Category: conservation priorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lesser celandine invade bottomlands of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCES

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

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

SOD – 3 strains spreading in the West …

locations of P. ramorum in forests of Oregon in 2023

In a recent blog I offered several critiques of APHIS’ new Phytophthora ramorum risk assessment regarding possible establishment of the causal agent of sudden oak death, in the eastern U.S. states. One of my objections was the brevity of its discussion of the likelihood of sexual combination of the recently introduced EU1 strain with the strain established in North America, NA1 and – more recently – NA2.

This blog provides updates on the status of the Phytophthora ramorum invasion in California and Oregon. My information comes primarily from the newsletter posted by the California Oak Mortality Task Force (COMTF),  supplemented by presentations at the recent on-line meeting.  

Research by several scientists, including Tyler Bourret, now with USDA Agricultural Research Service, [summarized in the November 2023 COMTF annual meeting] reported that 216 species are now recognized in the genus Phytophthora.

Establishment of Additional Strains of the Pathogen

Scientists now recognize 12 strains of P. ramorum (Sondreli et al., summarized in COMTF newsletter for August 2023). Three of these strains are established in western North American forests. All three – NA1, NA2, & EU1 – are established in southern Curry County, Oregon. Two of the three – EU1 & NA1– are established in neighboring Del Norte County, California. The genetic lineage of the EU1 population in Del Norte points to a link to the Oregon outbreak.  [Robinson/Valachovic presentation to COMTF annual meeting November 2023] Given the poor record of efforts to prevent additional introductions of P. ramorum to the United States (the APHIS risk assessment notes that the pathogen has been introduced eight to14 times – or more! — in California), continued introductions of strains not yet established in the U.S. appear likely. Once a strain is established in a North American nursery, it is very likely to spread to nurseries – and possibly forests – in other parts of the country. Remember, the risk assessment reported that P. ramorum has probably been moved over a thousand times on nursery stock from West Coast nurseries across the U.S.

P. ramorum-infected Rhododendron; photo by Jennifer Parke, Oregon State University

Why this matters

Phytophthora ramorum can reproduce sexually only when gametes of the two different mating types (A1 & A2) combine. Most of the North American populations are A2 mating type and most European populations are A1. Establishment of the European EU1 in Oregon and California increases the likelihood that sexual reproduction will occur, which in turn increases the probability that the pathogen will evolve. Sexual combination between NA2 (mating type A2) & EU1 (mating type A1) has occurred at least once – in a nursery in British Columbia. Authorities believe this hybrid has been eradicated. However, the possibility of such matings remains.

The most widespread strain in North America is NA1. It was first detected in the forests north of San Francisco in the middle 1990s; and in Oregon in 2001. Infestations of NA1 are now found from central Curry County, Oregon to Monterey County, California.

The EU1 lineage was first detected in Oregon in 2015. How did it get there since it was previously known only in Europe? The outbreak in Del Norte County, California – detected in 2020 – apparently is associated with the Oregon infection. [Robinson/Valachovic presentation to COMTF annual meeting November 2023] Both states attempted eradication, but the strain is well established. By 2023, the Oregon infestation was detected spreading at sites where intensive surveys in previous years detected no symptomatic trees. In California, new centers of infection have been detected along additional tributary creeks in the area. Scientists expect these infections to spread downhill. Control efforts and even surveys have been hampered by a large fire in the area, which diverted needed personnel and funding. [COMTF newsletter for October 2023 & Robinson/Valachovic]

The NA2 lineage has been found in some nurseries in the Pacific Northwest since 2005. The first detection in forests occurred near Port Orford, Oregon in 2021. Port Orford is 30 miles north of Gold Beach – the hitherto northern extent of the SOD infestation. Oregon authorities believed this signaled a new introduction to the state. By 2023, three sites in the state are now infested with this strain. [Ritokova presentation to COMTF annual meeting November 2023] Oregon now focuses its control efforts on NA2 outbreaks near Port Orford.

In California’s Del Norte County, there are now infestations of two strains of opposite mating types ~ 6 miles apart.The forests between them are conducive to infection, so interactions are likely. Robinson & Valahovic [COMTF annual meeting November 2023] ask how land managers should deal with any interactions. I ask – given the likelihood of hybrids forming – shouldn’t the APHIS risk assessment have tried harder to analyze this risk to the East?

Meanwhile, the NA1 strain continues to spread

In Oregon, the NA1 strain has spread 18 miles to the north and eight miles to the east since 2001 [Ritakova COMTF newsletter October 2023]. In California, spread after the wet winter of 2022-2023 has so far been less than expected. The SOD Blitz [Garbelotto at COMTF annual meeting November 2023] found that the statewide rate of positive trees rose from 7.1% in 2022 to 8.8% in 2023. In the Big Sur region some canyons now test negative that once were positive. Scientists think the negative tests reflect the multi-year drought. Scientists expect the spread will be more visible next year – especially if there is a second wet winter.

As noted above, the exception is in Del Norte County – an area described by CAL FIRE forester Chris Lee as a very wet “pathology” site. SOD (NA1 strain) was first detected in the area north of Crescent City in 2019 [Robinson and Valachovic]. This outbreak could not be re-confirmed for three years, despite intensive surveys. But, in 2022, scientists detected a new concentration of dying tanoak. The infected area is near both rare plants associated with serpentine soils and Jedediah Smith State Park, a unit of Redwood National Park. [Robinson] Meanwhile, the infestation of EU1 strain was first detected in 2020; it has expanded in 2022 and 2023.

In addition to spread facilitated by weather, we also see a continuing role in pathogen transfer via movement of shrubs intended for planting. In fall 2022 Oregon authorities were alerted by a homeowner to an outbreak in Lincoln City, Oregon. This was alarming for four reasons:

  • it was 201 miles north of the generally infested area in southern in Curry County.
  • it was well established and had apparently been present for many years.
  • P. ramorum was not detected in any associated waterways, raising questions about the efficacy of this standard detection method for use in community detections.
  • one of the infected plants was a new host: western sword fern (Polystichum munitum).

Fortunately, the infection has not (yet) been detected in nearby natural forests. Perhaps this is because there are no tanoaks this far north.

Detection Difficulties

Forest pathologists report several examples of outbreaks involving dozens of trees or plants suddenly being detected in areas which had been surveyed intensively in preceding years with no detections. See Robinson/Valachovic presentation [COMTF annual meeting November 2023, re: both EU1 & NA1 strains in Del Norte County]. I noted above that streams near the Lincoln City, Oregon neighborhood outbreak did not test positive. Nor did water associated with a positive nursery in Oregon[description of Oregon Department of Agriculture nursery regulatory program in COMTF newsletter for August 2023]. Stream baiting is an important component of detection surveys, so I worry about the possible implications of these negative results.

Identification of Additional Hosts  [all from COMTF newsletter for August 2023.]

  • silverleaf cotoneaster Cotoneaster pannosus (an invasive non-native plant species) 
  • “Mountain Moon” dogwood Cornus capitata [host previously identified in the United Kingdom]
  • western swordfern (Polystichum munitum) (discussed above)
Oregon P. ramorum eradication attempt; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry

Management

Oregon has tried to manage SOD in the forest since its first detection, but the pathogen’s spread and the recent appearance of two additional strains have overwhelmed the program. One hope was to find a less expensive eradication or containment method. For 20 years, attempts to suppress the disease has focused on eradicating local populations of tanoaks (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) because they are the principal host supporting sporulation in Oregon. When an outbreak has been detected and delimited, they first kill the tanoaks with herbicides to prevent resprouting from the roots. The trees are then felled, piled, and burned. This treatment costs $3,000 – $5,000 / acre. Scientists tested whether they could greatly reduce the cost of the suppression programs by leaving tree boles standing after they have been killed by herbicide. Unfortunately, leaving dead, herbicide-killed trees standing increased sporulation, so this approach would probably exacerbate pathogen spread. [See Jared LeBoldus presentation to COMTF annual meeting November 2023]

Worrying Developments in Europe

In Ireland, sudden larch death – caused by the EU1 strain on Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi) – has spread to several counties. This strain is also causing disease on European beech (Fagus sylvatica) & Noble fir(Abies procera) in locations where these tree grow in association with nearby heavily infected Japanese larch. The EU2 lineage was found in late 2021, infecting L. kaempferi at one site.

Several other Phytophthora species are causing disease on trees, including P. lateralis on Lawson’s cypress, Port-Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana); P. pseudosyringae on Japanese larch; and P. austrocedri on trees in the Juniperus and Cupressus genera.

[information about Ireland from R. O’Hanlon, summarized in COMTF newsletter for August 2023]

Regulation

The European Union has relaxed phytosanitary regulation of Phytophthora ramorum. Previously the species – all strains – was considered a quarantine pest. Now its regulatory status depends on the origin of the infected material. “Non-EU isolates” of Phytopththora ramorum are still quarantine pests (presumably the two North American strains [NA1 & NA2] and the eight other strains identified in Asian forests). These pests are treated as the most serious pests in the Union; when they are detected, extensive control actions must be taken. “EU isolates” (presumably EU1 & EU2) are now treated as regulated non-quarantine pests. The focus is to limit the spread of these on plants for planting only.

The European Union and USDA APHIS regulatory emphases differ to some extent (APHIS does not regulate P. ramorum in natural settings, only interstate movement via, inter alia, the nursery trade). However, I am worried that both seem intent on minimizing their regulatory programs.

Arbutus canariensis; photo by Moreno José Antonio via Plantnet

Another region at risk

Macaronesia is a group of several North Atlantic islands,e.g., Madeira and the Azores, Canary, and Cape Verde islands. The islands have climates similar to areas affected by P. ramorum. The Macaronesian laurel forest is a remnant subtropical evergreen forest which shares some plant taxa with those that host the pathogen elsewhere. Moralejo et al. found that, overall, plant species showed considerable tolerance of the pathogen. However, P. ramorum was “rather aggressive” on Viburnum tinus, Arbutus canariensis and Ilex canariensis. Furthermore, mean sporangia production on five Macaronesian laurel forest species was similar to levels on Umbellularia californica, a key host driving the SOD epidemics in California.Moralejo et al. concluded that there is a moderate to high risk of establishment if Phytophthora ramorum were introduced in the Macaronesian laurel forest. [Study summarized in October 2023 COMTF newsletter.]

