Category: wood packaging

EAB: Why Quarantines Are Essential

area devastated by EAB; photo by Nathan Siegert, USFS

The emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis) is the most damaging forest insect ever introduced. In late June 2022 it was detected in Forest Grove, Oregon — 26 miles from Portland. This is the first confirmation of EAB on the West Coast – a jump of over 1,000 miles from outbreaks in the Plains states. The infested ash trees were immediately cut down and chipped (see Oregon Department of Agriculture website; full link at end of blog). See my earlier blog on EAB’s threat to ash-dominated riparian wetlands in Oregon.

ash-dominated swamp along the Willamette River in Oregon; photo by William Wyatt, ODF

Oregon has been preparing for the EAB:

  • The state finalized its response plan in March 2021; see reference at end of blog.
  • The state sought and received funds from USDA APHIS to initiate a biocontrol program. The funds were not from APHIS’ operational budget, but from the agency’s Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program (PPDMDPP) (Farm Bill money).  
  • State and federal agencies have begun collecting seeds for resistance screening and a possible breeding program.

EAB: Why Quarantines Are Essential

As you might remember, in January 2021 APHIS dropped its federal regulations aimed at curtailing EAB’s spread via movement of wood and nursery plants. This shifted the responsibility for quarantines to state authorities. Instead, APHIS reallocated its funding to biological control. I raised objections at the time, saying the latter was no substitute for the former.

A new academic study shows that APHIS’ action was a costly mistake.

Hudgins et al. (2022; full citation at end of this blog) estimate EAB damage to street trees alone – not  counting other urban trees – in the United States will be roughly $900 million over the next 30 years. These costs cannot be avoided. Cities cannot allow trees killed by EAB to remain standing, threatening to cause injury or damage when they fall.

ash fallen onto house in Ann Arbor, Michigan; photo courtesy of former mayor John Hieftje

The authors evaluated various control options for minimizing the number of ash street trees exposed to EAB. They assessed the trees’ exposure in the next 40 years, based on management actions taken in the next 30 years.

In their evaluation of management options, Hudgins et al. tried to account for the fact that the effect of management at any specific site depends on the effects of previous management. Additional complexity comes from the facts that the EAB is spread over long distances largely by human actions (i.e., movement of infested wood); and that biocontrol organisms also disperse.

They conclude that efforts to control spread at the invasion’s leading edge alone – as APHIS’ program did – are less useful than accounting for urban centers’ role in long-distance pest dispersal via human movement. Cities with infested trees are hubs for pest transport along roads. Hudgins et al. say that quarantine programs need to incorporate this factor.

Hudgins et al. concluded that the best management strategy always relied on site-specific quarantines aimed at slowing the EAB spread rate. This optimized strategy, compared to conventional approaches, could potentially save $585 million and protect an additional 1 million street trees over the next 40 years. They also found that budgets should be allocated as follows: 74-89% of funds going to quarantine, the remaining 11% to 26% to biocontrol.

 In other words, a coherent harmonized quarantine program – either through reinstatement of the federal quarantine or coordination of state quarantines — could save American cities up to $1 billion and protect 1 million trees over several decades. Since street trees make up only a small fraction of all urban trees, up to 100 million urban ash trees could be protected, leading to even greater cost savings.

Unfortunately, such a coordinated approach seems unlikely. States continue to have very different attitudes about the risk. For example, Washington has no plans to adopt EAB regulations, despite it being detected in Oregon. To the north, Canada already has EAB quarantines and Hudgins et al. advise that they be maintained.

The authors recognize that quarantines’ efficacy is a matter of debate. Quarantines require high degrees of compliance from all economic agents in the quarantine area. Also they need significant enforcement effort. Some argue that meeting either requirement, let alone both, is unrealistic.  However, under Hudgins et al.’s model, use of quarantines was always part of the optimal management method across a variety of quarantine efficiency scenarios. Again, these models point to allocating about 75% of the total budget to quarantine implementation. In all scenarios, reliance solely on biocontrol led to huge losses of trees compared to a combined strategy.

Hudgins et al. asked their model for optimal application of both quarantines and biocontrol agents. For example, quarantine enforcement could focus on limiting entry of EAB at sites that: 1) have many ash street trees, 2) currently have low EAB propagule pressure, but 3) are vulnerable to receiving high propagule influx from many sites. Seattle is a prime example of such a vulnerable city with many transportation links to distant cities with significant ash populations.

On the other hand, quarantine enforcement could strive to limit outward spread (emigration) of EAB from which high numbers of pests could be transported to multiple other locales, each with many street trees and low propagule pressure. These sites would be along the leading edge of the invasion and where the probability of long-distance pest dispersal is high.

Authorities should be prepared to adjust quarantine actions in response to changing rates and patterns of invasion spread.

Biocontrol agents should be deployed to sites with sufficient EAB density to support the parasitoids, especially sites predicted to be hubs of spread.

Hudgins et al. concede that they did not explicitly account for:

1) The impact of uncertainty regarding EAB spread on the model;

2) Alternative objectives that might point to other approaches, e.g., minimizing extent of invaded range, or reducing the number of urban and forest trees exposed to EAB;

3) Impacts of predators, such as woodpeckers, on EAB populations;  

4) Synergistic impacts from climate change, which by exacerbating stress on ash trees will probably increase tree mortality from EAB infestations; and

5) Variation in management efficiency depending on communities’ capacities.

In the future, Hudgins et al. hope to test their model on other species to determine whether there is a predictable spatial pattern for all wood boring pests, that is, should quarantines always be focused on centers of high pest densities as probable sources of spread. Determining any patterns would greatly assist risk assessment and proactive planning.

dead ash near major road in northern Virginia; photo by F.T. Campbell

In an earlier study, Dr. Hudgins and other colleagues projected that by 2050, 1.4 million street trees in urban areas and communities of the United States will be killed by introduced insect pests – primarily EAB. This represents 2.1- 2.5% of all urban street trees. Nearly all of this mortality will occur in a quarter of the 30,000 communities evaluated. They predict that 6,747 communities not yet affected by the EAB will suffer the highest losses between now and 2060. However, they evaluated risks more broadly: the potential pest threat to 48 tree genera. Their model indicated that if a new woodboring insect pest is introduced, and that pest attacks maples or oaks, it could kill 6.1 million trees and cost American cities $4.9 billion over 30 years.  The risk would be highest if this pest were introduced via a port in the South. I have blogged often about the rising rate of shipments coming directly from Asia to the American South

SOURCES

Hudgins, E.J., J.O. Hanson, C.J.K. MacQuarrie, D. Yemshanov, C.M. Baker, I. Chadès, M. Holden, E.  McDonald-Madden, J.R. Bennett. 2022. Optimal emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) control across the U.S.  preprint available here: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1998687/v2

Hudgins, E.J., F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology

Members of this team published an article earlier that evaluated the threat from introduced woodborers as a group to U.S. urban areas; see E.J. Hudgins, F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology

Oregon Department of Agriculture: https://www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/IPPM/SurveyTreatment/Pages/EmeraldAshBorer.aspx

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

West Coast Steps Up Efforts to Protect Ash

Oregon-ash dominated swamp in the Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge, Willamette Valley, Oregon; photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Department of Forestry

In April 2022 I blogged about efforts on the West Coast to prepare for arrival of the emerald ash borer (EAB).

That blog focused on Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), which is an important component of riparian forests. I alerted you to the availability of ODA/ODF EAB 2018 Response Plan.

I also mentioned Oregon’s active participation in “don’t move firewood” campaigns.

California has long inspected incoming firewood. In 2021 it establishment of a state quarantine in response to APHIS ending the federal quarantine. Washington State operates a statewide trapping program for invasive insects but does not regulate firewood.

Contributions from the Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District enabled the USDA Forest Service Dorena Genetic Resource Center to begin testing Oregon ash for resistance to EAB and related genetics work. Other funding came from the USFS Forest Health Protection program.

EAB has now been detected in Oregon — in the Willamette Valley! (See photo above, by Wyatt Williams) Concerned stakeholders have established a new newsletter to keep people informed and promote cooperative efforts.

The newsletter is “Ash across the West”.

