Identifying, Prioritizing, and Managing Invasive Species

23 Pages·2012·0.29 MB·English

by  Windows User

Identifying, Prioritizing, and Managing Invasive Species Communication Issues in Florida
Final Report-August, 2012

PI: Lance Osborne, UF/IFAS Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL
Cooperators: Amanda Hodges and Carrie Harmon, UF/IFAS Department of Entomology and
Nematology and Department of Plant Pathology, SPDN, Gainesville, FL

Background
The primary purpose of the Cooperative Agreement between USDA-APHIS-PPQ and the
University of Florida was to evaluate how new pests are predicted and how new finds are
responded to by federal, state and local agencies as well as by stakeholders. Information
obtained from this project may be used to determine how the invasive species problem in Florida
should be managed.
The original project goals and objectives included the following:
1) Organize a team of individuals within the state of Florida to evaluate how the issue of
invasive species is being approached.
2) Evaluate how new pests are predicted and how new finds are responded to by Federal,
State and local agencies as well as by stakeholders.

Methods
The overall goal was to “brainstorm” about how invasive species in Florida should be prioritized
and managed. This was accomplished by organization of a UF-IFAS Coordination Team
consisting of Osborne, Harmon, and Hodges. Osborne provided overall project coordination.
The UF-IFAS Coordination Team mentored six Doctor of Plant Medicine students regarding
invasive species communication for nine primary topics (Table 1). DPM student interviewed
between two and seven professionals per topic from academia, state and federal regulatory
agencies, industry, and stakeholder clientele groups (Table 2). Interview time generally ranged
from between fifteen and forty-five minutes. It should be noted that not all of the names of
individuals interviewed are listed in Table 2, and some individuals were interviewed for multiple
topics. DPM students were not extensively familiar with the topics prior to the interview;
therefore, each student devoted a significant amount of time preparing general pest and pathogen
information. In consultation with the DPM students and USDA-APHIS-PPQ cooperators, the
students uniformly asked the interviewees the question list in Appendix 1. Routine meetings
(both in-person and through Polycom videoconferencing) occurred between mentors, students,
and the overall UF-IFAS Cooperation Team (fall 2010-spring 2011). The majority of interviews
occurred during January-March 2011, following the availability of the final list of questions.
Potential candidates for interviews were approved by the UF-IFAS Cooperation Team prior to
the occurrence of interviews. In some cases, potential interviewees would not agree to meet with
students. DPM students presented their interview outcomes at the DPM Colloquium, Spring
Semester 2011. During January-June of 2012, Osborne, Harmon, and Hodges communicated
1
routinely for preparation of the final report. Brief results summary was presented to USDA-
APHIS-PPQ on April 26, 2012 by Osborne and Hodges in Washington, D.C.
Table 1: Interview Topics Provided Per Student
Student Name Discussion Topic(s)
Courtney Buckley1  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea laurelensis and the
Redbay Ambrosia Beetle, Xyleborus glabratus
 Japanese Oak Wilt, Raffaelea quercivorus and
the Ambrosia Beetle, Platypus quercivorus
 Red Palm Mite, Raoiella indica
George Fox  Asian Citrus Psyllid, Diaphorina citri, and
Huanglongbing, Candidatus Liberibacter
asiaticus
Sean Fromang  Citrus Canker, Xanthomonas campestris pv citri
Tamika Garrick2  Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratatis capitata
 Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera dorsalis
 Peach Fruit Fly, Bactrocera zonata
 Guava Fruit Fly, Bactrocera correcta
 Melon Fruit Fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae
 Mexican Fruit Fly, Anastrepha ludens
 Caribbean Fruit Fly, Anastrepha suspensa
Todd Leeson  Sudden Oak Death, Phytophthora ramorum
 Cogon grass, Imperata cylindrica
Annika Minott  Chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis
 Bemisia tabaci, biotype ‘Q’
1Eight individuals were interviewed for a total of ten interview topics. Two individuals (Lyle
Buss and Greg Hodges) were interviewed twice by Ms. Buckley. Seven interviews were
conducted for Xyleborus glabratus and Raffaelea laurelensis. Three interviews were conducted
for Raoiella indica. No interviews were reported for Japanese oak wilt, Raffaelea quercivorus
and the ambrosia beetle, Platypus quercivorus.
2Most of Ms. Garrick’s report and interview information focused on the Mediterranean fruit fly,
Ceratatis capitata, although other exotic fruit flies were secondarily discussed.