Important Research

The COMTF August newsletter reports exciting work developing improved detection tools for Phytophthora species, especially P. ramorum. Sondreli, Tabima, & LeBoldus have developed a method to quickly distinguish among the four most common clonal lineages (NA1, NA2, EU1 and EU2). These assays are sensitive to weak concentrations and effective in testing a variety of sample types including plant tissue and cultures. Oregon State University is already using in its diagnostic laboratory.

YuFang, Xia, Dai, Liu, Shamoun, and Wu have developed a simple, rapid, sensitive detection system for the molecular identification of P. ramorum that does not require technical expertise or expensive ancillary equipment. It can be used in laboratory or using samples collected from the field.

Quiroga et al. found that thinning – with or without burning of the slash – significantly reduced stand density and increased average tree size without significantly decreasing total basal area. This effect persisted for five years after treatments – especially when supported by follow-up basal sprout removal. Preventative treatments also significantly increased dominance of tree species not susceptible to Phytophthora ramorum.

In a study summarized in the October 2023 COMTF newsletter, Bourret et al. reported results of nearly 20 years of leaf baiting in watersheds covering an 800-mile section of the Pacific Coast in northern and central California. They found 22 Phytophthora & Nothophytophthora species. Several – including P. ramorum — were abundant and widespread. Some isolates in northern California differ from those found elsewhere. Mitochondrial sequences revealed multiple hybridization events between P. lacustris and P. riparia.

Bourret et al. also found that P. pluvialis is probably native to Western North America. The strain invasive on conifers in New Zealand probably originated in California rather than Oregon or Washington.

Jared LeBoldus and colleagues are studying the ecological impact of tanoak mortality in Oregon forests. [Summarized in November 2023 COMTF newsletter.] They expect impacts at various trophic levels and functions. Preliminary findings regarding the plant community show increases in understory and herbacious species diversity; a shift away from tanoak to Douglas-fir; and increased coarse woody debris. These findings are similar to results from studies in central California by Dave Rizzo and colleagues at UC Davis. LeBoldus is now studying the microbiome of plant leaves; soil mycorrhizal diversity; invertebrates and pollinators (loss of the large annual flower crop of tanoaks presumably affects pollinators). They hope in the future to study small mammal communities (which they expect to be affected by the loss of acorns).

Jared LeBoldus and colleagues also reported early results of genomic studies exploring disease resistance in tanoaks. Various scientists started such studies in the past, but so far all efforts have petered out due to absence of sustained funding, support from agency management, and links to facilities with the necessary tree improvement/breeding resources. (See Richard Sneizko’s description of requirements for resistance breeding, here.) I hope this project proves more sustainable.

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

USFS Forest Health Protection program: what it funds

affects of mountan pine beetle on lodgepole pine in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado photo from Wikimedia; one of pests addressed by USFS FHP

Several USFS scientists have published an assessment of the agency’s program to enhance forest health across the country: the Forest Health (FHP) program. [see Coleman et al., full citation at end of this blog.] The program assists cooperators (including other federal agencies) to prevent, suppress, and eradicate insect and pathogen outbreaks affecting trees, regardless of land ownership.

Each year, I advocate for adequate funding for the FHP program — which comes from annual Congressional appropriations. Funding has remained static at about $100 million per year. I interpret the article as providing support for my call for increased appropriations. First, it reports that the number of projects and extent of area treated have declined from 2011 to 2020. This is because static funding levels are stretched increasingly thin as costs to implement the same activities rise. Second, the program does not address many damaging forest pests already in the country. The result is growth of established threats to forest health. Finally, new insects and pathogens continue to be introduced. Protecting forest health necessitates tackling these new pests – and that requires money and staff.   

Coleman et al. analyzed data from the decade 2011- 2020 to determine the most frequently used project types, integrated pest management (IPM) strategies and tactics, dominant forest pests and associated hosts managed, and most comprehensive forest IPM programs in practice. While there is a wide range of possible projects, most of those funded consist of some form of treatment (more below). The databases relied on do not include funding through the National Forest System aimed at improving forest health through such  management activities as stand thinning treatments and prescribed fire. Nor are all pest management activities recorded in the centralized databases. I regret especially the fact that “genetic control” (= resistance breeding) are left out.

Port-Orford cedar seedlings in trial for resistance to Phytophthora lateralis at Dorena center; photo courtesy of Richard Sniezko, USFS

Summary of Findings

The data are sorted in various categories, depending on whether one wishes to focus on the type of organism being managed or the management approach. All presentations make evident a dramatic imbalance in the projects funded. Again and again, spongy moth (Lymantria dispar dispar), southern pine beetle (SPB, Dendroctonus frontalis), and several bark beetles attacking conifers in the West (in particular mountain pine beetle, [MPB] Dendroctonus ponderosae) dominate, as measured by both funding and area treated.

oak trees in Shenandoah National Park killed by spongy moth; photo by F.T. Campbell
  • The bulk of the funding went to the above species, plus hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA; Adelges tsugae); emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis), oak wilt (caused by Bretziella fagacearum), and white pine blister rust (WPBR, Cronartium ribicola).
  • 95% of the projects focused on only four taxa: oaks, Quercus spp. [spongy moth suppression and eradication]; loblolly and ponderosa pines [bark beetle prevention and suppression]; and eastern hemlock [HWA suppression].
  • Projects seeking to suppress an existing pest outbreak covered 87% of the total treatment area. However, 98% of the treated area was linked to only 20 taxa; again, spongy moth dominated.
  • Projects seeking to prevent introduction or spread of a pest constituted only 30% of all projects and covered only 11% of the total treatment area.
  • Eradication and restoration projects each equaled less than 5% of total projects and treatment areas.
  • Native forest pests were targetted by 79% of projects; non-native pests by 21%. However, non-native pests accounted for 84% of the total treatment area (again, the spongy moth).
  • While 67% of projects took place on USFS lands (focused on MPB and SPB), 89% of the total treatment area was on lands managed by others (state or other federal agencies, or private landowners). Again, the size of the non-USFS  area treated was driven primarily by the spongy moth Slow the Spread program.
  • Insect pests received nearly all of the funding: 70% of funding targetted phloem-feeding insects, especially SPB and MPB; 10% targetted foliage feeders, especially spongy moth; 6% targetted sap feeders. 4% tackled rusts (e.g., WPBR); just 2% addressed wood borers (e.g., Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer).
  • The ranking by size of area treated differs. In this case, 82% of areas treated face damage by foliage feeders (e.g., spongy moth); 15% of the treated areas are threatened by phloem feeders (e.g., MPB); only 1.4% of the area is damaged by sap feeders (e.g., HWA); 0.6% is threatened by rust; and 0.2% by wood borers.
  • Re: control strategies, 32% of projects relied on silvicultural strategies; 22% used semiochemical strategies; 21% exploited other chemical controls; and 18% used physical/mechanical control methods.

Coleman et al. regretted that few programs incorporated microbial/biopesticide control strategies; these were applied on only 10% of total treated area. Again, the vast majority of such projects were aerial applications of spongy moth controls, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) and nucleopolyhedrosis viruses (NPV) (Gypchek). Coleman et al. called for more research to support this approach efforts to overcome other obstacles (see below).

Coleman et al. also called for better record-keeping to enable analysis of genetic control/ resistance breeding projects, treatment efficacy, and survey and technical assistance activities.

History

The article provides a brief summary of the history of the Forest Service’ pest management efforts. Before the 1960s, the USFS relied on labor-intensive physical control tactics, classical biocontrol, and widespread chemical applications. Examples include application of pesticides to suppress or eradicate spongy moth; decades of Ribes removal to curtail spread of white pine blister rust; salvage logging and chemical controls to counter phloem feeders / bark beetles in the South and West. These strategies were increasingly replaced by pest-specific management tactics during the 1970s.

Over the decade studied (2011-2020), tree defoliation attributed to various pests (including pathogens) affected an estimated 0.7% of the 333 million ha of U.S. forest land annually. Mortality attributed to pests impacted an estimated 0.8% of that forest annually. See Table 1. Two-thirds of the area affected by tree mortality is attributed to phloem feeders; a distant second agent is wood borers. These data are incomplete because many insects, diseases, and parasitic higher plants are not tracked by aerial surveys.

As I noted above, these data do not include projects that screen tree species to identify and evaluate genetic resistance to a pest; or efforts to collect cones, seed, and scion. I consider these gene conservation and resistance programs to be some of the most important pest-response efforts. I have blogged about the USFS’ Dorena Genetic Resource Center’ efforts to breed five-needle pines, Port-Orford cedar, and ash. link

41% of silvicultural control treatments targetted phloem feeders; 48% addressed cankers and rusts together. Restoration planting was done in response to invasions by ALB, EAB, and WPBR, as well as native bark beetles and mistletoes.

effort to eradicate SOD in southern Oregon; partially funded by USFS FHP. Photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Forestry

Physical/mechanical control projects were most widely applied in the Rocky Mountains in response particularly to diseases: vascular wilts, rusts, and cankers, including WPBR. This type of project was also used to deal with non-native diseases in other parts of the country, e.g., oak wilt, sudden oak death (SOD), Port-Orford cedar root rot, and rapid ʻōhiʻa death. Sanitation treatments (i.e., removal of infected/infested trees) was used for native mistletoes and root rots, and some non-native insects, e.g., EAB and coconut rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros). Pruning is a control strategy for WPBR. Trenching is applied solely to suppress oak wilt.

Chemical controls were limited to small areas. These projects targetted seed/cone/flower fruit feeders, foliage and shoot diseases, sap feeders [e.g., balsam woolly adelgid (BWA), HWA], wood borers (e.g., EAB) and phloem feeders (e.g., Dutch elm disease; DMF oak wilt vectors). Cover sprays have been used against goldspotted oak borer (GSOB); and many native insects. Fungicides are rarely used; some is applied against the oak wilt pathogen in areas inaccessible by heavy equipment.

treating hemlock trees in Conestee Falls, NC; photo courtesy of North Carolina Hemlock Restoration Initiative

Classical biocontrol projects funded by the program targetted almost exclusively HWA. Some 4.3 million predators have been released since the early 1990s; 820,057 in just the past 10 years.