The first issue of the newsletter provides the following information:

  • there are eight ash species in the West; all are vulnerable to the emerald ash borer (EAB)

Single-leaf ash (Fraxinus anomala)     CA, NV, AZ, UT, NM, CO, WY

Fragrant ash (Fraxinus cuspidata)       NV, AZ, NM, UT

Calif ash (Fraxinus dipetala)               CA, NV, AZ, UT

Fresnillo (Fraxinus gooddingii)               AZ

Gregg’s ash (Fraxinus greggii)                        AZ

OR ash (Fraxinus latifolia)                  WA, OR, CA

Chihuahuan ash (Fraxinus papillosa)    AZ, NM, TX

Velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina)                         CA, NV, AZ, UT, NM, TX

  • EAB Risk Map for OR: based upon known occurrences of ash & corresponding human activities associated with known pathways of EAB introduction and establishment.
  • 2022 status of the two field trials
    • the Dorena Genetic Resource Center (DGRC): planted 600 seedlings from 27 families; 85% survival in 2022; controlling competing vegetation
    • Washington State University Puyallup Research Center: planted seedlings from 26 of these families; 95% survival rate. Possible complication from a foliar disease.  
  • Seedlings from 17 Oregon ash families (including 14 of those in the DGRC field trial) sent to Dr. Jennifer Koch (USFS) in Ohio) for EAB resistance/susceptibility testing.
  • Seed collections began in 2019; interrupted by COVID-19 in 2020 but resumed in 2021 and continue in 2022. Several consortia are involved in Oregon and Washington. In California and the other states, The Huntington Botanical Gardens will lead the collecting effort. Funding is from USFS Forest Health Protection. Seeds are stored for gene conservation; some are used for the field trials in Oregon and Washington and the initial EAB-resistance studies going on in Ohio.
  • Penn State Ash Genomic Project: Dr. Jill Hamilton is trying to create a ‘genomic passport’ for Oregon ash populations for use in establishing genotype-environment associations to inform seed transfer guidelines. If you would like to help Dr. Hamilton collect leaves for sampling, contact: Dr. Jill Hamilton at jvh6349@psu.edu

To help with seed collection, ash monitoring, documenting the importance of ash to various communities, and other activities; or to get on the mailing list for the newsletter, contact Richard Sniezko at Richard.sniezko@usda.gov

A video explaining the campaign to save Oregon ash is at https://youtu.be/uZmfLrxEA7g

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

APHIS: Release Study of Pest Approach Rates!

I have posted nearly 40 blogs about wood packaging (SWPM) since 2015. [You can view these by scrolling below archives to find category “wood packaging”.]

I first raised the need for APHIS to authorize Robert Haack to update his study analyzing pest “approach rates” in wood packaging in July 2018.

Why?

  1. SWPM has delivered our worst forest pests.

SWPM has been recognized as a major pathway of introduction of wood-boring insects for 30 years. Examples include the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle, and, possibly, the invasive shot hole borers.

For decades, pest-infested wood packaging has come primarily from the same countries: Mexico, Italy, China, and, more recently, Turkey. Many of our most damaging invaders have come from Asia so growing import volumes from Vietnam and other Asian countries also raise concern.    

2) The U.S. and Canada have required that wood be treated to kill pests for at least 16 years.

The U.S. and Canada fully implemented the international standard on wood packaging (ISPM#15) in early 2006 – nearly 17 years ago. They had earlier (1999) required treatment of SWPM from China – nearly 24 years ago.

3) Even old analyses concluded that more than 11,000 incoming containers harbored wood pests each year.  

The U.S., Canada, and Mexico import more than 31 million shipping containers per year (see “Background” below). Applying decade-old estimates to this number, we conclude that 11,600 of these containers are probably transporting a quarantine wood-boring pest. About 80% of the containers – and probably the pests! – come to U.S. ports. This pest risk is not limited to the West Coast; expansion of the Panama Canal and congestion at West Coast ports mean that an increasing number of ships are travelling directly to ports on the East and Gulf coasts. These region have already been demonstrated to be highly vulnerable to pests from Asia (ranging from Dutch elm disease and Asian longhorned beetle to laurel wilt and beech leaf disease.)

dead redbay trees – killed by redbay ambrosia beetle + laurel wilt fungus – introduced from Asia to Savannah, Georgia

4) Efforts to reduce the pest “approach rate” have not worked yet.

Meantime, administrative efforts to reduce the numbers of containers carrying pests have not been successful. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has tried. CBP began penalizing individual shipments that are not in compliance with ISPM#15 in 2017 — 5 years ago.

As of the first three-quarters of Fiscal Year 2022 (John Sagle pers. comm. and Crenshaw-Nolan of CBD to Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Diseases, September 2022), CBP has issued 510 Emergency Action Notifications (EAN) for noncompliant SWPM. About 38% (194) were issued because actionable pests had been discovered. The rest were issued because the ISPM#15 stamp (attesting to the wood having been treated) was either missing or fraudulent. The full-year interception rate will probably be comparable to interceptions in recent years: in FY2021, 548 EANs; in FY2020, 509; in FY2019, 746. CBP staff are disappointed that interceptions have not declined.  

CBP agents inspecting SWPM

5) APHIS has avoided stricter enforcement.

APHIS has not adopted an enforcement stance. It has not stiffened penalties. The agency did not raise these phytosanitary issues when it negotiated a major agriculture trade agreement with China in 2020.  The agency continued to insist that ISPM#15 is working – but agreed to work with Robert Haack to re-evaluate the approach rate only in 2021.

Correction: I became alarmed when the study had not been released four months after the analysis was completed (in May). I have since learned that the findings had not yet been completely written up and that internal reviews were proceeding. I apologize for the criticism in the original version of this blog. I impatiently await the study’s release, which I hope will be in a few weeks or months.

In the meantime, APHIS has also hired the Entomological Society to carry out an extensive study that includes analysis of interception data from five ports over a period of five years and rearing insects extracted from incoming wood packaging. I don’t want to postpone action aimed at curtailing introductions via this pathway for another five years!

APHIS has instead tried to improve foreign suppliers’ and phytosanitary agencies’ compliance with ISPM#15 through education. In partnership with Canada and Mexico, APHIS has supported two regional education workshops sponsored by the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO).  APHIS is now expanding its outreach to smaller companies, industry associations, and foreign suppliers. APHIS and CBP are now collaborating with an industry initiative to train inspectors that insure other aspects of foreign purchases. In addition, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) is developing a “guidance document”. These educational efforts are supported by the U.S. pallet trade association, National Wooden Pallet and Container Association.

For all of these reasons we urgently need the updated data on the pest approach rate in the analysis by Haack and colleagues. Until we see these results, we can’t know the current level of risk associated with growing volumes of imports or assess the effectiveness of new policies. For example, CBP incorporated compliance with ISPM#15 into its government-importer partnership aimed at ensuring cleanliness of supply chains (C-TPAT) in February 2021. Only by comparing the results of the “approach rate” study with future data collected using the same techniques will it be possible to know how effective this action has been. I greatly appreciate CBP’s efforts.

There is still the issue of untrustworthy stamps.

Past data indicate a high proportion – 87% – 95% — of the SWPM found to be infested bore the ISPM#15 stamp. The same proportion was found in a narrower study in Europe (Eyre et al. 2018). Nor are all problems associated with Asia – importers in Houston have complained that stamps on dunnage from Europe also cannot be trusted.

While there are questions about whether this breakdown results from treatment inadequacy (i.e., 56oC for 30 minutes does not kill the larvae), failure of application, or of fraud –

What matters is that neither regulators nor importers can rely on the stamp to identify pest-free wood packaging.

infested wood packaging bearing ISPM#15 mark; photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Agriculture

 (True: ISPM#15 was never intended to prevent pest introductions, only to “reduce the risk of introduction and spread of quarantine pests associated with the movement in international trade of  wood packaging material made from raw wood.”  Still, we should be trying to minimize pest introductions which threaten our wildland, rural, and urban forests.)

 CPB’s experience indicates that cracking down on individual shipments will not be sufficient.