Table 2: Names of Individuals Interviewed by Topic1
Name Agency Topic(s)
Lyle Buss University of Florida, Entomology and  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea
Nematology, Insect Identification Lab laurelensis and the
Redbay Ambrosia Beetle,
Xyleborus glabratus
 Red Palm Mite, Raoiella
indica
Jonathan Crane University of Florida, Tropical Research  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea
and Education Center laurelensis and the
2
Redbay Ambrosia Beetle,
Xyleborus glabratus
Erica Goss University of Florida, Department of  Sudden Oak Death (SOD),
Plant Pathology Phytophthora ramorum
Carrie Harmon University of Florida, Department of  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea
Plant Pathology, Plant Disease Clinic laurelensis and the
Director Redbay Ambrosia Beetle,
Xyleborus glabratus
 Sudden Oak Death (SOD),
Phytophthora ramorum
Tom Harrington Iowa State University  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea
laurelensis and the
Redbay Ambrosia Beetle,
Xyleborus glabratus
Greg Hodges Florida Department of Agriculture and  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea
Consumer Services, Division of Plant laurelensis and the
Industry Redbay Ambrosia Beetle,
Xyleborus glabratus
 Red Palm Mite, Raoiella
indica
Marjorie Hoy University of Florida, Department of  Red Palm Mite, Raoiella
Entomology and Nematology indica
Greg University of Florida, Department of  Cogongrass, Imperata
MacDonald Agronomy cylindrica
Jeff Jones University of Florida, Department of  Citrus Canker,
Plant Pathology Xanthomonas campestris
pv citri
Norman Leppla University of Florida, Department of  Mediterranean Fruit Fly,
Entomology and Nematology Ceratatis capitata
David Lowe USDA-APHIS-PPQ  Citrus Canker,
Xanthomonas campestris
pv citri
Albert (Bud) U.S. Forest Service2  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea
Mayfield laurelensis and the
Redbay Ambrosia Beetle,
Xyleborus glabratus

Mark Ritenour University of Florida, Indian River  Citrus Canker,
Research and Education Center, Xanthomonas campestris
Department of Horticulture pv citri
David Rizzo University of California-Davis,  Sudden Oak Death (SOD),
Department of Plant Pathology Phytophthora ramorum
Tim Schubert Florida Department of Agriculture and  Sudden Oak Death (SOD),
Consumer Services, Division of Plant Phytophthora ramorum
Industry
3
Anni Self Unknown  Cogongrass, Imperata
cylindrica
Pete Spyke Florida Citrus Grower  Citrus Canker,
Xanthomonas campestris
pv citri
Anne Vitorelli University of Florida, Department of  Sudden Oak Death (SOD),
Plant Pathology, Plant Disease Clinic Phytophthora ramorum
Diagnostician
Wayne South Florida Avocado grower  Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea
Worthley laurelensis and the
Redbay Ambrosia Beetle,
Xyleborus glabratus
1Incomplete data concerning individuals interviewed. Names of individual interviewed
provided by Courtney Buckley and Todd Leeson in their final written report, and Sean Fromang
and Tamika Garrick in their final presentations. The remaining students provided oral
presentations during the Doctor of Plant Medicine spring seminar series, but did not provide a
concluding written report. Data summary is also problematic due to non-uniform final report
plant for students.
2Formerly employed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Division of Forestry at the time of the response to the redbay ambrosia beetle and laurel wilt
disease incident.