Gene conservation and breeding projects were directed primary at commercially important hosts, e.g., loblolly Pinus taeda and slash pine P. elliottii; and several non-native pests, including chestnut blight, EAB, HWA, and WPBR.

Survey and technical assistance (i.e., indirectly funded activities) conducted by federal, state, and tribal personnel contributed to education/outreach, evaluating effectiveness, identification, monitoring, and record keeping strategies.

As should be evident from the data presented here, suppression treatments dominated by number of projects and treatment area. The poster child project is the national spongy moth Slow the Spread program. The authors say this program is the most advanced forest IPM program in the world. It has successfully slowed spongy moth’s rate of spread by more than 80% for more than 20 years.

A second widely-used subset of suppression programs consists of physical / mechanical control. This is often the principal suppression strategy in high-visitation sites (e.g., administration sites, campgrounds, picnic areas, and recreation areas). Sanitation harvests are one of the few viable management techniques for suppressing or slowing the spread of recently introduced non-native pests. Nevertheless, the largest number of suppression projects and use of sanitation treatments focused on a native pest, mountain pine beetle, at the height of its outbreak in early 2010s.

Silvicultural control, specifically tree thinning, represents the predominant forest pest prevention tactic, especially on lands managed by the USFS. Two programs dominate: the Southern Pine Beetle Prevention Program and the Western Bark Beetle Initiative. Again, Coleman et al. assess these treatments as very successful. Forest thinning treatments also address other management concerns, i.e., reduce threat of catastrophic wildfires and reduce adverse effects of climate change.

Chemical control tactics are applied to suppress most forest insect feeding guilds in high-value sites and seed orchards. Soil or tree injections of systemic pesticides are used to protect ash and hemlock trees. Topical sprays have been applied to protect whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) from mountain pine beetle. Whitebark pine was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in December 2022.

dead whitebark pine at Crater Lake NP; photo by F.T. Campbell

Soil or tree injections target two non-native insects, EAB and HWA.

Genetic control via resistance breeding represents the primary strategy to combat several non-native diseases. (More options are typically available for insects than diseases.) Coleman et al. focus on the extensive effort to protect many of the five-needle pines from WPBR. As I have described in earlier blogs, the Dorena Genetic Resource Center in Oregon has engaged on numerous other species, too.

Coleman et al. describe pest-management associated monitoring efforts as consisting largely of coordinated annual aerial detection surveys, detection trapping, stream-baiting of Phytophthora ramorum, and ground surveys to address site-specific issues.

Coleman et al. call for improvement of record-keeping / databases to encompass all pests, management actions, and ownerships. They also advocate for additional decision-making tools, development of microbial/biopesticides, genetic research and breeding, and biocontrol strategies for several pest groups.

They consider the southern pine beetle and spongy moth programs to be models of comprehensive IPM programs that could be adapted to additional forest health threats. They note, however, that development and implementation of these programs require significant time, financial commitments, and collaborations from various supporting agencies. Not all programs enjoy such resources.

SOURCE

Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J. Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011–2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United States

Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1–17

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

International Phytosanitary System: More Evidence of Failure

Rome: home of the International Plant Protection Convention

I often assert that the international phytosanitary system has proven to be a failure in preventing introductions.

Some of the recent publications support my conclusion – although most don’t say so explicitly. For example, the Fenn-Moltu et al. (2023) study of insect transport and establishment around the world found that the number of invasive species-related treaties, regulations and legislation a country has adopted had no significant effect on either the number of insect species detected at that country’s border or the number of insect species that established in that country’s ecosystems..

Weber et al. also found considerable evidence that international and U.S. phytosanitary systems are not curtailing introduction of insects and entomophagic pathogens. In my earlier blog I review their study of unintentional “self-introductions” of natural enemies of arthropod pests and invasive plants. They conclude that these “self-introductions” might exceed the number of species introduced intentionally. These introductions have been facilitated by the usual factors: the general surge in international trade; lack of surveillance for species that are not associated with live plants or animals; inability to detect or intercept microorganisms; huge invasive host populations that allow rapid establishment of their accidentally introduced natural enemies; and lack of aggressive screening for pests already established. Examples cited include species introduced to the United States’ mainland and Hawai`i specifically.

The U.S. Capitol – one of the entities that can reflect our priorities in setting phytosanitary policy

As I point out often, altering human activities that facilitate invasion is a political process. So is amending international agreements that are not effective. We need to determine the cause of the failures of the existing institutions and act to rectify them. See my critiques of both the American and international phytosanitary system Fading Forests II and Fading Forests III (see links at the end of this blog) and my earlier blogs, especially this and this.

SOURCES

Fenn-Moltu, G., S. Ollier, O.K. Bates, A.M. Liebhold, H.F. Nahrung, D.S. Pureswaran, T. Yamanaka, C. Bertelsmeier. 2023. Global flows of insect transport and establishment: The role of biogeography, trade and regulations. Diversity and Distributions DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13772

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Predicting Impacts – Can We Do It?

Clive Braser and others study Phytophthora species in their native habitats of Vietnam; which will become aggressive invaders in North America?

For years, one focus of this blog has been on scientists’ efforts to improve prevention of new introductions of forest pests. In earlier blogs, I summarized and commented on efforts by Mech et al. (2019) and Schultz et al. (2021), who extrapolate from insect-host relationships of pests already established in North America. [Full citations are presented at the end of this blog.] Both limited their analysis to insects; Mech et al. focused on those that attack conifers, Schultz et al. on those that attack single genera of angiosperms (hardwoods).

However, many of the most damaging agents are pathogens; for an indication, review the list under “invasive species” here. Indeed, Beckman et al. (2021) reported that only three non-native organisms pose serious threats to one or more of the 37 species of Pinus native to the U.S. All are pathogens: white pine blister rust (WPBR), pitch canker, and Phytophthora root rot (Phytophthora cinnamomi).

For this reason I welcome a study by Li et al. (2023), who used laboratory tests to evaluate the threat posed by more than 100 fungi associated with bark beetles. Since there are more than 6,000 species of bark and ambrosia beetles and they are commonly intercepted at the U.S. border, determining which should be priorities is important. Li et al. point out that the vast majority of such introductions have had minimal impacts. Two, however, have caused disastrous levels of damage: Dutch elm disease and laurel wilt disease.

Li et al. tested 111 fungi associated with 55 scolytine beetles from areas of Eurasia with latitudes and ecosystems analagous to those in the southeastern U.S. The beetles assessed included beetle species responsible for recent major tree mortality events in Eurasia: Dendroctonus species, Platypus koryoensis (Korean oak wilt), Platypus quercivorus (Japanese oak wilt) and Tomicus species.

The authors tested the fungi’s virulence on four species of trees native to the Southeast – two pines (Pinus taeda and P. elliottii var. elliottii), and two oaks(Quercus shumardii and Q. virginiana).

Li et al. found that none of 111 fungal associates caused a level of damage on these four hosts equal to Dutch elm disease on elms or laurel wilt disease on trees in the Lauraceae. Twenty-two of the fungi were minor pathogens – meaning they might cause damage under certain conditions or when loads of inoculum are large enough.

redbay trees killed in coastal Georgia by laurel wilt; photo by Scott Cameron

I think Li et al. set an extremely high bar for “serious” damage. Surely we wish to prevent introduction of pathogens that cause damage at a lower level than the catastrophes to which these two diseases have exposed a genus (elms) and a family (Lauraceae)! Still, the scientific approach used here is a step toward addressing pathogens. These agents of tree mortality are addressed much less frequently than insects. I hope that scientists will continue to test the virulence of these fungi on some of the thousands of other species that make up the forests of the United States, or at least the dominant species in each ecosystem.

It is discouraging that Raffa et al. (2023) found none of four approaches to predicting a new pest’s impact to be adequate by itself. Instead, they outlined the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach and the circumstances in which they might offer useful information. I am particularly glad that they have included pathogens, not just insects. The four approaches they review are:

(1) pest status of the organism in its native or previously invaded regions;

(2) statistical patterns of traits and gene sequences associated with high-impact pests;

(3) sentinel plantings to expose trees to novel pests; and

(4) laboratory tests of detached plant parts or seedlings under controlled conditions.

They emphasize that too little information exists regarding pathogens to predict which microbes will become damaging pathogens when introduced to naïve hosts in new ecosystems. See the article, especially Figure 4, for their assessment of the strengths each of the several approaches.

Raffa et al. raise important questions about both the science and equity issues surrounding invasive species. As regards scientific issues, they ask, first, whether it will ever be possible to predict how each unique biotic system will respond to introduction of a new species. Second, they ask how assessors should interpret negative data? In the context of equity and political power, they ask who should make decisions about whether to act?

In my blog I expressed concern about finding that most introduced forest insects are first detected in urban areas whereas introduced pathogens are more commonly detected in forests. I hope scientists will redouble efforts to improve methods for earlier detection of pathogens. Enrico Bonello at Ohio State and others report that spectral-based tools can detect pathogen-infected plants, including trees.

Japanese cherry trees burned on the Washington D.C. mall because infested by scale; on order of Charles Marlatt

Identifying Key Pathways  

International trade is considered the single most important pathway for unintentional introductions of insects. Updated figures remind us about the stupendous amounts of goods being moved internationally. According to Weber et al., international shipping moves ~133 million TEU containers per year between countries, the majority between continents. Four times this number move within regions via coastal shipping. On top of that, four billion passenger trips take place by air every year. Air freight carries another ~220 million tons of goods; while this is a tiny fraction of the weight shipped by boat, the  packages are delivered in less than a day – greatly increasing the likelihood that any unwanted living organisms will survive the trip. The U.S. also imports large numbers of live plants – although getting accurate numbers is a challenge. MacLachlan et al. (2022) report 5 billion plants imported in 2021, but the USDA APHIS annual report for FY22 puts the number at less than half that figure:  2.2 billion plant units.

Given the high volume of incoming goods, Weber et al. advocate improved surveillance (including analysis of corresponding interceptions) of those pathways that are particularly likely to result in non-native species’ invasions, e.g. live plants, raw lumber(including wood packaging), and bulk commodities e.g. quarried rock. Isitt et al. and Fenn-Moltu et al. concur that investigators should focus on the trade volumes of goods that are likely to transport plant pests – in their cases, plant imports.