Immediate actions to hold foreign suppliers responsible

  • U.S. and Canada refuse to accept wood packaging from foreign suppliers that have a record of repeated violations – whatever the apparent cause of the non-compliance. Institute severe penalties to deter foreign suppliers from taking devious steps to escape being associated with their violation record.
  • APHIS and CBP and their Canadian counterparts provide guidance to importers on which foreign treatment facilities have a record of poor compliance or suspected fraud – so they can avoid purchasing SWPM from them. I am hopeful that the voluntary industry program described here will help importers avoid using wood packaging from unreliable suppliers in the exporting country.
  • Encourage rapid switch to materials that won’t transport wood-borers. Plastic is one such material. While no one wants to encourage production of more plastic, the Earth is drowning under discarded plastic. Some firms are recycling plastic waste into pallets.

APHIS and CFIA have the authority to take these actions under the “emergency action” provision (Sec. 5.7) of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (WTO SPS Agreement). (For a discussion of the SPS Agreement, go to Fading Forests II, here.)

APHIS should also release the findings of the 2021-2022 study of approach rates by Haack and colleagues. Then the agency should invite stakeholders to discuss the implications, then develop and implement protective strategy reflecting its findings.

Longer-term Actions

APHIS and CFIA should cite their need for setting a higher “level of protection” to minimize introductions of pest that threaten our forests (described inter alia here.) They should then prepare a risk assessment to justify adopting more restrictive regulations that would prohibit use of packaging made from solid wood – at least from the countries with records of high levels of non-compliance.

Michigan champion green ash killed by emerald ash borer

APHIS and CFIA should also undertake the studies needed to determine the cause of the continuing issue of the wood treatment mark’s unreliability, then act to resolve it. Preferably, this work should be conducted with other countries and such international entities as the IPPC & International Forest Quarantine Research Group (IFQRG). However, if attempting such collaboration causes delays, they should begin unilaterally.  Upcoming opportunities to address this issue include:

  • FAO International Day of Forests in 2023
  • FAO global assessment of forests & health –  pest & disease outbreaks

Of course, these steps should be based on the findings of Haack and colleagues.

Meanwhile, what can we do?

  • Urge Congress to conduct oversight on APHIS’ failure to protect America’s natural resources from continuing introductions of nonnative insects and diseases.
    • These hearings should be in the context of drafting the 2023 Farm Bill.
  • Raise the issue with local, state, and federal candidates for office;
  • Urge Congress to include provisions of H.R. 1389 in the 2023 Farm Bill;
  • Ask any associations of which we are members to join in communicating these concerns to Congressional representatives and senators. These include:
    • if you work for a federal or state agency – raise to leadership; they can act directly or through National Plant Board, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of State Foresters, National Governors Association, National Association of Counties
    • scientific membership societies – e.g., Society of American Foresters, Entomological Society of America, American Phytopathological Society;
    • individual conservation organizations, either with state chapters or at the national level;
    • woodland owners’ organizations, e.g., National Woodland Owners Association, National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) and their state chapters
    • urban tree advocates
    • International Forest Quarantine Research Group
  • Write letters to the editors of your local newspaper or TV news station. 

BACKGROUND: Calculation of the Number of Infested Containers Entering U.S.

As of 2020 (when trade was greatly depressed by the COVID-19 pandemic), nearly 31 million TEUs [a standardized measure for containerized shipment; defined as the equivalent of a 20-foot long container] entered North America. Ports in the U.S. received 80% (24.5 million); Canada 11.5% (3.5 million); Mexico ~9% (2.7 million). U.S. imports have grown substantially since 2020; during the first quarter of 2022 U.S. imports from Asia each month were 20 to 30% higher than in 2019 before COVID-19 disrupted supply chains (blog #292).  The U.S. is projected to handle ~26 million TEUs in 2022 [sources here and here.

A “TEU” equals a 20-feet container. Most containers now are twice as large – 40-feet. Several steps are involved in applying findings of Haack et al. 2014 and Meissner 2009 estimates:

  1. divide estimated number of containers (26 million) in half = 13 million.
  2. Assume that three-quarters of that number (13 million) contain wood packaging (based on Meissner) = 9.75 million. 
  3. If 1 out of each thousand of these containers with wood packaging is transporting a pest = 9,750 containers / year.

I performed the same calculation for North America-wide estimate of 31 million TEUs discussed at the beginning of the blog.

container being offloaded at Savannah harbor; photo by F.T. Campbell

A separate study (Hudgins et al. 2022) projected that introduction of a new woodboring insect pest that  attacks maples or oaks it could kill 6.1 million trees and cost American cities $4.9 billion over 30 years.  The risk would be highest if this pest were introduced via a port in the South.  I have blogged often about the rising rate of shipments coming directly from Asia to the American South.

An analysis of fungi associated with Eurasian bark and ambrosia beetles reached a conclusion that the authors consider to be more optimistic. Li et al. (2021) found that none of the 111 fungi was sufficiently virulent to trigger tree mortality after a single-point inoculation. This level of lethality was considered analagous to Dutch elm disease DMF or laurel wilt DMF. Thirty-eight percent of the fungi were considered to be weak or localized pathogens that could kill trees under certain conditions. However, they tested the fungi against only two oak and two pine species. They did not evaluate fungi that might be lethal when the vector beetle engages in mass attacks. Finally, I think phytosanitary agencies should act promptly when a pathogen threatens levels of mortality somewhat below Dutch elm disease and laurel wilt!

SOURCES

Hudgins, E.J., F.H. Koch, M.J. Ambrose, B. Leung. 2022. Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050. Journal of Applied Ecology 59(5): 1302-1312.

Li, Y., C. Bateman, J. Skelton, B. Wang, A. Black, Y-T. Huang, A. Gonzalez, M.A. Jusino, Z.J. Nolen, S. Freeman, Z. Mendel, C-Y. Chen, H-F. Li, M. Kolařík, M. Knížek, J-H. Park, W. Sittichaya, P.H. Thai, S-I. Ito, M. Torii, L. Gao, A.J. Johnson, M. Lu, J. Sun, Z. Zhang, D.C. Adams, J. Hulcr. 2021. Pre-invasion assessment of exotic bark beetle-vectored fungi to detect tree-killing pathogens Phytopathology. 112(2): 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-01-21-0041-R

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 Species Costs Point to Inadequate Effort – especially Prevention

EAB-killed ash tree falls before it can be taken down; photo courtesy of former Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje

Concerned by growing impacts of bioinvasion and inadequate responses by national governments worldwide and by international bodies, a group of experts have attempted to determine how much invasive species are costing. They’ve built the global database – InvaCost. See Daigne et al. 2020 here.

Several studies have been based on these data. In two earlier blogs, I summarized two of these articles, e.g., Cuthbert et al. on bioinvasion costs, generally, and Moodley et al. on invasive species costs in protected areas, specifically. Here, I look at two additional studies. Ahmed et al. focusses on the “worst” 100 invasives affecting conservation — as determined by the International Union of Conservation and Nature (IUCN). The second, by Turbelin et al., examines pathways of introduction. Full citations of all sources appear at the end of this blog.

It is clear from all of these papers that the authors (and I!) are frustrated by the laxity with which virtually all governments respond to bioinvasions. Thus more robust actions are needed. The authors and I also agree that data on economic costs influence political decision-makers more than ecological concerns. However, InvaCost – while the best source in existence — is not yet comprehensive enough to generate the thoroughly-documented economic data about specific aspects of bioinvasion that would be most useful in supporting proposed strategies.

Scientists working with InvaCost recognize that the data are patchy. At the top level, these data demonstrate high losses and management costs imposed by bioinvasion. The global total – including both realized damage and management costs – is estimated at about $1.5 trillion since 1960. In fact, these overall costs are probably substantially underestimates (Cathbert et al.). [For a summary of data gaps, go to the end of the blog.] Furthermore, they recognize that species imposing the highest economic costs might not cause the greatest ecological harm (Moodley et al).

citrus longhorned beetle exit hole in bonsai tree; USDA APHIS photo

Comparing estimated management costs to estimated damage, the authors conclude that countries invest too little in bioinvasion management efforts and — furthermore — that expenditures are squandered on the wrong “end” of bioinvasion – after introduction and even establishment, rather than in preventive efforts or rapid response upon initial detection of an invader. While I think this is true, these findings might be skewed by the fact that fewer than a third of countries reporting invasive species costs included data on specifically preventive actions. Cuthbert et al. notes that failing to try to prevent introductions imposes an avoidable burden on resource management agencies. Ahmed et al. developed a model they hope will overcome the perverse   incentives that lead decision-makers to either do nothing or delay.

