variety of “critical” actions aimed at addressing several goals. These include countering insect and disease infestations, reducing hazardous fuel loads, protecting municipal water sources, improving or enhancing critical habitat, increasing water yield, expediting salvage of dead trees following a catastrophic event, or achieving goals to maintain early successional forest. These “categorical exclusions” would apply to projects on up to 6,000 acres. (Sections 8311 – 8320); and
  • Require the EPA Administrator to register a pesticide if the Administrator determines that the pesticide, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practices, is not likely to jeopardize the survival of a species listed under the Endangered Species Act or to alter critical habitat. Unlike under current law, the Administrator would not be required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service when making such determinations (Section 9111).

The Endangered Species Act, adopted almost unanimously in 1973, requires such “consultations” because experience had shown that agencies proposing projects tended to underestimate the damage that they might cause to imperiled species.  NEPA is one of the foundational statutes of U.S. environment protection; it was adopted in 1970. Finally, the EPA Administrator is supposed to decide whether to allow pesticide use based on science, per a much weaker but still important environmental protection statute, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (originally adopted in 1910; significantly amended in 1972).

Is getting an imperfect and partial program that might stimulate breeding of tree species resistant to invasive pests worth accepting this level of damage to fundamental environmental programs?

I don’t think so.

We don’t yet know what the Senate will do. We hope the Senate bill will support strong conservation programs – including strengthening APHIS and research into and application of long-term strategies such as resistance breeding – while not undermining the foundations of our Nation’s conservation and environmental programs.

Meanwhile, the House should rewrite the Farm Bill to remove the objectionable provisions.

 

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.

 

National Park Service Experts Urge Improvements to Invasive Species Efforts

 

cats – reported to be the most widespread invasive animal in National parks

In two recent evaluations and resulting reports, National Park Service experts admit the agency has fallen short on managing the invasive species threat and suggest ways to improve. One report – that on invasive animals (see below) identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership.

They’re not alone: I have previously criticized the NPS here and here

 

Invasive Animals

The bolder of the two reports addresses invasive animals – “Invasive Animals in U.S. National Parks – By a Science Panel” https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/594922 commissioned by the NPS Chief of Biological Resources Division. The report was released in December 2017.

The report is blunt – which I welcome.

 

Key Message

The NPS’ mission of preserving America’s natural and cultural resources unimpaired for future generations is “under a deep and immediate threat as a consequence of invasive animal species, yet the National Park Service does not have a comprehensive understanding of the costs and impacts of invasive animals or a coordinated strategy for their management.”  The result: “The consequence is a general record of failure to control invasive species across the system.”

The report says there are opportunities for the NPS to take a lead in addressing the threat – including to help counter invasive species denialism. It suggests ways to provide the needed capacity and to change the agency culture that hampers efforts to realize this ambition.

 

Current Picture

More than half of all National Park units reporting to the report’s authors (245 out of 326 parks) reported the presence of invasive animals – ranging from freshwater mussels to feral cats. In the process of compiling the report, the authors received reports of 1,409 invasive animal populations – comprising 331 species — probably an underestimate. Only a small percentage can be considered under some form of management. The most widely reported species:

Domestic cat                69 parks

Common starling         66 parks

Common pigeon          47 parks

House sparrow             40 parks

Red imported fire ant   40 parks

Feral hog                      39 parks

Rainbow trout              36 parks (often introduced deliberately)

 

The report mentions several tree-killing insects or pathogens among the damaging animal invaders in National parks: emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, and rapid ohia death (a pathogen). (Background on all three is here.)

 

This new report acknowledges management efforts. They reviewed 80 NPS projects in the pipeline from 2000 through 2023. Most projects target a limited number of species: feral hogs, cats, and horses/burros; fire ants; hemlock woolly adelgid; and emerald ash borer.

EAB-killed ash tree in Shenandoah NP  (F.T. Campbell)

Eradication has reportedly been attempted for 21 invasive animal populations; 17 of those populations remained under some control efforts (e.g., monitoring to detect any re-invasion) in 2016. Nine of the eradicated populations were in the Pacific West region – especially Channel Islands National Park. Another eight were in the Southeast. Three other regions — Intermountain, Northeast, and National Capital regions — each reported one invasive animal population eradicated and under control. Another 150 invasive animal populations were reportedly “controlled”.

 

What’s the Problem?