Table 3: Interview Summaries by Topic
Topic Interview Summaries
Asian Citrus Psyllid, Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri, was detected in 1998, and
Diaphorina citri, and Huanglongbing, Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus was identified
Huanglongbing, in 2005. The bacterium is known to have a latency period, and
Candidatus Liberibacter perhaps was present in Florida prior to 2005. Considering the
asiaticus severity of Huanglongbing on a worldwide scale, more immediate
action should have been taken to eradicate the vector when it was
first detected. Overall, limited preparation existed (all agencies).
Once the vector was established, more intensive surveys for
Huanglongbing should have occurred. Also, one of the interviews
cited that state of Florida’s failure to shut down the nursery
industry at a critical period as “One of the biggest mistakes that
state officials in Florida ever made.” The citrus industry also had a
delayed response (and overall concern) in regards to the vector and
disease. Additionally, the adoption of nutrient sprays by some
growers may be perpetuating the disease. Litigations, and the
financial outcomes of litigations, resulted in a slower response
from FDACS-DPI and USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Also, both state and
federal officials are increasingly required to accomplish success
with more limited resources.
Bemisia tabaci, biotype ‘Q’ APHIS needs to address whether or not regulatory measures are
4
possible for resistant populations or biotypes. Communication
regarding the possibility of Bemisia tabaci, biotype ‘Q’ was
inadequate prior to U.S. arrival. Florida preparedness was
adequate. Communication regarding this species was clear and
efficient following its arrival. USDA-APHIS-PPQ established a
technical working group for interstate and interagency research,
extension, regulatory, and industry communications. Initial
interactions between ornamental and cotton commodity specialists
was difficult. Overall actions from USDA-APHIS-PPQ and other
agencies were commendable. Cooperative efforts among
stakeholders were commendable. Stakeholders indicated that
invasive pests should be a high priority. Information to
stakeholders should be readily available and highly visible. Once
Bemisia tabaci, biotype ‘Q’ was detected, there was a good
outreach system in place. Taxonomic tools for this species were
functional upon arrival but improved over time. Overall, the
National Plant Health Emergency Management (NPHEM)
Framework is available, but procedures are not always
implemented. Currently, an older system or an adapted
methodology is deployed for new pest response. In general, there
is a failure to follow through on recovery aspects of the NPHEM.
Perhaps more guidance is needed to implement the NPHEM? A
problem exists with pest complacency after arrival. Oftentimes,
there is a delayed or late start to outreach efforts. Delayed
outreach can be problematic when pest detection is critical.
Opportunities exist to revise and improve the recovery aspects of
the NPHEM. Also, some interviewees suggested furthering
cooperation with industry for improved mitigation strategies. In
general, industry support prior to a mitigation event may assist in
the event’s success. In terms of more inclusively involving
industry, it can be a challenge to include industry that is not
officially part of an organized clientele group. For all mitigation
and regulatory practices, assuring that regulatory measures support
industry needs can be a continual challenge. More needs to be
done to prioritize and predict pests based on the breadth and scope
of hosts in relationship to the crop’s economic importance.
Chilli thrips, Scirtothrips NPAG report was adequate, but the report did acknowledge that
dorsalis not enough pest information was available. NPAG report could
have been improved with more information. The important to the
agricultural community was over-estimated, and the potential
distribution was over-estimated. Overall, individuals interviewed
thought that invasive species should be highly prioritized. Also,
the NPAG report was criticized in terms of focusing on traditional
agriculture rather than ornamental plants. APHIS action was
commendable once chilli thrips was discovered. Once chilli thrips
was established in the U.S., the APHIS established a technical
5
working group in order to facility interstate and interagency
research, extension, regulatory, and industry communications.
Inter-agency cooperation was not a problem after pest discovery.
Taxonomic tools could perhaps have been improved in order to
detect chilli thrips at low population levels.
Citrus Canker, Homeowner anger concerning tree removal was a major issue for
Xanthomonas campestris citrus canker. Litigations prevented eradication, and litigations are
pv citri still occurring. Current strategies involve recovery, management
practices, and restoration plans. The negative public perception
associated with citrus canker has resulted in an increased emphasis
regarding public relation strategies for FDACS-DPI.
Cogongrass, Imperata Cogongrass was originally introduced as a forage crop, and acres
cylindrica had already been planted by the time it was designated as a pest.
Tracking and some containment-based management was the focus
once Cogongrass became a pest. Agreement on a common
management strategy was an issue. Overall, interagency
communications regarding Cogongrass, particularly at the local
level, were quite good.
Laurel Wilt, Raffaelea The introduction of the redbay ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus
laurelensis and the Redbay glabratus, is an example of a pest species that was not particularly
Ambrosia Beetle, a target of concern prior to its introduction. Some individuals
Xyleborus glabratus indicated that communication was good once it was detected. In
particular, communication between FDACS-DPI, SPDN,
Extension Agents, and clientele (i.e. the Avocado Growers
Association) was mentioned as excellent. In general, no one
outside of regulatory (including industry clientele, Extension, and
University of Florida Research professionals) seemed aware of the
New Pest Advisory Group or the report generated. Industry
clientele in south Florida receive direct information from Avocado
Growers Association. This grower group works closely with
Extension and the University of Florida Tropical Research and
Education Center. Other individuals indicated that improved
communications were needed between UF, FDACS-DPI, SPDN,
Extension Agents, Clientele, and APHIS. For high-risk issues,
diagnostic efforts should emphasize correct methods. An initial
issue of misdiagnosis occurred with laurel wilt in Florida.