The importance of the plant trade as a pathway of introduction for has been understood for at least a century – as witnessed by the introductions of chestnut blight DMF and white pine blister rust, DMF and articles by Charles Marlatt. A decade ago, Liebhold et al. (2012) calculated that the approach rate of pests on imported plants was 12% — more than 100 times higher than the 0.1% approach rate found by Haack et al. (2014) for wood packaging.

Since plant-insect interactions are the foundation of food webs, changes to a region’s flora will have repercussions throughout ecosystems, including insect fauna. See findings by teams led by Doug Tallamy and Sara Lalk; and a chapter in the new forest entomology text written by Bohlmann, and Krokene (citation at end of blog under Allison, Paine, Slippers, and Wingfield). Sandy Liebhold and Aymeric Bonnamour also addressed explicitly links between introductions of non-native plant and insect species. Weber et al. call this phenomenon the “receptive bridgehead effect”: a non-native plant growing prolifically in a new ecosystem provides a suitable host for an organism that feeds on that host, raising the chance for its establishment.

Recent studies confirm the importance of the “receptive bridgehead effect”. Isitt and colleagues found that the large numbers of introduced European insect species – all taxa, not just phytophagous insects – established in North America and Australia/New Zealand were best explained by the numbers of European plants introduced to these regions – in other words, the most important driver appears to be the diversity of non-native plants.  

The presence of European plants in North America and Australia/New Zealand promoted establishment of European insects in two ways. First, these high-volume imports increased the propagule pressure of insects associated with this trade. Live plant imports might have facilitated the establishment of ~70% of damaging non-native forest insects in North America. Second, naturalization of introduced European plants provided a landscape replete with suitable hosts. This is especially obvious in Australia/New Zealand, which have unique floras. In Australia, nearly 90% of non-native pest insects are associated with non-native plants. Those non-native insects that do feed on native plants are more likely to be polyphagous.

Amur honeysuckle – one of the hundreds of Asian plants invading North American ecosystems; via Flickr

I hope U.S. phytosanitary officials apply these lessons. Temperate Asia is the source of more non-native plants established in both North America and Australia/New Zealand than is Europe. Already, many insects from Asia have invaded the U.S. The logicof the “receptive bridgehead effect” points to prioritizing efforts to prevent even more Asian insects from reaching our shores!

Fenn-Moltu et al. sought to elucidate which mechanisms facilitate species’ success during the transport and introduction/establishment stages of bioinvasion. They studied the transport stage by analyzing border interceptions of insects from 227 countries by Canada, mainland U.S., Hawai`i, Japan, New Zealand, Great Britain, and South Africa over the 60 year period 1960 – 2019. They studied establishment by analyzing attributes of 2,076 insect species recorded as established after 1960 in the above areas plus Australia (North America was treated as a single unit comprised of the continental U.S. and Canada).

The number of species transported increased with higher Gross National Income in the source country. The number of species transported decreased with geographic distance. They suggest that fewer insects survive longer journeys, but say additional information is needed to verify this as the cause. The number of species transported was not affected by species richness in the native region.

More species established when introduced to a country in the same biogeographic region. They were not surprised that environmental similarity between source and destination apparently strongly affected establishment success. The number of species established was not affected by species richness in the native region. For example, the greatest number of established species originated from the Western and Eastern Palearctic regions, which together comprise only the fifth-largest pool of native insect species.

Gaps Despite Above Studies

As I noted at the beginning, most of the studies examining current levels of pests transported on imported plants have been limited to insects. This is unfortunate given the impact of introduced pathogens (again, review the list damaging organisms under “invasive species” here).

In addition, most studies analyzing the pest risk associated with plant imports use port inspection data – which are not reliable indicators of the pest approach rate. The unsuitability of port inspection data was explained by Liebhold et al. in 2012 and Fenn-Moltu et al. a decade later – as well as Haack et al. 2014 (as the data pertain to wood packaging). Fenn-Moltu et al. note that inspection agencies often (and rightly!) target high-risk sources/commodities, so the records are biased. Other problems might arise from differences in import volume, production practices, and differences in records that identify organism only to genus level rather than species. Fenn-Moltu et al. call for relying on randomized, statistically sound inspection systems; one such example is USDA’s Agriculture Quarantine Inspection System (AQIM). Under AQIM, incoming shipments are randomly selected and put through more thorough inspections to produce statistically based estimates of approach rates, defined as the percent of inspected shipments found to be infested with potential pests (Liebhold et al. 2012). I ask why scientists who are aware of this issue have not obtained AQIM data for pests associated with plant imports. Plant imports have been included in the AQIM system since 2008. Have they not been able to persuade APHIS to provide these data? Or are these data available for only limited types of imported plants? Too narrow a focus would create a different source of potential bias.

Both Isitt et al. and Fenn-Moltu et al. list factors not addressed and other caveats of which we should be aware when extrapolating from their findings.

SOURCES

Allison, J. T.D. Paine, B. Slippers, and M.J. Wingfield, Editors. 2023. Forest Entomology and Pathology Volume 1: Entomology. Springer          available gratis at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-11553-0

Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Pivorunas, D., Hoban, S., & Westwood, M. (2021). Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Pines. Lisle, IL: The Morton Arboretum.

Fenn-Moltu, G., S. Ollier, O.K. Bates, A.M. Liebhold, H.F. Nahrung, D.S. Pureswaran, T. Yamanaka, C. Bertelsmeier. 2023. Global flows of insect transport and establishment: The role of biogeography, trade and regulations. Diversity and Distributions DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13772

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

Isitt, R., A.M. Liebhold, R.M. Turner, A. Battisti, C. Bertelsmeier, R. Blake, E.G. Brockerhoff, S.B. Heard, P. Krokene, B. Økland, H. Nahrung, D. Rassati, A. Roques, T. Yamanaka, D.S. Pureswaran.  2023. Drivers of asymmetrical insect invasions between three world regions. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/q0.1101/2023.01.13.523858

Li, Y., C. Bateman, J. Skelton, B. Wang, A. Black, Y-T Huang, A. Gonzalez, M.A. Jusino, Z.J. Nolen, S. Freemen, Z. Mendel, C-Y Chen, H-F Li, M. Kolarik, M. Knizek, J-H. Park, W. Sittichaya, T-H Pham, S. Ito, M. Torii, L. Gao, A.J. Johnson, M. Lu, J. Sun, Z. Zhang, D.C. Adams, J. Hulcr.  2022. Pre-invasion assessment of exotic bark beetle-vectored fungi to detect tree-killing pathogens. Phytopathology Vol 112 No. 2 February 2022

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

Liebhold, A.M., T. Yamanaka, A. Roques, S. August, S.L. Chown, E.G. Brockerhoff and P. Pyšek. 2018. Plant diversity drives global patterns of insect invasions. Sci Rep 8, 12095 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30605-4

MacLachlan, M.J., A. M. Liebhold, T. Yamanaka, M. R. Springborn. 2022. Hidden patterns of insect establishment risk revealed from two centuries of alien species discoveries. Sci. Adv. 7, eabj1012 (2021).

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, and P.C. Tobin. 2019. Evolutionary history predicts high-impact invasions by herbivorous insects. Ecol Evol. 2019 Nov; 9(21): 12216–12230.

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.,  A.M. Mech, M.P. Ayres, K. J. K. Gandhi, N.P. Havill, D.A. Herms, A.M. Hoover, R.A. Hufbauer, A.M. Liebhold, T.D. Marsico, K.F. Raffa, P.C. Tobin, D.R. Uden, K.A. Thomas. 2021. Predicting non-native insect impact: focusing on the trees to see the forest. Biological Invasions.

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

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Hot off the presses: How beech leaf disease kills trees

beech leaf disease symptoms; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS

As we know, beech leaf disease (BLD) has spread rapidly in the decade since its discovery in northeast Ohio. It has been detected as far east as the Maine coast, as far south as northern Virginia, as far north as southern Ontario, and as far west as eastern Michigan and northern Indiana. It has been found in 12 states.

BLD is associated with a nematode, Litylenchus crenatae subsp. mccannii (Lcm), although whether this is the sole causal agent is not yet clear.

BLD’s North American host, American beech (Fagus grandifolia),is an important native deciduous hardwood species. It plays important roles in nutrient cycling, erosion control, and carbon storage and sequestration in forests. Wildlife species depend on the trees’ canopies and especially cavities blog for nesting sites, shelter, and nutritious nuts. American beech – with sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) – dominate the northern hardwood ecosystem of northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. These forests occupy a huge area; in just New England and New York they occupy 20 million acres (Leak, Yamasaki and Holleran. 2014; full citation at end of blog).

Beech leaf disease also affects European beech, (F. sylvatica), Chinese beech (F. engleriana), and Oriental beech (F. orientalis) planted in North America. The disease has not yet been detected in Asia or Europe. Japanese beech (F. crenata) sporadically display symptomatic leaves, but the disease has not been reported there.

Scientists working to understand the disease, how it spreads, and its ecological impact confer every other month. The next time is in early December.

Paulo Vieira, of the USDA Agriculture Research Service, leads one group seeking to better understand how the disease infects its host. They published a new study (see full citation at end of blog) examining how the nematode provokes changes in the cells of the trees’ leaves. As they point out, leaves are plants’ primary organs for photosynthesis – hence providing energy for growth. The leaf is composed of a several cell types organized into different tissues with specific function related to photosynthesis, gas exchange, and/or the transportation of water and nutrients. Thus, changes in leaf morphology affect the normal functioning of the leaf and therefore the tree’s growth and survival.