The report’s authors note numerous (and well-known) difficulties in managing invasive animals. These include difficulty detecting invaders at early stages of invasion; paucity of effective management tools; and social constraints such as perceived benefits associated with some (e.g., trout and other sport fishes) and ethical and humane objections to killing vertebrates.

However, the report identifies the principal problem to be lack of support for invasive species programs from NPS leadership. Constraints that hamper park managers’ efforts within the agency include Service-wide coordination, lack of capacity, park culture, “social license” (i.e., public approval), and cross-boundary coordination.

The authors suggest that to correct these deficiencies, the Service should formally acknowledge that invasive animals represent a crisis on par with each of the three major crises that drove Service-wide change in the past:

1) over-abundance of ungulates due to predator control (leading to the “Leopold Report” in the 1960s);

2) Yellowstone fire crisis (which led to new wildfire awareness in the country); and

3) recognition of the importance of climate change (which resulted in the report “Leopold Revisited: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks”).

To achieve true success in such a major undertaking, all levels of NPS management must be engaged. Further NPS’ current culture and capacity must be changed. The report suggests providing incentives for (1) efforts to address long-term threats (not just “urgent” ones) and (2) putting 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.

An additional step to realizing a comprehensive invasive animal program would be to integrate 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).

The report notes the need for increased funding. Such funding would need a flexible timeline (unlike existing Service-wide funding for more general purposes), allowing parks to be responsive to time-sensitive management issues. It would also have to be available consistently over the long term – since eradication can take a long time. Several approaches are proposed, including incorporating some invasive species control programs (e.g., weeds, wood borers) into infrastructure maintenance budgets; adopting invasive species as fundraising challenges for “Friends of Park” and the National Park Foundation; and adopting invasive species as a priority threat.

The authors would like NPS to become a leader on the invasive species issue – specifically by testing emerging best management practices and by better educating visitors on the ecological values of parks and the serious threat that invasive species pose to the their biodiversity. The authors suggest that the NPS also take the lead in countering invasive species denialism.

While officially-approved deliberate introductions of non-native species are probably unlikely to continue, the report expects that the numbers of invasive animals and species in national parks will increase due to continuing spread of invaders from neighboring areas. Therefore, NPS’ current piecemeal approach needs to be replaced with a much stronger, strategic approach in which parks engage in collaboration with conservation partners on adjacent lands or waters and across the greater landscape.

 

Invasive Plants

The NPS launched a coordinated effort targetting invasive plants years ago — in 2000. The most obvious component of which was the Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMTs). The broader program was officially named the Invasive Plant Program (IPP) only in 2014. The IPP provides leadership to individual parks, regions, and the park system on invasive plant management, restoration, and landscape level protection. The IPP released its strategic plan in December 2016. (Ok! More than a year ago. I am tardy.)

Despite the large size of the program – 15 EMPTs across the country – and the clear and recognized threat that invasive plants pose to NPS values, I got the impression that the program struggles to gain  support from the Service. In that way, the situation is similar to the challenges to efforts on animal invasives described above.

   removing Miconia to protect Haleakala National Park

The Strategic Plan identifies goals and actions to optimize the program’s effectiveness, while increasing program and park capacity and leveraging human and fiscal resources with state, federal, and private entities.

The plan articulates a mission, a vision, five broad goals, and actions for the next 10 years. It’s intended to guide annual planning and major projects, as well as to identify and help prioritize funding needs and initiatives.

The overall vision is for the Invasive Plant Program to guide park service efforts to enhance landscape level stewardship of resources by applying “technically sound, holistic, collaborative, adaptive, and innovative approaches.” The hope is that other NPS units will increasingly rely on the IPP’s expertise in implementing their programs and building partnerships.

The strategic plan lays out five broad goals, each supplemented by a list of detailed activities. Priority actions have been identified for the first 5 years (2017-2021) with the expectation that actions will be re-prioritized during annual reviews. These five goals are:

  1. Develop program standards

Clarify and standardize administrative and operational roles and tasks. Improve data management and train colleagues in those standards. Incorporate science-informed procedures to support park management of invasive plants.

Interestingly, the Plan calls for IPP staff to quantify the invasive plant threat and effort needed to manage it and then to communicate the gap between effort needed and resources available to decision makers.

2. Promote the Invasive Plant Program by highlighting the services it provides and the significance of the invasive plant issue both internally and with stakeholders. Assure that IPP efforts parallel those in the Department of Interior Action Plan for invasive species.

