Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 7 : a P » ae i =~ ‘ y A 7 : : 7 id = Se7 y a > 7- : .| U a <- > | a , | | Reserve aSB975 AS. Forest Health Technology -A127S68 1996 Enterprise [eam TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Proceedings of the Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative Workshop 4 ’ oe Ay 14 ecom , Pi %S. he Phillip Gibson Charles R. Parker Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, WV USDA thst Forest FHTET-98-14 a Service February 1999 Acknowledgments Thanks to the U. S. Department of Agriculture National Biological Control Institute, the U. S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division, and the Southern Appalachian Man and Biosphere Cooperative, who provided funding for the implementation of this workshop; to the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Tech- nology Enterprise Team for funding the publication costs for these Proceedings; to Shirley Wilsey of Autometric Services Company for editing, layout, and design; to Patty Dougherty for printing advice and coordination; and to the numerous technical support personnel involved in laboratory and field efforts. Cover photo: White ovisacs are very apparent and an easy way to identify trees infested with hemlock woolly adelgid. Information about pesticides appears in this publication. Publication of this information does not constitute endorsement or recommenda- tion by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, nor does it imply that all uses discussed have been registered. Use of most pesticides is regu- lated by State and Federal law. Applicable regulations must be ob- tained from appropriate regulatory agencies. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife if not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices given on the label for use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 1-800-245-6340 (voice). or 202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. Federal Recycling Program Printed on recycled paper Proceedings of the Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative Workshop Asheville, North Carolina September 26 and 27, 1996 organized by Phillip Gibson' and Charles R. Parker? ‘Western North Carolina Tomorrow and The Mountain Resource at Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina * U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource Division, Gatlinburg, Tennessee published by U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, WV U.S.D.A., NAL mys - | 1999 | Received ee = i Further Acknowledgments Thanks to: The United States Department of Agriculture's National Biological Control Institute, the United States Geological Survey's Biological Resource Division and the Southern Appalachian Man and Biosphere Cooperative who provided funding for the implementation of this workshop; Dr. Charles Parker, whose contributions to the workshop financially (through funding by the United States Geological Survey Biological Resources Division), technically, and logistically were invaluable; The Southern Appalachian Man and Biosphere (SAMAB) Cooperative for providing the Southern Appalachian Assessment and other technical support, Bob Thatcher for impeccable minutes, and Hubert Hinote for allowing me the freedom to pursue this effort; The Great Smoky Mountain National Park staff—Keith Langdon and Joe Abrell (who together initiated the Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative workshop), Kristine Johnson, Glen Gaines, and Superintendent Karen Wade—for their guidance, assistance and insight; and The NC Arboretum staff—George Briggs, Executive Director, and Laura Johnson—for providing us with an appropriate and outrageously beautiful site for the workshop. Special thanks to the participants and speakers who presented their research and ideas. Through participatory discussions and information sharing, they assisted in furthering the cooperative spirit needed for addressing the complexities of all ecosystems. The speakers were Ernest Delfosse, Scott Schlarbaum, Roy Van Driesche, Gary Johnston, Faith Campbell, Randy Westbrooks, Bill MacDonald, Mark Windham, Dave Houston, Bob Anderson, Mike Montgomery, Richard Reardon, and Roger Fuester. Phill Gibson Environmental Planner SAMAB September 1997 Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative Workshop Proceedings Contents Summary of Workshop and Conclusions .........ccssssssssesssssssssssesesesssssesssssserssereseees 1 Biological Control of Arthropod Pests of the Northeastern and Northcentral Forests in the United States: A Review of the Literature and Identification of Future Opportunities fcmey CIMUNESCHC BOMLICCIVE Fe ERCOLCON Aint seis-stcccscsesscssipsclesssevcstesesesssrecensevevsevee na Exotic Plants and Biocontrol PTE WMG} ASS AiCg RTEO f cs ccicay bape Sie eo 15 Biological Approaches to Chestnut Blight Control Ee AMV LLCCo)ilc AlC LM teeter tren rs EOP grec gccasccesnyaroessvectavscedesnteusessos 19 Potential for Biologically Based Control of Beech Bark Disease in the Southern Appalachians AE nt mataO UIS LOU meen ete ee aca rsacaacassnnesveessdeestsesstacecgatese 23 Butternut Canker Robert L. Anderson, Scott E. Schlarbaum, Pauline C. Spaine.......... cece 33 Biological Control of the Gypsy Moth: An Overview PAG ASR, TRUEEE (ROTOY 8 rcsreccnscetncreniaes Ma dne nae? Ue EEE CERESSECE a CECE eo anee e eer oreeee 39 Woolly Adelgids in the Southern Appalachians: Why they Are Harmful and Prospects for Control Niciae iin ViOntGOmery sanememremer ttre mieeten tn So ree. 0) Meee 47 PISHOUACLOVUN Smpmtremnnttterrteciete titertsertreccterettactictystiecirereresavercsrerercenresenencerass oY Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative Workshop Proceedings September 1996 Chuck Parker of the former and Phillip Gibson of the latter, this workshop disseminated and shared information on the history of major invasions of exotic insects, diseases, and plants which affect the southern Appalachians and on management strategies for the biological control of these exotics. Funding Issues raised by the impacts of exotic species reach beyond political, disciplinary, economic, or agency boundaries. Therefore, the organizers of this workshop sought collaboration by a number of experts from a variety of disciplines in both the public and private sectors. Funding for this collaborative workshop came jointly from the USGS BRD and a grant to SAMAB from the USDA National Biological Control Institute (NBCI). USGS BRD’s directive for “The Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative” is the outgrowth of a BRD grant, “Initiate Biological Control of Forest Pests.” The proposal for this grant originated in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of the National Park Service. The BRD Natural Resources Protection Program funded the proposal, making a grant to the Southern Appalachian Field Laboratory (SAFL) of the Leetown Science Center. Chuck Parker, of the Great Smokies Field Station, an office of the SAFL, developed the work plan. The proposal calls upon BRD to establish a mechanism to coordinate the needs of Department of Interior (DOD land managers for biological control. The authors of the proposal suggested that biological control practitioners, who traditionally