Vieira et al. found that:

  • The BLD nematode enters the leaf bud as it forms in late summer. In early autumn, all nematode developmental stages were found in the buds, including eggs at various stages of embryonic development, juveniles, and adults. Adult males were found in fewer than 20% of the buds, suggesting that the nematode can reproduce asexually.
  • Feeding by the BLD nematode induces abnormal and extensive cell proliferation, resulting in a significant increase of the number of cell layers inside the leaf. These changes improve the nutrition that the leaves provide to the nematode. However, the BLD-induced distortions of the bud persist as the leaf grows. Symptomatic leaf “banding” results. These areas have a proliferation of abnormally large and irregularly shaped cells with more chloroplasts. Intercellular spaces are also larger; this is where the nematodes are found. in. (The publication has dramatic photographs.)
  • Sites damaged by nematodes are a major resource for metabolites needed for plant performance. So their damage imposes a considerable drain.
  • Colonization of roots by ectomycorrhizal fungal is also reduced in severely diseased trees.
  • Immature female nematodes are the principal winter survivors. However, many die, making it difficult to culture nematodes in the spring. The nematodes reproduce during the growing season. Buildup of nematode numbers makes culturing easier, so facilitating confirmation of the disease’s presence.
  • Nematodes can migrate along the stem to other leaves, thus spreading the infection.

Vieira et al. tell us fascinating facts about the nematode. The BLD nematode, Litylenchus crenatae subsp. mccannii (Lcm) is now considered one of the top ten most important plant-parasitic nematodes in the United States. To date, species of this genus have been found only in Japan and New Zealand. The species L. crenatae was first described from Japan. A second species — L. coprosma – was detected in 2012 in New Zealand in association with small chlorotic patches on leaves of two native plants in the Coprosma genus.

Litylenchus belongs to the family Anguinidae. Several species in the family are designated quarantine pests because they cause economically significant damage to food and ornamental corps, including grains (wheat, barley, rice) and potatoes. Anguinidae nematodes often parasitize aerial parts of the hosts (e.g., leaves, stems, inflorescences, seeds); less frequently they infest roots. They can migrate along the host tissue surfaces in water films. Their host ranges vary from broad to narrow. Other Anguinidae nematodes apparently share the ability to manipulate the host’s cellular machinery, which often results in the induction of cell hyperplasia [the enlargement of an organ or tissue caused by an increase in the reproduction rate of its cells], and hypertrophy [increase and growth of cells] of the tissues on which they feed.

healthy beech leaves; F.T. Campbell

Vieira et al. assert that the rapid spread of Litylenchus crenatae subsp. mccannii – combined with the apparent lack of resistance in native beech trees – suggests that this nematode was recently introduced to North America. Furthermore, the ability of this subspecies to change the host’s cell cycle machinery supports the link between the presence of the nematode and the disease.

The mechanisms by which nematodes change host-plant cells are unknown.  I hope that scientists will pursue these questions. Perhaps the nematode family’s threat to grains and other food crops will prompt funding for such work. Unfortunately, I don’t think the threat to an ecologically-important native tree species will have the same power.

SOURCES

Leak, W.B, M. Yamasaki and R. Holleran. 2014 Silvicultural Guide for Northern Hardwoods in the Northeast. United States Department of Ariculture Forest Service Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-132. April 2014.

Vieira P, M.R. Kantor MR, A. Jansen, Z.A. Handoo, J.D. Eisenback. (2023) Cellular insights of beech leaf disease reveal abnormal ectopic cell division of symptomatic interveinal leaf areas. PLoS ONE October 5, 2023. 18(10)  https://doi.org/10.1371/pone.0292588   

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Invasive Plant Species: Good News, Bad News — including on the News

garlic mustard – a widespread invasive plant in forests of the Northeast and Midwest; photo by Chris Evans, University of Illinois; via Bugwood

This blog summarizes important new research on invasive plant species. You’ll find a USFS update on the spread of invasive plants in regional forests. The second paper used a new funding source to assess the impacts of removing invasive shrub honeysuckles on forest canopies – and to begin restoration. The third paper uses Google searches to study news coverage of plant invaders (spoiler alert: it’s poor). I welcome the attention!

A. Update on Invasive Plants in the Northeast: 44 Species, in 24 States, on Forested Land

The USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station (NRS) continues to publish lots of studies of invasive plants in the forests of the Northeast and Midwest. Kurtz (see USDA citation at end of blog) summarizes data on the extent and intensity of plant invasions collected by the USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. Since 2012, scientists have compiled data on 44 invasive species on forested land.  Crews recorded these plants’ presence on 6,361 plots in 2014 and 4,244 in 2019. [The species surveyed are listed in Table 2 of the publication.]

1. Presence —

Overall, the number of forested plots on which one or more of the 44 monitored invasive species occurs rose from 52% in 2014 to 55% in 2019. Eighteen of the 24 states in the region experienced an increase in the percentage of plots with invasive plants. The number of invasive plants per plot also increased.

The plots with the greatest number of these invasive plants are Ohio (98%), Indiana (97%), North Dakota (93%), and Illinois and Iowa (92% each). The North Dakota data bear a high uncertainty because only 15 plots were surveyed in 2019. The states with the lowest number of invaded plots are New Hampshire (16%) and Vermont (22%). South Dakota also ranks near the bottom with 38% of plots invaded.

A different picture emerges when considering the number of invasive plants per plot. States ranking highest on this criterion were Pennsylvania (13 species on at least one plot) and Illinois (11 species on at least one plot).  (See map in USDA publication from References) Plots with five to eight species appear in a band from the Ohio/West Virginia border, across western Maryland and western and eastern Pennsylvania, and into western New York and western Massachusetts. Note the apparent abse nce of invasive plants in the Adirondacks!

2. Species

Of the 44 species monitored, 41 species were observed on plots during these surveys. Two of the three species not found — punktree/Melaleuca and Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera) – grow in the deep South so I am not surprised by their absence. The third – Bohemian knotweed (Polygonum xbohemicum) is invasive in colder climates, e.g., Washington State. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is the most common species – again, not surprising since it was long planted deliberately to provide food for wildlife. Three species were observed in one but not both inventories: Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) was only found in 2014; saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and European swallow-wort (Cynanchum rossicum) were found only in 2019.

Amur honeysuckle; photo by pverdunk via Flickr

Most of the 44 plant species increased their presence as measured by the proportion of plots on which they were observed (see Table 2). Among these, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) increased by 5.38%; garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) by 3.21%; Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) by 2.95%; and bush honeysuckles (Lonicera species.) by 2.77%. Twelve species decreased – all by less than one percent.

3. One of the Worst: Amur Honeysuckle

Amur honeysuckle is one of most actively spreading invasive plant in the entire region – especially in urban forests. The proportion of plots invaded by this species rose from half a percent to six percent between 2014 and 2019. Amur honeysuckle dominates due to competitive growth, allelopathy (producing a biochemical that impedes the germination, growth, and survival of other plants), and its ability to resprout after cutting. The presence of honeysuckle negatively affects native plant communities. It suppresses plant recruitment, homogenizes forest communities, and alters ecosystem processes. It also shapes the canopy structure by affecting the growth and composition of overstory trees, as well as the amount of leaf material (Fotis et al.).

The riparian areas which Amur honeysuckle often invades provide numerous ecosystem services. These include filtering nutrients, preventing soil erosion, filtering sediment from runoff, offering shade and wildlife habitat, and reducing the likelihood of floods to croplands and downstream communities (Fotis et al.).

B. Managing Honeysuckle, Restoring Riparian Forests

Forest managers in central Ohio, near Columbus, have begun a significant restoration experiment to improve the resilience and function of disturbed riparian forests. Fotis and colleagues took advantage of this to track and characterize the immediate, short-term, and long-term impacts of removing Amur honeysuckle on forest canopies. They used new technology: portable canopy imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR).

Fotis et al. found that

  • Honeysuckle presence had a stronger influence on tree species diversity than on the size or number of trees.
  • Removing honeysuckle from areas where its abundance is high and native tree density is low promoted native tree growth (e.g., the height of tallest trees) and increases in the tree canopy’s structural complexity for up to 10 years.
  • Honeysuckle removal, followed by treating honeysuckle stumps with herbicides to prevent resprouting, is key for establishing a healthy restored riparian forest.
  • Planting a diverse suite of native species to fill different ecological niches helps create more resilient forest systems.
  • Forest recovery began within two years of honeysuckle removal.

At some sites, the researchers planted a variety of woody plants, including understory shrubs and mid- and full-canopy trees, after removing the honeysuckle. The article did not discuss the results.

giant hogweed; photo by NY State DEC fia Flickr

C. Poor Media Coverage of Invasive Plants Undermines Management Efforts

Woodworth et al. (full citation at end of blog) studied how media coverage of invasive plants interacts with low public interest, which the authors claim hampers management efforts and efficacy.

Woodworth et al. note that strong public awareness of urgent environmental issues is linked to the development of new public policy. However, public awareness of invasive species is low despite their causing high monetary costs and significant damage to the environment and human health.

The authors recognize the public generally has a low level of “plant awareness”. They argue that some plants are “charismatic” in one way or another, e.g., some form widespread and conspicuous monocultures; some are attractive and sold in the ornamental trade; and some are harmful to people by producing allergens or bearing thorns/spines/prickles. Such plants often attract more attention.

They asked four questions: Is public interest in these invasive plant species driven by (1) their abundance? (2) their traits? (3) the quantity and sentiment of news articles written about them? Finally, (4) How do these factors combine to drive interest – or lack thereof! – in invasive plant species?

1. Searching for Answers

Woodworth et al. analyzed data on Google searches (in Google Trends) for 209 plant species, 2010 – 2020. The searches revealed whether members of the public sought information about invasive plants, whether news media covered invasive plant issues, whether such coverage had a positive or negative slant, and whether it affected public awareness and attitudes toward invasive plants.

They found that public search interest was highest for the species that are most abundant at both national and state levels. Plant abundance was the second strongest predictor of Google search interest. Also, the more widespread the invader, the more articles were published and the more negative the terms used to describe it. For some species, high search interest was limited to the locations where the plant occurs. An example is garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). For other species, there was high search interest across the US although the plant occurs only in some localities. This was true, for example, for giant hog-weed (Heracleum mantegazzianum).

In a related finding, plant species posing a risk to human health ranked high in Google searches. These include giant hogweed (which causes serious skin rashes), allergen-producing grasses, plants that harbor ticks, and those that contribute to fires in the West like cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Regarding ticks, they cite multiflora rose but not barberry (Berberis spp). These results suggest to the authors that public interest in invasive plants is motivated primarily by the likelihood of encountering these species, with direct consequences for health and well-being. These concerns can be amplified by the media. The authors suggest that articles spelling out health risks of invasive plants might increase public support for wider management efforts.

cheatgrass invasion of BLM lands in SW Idaho; photo by Thane Tuoson via Flickr

The greater the number of articles published about a species, the more frequently readers utilized Google to search for information. Woodworth et al. suggest that more attention by the media translates to more public interest. They caution, however, that there are two other possible explanations. First, more searches might drive science journalists [I add: or newspaper editors!] to write more articles on species already known to be of interest to the public. Or, search and media interest might be unrelated to each other, but driven by the same external factors, such as a recent fire. In other words, journalists and the general public might be interested in the same aspects of invasive plants.