  1. Build capacity of individual parks and the Service to prevent the arrival of invasive plants and manage infestations that are already present

Enhance resource and information sharing and field-based training. Find ways to encourage parks to continue managing the invaders after the EMPT completes the initial eradication. Also find ways to increase the EPMT Program’s efficiency. Possibly develop an NPS pesticide applicators’ certification course (the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense already have one).

Increase partnerships to deal with actions that are outside parks’ control. Specifically, participate in regional and state invasive plant councils, and collaborate with a full range of external partners to identify successful techniques, conduct control and restoration campaigns, improve and implement efficient plant management across park boundaries, and recruit and manage youth and volunteers.

  1. Promote holistic and integrated invasive plant management

Work with other NPS programs and parks (across all divisions) to establish resource stewardship and landscape preservation / restoration goals. Integrate integrated pest management strategies in management actions. Continue close collaboration with Climate Change Response Program (if it still exists!). Identify research needs and get the research done.

  1. Collaborate on invasive plant management

Foster and encourage internal and external collaboration and coordination to leverage available resources, expertise, and knowledge.

Identify parks, NPS programs, partner agencies, organizations, and related initiatives with similar objectives to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Coordinate with NPS monitoring programs (although the invasive animal study authors thought the monitoring program is not structured to serve invasive species needs). Partner with BLM and US Fish and Wildlife Service and non-federal partners to cooperatively manage invasive plants on the landscape. Coordinate compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act.

 

Each IPP unit is expected to develop an annual work plan that aligns with an annual financial plan. Priorities will be reviewed annually. Each IPP unit will also submit an annual accomplishment report. IPP might develop a tracking system to be applied to each assigned action.

Plus the IPP strategic plan will be reviewed annually and actions will be re-prioritized as needed. The annual status reports will be made available to stakeholders and partners on the Web.

 

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.

 

Restoring Devastated Tree Species: Let’s Get Behind H.R. 5519

Port-Orford cedar resistance trials

USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center

 

In January I wrote about possible changes to the 2018 Farm Bill aimed at restoring tree species devastated by non-native insects and diseases. (Earlier, in July 2017, I had blogged about these and other proposed amendments to the Farm Bill. Here’s an update.

 

The House Committee on Agriculture has completed action on its version of the Farm Bill; it now awaits action by the full House. The House bill (H.R. 2) does not contain any of the proposals put forward by the Center for Invasive Species Prevention to improve both “rapid response” to introduced forest pests or long-term efforts to restore species devastated by such pests. It does contain very controversial provisions weakening the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Protection Act, and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The bill also makes major changes to the food stamp program. Most political analysists do not think the bill will become law in its current form.

 

We do not yet know what provisions will be in the Senate’s version of the Farm Bill. I am still hopeful that our proposals might be included in some form.

 

Rep. Peter Welch

Meanwhile, Representative Peter Welch from Vermont has introduced a separate House bill:  H.R. 5519. It would amend the Plant Protection Act in order to increase funding for both APHIS-led programs to eradicate or contain invasive species and for competitive grants to research specific questions related to the recovery of pest-decimated native tree species.

 

Specifically, Mr. Welch’s Invasive Species Prevention and Forest Restoration Act would:

  • Strengthen the USDA Secretary’s authority to access Commodity Credit Corporation funds to supplement appropriations to counter non-native insects and pathogens and noxious weeds that threaten agricultural production (including forest resources).
  • Create a competitive grant program to address the critical threat to numerous tree species posed by non-native plant pests and noxious weeds. The grants would provide up to $100,000 per year, over two to five years, to support research that promotes the restoration of affected tree species, including research on—

(A) biological control of plant pests or noxious weeds;

(B) exploration of genetic manipulation of plant pests or noxious weeds;

(C) enhancement of host-resistance mechanisms; and

(D) development of other strategies for restoring tree species.

These studies must be part of comprehensive forest restoration research.

The research institutions are to disseminate to the public tools and information based on the research conducted under this program.

 

Institutions eligible for funding under this program include:

(1) An agency of the Federal Government.

(2) A State cooperative institution.

(3) A college or university offering a baccalaureate or higher degree in the study of food, forestry, and agricultural sciences.

(4) A nonprofit entity described in § 501(c)(3) of IRS Code.