  1. Why Decision-Makers Delay

Citing the InvaCost data, the participating experts reiterate the long-standing call for prioritizing investments at the earliest possible invasion stage. Ahmed et al. found that this was the most effective practice even when costs accrue slowly. They ask, then, why decision-makers often delay initiating management. I welcome this attention because we need to find ways to rectify this situation.

They conclude, first, that invasive species threats compete for resources with other threats to agriculture and natural systems. Second, Cuthbert et al. and Ahmed et al. both note that decision-makers find it difficult to justify expenditures before impacts are obvious and/or stakeholders demand action. By that time, of course, management of invasions are extremely difficult and expensive – if possible at all. I appreciate the wording in Ahmed et al.: bioinvasion costs can be deceitfully slow to accrue, so policy makers don’t appreciate the urgency of taking action.

Cuthbert et al. also note that impacts are often imposed on other sectors, or in different regions, than those focused on by the decision-makers. Stakeholders’ perceptions of whether an introduced species is causing a “detrimental” impact also vary. Finally, when efficient proactive management succeeds – prevents any impact – it paradoxically undermines evidence of the value of this action!

Ahmed et al. point out that in many cases, biosecurity measures and other proactive approaches are even more cost effective when several species are managed simultaneously. They cite as examples airport quarantine and interception programs; Check Clean Dry campaigns encouraging boaters to avoid moving mussels and weeds; ballast water treatment systems; and transport legislation e.g., the international standard for wood packaging (ISPM#15) [I have often discussed the weaknesses in ISPM#15 implementation; go to “wood packaging” under “Categories” (below the archive list)].

pallet “graveyard”; photo by Anand Prasad
  • Pathways of Species’ Introduction

Tuberlin et al. focus on pathways of introduction, which they say influence the numbers of invaders, the frequency of their arrival, and the geography of their eventual distribution. This study found sufficient data to analyze arrival pathways of 478 species – just 0.03% of the ~14,000 species in the full database. They found that intentional pathways – especially what they categorized as “Escape” – were responsible for the largest number of invasive species (>40% of total). On the other hand, the two unintentional pathways called “Stowaway” and “Contaminant” introduced the species causing the highest economic costs.

Tuberlin et al. therefore emphasize the importance of managing these unintentional pathways. Also, climate change and emerging shipping technologies will increase potential invaders’ survivability during transit. Management strategies thus must be adapted to countering these additive trends. They suggest specifically:

  • eDNA detection techniques;
  • Stricter enforcement of ISPM#15 and exploring use of recyclable plastic pallets (e.g., IKEA’s OptiLedge); [see my blog re: plastic pallets, here]
  • Application of fouling-resistant paints to ship hulls;
  • Prompt adoption of international agreements addressing pathways (they cite the Ballast Water Management Treaty as entered into force only in 2017 — 13 years after adoption);
  • Ensuring ‘pest free status’ (per ISPM#10) before allowing export of goods—especially goods in the “Agriculture”, “Horticulture”, and “Ornamental” trades; and
  • Increasing training of interception staff at ports.

What InvaCost Data say re: Taxa of greatest concern to me

Two-thirds of reported expenditures are spent on terrestrial species (Cuthbert et al.). Insects as a Class constitute the highest number of species introduced as ‘Contaminants’ (n = 74) and ‘Stowaways’ (n = 43). They also impose the highest costs among species using these pathways. Forest insects and pathogens account for less than 1% of the records in the InvaCost database, but constitute 25% of total annual costs ($43.4 billion) (Williams et al., in prep.). Indeed, one of 10 species for which reported spending on post-invasion management is highest is the infamous Asian longhorned beetle (Tuberlin et al.)

ALB pupa in wood packaging; Pennsylvania Dept. of Natural Resources via Bugwood

Mammals and plants are often introduced deliberately – either as intentional releases or as escapes. Plant invasions are reported as numerous but impose lower costs.

Tuberlin et al. state that intentional releases and escapes should in theory be more straightforward to monitor and control, so less costly. They propose two theories: 1) Eradication campaigns are more likely to succeed for plants introduced for cultivation and subsequently escaped, than for plants introduced through unintentional pathways in semi-natural environments. 2) Species introduced unintentionally may be able to spread undetected for longer; they expect that better measures already exist to control invasions by deliberate introductions. I question both. Their theories ignore that constituencies probably like the introduced plants … and the near absence of attention to the possible need to control their spread. This is odd because elsewhere they recognize conflicts over whether to control or eradicate “charismatic” species.

Geographies of greatest concern to me

  • North America reported spending 54% of the total expenditure in InvaCost. Oceania spent 30%. The remaining regions each spent less than $5 billion. (Cuthbert et al.)
  • North America funded preventative actions most generously than other regions. Cuthbert suggests this was because David Pimentel published an early estimate of invasive species costs. I doubt it. The Lacey Act was adopted in 1905. USDA APHIS was formed in 1972 – based on predecessor agencies — because officials recognized the damage by non-native pests to agriculture. APHIS began addressing natural area pests with discovery of the Asian longhorned beetle in 1996. Of course, most of APHIS’ budget is still allocated to agricultural pests. I conclude that North America’s lead in this area has not resulted in adequate prevention programs.
Oregon ash swamp before attack by EAB (photo by Wyatt Williams, Oregon Dept. of Forestry)

Equity Issues

Tuberlin et al and Moodley et al. address equity issues of who causes introductions vs. who is impacted. This is long overdue.

  • More than 80% of bioinvasion management costs in protected areas fell on governmental services and/or official organizations (e.g. conservation agencies, forest services, or associations). With the partial exception of the agricultural sector, the economic sectors that contribute the most to movement of invasive species are spared from carrying the resulting costs (Moodley et al.)
  • A lack of willingness to invest might represent a moral problem when the invader’s impacts are incurred by regions, sectors, or generations other than those that on whom management action falls (Ahmed et al.)
  • People are perhaps more inclined to spend money to mitigate impacts that cause economic losses than those that damage ecosystems (Tuberlin et al.)

Data deficiencies

  • Only 41% of countries (83 out of 204) reported management costs; of those, only 24 reported costs specifically associated with pre-invasion (prevention) efforts (Cuthbert et al.).
  • Reliable economic cost estimates were available for only 60% of the “worst” invasive species (Cuthbert et al.)
  • Only 55 out of 266,561 protected areas reported losses or management costs (Moodley et al.).
  • Information on pathways of introduction was available for only three species out of 10,000 (Turbelin et al).
  • Taxonomic and geographic biases in reporting skew examples and possibly conclusions (Cuthbert et al.).

SOURCES

Ahmed, D.A., E.J. Hudgins, R.N. Cuthbert, .M. Kourantidou, C. Diagne, P.J. Haubrock, B. Leung, C. Liu, B. Leroy, S. Petrovskii, A. Beidas, F. Courchamp. 2022. Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:1927–1946 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0

Cuthbert, R.N., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, A. Turbelin, D.A. Ahmed, C. Albert, T.W. Bodey, E. Briski, F. Essl, P. J. Haubrock, R.E. Gozlan, N. Kirichenko, M. Kourantidou, A.M. Kramer, F. Courchamp. 2022. Bioinvasion costs reveal insufficient proactive management worldwide. Science of The Total Environment Volume 819, 1 May 2022, 153404

Moodley, D., E. Angulo, R.N. Cuthbert, B. Leung, A. Turbelin, A. Novoa, M. Kourantidou, G. Heringer, P.J. Haubrock, D. Renault, M. Robuchon, J. Fantle-Lepczyk, F. Courchamp, C. Diagne. 2022. Surprisingly high economic costs of bioinvasions in protected areas. Biol Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7

Turbelin, A.J., C. Diagne, E.J. Hudgins, D. Moodley, M. Kourantidou, A. Novoa, P.J. Haubrock, C. Bernery, R.E. Gozlan, R.A. Francis, F. Courchamp. 2022. Introduction pathways of economically costly invasive alien species. Biol Invasions (2022) 24:2061–2079 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02796-5

Williams, G.M., M.D. Ginzel, Z. Ma, D.C. Adams, F.T. Campbell, G.M. Lovett, M. Belén Pildain, K.F. Raffa, K.J.K. Gandhi, A. Santini, R.A. Sniezko, M.J. Wingfield, and P. Bonello 2022. The Global Forest Health Crisis: A Public Good Social Dilemma in Need of International Collective Action. Submitted

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

Funding APHIS & USFS in FY23 – Senate Recommendations

The Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted its recommendations for funding APHIS and the US Forest Service in Fiscal Year 2023, which begins on October 1. The full Senate has not yet acted; most people expect that it will not act before October, so the agencies will have to operate under a “continuing resolution” for at least the first several months. Under a “CR”, funding is maintained at the current level.