Japanese Oak Wilt, No NPAG report was generated, and the oak species of concern is
Raffaelea quercivorus and not found in Florida. No official interviews were conducted for
the Ambrosia Beetle, this species.
Platypus quercivorus

Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Numerous eradication programs have occurred over the years, and
Ceratatis capitata the first eradication program was in 1929. In 1997, FDACS-DPI
and USDA-APHIS-PPQ established the fruit fly identification lab
in Palmetto, FL. State and federal regulatory personnel began
6
releasing sterile Ceratatis capitata males. Fruit fly traps are
routinely monitored around the state of Florida, and regulatory
officials follow the plant health management framework if an
actionable detection occurs. Currently, Florida is well prepared for
the immediate deployment of a Ceratatis capitata eradication
program. Cooperative Extension is not typically involved in
Ceratatis capitata eradication, but communications with local UF-
IFAS Cooperative Extension personnel are an essential component
of the public outreach campaign when detection occurs.
Continuing research needs exist regarding traps, lures, and other
tools of potential assistance for early detection.
Red Palm Mite, Raoiella Responses concerning the red palm mite, Raoiella indica, varied
indica depending upon the perspectives and responsibilities of the
candidate interviewed. One individual described the NPAG report
generated as “ideally describing the potential impact.” The APHIS
response was also referred to as rapid and effective. In general, all
candidates interviewed thought that communication between
APHIS-PPQ and the Caribbean was adequate. Once detected in
Florida, communications between UF and FDACS-DPI were
excellent. Some concerns were expressed regarding the lag time in
publishing the minutes of the advisory council on the web. Also,
the conference calls for the advisory council with the red palm
mite eventually just faded away. This appeared as an overall
(advisory panel) communication failure in terms of providing an
adequate conclusion to the process.

Sudden Oak Death (SOD), Most of the interviewees for SOD were not familiar with the
Phytophthora ramorum NPAG report. Overall, all candidates interviewed felt that the pest
was handled fairly well given the available information.
Documents describing the handling of SOD samples, guidelines,
photos, communication, and other information were continually
available through an interagency framework of communication.
Much of the initial information was developed in California as this
was the site of initial detection and establishment. Some interstate
communication issues existed once the plant pathogen was first
detected, but communication issues have generally been resolved
over time. At first, there was a knowledge gap concerning the
biology of SOD in the natural landscape, and the primary focus
was on container horticultural nursery production. Florida and
FDACS-DPI is a good example of responding to interceptions of
SOD, and eradicating intercepted populations.

7
Results Summary
The results summary presented to USDA-APHIS-PPQ on April 26, 2012 is based on the DPM
student interviews, and the collective experiences of Osborne, Harmon, and Hodges. Areas
addressed by the results summary include the following: issues with communications;
contributing success factors; the regulatory framework-areas for improvement; suggestions for
improved communications; suggestions for improvements for APHIS and other regulatory
agencies; and suggested publications.

Issues with Communications
 A framework and process are needed for responding to new exotic species not yet
classified as high risk (and subject to eradication) or if the potential impact to Florida is
unknown.
 As state-funded programs and activities are more traditionally commodity-driven, the
institutional infrastructure and process for communications related to invasive species is
non-existent within UF/IFAS. Currently, invasive species activities are primarily
volunteer-based or only extramurally funded.
 Territorial issues between USDA-APHIS-PPQ, FDACS-DPI, local governments, and
UF/IFAS. Uncertainty regarding the roles and responsibilities of each group may exist
on occasion.
 Communications that appear one-sided (either from federal, state, or UF) may appear
disorganized and non-collaborative to clientele groups.