2. Which Invaders Got Attention

The media and public focus on only some invasive plants. Media articles discussed only 175 (84%) of the 209 species included in the study. More than 50% of news articles were written about only 10 species (5% of all the species); 80% on just the top 25 species. Public interest was even narrower. No one searched for information on 60 of the species (29%) over the 10-year period.

The authors – and I – are distressed that invasive plants that are sold as ornamentals were both written about and searched for less than invasive plants that are not so marketed. Worse, articles about the ornamental species had a more positive tone than articles about non-marketed invasives.

English ivy (Hedera helix) – an invasive plant widely used in horticulture; Washington State Weed Control Board

Finally, they found that species that form monocultures did not garner more media attention, more negative coverage, or search interest. Their example is Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), which they describe as being a problematic and prolific invader of eastern forest understories. There are exceptions to this finding: common reed Phragmites and kudzu. I note that these species are very noticeable, and thus “charismatic.” The former is a large plant and masses along roadsides and in open habitats. Kudzu has been notorious for decades as the “vine that ate the South”.

Woodworth et al. concluded that the media’s narrow focus  on “notorious” invasive plant species, when combined with the lower and more positive coverage of ornamental introductions, could send mixed messages and weaken public awareness of their threats. The authors believe, however, that there is ample opportunity to improve messaging and increase public awareness. This requires more media coverage and a greater focus on invasive plants’ negative impacts.  One potentially “sticky” message is about “loss of control.”  

SOURCES

Fotis, A., Flower, C.E.; Atkins, J.W. Pinchot, C.C., Rodewald, A.D., Matthews, S. 2022. The short-term and long-term effects of honeysuckle removal on canopy structure and implications for urban forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 517(6): 120251. 10 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120251 .

USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Rooted in Research ISSUE 18 | SEPTEMBER 2023

Kurtz, C.M. 2023. An assessment of invasive plant species in northern U.S. forests. Res. Note NRS-311. http://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-RN-311

Woodworth, E. A. Tian, K. Blair, J. Pullen, J.S. Lefcheck and J.D. Parker. 2023.  Media myopia distorts public interest in US invasive plants. Biol Invasions (2023) 25:3193–3205 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03101-8

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Bug Apocalypse Update

Aedes aegypti photo by James Gathany via Flickr

In October 2018 I posted a blog on the decline of global insect numbers and biodiversity.

This month a Washington Post columnist, Michael J. Corin, published a piece decrying people’s use of “bug zappers” [full citation at end of this blog] in an effort to prevent biting insects from ruining their evenings.

After quoting some of the manufacturers’ advertising claims, Corin point to the scientific consensus that these zappers don’t kill mosquitoes. In some studies, the zappers killed tens of thousands of insects, but far fewer than 1% were mosquitoes. A study by Iowa State University (citation at end of blog) that estimated even a fraction of the bug zappers sold in the United States kill more than 70 billion insects annually.

Corin even says, “bug zappers make it more likely you’ll be bitten by mosquitoes while sitting in your backyard.” Any mosquitoes drawn to the vicinity of a bug zapper will redirect their attention to the proximal warmblooded mammals — usually humans.

This information is important to us because bug zappers are exceptional killers of (other) insects. Corin cites a study by the University of Delaware (Frick and Tallamy, full citation below) in which the zappers caught nearly 14,000 insects over a summer. Roughly half the catch — 6,670 insects — were harmless aquatic species from nearby rivers and streams, fish food in the aquatic food chain. Many of the others were parasitic wasps and beetles that naturally prey on mosquitoes.

caddisfly (one of groups often killed by bug zappers, according to Doug Tallamy) photo by Anita Gould via Flickr

So, these traps are exacerbating the “insect apocalypse” and undermining biocontrol programs!

These studies were published in the middle-1990s – nearly 30 years ago. Dr. Douglas Tallamy of the University of Delaware told me that there are now traps that use baits (octanol and CO2). Carbon dioxide and octenol (a derivative of mammalian body odor) are known to attract biting insects, including mosquitoes. However, these traps cost up to $500 and do not sell well. The standard zapper still only catches non-targets.

A study by Kim et al. found that neither the Stinger Electric Zapper nor the Mosquito Deleto works effectively.  

Apparently most bug zappers are not working as advertised. Why, then, are they still marketed using false claims? The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to investigate misleading advertising claims and take legal action against manufacturers who don’t correct them. Corin says the agency suggested to him that the public should submit any complaints through the agency’s website.

Should we not provide information to the FTC and urge them to take action? Do you have information – or access to research capabilities – to support such an effort?

Corin provides the usual advice to minimize mosquitoes around your house:

1) eliminate standing water – in which mosquitoes breed. Or install a “Bucket of Doom” (a design developed by the Centers for Disease Control). Fill a 5-gallon bucket with water and add leaf litter or straw.Mosquitoes love to lay eggs here. Add granules of Bacillus thuringiensis to kill the mosquito larvae. Some commercial versions are Ovi-Catch AGO trap sold by Catchmaster or the “GAT” trap sold by Biogents.  

2) wear long sleeves and pants. Add repellent – especially those containing DEET.

3) Turn on a fan to create a steady breeze.

SOURCES

Coren, M.J. 2023. Trying to kill mosquitoes? Don’t buy a bug zapper. The Washington Post. September 14, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/09/12/bug-zappers-mosquito-repellent/

Frick, T.B. and D.W. Tallamy. 1996. Density and Diversity of Nontarget Insects Killed by Suburban Electric Insect Traps.  Ent. News Vol 107, No. 2, March & April 1996

Kim, J. et al. 2002. A study comparing efficiency of insect capture between Stinger electric zapper and Mosquito-deleto at varying locations and heights in northern Michigan. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/54969

Lewis, D. 1996. Bug Zappers are Harmful, Not Helpful. Iowa State University Extension. Bug Zappers are Harmful, Not Helpful | Horticulture and Home Pest News (iastate.edu)

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

USFS Lays Out Incomplete Picture of the Future

tanoak trees in southern Oregon killed by sudden oak death; photo by Oregon Department of Forestry; this pathogen is not mentioned by USFS RPA report

In August the USDA Forest Service published the agency’s 2020 assessment of the future of America’s forests under the auspices of the Resources Planning Act. [See United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Future of America’s Forests and Rangelands, full citation at the end of the blog.] To my amazement, this report is the first in the series (which are published every ten years) to address disturbance agents, specifically invasive species. In 2023! Worse, I think its coverage of the threat does not reflect the true state of affairs – as documented by Forest Service scientists among others.

This is most unfortunate because policy-makers presumably rely on this report when considering which threats to focus on.

Here I discuss some of the USFS RPA report and what other authors say about the same topics.

The RPA Report’s Principle Foci: Extent of the Forest and Carbon Sequestration

The USFS RPA report informs us that America’s forested area will probably decrease 1- 2% over the next 50 years (from 635.3 million acres to between 619 and 627 million acres), due largely to conversion to other uses. This decline in extent, plus trees’ aging and increases in disturbance will result in a slow-down in carbon sequestration by forests. In fact, if demand for wood products is high, or land conversion to other uses proceeds apace, U.S. forest ecosystems are projected to become a net source of atmospheric CO2 by 2070.

Eastern forests sequester the majority of U.S. forest carbon stocks. These forests are expected to continue aging – thereby increasing their carbon storage. Yet we know that these forests have suffered the greatest impact from non-native pests.

I don’t understand why the USFS RPA report does not explicitly address the implications of non-native pests. In 2019, Songlin Fei and three USFS research scientists did address this topic. Fei et al. estimated that tree mortality due to the 15 most damaging introduced pest species have resulted in releases of an additional 5.53 terragrams of carbon per year. Fei and colleagues conceded this is probably an underestimate. They say that annual levels of biomass loss are virtually certain to increase because current pests are still spreading to new host ranges (as demonstrated by detection of the emerald ash borer in Oregon). Also, infestations in already-invaded ranges will intensify, and additional pests will be introduced (for example, beech leaf disease).

I see this importance of eastern forests in sequestering carbon as one more reason to expand efforts to protect them from new pest introductions, and the spread of those already in the country, etc.

A second issue is the role of non-native tree species in supporting the structure and ecological functions of forests. Ariel Lugo and colleagues report that 18.8 million acres (7.6 million ha, or 2.8% of the forest area in the continental U.S.) is occupied by non-native tree species. (I know of no overall estimate for all invasive plants.) They found that non-native tree species constitute 12–23% (!) of the basal area of those forest stands in which they occur.

Norway maple (Acer platanoides); one of the most widespread invasive species in the East. Photo by Hermann Falkner via Flickr

Lugo and colleagues confine their analysis of ecosystem impacts to carbon sequestration. They found that the contribution of non-native trees to carbon storage is not significant at the national level. In the forests of the continental states (lower 48 states), these trees provide 10% of the total carbon storage in the forest plots where they occur. (While Lugo and colleagues state that the proportion of live tree biomass made up of non-native tree species varies greatly among ecological subregions, they do not provide examples of areas on the continent where their biomass – and contribution to carbon storage — is greater than this average.) In contrast, on Hawai`i, non-native tree species provide an estimated 29% of live tree carbon storage. On Puerto Rico, they provide an even higher proportion: 36%.

Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) – widespread invasive in Hawai`i and Florida; early stage invasive in Puerto Rico. Photo by Javier Alexandro via Flickr

In the future, non-native trees will play an even bigger role. Since tree invasions on the continent are expanding at ~500,000 acres (202,343 ha) per year, it is not surprising that non-native species’ saplings provide 19% of the total carbon storage for that size of trees in the lower 48 states (Lugo et al.).

Forming a More Complete Picture: Biodiversity, Disturbance, and Combining Data.