SOD-infected rhododendron plants detected by state officials in Indiana in 2019

Funding for APHIS in FY23

The Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report [available here] that recognizes APHIS’ objective of protecting the animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives are carried out through, inter alia, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response and Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.

The Committee recommends the following funding for specific APHIS programs (in $millions)

PROGRAMFY22 FUNDINGFY23 ADMIN REQHOUSE $SENATE COMM RECOMMCISP ASK
Border inspections (AQI appropriated)33.84936.725 36.650X
Pest Detection28.21829.13729.82529.07530
Methods Development21.21721.85431.80723.55723
Specialty Crops209.533219.533219.698222.072219
Tree & Wood pests61.21762.85462.56262.71970
Subtotal, Plant health379.144385.560 397.603X
Emerg. Prepare & Response42.02144.242 44.317X

Specific programs mentioned:

  1. Northern (Asian) giant hornet eradication: $1.75 million to continue cooperation with Washington State to eradicate this pest; also to improve monitoring methods and lures, and build a rapid response platforms
  2. sudden oak death (SOD): recognize that the EU1 and NA1 strains of this pathogen threaten Douglas-fir / tanoak forests and lead foreign governments to impose quarantines on U.S. timber exports. So APHIS should spend no less that FY22 funding to better understand threat and treatment methods in wildlands. This earmark disappoints because it focuses on APHIS’ role as certifying timber exports as pest-free rather than the spread of the pathogen within the U.S. via the nursery trade. The same language appears in the report’s discussion of the Agriculture Research Service (see below).

Pertinent action re: Agriculture Research Service

The Senate Committee report sets several priorities, including the following:

  1. Invasive Pests: The Committee is concerned about the threats invasive pests pose to agriculture, the economy, environment, human health, and national security of the Pacific region. The Committee directs ARS to continue working with stakeholders in the region to assess options for combatting invasive species, including biocontrol research facilities, containment facilities, additional laboratory space.
  2. Sudden oak death: the same language as for APHIS. Again, I wish the language referred to the pathogen’s spread via the nursery trade.

These numbers are disappointing; the increase for “specialty crops” demonstrates the lobbying clout of the nursery and berry industries! I appreciate the attention to sudden oak death – with the caveat I mentioned.

SOD-infected tanoaks in southern Oregon; photo by Oregon Department of Forstry

Forest Service

The Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report [available here] . The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends the following funding levels for USFS programs that address non-native forest pests and other invasive species (in $millions):

PROGRAMFY22 FUNDINGFY ADMIN REQUESTHOUSE $S COMM RECOMMCISP ASK
Research296.616317.733$360.4$302.773317.733
State & Private Forest Health Protection TOTAL4859.232$52.2325083
S&P FHP Federal lands16,00022,485?17,00051
S&P FHP non-federal lands32,00036,747?33,00032

R&D

The Senate wants to retain the current structure of five regional stations, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and Forest Products Laboratory.

The Senate listed several research priorities. Two pertain to forest health: 1) needle pathogens, and 2) Northeastern States Research Cooperative working to sustain the health of northern forest ecosystems and biological diversity management. I am disappointed that no mention is made of the need to respond to 400 introduced tree-killing insects and pathogens.

planting to test ash trees’ resistance to emerald ash borer; photo courtesy of Jennifer Koch, USFS

S&P

The Senate Committee recommends a significant increase in S&P overall ($8 million above FY22 level), but not for Forest Health Management. This is disappointing.

The Committee is concerned about high tree mortality on National Forests due to bark beetle infestations and instructs USFS to work with states and tribes to prioritize insect prevention, suppression & mitigation projects.

The Committee expects the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to continue efforts to treat sudden oak death in California and Oregon. It provides $3 million for this purpose, including for partnerships with private landowners.

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

More & bigger ships, deeper ports = more pests?

Port of Houston – Bayport Container Terminal; photo by Ray Luck via Flickr

The U.S. continued to import large amounts of goods from Asia in the first three months of 2022. During this period, total volume imported from Asia increased to 1.62 million TEU — 31.1% higher than in the same period in pre-pandemic 2019 (Mogelluzzo, B. April 22, 2022).

Due to congestion in West Coast ports, the proportion of Asian goods entering the country through East Coast and Gulf Coast ports also rose in the first quarter of 2022 compared to the same period in 2021: by about 33% along the Atlantic and 6% along the Gulf (Mogelluzzo, B. April 22, 2022). Increases were particularly steep in the south: 9.2% at Savannah; 12.5% at Norfolk; 26% at Charleston; and an astonishing 52.1% through Houston.

Due to Covid-19-related port and factory shutdowns in China, a rising share of imports to the U.S. in 2022 came from other countries in Asia. Imports grew especially from Vietnam but also Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Korea (Wallis, K. May 11, 2022).

Port of Long Beach Pier G – ITS – MOL vessel; photo by port authority

Starting in May 2022, West Coast ports began to recover their dominant role – probably because East Coast and Gulf Coast ports were now suffering their own congestion-related delays. Virtually all the restored traffic entered through the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex; these ports imported a monthly record of 851,956 TEU from Asia in May. Imports through Seattle and Tacoma actually declined from the previous month, while Oakland’s imports from Asia remained steady (Mongelluzzo, June 15, 2022).

Thus, the “baseline” for US imports from Asia each month is now 20 to 30% higher than it was before COVID-19 disrupted supply chains (Mongelluzzo, June 15, 2022).

East Coast Ports Deepening and Expanding to Accept Larger Ships

Meanwhile, East Coast ports continue efforts to deepen their channels and expand their infrastructure so that they can service the larger container ships.

In late June 2022 the US Army Corps of Engineers approved the plan by the Port of New York-New Jersey (PANYNJ) to dredge channels to accommodate more post-Panamax ships. The largest ship that has called at NY-NJ was 16,000 TEU; port officials hope to accommodate ships up to 21,000 TEU, apparently using current capacity (Angell, June 23, 2022; Angell, May 27, 2022). PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney says the port expects to see annual volumes rise to 17 million TEU by 2050, almost double its throughput in 2021 (Angell, May 27, 2022).

The Corps found the PANYNJ plan to be both environmentally and economically sound. The Corps will now seek Congressional funding for the project in the 2024 Water Resources Development Act; the Port Authority will also contribute to the project (Angell, June 23, 2022).  We need to be more active in commenting on these port expansion environmental assessments!

The Port of NY-NJ is also seeking to expand storage facilities for incoming shipping containers. Several sites are at various stages of consideration and development; one – part of the “Port Ivory” site on Staten Island – includes a tidal wetland.  A November 2021 application by PANYNJ a change-in-use permit is under review by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (Angell, May 27, 2022). Can those interested in environmental protection express their opposition?

The Port of Charleston is expected to finish dredging its inner harbor and channel this year. Last year, the Port of Virginia has received initial funding for a dredging project that should be completed by 2024 (Angell, May 27, 2022).

As we know, numerous tree-killing insects have been introduced from Asia to the ecologically similar forests of eastern North America – often in wood packaging. ALB in Charleston These include Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, redbay ambrosia beetle, phytophagous and Kuroshia shot hole borers (for profiles of each visit here). Indeed, 15 of 16 non-native bark beetles in the Xyleborini (a tribe of ambrosia beetles) detected in the United States since 2000 are from Asia (Bob Rabaglia, USFS Forest Health Protection, presentation at IUFRO meeting in Prague, September 2021).