 

A committee of government experts would advise the Secretary of Agriculture on applying the funding criteria for the grant program. This committee would be composed of representatives of the USDA Forest Service, APHIS, and Agriculture Research Service; and State forestry agencies. This committee of experts would receive advice from a separate advisory committee composed of representatives of land-grant colleges and universities, affiliated State agriculture experiment stations, the forest products industry, recreationists, and conservation organizations.

 

Funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (not subject to annual appropriations) are made available, beginning at $3 million in Fiscal Year 2019 and rising to $10 million in FY 2022.

 

Please ask your Representative to co-sponsor this bill. Also, ask your Senators to consider sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate (assuming that no such provisions are included in the Senate Farm Bill).

If these proposals are not included in the version of the Farm Bill that is adopted this year, there might be new opportunities to advance resistance breeding and similar programs in the future.  As I noted in the March blog, a growing number of scientists and concerned stakeholders have developed proposals to expand resistance breeding programs. I hope that the several groups can coordinate their efforts and recruit supporters for a lobbying effort that will create a coordinated program to restore native trees devastated by non-native insects and diseases.

 

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.

 

Act Now: Forest Protection in the 2018 Farm Bill

 

NOW is the time to advocate inclusion of important proposals in the 2018 Farm Bill. It is currently under consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. If we miss this round of Farm Bill legislation, there won’t be another opportunity until 2023. Urge your Senators and Representative to support creation of the two grant-based funds described below.

 

What’s the issue?

We know that about 500 species of non-native insects and pathogens that attack native trees and shrubs are established in the United States. The number in Canada is 180 – there is considerable overlap.

Protecting the trees and their ecosystem services requires development and deployment of a set of tools aimed at either reducing the pests’ virulence or strengthening the tree hosts’ resistance or tolerance. Such strategies include biological control targetting the insect or pathogen and breeding trees resistant to the pest. Developing and employing these tools require sustained effort over years.

Unfortunately, the programs now charged with responding to introduced forest pests are only a ragged patchwork of university, state, and federal efforts. They provide neither the appropriate range of expertise nor continuity.  (For a more thorough discussion of the resources needed to restore tree species badly depleted by non-native pests, read Chapter 6 of Fading Forests III, posted here.)

 

CISP-backed Amendments

In order to begin filling the gaps, the Center for Invasive Species has proposed forest-related legislation for the Farm Bill currently being considered by Congress.

We propose creation of two new funds, each to provide grants to support tree-protection and restoration projects. We find that the expertise and facilities needed to plant and maintain young trees in the forest differ enough from those needed to research and test biological approaches to pest management and tree improvement that each deserves its own support.

Our first proposal would create a grant program managed by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to provide long-term funding for research to restore tree species severely damaged by alien pests. The focus of the research would be on:

  • Biocontrol of pests threatening native tree species;
  • Exploration of genetic manipulation of the pests;
  • Enhancement of host- resistance mechanisms for individual tree species;
  • Development of other strategies for restoration; and
  • Development and dissemination of tools and information based on the research.

Entities eligible for funding under our proposal would include:

  • Agencies of the U.S. government;
  • State cooperative institutions;
  • A university or college with a college of agriculture or wildlife and fisheries; and
  • Non-profit entities recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Our second proposal would provide long-term funding to support research into and deployment of strategies for restoring pest-decimated tree species in the forest. The source of funds would be the McIntire-Stennis program. The eligible institutions would be similar: schools of forestry; land grant universities; state agricultural and forestry experimental stations; and non-profit non-governmental organizations. Projects would integrate the following components into a forest restoration strategy:

  • Collection and conservation of native tree genetic material;
  • Production of propagules of native trees in numbers large enough for landscape scale restoration;
  • Site preparation of former of native tree habitat;
  • Planting of native tree seedlings; and
  • Post-planting maintenance of native trees.

In addition, competitive grants issued by this second fund would be awarded based on the degree to which the grant application addresses the following criteria:

  • Risk posed to the forests of that state by non-native pests, as measured by such factors as the number of such pests present in the state;
  • The proportion of the state’s forest composed of species vulnerable to non-native pests present in the United States; and
  • The pests’ rate of spread via natural or human-assisted means.

(To request the texts of the proposed amendments, use the “contact us” button.)