Contributing Success Factors
 Multi-agency collaboration provides clientele and the general public with a unified
message.
 Openness to listen to all “factions” by APHIS and FDACS-DPI does increase trust
within the stakeholder groups.
 Florida has one of the most extensive Cooperative Extension and State Department of
Agriculture systems in the U.S.
 Main Campus (Gainesville) and Research and Education Center UF research facilities
and expertise.
 Extensive diagnostic and taxonomic expertise through UF, FDACS-DPI, and USDA-
APHIS-PPQ.
 FDACS-DPI and USDA-APHIS-PPQ personnel in Florida have numerous eradication
program success stories.
 The CAPS (Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey) program has distinctly reached out
to UF faculty for comments and suggestions in regards to their annual plan of work.
 UF/IFAS has served as a regional diagnostic center (SPDN) and a national leader in
invasive species First Detector education (NPDN). The NPDN resources have been
leveraged for additional grant and funding opportunities in support of invasive species
education.
 Florida does not have separate County Agriculture Commissioners.

8
Framework-Areas for Improvement
 The framework is fine as a regulatory communication tool.
 A framework for pests that would not result in an immediate response could be
developed. The technical working group model could be a good starting point for this
format for a framework.
 Operational communications to diagnostic labs when a suspect pest or pathogen is
confirmed.

“Suggestions" –Improving Communications
 Key leadership personnel in UF/IFAS, FDACS-DPI, and USDA-APHIS-PPQ could
routinely practice the NPDN Exercise process in regards to sample submission. Some of
these exercises could practice discussing new pest detections that would not necessarily
trigger a major eradication campaign.
 Key leadership personnel for UF/IFAS could participate in either upcoming tabletop or
full scale exercises for FDACS-DPI and USDA-APHIS-PPQ. To an extent, this process
has already occurred with some of the SPDN regional center personnel. Some triage
(within university) training could occur for UF personnel interested in the regulatory
process. UF/IFAS personnel interested in regulatory issues should complete basic ICS
(Incident Command System) training. If certain UF/IFAS personnel had liaison and/or
communication responsibilities with UF/IFAS, then UF/IFAS personnel could also be
considered for emergency program rotations.
 Think about hiring or funding personnel with expertise in the social sciences such as the
authors of the California project.
 Think about hiring or funding personnel with expertise in Community organization to
help initiate community programs aimed at addressing invasions prior to their occurrence.
These would be similar to the pilot project in Palm Beach (Appendix 2)
 Establish a long-term working group to work on developing solutions to communication
problems.

"Suggestions"-Improvements for APHIS and Other Regulatory Agencies
 Regulatory agencies may want to consider partnerships with Cooperative Extension if
documents need to be readily understood by the general public.
 Again, the framework is fine if the target audience is other regulators. LGU personnel
interested in regulatory issues should be able to read and understand the document. Just
as there is a certain professional language commonly used in journals and other sources
of information for scientists, regulators do have a need to consider publishing some
information in a non-regulatory language. Cooperative Extension could be beneficial in
terms of distributing information to the general public.
 Work on how APHIS plans to engage Stakeholders. It can’t be one system fits all. Each
commodity and organization will need their own unique system. The APHIS Stakeholder
[email protected] alert system is not targeted enough and can cause
information overload resulting in people ignoring alerts.
 There is no clear path to get information within APHIS and the system does not allow
easy access to needed information. This is particularly important when it comes to
9
impending threats or pests detected in countries shipping plant materials to Florida
nurseries.
 Posting something on a website does not constitute communication. The existence and
scope of information must be publicized.
 APHIS should re-evaluate the many recommendations made in the “Stakeholder Review
of the APHIS-PPQ Safeguarding System” and develop action plans to address those that
need action or additional action.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/safeguarding/index.shtml

Suggested Publications
A major effort must be made to develop educational materials written specifically for a given
audience.
 Framework = Regulatory community
 Framework light = University scientists
 The Role of APHIS = General public (GP)
 Why are we having such problems? = Extension and GP
 Scope of the problem? = Everyone
 A Primer of what you can do to help or hinder! = General public, Industries, Business,
Scientists, Reporters, Government (all levels), Garden Clubs, Environmental Groups, …
 Words, Jargon and Acronyms Explained and how to use them without causing problems.
 What are the management issues? Control tactics for pests: Their Role Relative to Each
Other, the Problem and Doing Nothing.
 The consequences if caught smuggling prohibited articles or contraband?-fruit, meat,
bugs, snails, etc.
 Updated Response to the “Stakeholder Review of the APHIS-PPQ Safeguarding
System”-where APHIS is and where is going.

10