The USFS RPA report has a chapter on biodiversity. However, the chapter does not discuss historic or future diversity of tree species within biomes, nor the genetic diversity within tree species.

Treatment of Invasive Species

The USFS 2020 RPA report is the first to include a chapter on disturbance, including invasive species. I applaud its inclusion while wondering why they have included it only now? Why is the coverage so minimal? I think these lapses undercut the report’s purpose. The RPA is supposed to inform decision-makers and stakeholders about the status, trends, and projected future of renewable natural resources and related economic sectors for which USFS has management responsibilities. These include: forests, forest products, rangelands, water, biological diversity, and outdoor recreation. The report also has not met its claim to “capitalize on” areas where the USFS has research capacity. One excuse might be that several important publications have appeared after the cut-off date for the assessment (2020). Still, the report’s authors cite some of the evaluations that were in preparation as of 2020, e.g., Poland et al.

I suggest also that it would be helpful to integrate data from other agencies, especially the invasive species database compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, into the RPA. For example, the USGS lists just over 4,000 non-native plant species in the continental U.S. (defined as the lower 48 plus Alaska). On Hawai`i, the USGS lists 530 non-native plant species as widespread. Caveat: many of the species included in these lists probably coexist with the native plants and make up minor components of the plant community.

Specifically: Invading Plants

The USFS RPA report gives much more attention to invasive plants than non-native insects and pathogens. The report relies on the findings of Oswalt et al., who based their data on forested plots sampled by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. (The RPA also reports on invasive plants detected on rangelands, primarily grasslands.) Oswalt et al. found that 39% of FIA plots nationwide contained at least one plant species that the FIA protocol considers to be invasive and monitors. The highest intensity of plant invasions is in Hawai`i – 70% of the plots are invaded. The second-greatest intensity is in the eastern forests: 46%. However, the map showing which plots were inventoried for invasive plants makes clear how incomplete these data are – a situation I had not realized previously.

I appreciate that the USFS RPA report mentions that propagule pressure is an important factor in plant invasions. This aspect has often been left out in past analyses. I also appreciate the statement that international trade in plants for ornamental horticulture will probably lead to additional introductions in the future. Third, I concur with the report’s conclusions that once forest land is invaded, it is unlikely to become un-invaded. Invasive plant management in forests often results in one non-native species being replaced by another. In sum, the report envisions a future in which plant invasion rates are likely to increase on forest land.

If you wish to learn more about invasive plant presence and impacts, see the discussion of invasive plants in Poland et al., my blogs based on the work by Doug Tallamy, and several other of my blogs compiled under the category “invasive plants” on this website.

I believe all sources expect that the area invaded by non-native plant species, and the intensity of existing invasions, will increase in the future.

The USFS RPA links these invasions to expansion of the “wildland-urban interface” (“WUI”). These areas increased rapidly before 2010. At that time, they occupied 14% of forest land. The report published in 2023 did not assess their future expansion over the period 2020 to 2070. However, it did project increased fragmentation in many regions, especially in the RPA Western and Southeastern regions. Since “fragmentation” is very similar to wildland-urban interfaces, the report seems implicitly to project more widespread plant invasions in the future.

plant invasions facilitated by fragmentation; northern Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

Specifically: Insects and Pathogens

The USFS RPA report on insects and pathogens is brief and contains puzzling errors and gaps. It says that the tree canopy area affected by both native and non-native mortality-causing agents has been consistently large over the three most recent five-year FIA assessment periods. It notes that individual insects or diseases have extirpated entire tree species or genera and fundamentally altered forests across broad regions. Examples cited are chestnut blight and emerald ash borer.

The USFS RPA report warns that pest-related mortality might be underreported in the South, masked by more intense management cycles and higher rates of tree growth and decay. On the other hand, the report asserts that pest-related mortality is probably overrepresented in the Northern Region in the 2002 – 2006 period because surveyors drew polygons to encompass large areas affected by EAB and balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae) infestations. The latter puzzles me; I think it is probably an error, and should have referred to hemlock woolly adegid, A. tsugae. Documented mortality has generally been much more widespread from insects than diseases, e.g., bark beetles, including several native ones, across all regions and over time, especially in the West – where the most significant morality agents are several native beetles. The USFS RPA report mentions that the Northern Region has been particularly affected by non-native pests, including EAB, HWA, BWA, beech bark disease, and oak wilt. It mentions that Hawai`i has also suffered substantial impacts from rapid ʻōhiʻa death.  

Defoliating insects have affected relatively consistent area over time. This area usually equaled or exceeded the area affected by the mortality agents. Principal non-native defoliators in the Northern Region have been the spongy moth (Lymantria dispar); larch casebearer (Coleophora laricella); and winter moth (Operophtera brumata). In the South they list the spongy moth.

More disturbing to me is the USFS RPA report’s conclusion that the future impact of forest insects is highly uncertain. The authorsblame the complexity of interactions among changing climate, those changes’ effects on insect and tree species’ distributions, and overall forest health. Also, they name uncertainty about which new non-native species will be introduced to the United States. I appreciate the report’s avoidance of blanket statements regarding the effects of climate change. However, other studies – e.g., Poland et al. – have incorporated these complexities while still offering conclusions about a number of currently established non-native pests. Finally, I am particularly dismayed that the USFS RPA does not provide analysis of any forest pathogens beyond the single mention of a few.

I am confused as to why the USFS RPA report makes no mention of Project CAPTURE (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Forest Trees Under Risk of Extirpation). This is a multi-partner effort to prioritize U.S. tree species for conservation actions based on invasive pests’ threats and the trees’ ability to adapt to them. Several USFS units participated, including the Southern Research Station, the Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center, and the Forest Health Protection program. The findings were published in 2019. See here. Lead scientist Kevin Potter was one of the authors of the RPA’s chapter on disturbance.

redbay (Persea borbonia) trees in Georgia killed by laurel wilt; photo by Scott Cameron. Redbay is ranked by Project CAPTURE as 5th most severely at risk due to a non-native pest

“Project CAPTURE” provided useful summaries of non-native pests’ impacts, including the facts that

  •  54% of the tree species on the continent are infested by one or more non-native insect or pathogen;
  • nearly 70% of the host/agent combinations involve angiosperm (broadleaf) species, 30% gymnosperms (e.g., conifers). When considering only non-native pests, pests attacking angiosperms had greater average severity.
  • Disease impacts are more severe, on average, than insect pests. Wood-borers are more damaging than other types of insect pests.
  • Non-native agents have, on average, considerably more severe impacts than native pests.

Project CAPTURE also ranked priority tree species based on the threat from non-native pests  (Potter et al., 2019). Tree families at the highest risk to non-native pests are: a) Fagaceae (oaks, tanoaks, chestnuts, beech), b) Sapindaceae (soapberry family; includes maples, Aesculus (buckeye, horsechestnut); c) in some cases, Pinaceae (pines); d) Salicaceae (willows, poplars, aspens); e) Ulmaceae (elms) and f) Oleaceae (includes Fraxinus). I believe this information should have been included in the Resources Planning Act report in order to insure that decision-makers consider these threats in guiding USFS programs.

I also wish the USFS RPA had at least prominently referred readers to Poland et al. Among that study’s key points are:

  • Invasive (non-native) insects and diseases can reduce productivity of desired species, interactions at other trophic levels, and watershed hydrology. They also impose enormously high management costs.
  • Some non-native pests potentially threaten the survival of entire tree genera, not just individual species, e.g., emerald ash borer and Dutch elm disease.  I add white pine blister rust and laurel wilt.
  • Emerald ash borer and hemlock woolly adelgid are listed as among the most significant threats to forests in the Eastern US.
  • White pine blister rust and hemlock woolly adelgid are described as so profoundly affecting ecosystem structure and function as to cause an irreversible change of ecological state.
  • Restoration of severely impacted forests requires first, controlling the non-native pest, then identifying and enriching – through selection and breeding – levels of genetic resistance in native populations of the impacted host tree. Programs of varying length and success target five-needle pines killed by Cronartium ribicola; Port-Orford cedar killed by the oomycete Phytophthora lateralis; chestnut blight; Dutch elm disease; butternut canker (causal agent Ophiognomonia clavigignenti juglandacearum), emerald ash borer; and hemlock woolly adelgid.
  • Climate change will almost certainly lead to changes in the distribution of invasive species, as their populations respond to increased variability and longer-term changes in temperature, moisture, and biotic interactions. Predicting how particular species will respond is difficult but essential to developing effective prevention, control, and restoration strategies.

Poland et al. summarizes major bioinvaders in several regions. Each region except Hawai`i (!!) includes tree-killing insects or pathogens.

It is easier to understand the RPA report’s not mentioning priority-setting efforts by two other entities, the Morton Arboretum and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). These studies were published in 2021 and their lead entities were not the Forest Service – although the USFS helped to fund the U.S. portion of the studies.

The Morton Arboretum led in the analysis of U.S. tree species. It published studies evaluating the status of tree species belonging to nine genera, considering all threats. The Morton study ranked as of conservation concern one third of native pine species; 31% of native oak species; significant proportion of species in the Lauraceae. The report on American beech — the only North American species in the genus Fagus – made no mention of beech leaf disease – despite it being a major concern in Ohio – only two states away from the location of the Morton Arboretum near Chicago.

valley oak (Quercus lobata) in Alameda Co, California; photo by Belinda Lo via Flickr

Most of the species listed by the Morton Arboretum are of conservation concern because of their small populations and restricted ranges. The report’s coverage of native pests is inconsistent, spotty, and sometimes focuses on odd examples.

Tree Species’ Regeneration

Too late for consideration by the authors of the USFS RPA report come new studies by Potter and Riitters that evaluate species at risk due to poor regeneration. This effort evaluated 280 forest tree species native to the continental United States – two-thirds of the species evaluated in the Kevin Potter’s earlier analysis of pest impacts.

The results of Potter and Riitters 2023 only partially matched those of the IUCN/Morton studies. The Morton study did not mention three genera with the highest proportions of poorly reproducing species according to Potter and Riitters: Platanus, Nyssa, and Juniperus. Potter, Morton, and the IUCN largely agree on the proportion of Pinus species at risk. Potter et al. 2023 found about 11% of oak species to be reproducing poorly, while Morton designated a third of 91 oak species to be of conservation concern.