Growing numbers of containers entering Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports raises the risk of additional introductions. Insects associated with imports from semi-tropical ports in Vietnam entering the U.S. through Gulf or southern Atlantic ports might well find these regions hospitable. I worry, for example, about the polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers – surely the Gulf Coast provides a more suitable environment for insects from Vietnam and Taiwan than does southern California? And known hosts are present – box elder, willows, sweetgum, mimosa, tree of heaven …

Of course, containers are then sent on from the ports to distribution centers – presenting opportunities for pest introductions in inland areas. New or expanded distribution centers include Atlanta and Appalachian Regional Port and Statesboro Airport in Georgia, Rocky Mount, North Carolina; Huntsville, Alabama; Portsmouth and Front Royal, Virginia (Ashe and Angell July 5, 2022). Front Royal is at the northern end of Shenandoah National Park!

photo by Daveylin via Flickr

European Trade

Meanwhile, U.S. imports from Europe continued at high levels – although they were not breaking records. In the first half of 2022, the U.S. imported just under 1.77 million TEU from Europe. The largest category of commodity from Northern Europe was foodstuffs — 410,930 TEU. Machinery and mechanical products imports – the type of good often associated with infested wood packaging – numbered 228,521 TEU. Vehicles, aircraft, and vessels imports were 107,526 TEU. “Miscellaneous manufactured articles” that include furniture, bedding, mattresses, and light fittings were 132,979 TEU. I expect – although the source does not so state – that this last category includes decorative stone and tile – again, a category often associated with infested wood packaging.

 While fewer damaging pests have been introduced from Europe in recent decades, the risk remains.

Updated Haack Analysis

As has been documented repeatedly (e.g., my blogs, including 248), the current approach to curtailing pest introductions associated with wood packaging is not sufficiently effective. Customs officials continue to detect live quarantine pests in wood packaging as it enters the country. However, the exact level of this threat is unclear since the only assessment was based on data from 2009 (Haack et al., 2014).  I eagerly await the results of Bob Haack’s updated analysis, which I hope will be published soon.

SOURCES

Angell, M. NY-NJ port lays groundwork for larger ships ahead of dredging. May 27, 2022.  https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-new-york-and-new-jersey/ny-nj-port-lays-groundwork-larger-ships-ahead-dredging_20220527.html

Angell, M. NY-NJ deepening study gets US Army Corps blessing. June 23, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-new-york-and-new-jersey/ny-nj-deepening-study-gets-us-army-corps-blessing_20220623.html?utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Ports%206%2F29%2F22%20%20%20REDO_PC00000_e-production_E-140850_SA_0629_0900&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Ashe, A. and Angell, M. Rising volumes slowing port flow on East, Gulf coasts. July 5, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/rising-volumes-slowing-port-flow-east-gulf-coasts_20220705.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%207%2F6%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-141183_KB_0706_0617

Knowler, G. Rising US imports keep pressure on trans-Atlantic. July 18, 2022.  https://www.joc.com/port-news/international-ports/rising-us-imports-keep-pressure-trans-atlantic_20220718.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%207%2F19%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-141796_KB_0719_0617

Mongelluzzo, B. Q1 US imports from Asia show no slowing in consumer demand. Apr 22, 2022. https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/q1-us-imports-asia-show-no-slowing-consumer-demand_20220422.html

Mongelluzzo, B. U.S. imports from Asia surge to unexpected record in May. June 15, 2022. https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/us-imports-asia-surge-unexpected-record-may_20220615.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%206%2F16%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-140076_KB_0616_0617

Wallis, K. Asia shippers plug trans-Pacific export gap from China COVID-19 disruption. May 11, 2022.

https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/trade-lanes/asia-shippers-plug-trans-pacific-export-gap-china-covid-19-disruption_20220511.html?utm_source=Eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CL_JOC%20Daily%205%2F12%2F22%20NONSUBSCRIBER_PC015255_e-production_E-137446_KB_0512_0617

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

Canada’s 64th Forest Pest Management Forum — in Short

spruce budworm; photo by Jerry E. Dewey, USFS; via Bugwood

The 64th Forest Pest Management Forum was held in December 2021. This is the largest and most significant gathering of forest pest management experts, managers, and practitioners in Canada. The proceedngs are available here. I summarize the contents. (This is my third review of recent reports on invasive species by Canadians. See also here and here. I appeciate the opportunity to learn about forest pest issues across such a large proportion of North America!

As usual, much of the attention was given to native pests, e.g.,

  • mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in Yukon, Alberta [declining numbers and areas affected]; Saskatchewan [none found in boreal forest]
  • Jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) – Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario.  [damage to jack pine in the Northwest Territories is caused by an unknown agent]
  • spruce pests, including spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) across the country: from  Yukon and Northwest Territories to New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; Newfoundland and Labrador
  • aspen defoliators – British Columbia; Northwest Territories; Alberta; Saskatchewan;
  • Swiss Needle Cast – British Columbia
  • Septoria leaf and stem blight in hybrid poplars (Populus genus) spreading in British Columbia; fears it could threaten black cottonwood, a keystone species in riparian ecosystems
hemlock mortality caused by HWA in Nova Scotia; photo by Celia Boone, NSDLF

The meeting also reported the following on non-native forest pests:

  • Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) — Canada has been declared free of ALB; national grid-based detection surveys continue – visual surveys at 10 sites; none found
  • emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) — trapping focused on high-risk locations and urban centers outside established regulated areas with no new detections in 2021. Saskatchewan continues to regulate EAB as a quarantine pest – after its detection in Winnipeg in November 2017. In New Brunswick, EAB has spread throughout the region where it was originally discovered in early 2021. In Nova Scotia, EAB remains undetected outside of the regulated area of Halifax
  • spongy moth (Lymantria dispar dispar) – trapping continues across Canada; detections in all provinces except Newfoundland – Labrador. Officials think they have eradicated an incipient population in Manitoba. Outbreaks are intensifying in Ontario and Québec (spongy moth is also expanding in northern US)
  • brown spruce longhorned beetle (Tetropium fuscum) – widespread trapping in Nova Scotia detected no new finds.
  • hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) is a priority species. Hemlock is a major component of the forested regions in the eastern provinces and HWA threatens to cause potentially irreparable damage to hemlock-dominated areas. Visual detection surveys were conducted at more than 180 high risk locations in eastern Canada. HWA has been confirmed in 7 counties of Nova Scotia – 2 of them new; plus a new infestation in Ontario.
  • beech leaf-mining weevil (Orchestes fagi) — continues to spread, with 22,129 ha of damage and mortality in areas near Halifax, Nova Scotia. The report makes no mention of beech leaf disease and here.
  • Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi & O.novo-ulmi) – spreading rapidly in parts of Saskatchewan; major control effort in Manitoba, where 38 communities are participating in a provincial program and Winnipeg has its own program.
  • elm zig zag sawfly (Aproceros leucopoda) – Canadian authorities are apparently considering what their response should be  [see also Martel et al. 2022. (open access!) 
elm zigzag sawfly; photo by Gyorgy Csoka Hungarian Forest Research Organization; via Bugwood

Canadian authorities have active surveillance programs targetting three species established in the U.S. which they worry will enter Canada:

spotted lanternfly eggs; New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation photo
  • oak wilt (Ceratocystis fagacearum) – visual surveys at more than 60 sites in Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; so far, no detections.
  • spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) authorities noted the many possible pathways of introduction
  • brown-tail moth (Euproctis chrysorrhoea) – rising population in Maine; several additional public reports of sightings in New Brunswick.

Policy

Canada has a National Forest Pest Strategy adopted by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) in 2007. The CCFM Forest Pest Working Group (FPWG) plays a major role in advancing this Strategy. It also provides a national forum for generating ideas and exchanging information about forest pest management among federal, provincial, and territorial government agencies.

According to officials of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the government has initiated limited pathway-based surveys to detect introduced pests associated with wood packaging material (crates, pallets, etc.). [See additional blogs posted here under “wood packaging” category. E.g., this one.  The agency is also developing an efficient, safe and feasible management program for handling shipborne dunnage. CFIA expected to publish a revised directive in spring 2022, then fully implement it by fall 2022.

Presentations on Individual Pests

The Proceedings include abstracts of presentations on individual species. The abstracts rarely provide the final findings.

Emma J. Hudgins, of Carleton University, reported on ways to optimize control of EAB in the U.S. She found that the best management strategy combined site-focused activities – such as biocontrol — and spread-focused (quarantine) management measures. This combined strategy vastly outperformed efforts based on limiting propagule pressure or managing single sites. In other words, quarantines should be refined rather than abandoned – as the US has done.