are supported to study agriculturally or economically important species, were giving biological control of many serious exotic forest pests less emphasis than is warranted. To ensure that the goals of the original proposal were met, the work plan called for a series of regional workshops to identify and rank the most serious exotic pests in each region. The authors of the work plan concluded that a regional approach was necessary to prevent species that have invaded tens of thousands of hectares in one region, such as tamarisk in the West or melaleuca in South Florida, from overshadowing the pests of other regions in importance. The regional approach required input from land managers of national parks and forests, as well as from managers of state, private, and commercial lands. After ranking the pests according to the threat they present to the resource, the plan prioritized them according to their potential as targets of biological control. This process required the participation of authorities in biological control who could address those questions. Finally, the workshop participants were asked to recommend a plan of action to implement biological control against the targeted pest(s). The initial workshop was held at the North Carolina Arboretum in Asheville, North Carolina. The SAMAB Program obtained additional financial support for the workshop from the NBCI, a entity of the U.S. September 1996 Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative Workshop Proceedings Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Workshop Findings Thirty-two federal, four state, six private, and 11 university representatives participated in the two-day workshop (see the attached attendance sheet). The first day was devoted to discussions of the most recent developments in biological control, invasive species, and DOI policies. On the second day, participants were assigned to one of six work groups which were organized to ensure that each group had a good mix both of land managers and technical authorities, and of federal, state, private, and university participants. The work groups were charged with identifying the most serious exotic pests in the region and ranking them according to their threat to the resource. Group leaders recorded the choices and the justifications for each choice. When the groups reconvened and compiled the rankings, it was found that each group had chosen hemlock woolly adelgid as the most significant threat facing Southern Appalachian forests. The choices for second and third most serious pests were also broadly, though not unanimously, supported. These were, respectively, balsam woolly adelgid and beech bark disease. Butternut canker was ranked fourth. Another interesting result of the ranking exercise was that kudzu, an exotic vine that grows over all obstacles in its path throughout the Southeast, was chosen by two groups as the number one “public interest” pest. These groups felt that kudzu is perhaps the most visible and widely recognized pest in the region. Any effort to control kudzu, therefore, would generate tremendous public interest, serve as a valuable public education tool, and help generate additional funding. Similar sentiments were expressed about the restoration of American chestnut. This tree was once one of the most important hardwood species in the region, before chestnut blight all but eliminated it from the forests. It now exists only as sprouts from still viable root stocks, but even these sprouts succumb to the blight before they can reach maturity. As with kudzu, the work group felt that any efforts on behalf of American chestnut would generate valuable public support for biological control and would help generate additional funds for further research. Thus, kudzu was ranked the fifth, and chestnut blight the sixth, most serious pests. After identifiying and ranking the most serious pests in the region, it was necessary for worshop participants to examine the pests and determine the potential for each as a target of biocontrol efforts. Following this determination, participants prioritized the pests according to their severity ranking and their potential for control. The distinction between ranking and priority is important. The potential of a species as a target of biological control is not necessarily a reflection of its status as a pest. A pest that poses a relatively minor threat to an ecosystem may nevertheless 3) Southern Appalachian Biological Control Initiative Workshop Proceedings September 1996 have excellent prospects for successful biological control. Alternatively, there may be little or no prospect for successful biological control of a serious threat to ecosystem integrity. Therefore, prioritizing pests once they have been ranked may result in a different ordering of the species. This difficult process was debated for some time. Arguments were presented for and against each pest, and the pros and cons were tabulated. Finally, the group arrived at the consensus that hemlock woolly adelgid was the highest priority pest in terms of its potential for successful biological control as well as the highest ranked pest in terms of its threat to the resource. However, the potential for and the value of chestnut restoration, and the prospects of accomplishing something meaningful against kudzu, resulted in those species being prioritized second and third, respectively, despite their lower ranking in terms of seriousness. In addition to their consensus on the top priority of hemlock woolly adelgid, the workshop participants agreed nearly unanimously that public education on these issues is a paramount need. It is the opinion of the participants that without strong educational efforts to support controls that might prevent additional threats from becoming established in this country, the battle against exotic species may not be winnable. In addition, it is the opinion of the participants that biological control is perhaps the single best option for long-term control of widespread pest species. Public support for this approach is vital if it is to succeed, and education is essential to achieve that support. Plan of Action The final task of the workshop was to recommend a plan of action. The BRD grant provided $75,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $125,000 in fiscal year 1998. The participants examined the priority list of species and the need for education and recommended the following: e A total of $140,000 should be earmarked for research on hemlock woolly adelgid. ¢ Kudzu and chestnut blight research should be supported at $20,000 each, at $10,000 each per fiscal year. ¢ $20,000 should be set aside for education, pending the approval of matching funds from other agencies and organizations. In the unlikely event those funds are not forthcoming, the money should go to the adelgid research. The participants expressed satisfaction at the outcome. The organizers felt the process worked very well, and that the mix of people from different agencies and backgrounds was an important part of the success. Among federal agencies, representatives of the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the USDA Forest Service, the NBCI, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service indicated enthusi- +