I believe Potter and Riitters and the Morton study agree that the Southeast and California are geographic hot spots of tree species at risk.

Potter and Riiters found that several species with wide distributions might be at risk because they are reproducing at inadequate rates. Three of these exhibit poor reproduction across their full range: Populus deltoids (eastern cottonwood), Platanus occidentalis (American sycamore), and ponderosa pine(Pinus ponderosa). Four more species are reported to exhibit poor reproduction rates in all seed zones in which they grow (the difference from the former group is not explained). These are two Juniperus, Pinus pungens, and Quercus lobata. As I point out in my earlier blog, valley oak is also under attack by the Mediterranean oak borer.

SOURCES

Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 116, No. 35. August 27, 2019.

Lugo, A.E., J.E. Smith, K.M. Potter, H. Marcano Vega, and C.M. Kurtz. 2022. The Contribution of Nonnative Tree Species to the Structure and Composition of Forests in the Conterminous United States in Comparison with Tropical Islands in the Pacific and Caribbean. USDA USFS General Technical Report IITF-54

Poland, T.M., T. Patel-Weynand, D.M. Finch, C.F. Miniat, D.C. Hayes, V.M. Lopez, eds. 2021. Invasive Species in Forests and Rangelands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector. Springer Verlag. Available gratis at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45367-1

Potter, K.M., M.E. Escanferla, R.M. Jetton, G. Man, and B.S. Crane. 2019. Prioritizing the conservation needs of United States tree species: Evaluating vulnerability to forest insect and disease threats. Global Ecology and Conservation.

Potter, K.M. and Riitters, K. 2023. A National Multi-Scale Assessment of Regeneration Deficit as an Indicator of Potential Risk of Forest Genetic Variation Loss. Forests 2022, 13, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010019

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2023. Future of America’s Forests and Rangelands: The Forest Service 2020 Resource Planning Act Assessment. GTR-WO-102 July 2023

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org

Invasive Tree Species in the U.S. Caribbean: New Attention!

African Tulip Tree (Spathodea campanulata) on Puerto Rico; photo by Joe Schlabotnik via Flickr

While it is widely accepted that tropical island ecosystems are especially vulnerable to invasions, there has been little attention to terrestrial bioinvaders in the Caribbean; there has been more attention to marine bioinvaders such as lionfish. I am glad that is starting to change. Here I review a new study by Potter et al. (full citation at end of this blog), supplemented by information from other recent studies, especially Poland et al.

Potter et al. used USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) survey data to examine regeneration rates by non-native tree species introduced to the continental United States, Hawai`i, and Puerto Rico. I rejoice that they have included these tropical islands, often left out of studies. They are part of the United States and are centers of plant endemism!

Potter et al. sought to learn which individual non-indigenous tree species are regenerating sufficiently to raise concern that they will cause significant ecological and economic damage in the future. That is, those they consider highly invasive. They defined such species as those for which at least 75% of stems of that species detected by FIA surveys are in their small tree categories – saplings or seedlings. They concluded that these species are successfully reproducing after reaching the canopy so they might be more likely to alter forest ecosystem functions and services. They labelled species exhibiting 60 – 75% of stems in the “small” categories as moderately invasive.

The authors recognize that many factors might affect tree species’ regeneration success, especially at the stand level. They assert that successful reproduction reflects a suite of factors such as propagule pressure, time since invasion, and ability of a species to adapt to different environments.

As I reported in an earlier blog, link 17% of the total flora of the islands of the Caribbean archipelago – including but not limited to Puerto Rico – are not native (Potter et al.). In Puerto Rico, two-thirds of forests comprise novel tree assemblages. The FIA records the presence of 57 non-native tree species on Puerto Rico. Potter et al. identified 17 non-native tree species as highly invasive, 16 as potentially highly invasive, and two as moderately invasive. That is, 33 of 57 nonnative tree species, or 58% of those species tallied by FIA surveyors, are actual or potential high-impact bioinvaders. While on the continent only seven non-native tree species occurred on at least 2% of FIA plots across the ecoregions in which they were inventoried, on Puerto Rico 21 species occurred on at least 2% of the FIA plots (38%). They could not assess the invasiveness of the eight species that occurred only as small stems on a couple of survey plots. These species might be in the early stages of widespread invasion, or they might never be able to reproduce & spread.

The high invasion density probably reflects Puerto Rico’s small size (5,325 mi² / 1,379,000 ha); 500 years of exposure to colonial settlement and global trade; and wide-scale abandonment of agricultural land since the middle of the 20th Century

Naming the invaders

The most widespread and common of the highly invasive non-native tree species are river tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala), on 12.6% of 294 forested plots; algarroba (Prosopis pallida) on 10.9%; and African tuliptree (Spathodea campanulata)on 6.1%. Potter et al. attribute the prevalence of some species largely to land-use history, i.e., reforestation of formerly agricultural lands. In addition, some of the moderately to highly invasive species currently provide timber and non-timber forest products, including S. campanulata, L. leucocephala, Syzgium jambos (rose apple) and Mangifera indica (mango).

Potter et al. contrast the threat posed by Spathodea campanulata with that posed by Syzgium jambo. The latteris shade tolerant and can form dense, monotypic stands under closed canopies. Because it can reproduce under its own canopy, it might be able to remain indefinitely in forests unless it is managed. In contrast S. campanulata commonly colonizes abandoned pastures. Since it is shade intolerant, it might decline in the future as other species overtop it. Meanwhile, they suggest, S. campanulata might provide habitat appropriate for the colonization of native tree species.

Second-growth forest in Caribbean National Forest “El Yunque”

Poland et al. say the threat from Syzgium jambos might be reduced by the accidentally introduced rust fungus Puccinia psidii (= Austropuccinia psidii), which has been killing rose apple in Puerto Rico. In Hawai`i, the same fungus has devastated rose apple in wetter areas.

Potter et al. note that stands dominated by L. leucocephala and Prosopis pallida in the island’s dry forests are sometimes arrested by chronic disturbance – presumably fire. However, they do not report whether other species – native or introduced – tend to replace these two after disturbance. The authors also say that areas with highly eroded soils might persist in a degraded state without trees. The prospect of longlasting bare soil or trashy scrub is certainly is alarming.

Potter et al. warn that the FIA’s sampling protocol is not designed to detect species that are early in the invasion process. However, they do advise targetting eradication or control efforts on the eight species that occurred only as small stems on a couple of survey plots. While their invasiveness cannot yet be determined, these species might be more easily managed because presumably few trees have yet reached reproductive age. They single out Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian pepper), since it is already recognized as moderately invasive in Hawai`i. I add that this species is seriously invasive in nearby peninsular Florida and here! APHIS recently approved release of a biocontrol insect in Florida targetting Brazilian pepper. It might easily reach nearby Puerto Rico or other islands in the Caribbean. I am not aware of native plant species in the Caribbean region that might be damaged by the biocontrol agent. However, two native Hawaiian shrubs might be harmed if/when this thrips reaches the Hawaiian Islands. Contact me for specifics, or read the accompanying blog about Potter et al. findings in Hawai`i.

Poland et al. looked at the full taxonomic range of possible bioinvaders in forest and grassland ecosystems. The Caribbean islands receive very brief coverage in the chapter on the Southeast (see Regional Summary Appendices). This chapter contains a statement that I consider unfortunate: “Introduction of species has enriched the flora and fauna of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.” The chapter’s authors assert that many of the naturalized species are restoring forest conditions on formerly agricultural lands. They say that these islands’ experience demonstrates that introduced and native species can cohabitate and complement one another. I ask – but in what kind of forest? These forests, are novel communities that bear little relationship to pre-colonial biodiversity of the islands. Was not this chapter the right place to note that loss? Forests are more than CO2 sinks.

I also regret that the chapter does not mention that the Continental United States can be the source of potentially invasive species (see several examples below).

Mealybug-infested cactus at Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge, Puerto Rico. Photo by Yorelyz Rodríguez-Reyes

The chapter does concede that some introduced species are causing ecological damage now. See Table A8.1. Some of these troublesome introduced species are insects:

  • the South American Harrisia cactus mealybug (Hypogeococcus pungens) is killing columnar cacti in the islands’ dry forests. The chapter discusses impacts on several cactus species and control efforts, especially the search for biocontrol agents.
  • the agave snout weevil (Scyphophorus acupunctatus), native to the U.S. Southwest and Mexico , is threatening the endemic and endangered century plant (Agave eggersiana) in St. Croix & Puerto Rico.
  • Tabebuia thrips (Holopothrips tabebuia) is of unknown origin. It is widespread around mainland Puerto Rico. Its impacts so far are primarily esthetic, but it does apparently feed on both native and introduced tree species in the Tabebuia and Crescentia genera.

The Caribbean discussion also devotes welcome attention to belowground invaders, i.e., earthworms. At least one species has been found in relatively undisturbed cloud forests, so it is apparently widespread. Little is known about its impact; more generally, introduced earthworms can increase soil carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as through speeded-up litter decomposition and soil respiration.

A factsheet issued by the British forestry research arm DEFRA reports that the pine tortoise scale Toumeyella parvicornis has caused the death of 95% of the native Caicos pine (Pinus caribaea var. bahamensis) forests in the Turks and Caicos Islands (a UK Overseas Territory). The scale is native to North America. It has recently been introduced to Italy as well as to Puerto Rico, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

SOURCES

Lugo, A.E., J.E. Smith, K.M. Potter, H. Marcano Vega, C.M. Kurtz. 2022. The Contribution of Non-native Tree Species to the Structure & Composition of Forests in the Conterminous United States in Comparison with Tropical Islands in the Pacific & Caribbean. USFS International Institute of Tropical Forestry General Technical Report IITF-54.

Poland, T.M., Patel-Weynand, T., Finch, D., Miniat, C. F., and Lopez, V. (Eds) (2019), Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector. Especially the Appendix on the Southeast and Caribbean. Springer Verlag. Available gratis at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45367-1

Potter K.M., Riitters, K.H. & Guo. Q. 2022. Non-nativetree regeneration indicates regional & national risks from current invasions. Frontiers in Forests & Global Change Front. For. Glob. Change 5:966407. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.966407

Posted by Faith Campbell

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

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

or

www.fadingforests.org