Oregon ash forest on the Willamette River, Oregon; photo by W. Williams, Oregon Dept. of Forestry

Chris MacQuarrie of the Canadian Forest Service reviewed use of biocontrol agents targetting EAB. Canada has approved release of three agents also approved in the United States: Tetrastichus planipennisi in 2013; Oobius agrili in 2015; Spathius galinae in 2017. Canada began trying to evaluate their impacts in 2018 – but the results are not included in the abstract.

Lucas Roscoe, also of the Canadian Forest Service, reviewed biocontrol efforts targetting hemlock woolly adelgid. The abstract doesn’t provide conclusions.

Kevin Porter and James Brandt assessed the risk of the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) outbreaks in Eastern Canada’s Forests. The insect is the most widely distributed and destructive pest of spruce-fir forests in Canada; it is native to much of boreal and hemiboreal North America. Outbreaks occur periodically. Cumulative tree defoliation and mortality can result in significant losses of important timber and non-timber resources, affecting the forest industry and forest-dependent communities.

Stefan Zeglen and Nicolas Feau reported on the importance of environmental conditions in causing one disease. Swiss Needle Cast (caused by the usually innocuous endophyte Nothophaeocryptopus gaeumannii) has become pathogenic on Douglas-fir, causing up to 60% growth loss. This results from changing climate – and is expected to worsen with rising temperatures and humidity.

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

Comment to APHIS on its Strategic Plan

APHIS is seeking stakeholder input to its new strategic plan to guide the agency’s work over the next 5 years.

The strategic plan framework is a summary of the draft plan; it provides highlights including the mission and vision statements, core values, strategic goals and objectives, and trends or signals of change we expect to influence the agency’s work in the future. APHIS is seeking input on the following questions:

  • Are your interests represented in the plan?
  • Are there opportunities for APHIS to partner with others to achieve the goals and objectives?
  • Are there other trends for which the agency should be preparing?
  • Are there additional items APHIS should consider for the plan?

range of American beech – should APHIS be doing more to protect it from 3 non-native pests?

The strategic plan framework is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2022-0035-0001

To comment, please visit: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2022-0035

Comments must be received by July 1, 2022, 11:59pm (EST).

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

Help Ensure Best Pest-Countering Programs Possible!

This blog asks YOU!!! to support funding for key USDA programs. Each is essential for protecting the resilience of the Nation’s forests in the face of invasive pests. Please help by contacting your members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. I provide a list of members – by state – at the end of this blog.

While the two key federal programs overlap, they are separately managed: USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and USDA’s Forest Service (USFS). These two agencies are funded by different subcommittees of the House and Senate’s Appropriations committees. APHIS is funded by the Subcommittees on Agriculture and Related Agencies. USFS is funded by the Subcommittees on Interior.

Your letter or email need be no more than a couple paragraphs. To make the case for greater funding, feel free to pick-and-choose from the information that follows. Your greatest impact comes from speaking specifically about what you know and where you live.

These are the specific dollar things we’d like you to ask for. The rationale for each is below.

Appropriations for APHIS programs (in $millions)

ProgramFY 2021FY 2022  CRFY 2023 Pres’ requestPlease ask
Tree & Wood Pest$60.456$61.217$63 $70
Specialty Crops$196.553$209.553$219 $219
Pest Detection$27.733$28.218$29 $30
Methods Development$20.844$21.217$22 $23

Appropriations for USFS programs (in $millions)

ProgramFY 2021FY 2022  CRFY 2023 Pres’ requestPlease ask
Forest Health Protection Coop Lands$30.747 $30.747 $36,747$51
FHP Federal Lands $15.485 $15.485 $22.485 $32
Research & Development$258.760 $258.760 $317.773 $317.733
    % for forest invaders~1%??0$16 M

Background on the Threat

I’m sure you are familiar with the many ecosystem services provided by America’s forests and woodlands – wildland, rural, and urban. (Besides – maybe you just love trees!) I assume you also know that these forests are under threat from a growing number of non-native insects and pathogens.

For a quick review, see earlier blogs re: 1) an estimate that 41% of forest biomass in the “lower 48” states is at risk to mortality caused by the most damaging 15 species; black ash swamps of the upper Midwest; unique forest ecosystems of Hawai`i; riparian forests in the far West; stream canyons of the Appalachian range and; high-elevation forests of the West; and unique forests of Southwest Oregon.  Also, see the thorough discussion of these pests’ impacts in Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest Sector – blog; link available here]

Meanwhile, newly-discovered pests continue to appear and require research and management. The most troubling current example is beech leaf disease. It’s killing beech trees from Ohio to Maine and south to Virginia.

These introduced pests usually first appear in cities or suburbs because they arrive on imported goods shipped to population centers. The immediate result is enormous damage to urban forests. A recently published article (“Hotspots of pest-induced US urban tree death, 2020–2050”), projects that, by 2050, 1.4 million street trees in urban areas and communities will be killed by introduced insect pests. Removing and replacing these trees is projected to cost cities $30 million per year. Additional urban trees – in parks, other plantings, on homeowners’ properties, and in urban woodlands – are also expected to die.

As we know, newly-arrived pests don’t stay in those cities. Some spread on their own. Others are carried far and wide on firewood, plants, patio furniture, even storage pods. And so they proliferate in rural and wildland forests, including US National Forests.

As we know too well, many pests—especially the highly damaging wood-borers—arrive in inadequately treated crates, pallets, and other forms of packaging made of wood. Other pests—e.g., spotted lanternfly —take shelter, or lay their eggs, in or on virtually any exposed hard surface, such as steel or decorative stone.

Imports from Asia have historically transported the most damaging pests. Unfortunately, imports from Asia have reached unprecedented volume – currently they’re running at a rate of 20 million shipping containers per year. Research findings lead to an estimate that at least 7,500 of these containers are carrying a tree-killing pest. The “Hotspots” authors found that if a new woodborer that attacks maples or oaks is introduced, it could kill 6.1 million trees and cost American cities $4.9 billion over 30 years. The risk would be highest if this pest were introduced to the South – and southern ports are receiving more direct shipments from Asia!  

Some types of pests—especially plant diseases and sap sucking insects —come on imported plants. A principle example is sudden oak death (SOD; and which attacks more than 100 species of trees and shrubs). Other examples are the rapid ʻōhiʻa death pathogen that threatens Hawai`i’s most widespread tree, ʻōhiʻa lehua; and beech leaf disease, a newly discovered threat that is killing beech trees in a band stretching from Ohio to Maine.

Background on Specific USDA Funding Requests

APHIS

To reduce the risk of new pest introductions and strengthen response to many important pests, please ask your member of Congress and Senators to support appropriations that support key APHIS programs in the table above. (I assume you know that APHIS is responsible for preventing introduction and spread of invasive pests. While most port inspections are carried out by the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, APHIS sets the policy guidance. APHIS also inspects imports of living plants.)

Thank your member for the incremental increases in funding for these programs in FY22 but suggest that a more substantial investment is warranted.  

The Tree and Wood Pests account supports eradication and control efforts targeting principally the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) and spongy (formerly gypsy) moth. Eradicating the ALB normally receives about two-thirds of the funds. The programs in Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina must continue until eradication succeeds.

The Tree and Wood Pests account formerly also funded APHIS’ emerald ash borer (EAB) regulatory program. APHIS terminated this program in January 2021. The probable result is that EAB will spread more rapidly to the mountain and Pacific Coast states. Indeed, the “Hotspots” article identified Seattle and Takoma as likely to lose thousands of ash trees in coming decades. This result shows what happens when APHIS programs are inadequately funded.

Re: the plant diseases and sap sucking insects that enter the country on imported plants, APHIS’ management is through its Specialty Crops program. Repeatedly, SOD-infected plants and have been shipped from nurseries in the Pacific Coast states to vulnerable states across the East and South. Clearly this program needs re-assessment and – perhaps – additional funding.

The Specialty Crops program also is home to APHIS’ efforts to counter the spotted lanternfly, which has spread from Pennsylvania to Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, even Indiana. This pest threatens both native trees and agricultural crops – including hops, grapes, apples, and more. California has adopted a state quarantine in hopes of preventing its introduction to that state. Still, APHIS has not established a quarantine.

Please ask the Congress to support the Administration’s request for $219 million for the Specialty Crops program. However, urge them to adopt report language to ensure that APHIS allots adequate funding under this budget line to management of both sudden oak death and spotted lanternfly.