 

A Growing Chorus Sees the Same Need

A growing chorus of scientists is calling for long-term funding for forest restoration programs based partly on recent scientific breakthroughs.  So this year’s Farm Bill provides a key opportunity for initiating such programs.

 

The NIFA Letter

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture asks scientists each year to suggest their highest priorities for the agency’s research, extension, or education efforts. In December, twenty-eight scientists replied by calling for setting up a special “division” within NIFA to fund breeding of pest-resistant tree species and associated extension.

The lead authors are Pierluigi (Enrico) Bonello, Ohio State University, and Caterina Villari, University of Georgia. The 26 co-signers are scientists from 12 important research universities, along with the U.S. Forest Service (the Universities of Georgia, California (Berkeley), Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia; Auburn University; Michigan Technological University; North Carolina State University; Oregon State University; Purdue University; the State University of New York).

The scientists note that recent scientific advances have created a new ability to exploit genetic resistance found in the tree species’ natural populations. They assert that developing and deploying host resistance promises to improve the efficacy of various control strategies – including biocontrol – and provides a foundation for restoring forest health in the face of ever-more non-native forest pests.

The scientists’ proposal differs from CISP’s in calling for establishment of research laboratories and field study sites at several locations in the country. These would be permanently funded to conduct screening and progeny trials, and adequately staffed with permanent cadres of forest tree geneticists and breeders who would collaborate closely with staff and university pathologists and entomologists. The apparent model is the USDA Forest Service’ Dorena Genetic Resource Center  in Oregon. Dorena has had notable success with breeding Port-Orford cedar and several white pine species that are tolerant of the pathogens that threaten them.

 

POC trials at Dorena

In contrast, the CISP proposal relies largely on the chestnut model, which relies more on non-governmental organizations and wide-ranging collaboration. Our overall goal is similar, though: to provide stable funding for the decades-long programs needed to restore forest tree species.

 

American Chestnut Foundation chestnut growing in Northern Virginia

Why do we advocate grant programs instead of establishment of permanent facilities? We thought that Congress would be more likely to accept a smaller and cheaper set of grant programs in the beginning. Once the value of the long-term strategies is demonstrated more widely, supporters would have greater success in lobbying for creation of the permanent facilities.

Among the new technologies that would seem to justify the scientists’ assertion that success in breeding now appears to be more likely is the use of FT-IR and Raman spectroscopy and associated analysis of tree chemicals to identify individual trees within natural populations that have an apparent ability to tolerate disease-causing organisms. The leading scientist on the NIFA letter, Enrico Bonello, has used the technique to identify coast live oaks resistant to Phytopthora ramorum (the causal agent of sudden oak death. He is now testing whether the technique can identify Port-Orford cedar trees tolerant of the root-rot fungus Phytophthora lateralis and whitebark pines resistant to white pine blister rust.

I blogged about Enrico’s work on ash resistance to EAB here.) You can learn more about Enrico’s interesting work here.

The NAS Study

Meanwhile, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has launched a study on The Potential for Biotechnology to Address Forest Health. By the end of 2018, a committee of experts will report on the potential use of biotechnology to mitigate threats to forest tree health; identify the ecological, ethical, and social implications of deploying biotechnology in forests, and develop a research agenda to address knowledge gaps about its application. Funding for the study has been provided by The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities; several agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Forest Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Committee meetings are webcast, and there are other webinars on pertinent topics. You can view the schedule and sign up to receive alerts here.

Several people actively engaged in finding answers to invasive pest challenges have presented their views to the Committee, including Gary Lovett, Deb McCullough, Richard Sniezko, and me (!). You can find our presentations (Powerpoints and oral) at the above website. My talk focused on the crisis posed by non-native insects and pathogens and the need to evaluate the full range of possible response strategies for each host-pest situation. Application of genetic engineering technologies – in the absence of adequate resources for research and deployment of resistant hosts – cannot result in restoration of the host trees.

 

Background Information

Examples of tree-killing pests include such famous examples as chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease as well as less-well-known pests as soapberry borer. This map

indicates how many of the most damaging pests are established in each county of the 49 conterminous states. Descriptions of some of these insects and pathogens are provided here.

Additional tree-killing pests not included in the sources for the data supporting the map for various reasons would add to the numbers of pests in some states. Some non-native organisms have been introduced too recently, others attack palms or trees in Hawai`i; still others are native to Mexico and parts of the United States so were not included.

 

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.