Two additional APHIS programs are the foundation for effective pest prevention. First, the Pest Detection program is key to the prompt detection of newly introduced pests that is critical to successful pest eradication or containment. Please ask the Congress to fund Pest Detection at $30 million. Second, the “Methods Development” program enables APHIS to improve development of essential detection and eradication tools. Please ask the Congress to fund Methods Development at $23 million.

Please ask your member of Congress to support the Administration’s request for a $50.794 million fund for management of emergencies threatening America’s agricultural and natural resources. This program includes a $6 million increase for work with the Climate Conservation Corps specifically targetting invasive species. Although the details are not yet clear, the program’s focus will be to improve surveillance and mitigation methods.

US Forest Service

The USFS has two programs critical to managing non-native tree-killing pests – Forest Health Management (or Protection; FHP) and Research and Development (R&D). FHP provides technical and financial assistance to USFS units (e.g., National forests and regions), other federal agencies, states, municipalities, and other partners to detect and manage introduced pests – including several that APHIS regulates and dozens that it does not. R&D funds efforts to understand non-native insects, diseases, and plants – which are usually scientific mysteries when they first are detected. Of course, this knowledge is crucial to effective programs to prevent, suppress, and eradicate the bioinvader. See the table at the beginning of the blog for specific funding requests for each program.

The Forest Health Management Program (FHP) has two funding streams: Federal Lands and Cooperative Lands (all forests under non-federal management, e.g., state and private forests, urban forests). Both subprograms must be funded in order to ensure continuity of protection efforts – which is the only way they can be effective. Some members of Congress prefer to focus federal funding on National forests. However, allowing pests to proliferate until they reach a federal forest border will only expose those forests to exacerbated threats. Examples of tree-killing pests that have spread from urban areas to National forests include the hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, sudden oak death, and laurel wilt disease. [All profiled here]

Adequate funding for FHP is vital to realizing the Administration’s goals of ensuring healthy forests and functional landscapes; supporting rural economies and underserved communities; enhancing climate change adaptation and resilience; and protecting biological diversity.

Please ask your Member of Congress and Senators to provide $51 million for work on non-federal cooperative lands. This level would partially restore capacity lost over the last decade. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, spending to combat 11 specified non-native insects and pathogens fell by about 50%. Meanwhile, the pests have spread. Also, please ask your Member and Senators to support a $32 million appropriation for the Federal Lands subprogram for FY23 which is allocated to pests threatening our National forests directly.

A vital component of the FHP program is its leadership on breeding pest-resistant trees to restore forests decimated by pests. FHP’s Dorena Genetic Resource Center, in Oregon, has developed Port-Orford cedar seedlings resistant to the fatal root-rot disease. and blog. These seedlings are now being planted by National forests, the Bureau of Land Management, and others. In addition, pines with some resistance to white pine blister rust are also under development. The Dorena Center offers expert advice to various partners  engaged in resistance-breeding for Oregon’s ash trees and two tree species in Hawai`i, koa and ʻōhiʻa. and blog.

The USFS research program is well funded at $317 million. Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of this research budget has been allocated to improving managers’ understanding of specific invasive species and, more generally, of the factors contributing to bioinvasions. Funding for research conducted by USFS Research stations on ten non-native pests decreased from $10 million in Fiscal Year 2010 to just $2.5 million in Fiscal Year 2020 – less than 1% of the total research budget. This cut of more than 70% has crippled the USFS’ ability to develop effective tools to manage the growing number of pests.

To ensure the future health of America’s forests, please ask your Member of Congress and Senators to request the Subcommittee to include in its report instructions that USFS increase the funding for this vital research area to 5% of the total research budget. The $16 million would fund research necessary to improving managers’ understanding of invasive forest insects’ and pathogens’ invasion pathways and impacts, as well as to developing effective management strategies. Addressing these threats is vital to supporting the Administration’s priorities of increasing adaptation and resilience to climate change and implementing nature-based solutions.

The USFS Research and Development program should expand its contribution to efforts to breed trees resistant to non-native pests; programs deserving additional funding include hemlocks resistant to hemlock woolly adelgid; ashes resistant to emerald ash borer; beech resistant to both beech bark disease and beech leaf disease; link to DMF and elms resistant to Dutch elm disease. The Research program also continues studies to understand the epidemiology of laurel wilt disease, which has spread to sassafras trees in Kentucky and Virginia.

Members of House Appropriations Committee

STATEMEMBERAPHIS APPROPUSFS APPROP
ALRobert AderholtX 
CalifBarbara Lee
David Valadao
Josh Harder		X
X  		   

X
FLDebbie Wasserman       ScultzX   
GASanford BishopX 
IDMike Simpson X
ILLauren UnderwoodX 
MDAndy HarrisX 
MEChellie PingreeXX
MIJohn MoolenaarX 
MNBetty McCollumXX
NVSusie Lee
Mark Amodei		 X
X
NYGrace MengX 
OHMarcy Kaptur
David Joyce		 X
X
PAMatt Cartwright X
TXHenry CuellarX 
UTChris Stewart X
WADan Newhouse
Derek Kilmer		X
X
WIMark PocanX 

Members of Senate Appropriations Committee

STATEMEMBERAPHIS APPROPUSFS APPROP
AKLisa Murkowski X
CalifDiane FeinsteinXX
FLMarco Rubio X
HIBrian SchatzX 
INMike BraunX 
KSJerry MoranX 
KYMitch McConnellXX
MDChris Van Hollen X
MESusan CollinsX 
MSCindy Hyde-SmithXX
MORoy BluntXX
MTJon TesterXX
NDJohn HoevenX 
NMMartin HeinrichXX
ORJeff MerkleyXX
RIJack Reed X
TNBill Hagerty X
VTPatrick LeahyXX
WVShelly Moore Capito X
WITammy BaldwinX 

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

APHIS – 50 years + plant pest detection month

beech leaf disease – Not one of the plant pests that APHIS is regulating! Photo by Jennifer Koch, USFS

APHIS has reminded us that 2022 is the agency’s 50th year. In its press release, APHIS claims several accomplishments over this period:

  • Eradicating plant pests like European grapevine moth and plum pox from the country, while reducing the impact of others plant diseases, including boll weevil and Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies;
  • Eradicating serious animal diseases, including highly pathogenic avian influenza, virulent Newcastle disease, and pseudorabies, from the country’s herds and flocks, while reducing the prevalence of other animal diseases like bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis;
  • Improving care for laboratory animals, exhibited animals and other animals;
  • Ensuring genetically engineered plants do not pose a risk to plant health, while keeping up with the ever-changing technology in this field;
  • Reducing the impact of wildlife damage on agriculture and natural resources; and
  • Ensuring safe trade of agriculture commodities across the globe

APHIS also launched a new page on its website to share a series of visual timelines of its history and important milestones.

APHIS also states that USDA) has declared April 2022 to be Invasive Plant Pest and Disease Awareness Month (IPPDAM). The link Invasive Plant Pest and Disease Awareness Month connects you to APHIS’ webpage. Secretary Vilsack asks people to be alert. He noted particularly the risk that pests will hitch a ride on untreated firewood, outdoor gear and vehicles, and soil, seeds, homegrown produce, and plants.

The notice urges people to:

  • Familiarize yourself with the invasive pests that are in your area, and their symptoms. [Faith says – also look for pests not “here” yet – early detection!]
  • Look for signs of new invasive plant pests and diseases and report them to your local Extension office, State department of agriculture or your USDA State Plant Health Director’s office.
  • When returning from travel overseas, declare all agricultural items to U.S. Customs and Border Protection so they can ensure your items won’t harm U.S. agriculture or the environment.
  • Don’t move untreated firewood. Buy local or use certified heat-treated firewood, or responsibly gather it on site where permitted.
  • Source your plants and seeds responsibly. When ordering online, don’t assume items available from foreign retailers are legal to import into the United States. Learn how to safely and legally order plants and seeds online.
  • Don’t mail homegrown plants, fruits and vegetables. You may live in an area under quarantine for a harmful invasive plant pest. You could inadvertently mail a pest.
  • When in doubt, contact your local USDA State Plant Health Director’s office to find out what you need to do before buying seeds or plants online from an international vendor or before mailing your homegrown agricultural goods.