United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Washington, D.C. 20520 4 September 2015 Dr. Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias Executive Secretary Convention on Biological Diversity World Trade Centre 393 Saint-Jacques Street, Suite 300 Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y 1N9 Dear Dr. Dias: In response to CBD Notification 2015-052 – Submission of Information on Invasive Alien Species Management, the United States has the pleasure of providing the attached resources on invasive alien species management. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jean Preston Acting Director Office of Conservation and Water On behalf of Barbara M. De Rosa-Joynt Chief for Biodiversity U.S. National Focal Point for the Convention on Biological Diversity Attachments: Submission of Invasive Alien Species Management Information United States COVER NOTE FOR SUBMISSION OF INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION Use one sheet per each type of information submitted NAME OF COUNTRY or ORGANIZATION United States of America CONTACT PERSON ON TECHNICAL CONTENTS OF THE INFORMATION Name of the contact Mr. Stanley W. Burgiel person Name of her/his National Invasive Species Council organization Postal address of the c/o U.S. Department of the Interior organization 1849 C Street NW MS-3529 Washington DC 20240 USA Phone number +1 (202) 208 4163 E-mail address [email protected] TYPE OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED – Tick one information source in the right column Peer reviewed journal publication X Other publication, e.g. case study, legislation, best practice X Unpublished (sharable) Suggested citation in See summary information below for references. the CBD document(s), if any preference exists SUGGESTED CATEGORY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED Tick in the right column for relevant session (multiple answers allowed if needed) Wildlife trade e-commerce X Positive case of biological control on IAS X Negative case of biological control on IAS A tool on assessing or evaluating social consequences of IAS introduction A tool on assessing or evaluating economic consequences of IAS introduction A tool on cost-benefit analysis for eradication of IAS X Management measures on IAS X Control measures on IAS X A tool for examining impact of climate change on IAS X establishment/spread A tool for examining impact of land-use change on IAS establishment/spread Other SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED See summary information below. OTHER INFORMATION, IF ANY URL to download http:// By submitting this information, I agree that Secretariat of the CBD may use the contents in line with the relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties. United States Biological Control Classical (Importation) Biological Control Invasive insect pests and undesirable plants arrive in North America on a regular basis and will continue to challenge U.S. agriculture, forests, landscapes and natural habitats in the years to come. For example, the invasive brown marmorated stink bug caused an estimated $38 million in 2010 alone in U.S. apples, just one of many crops impacted. Another emerging pest, Drosophila suzukii, threatens high-value small fruit production in the U.S., which is valued in California alone at over $405 million per year. Natural enemies (predators, parasites and diseases) of invasive species can provide an important ecosystem service by reducing the impact of invasive species (Costanza et al. 1997). By utilizing natural enemies of an invasive species, importation (classical) biological control is an economically and environmentally preferred method of managing these invasive pest species (e.g., Hoddle 2004, Naranjo et al. 2014). When successful, introduced biological control agents provide long-term or permanent reductions in pest population levels that reduce the costs of managing the invaders and help to minimize environmental impacts of other management methods, such as pesticides. The risk that a biological control introduction may have unintended non-target impacts that cannot be reversed is minimized with proper attention to agent selection and host range testing during evaluation research, and the modern application of biological control has an excellent record of environmental safety (e.g., Suckling and Sforza 2014). A classical biological control program begins with discovery and identification of candidate agents. Field exploration in the native range of the target pests is a key aspect for the success of an entire program. This process requires searching for effective, adapted natural enemies of the target invasive species in their native regions. Increasingly, permits are required from host countries and regional authorities for field surveys and collections. Live material must then be exported to certified quarantine containment laboratories in the U.S. (or elsewhere) for further evaluation, which requires additional permits and concurrence of the host countries. Importation for further research also requires permits from authorities in the receiving country. Harmonizing the many permit processes is increasingly a challenge for biological control practitioners (e.g., Bale 2011). New access and benefit-sharing regulations mandated by the CBD’s Nagoya Protocol have added to this complex process and threaten to delay new biological control projects by constraining the ability of researchers to discover and obtain new agents for projects (e.g., Cock et al. 2010a, Cock et al. 2010b, Coutinot et al. 2013, FAO 2009). Bale, J. 2011. Harmonization of regulations for invertebrate biocontrol agents in Europe: Progress, problems and solutions. Journal of Applied Entomology 135: 503-513. [attached] Cock, J.W., J.C. van Lenteren, J. Brodeur, B.I.P. Barratt, F. Bigler, K. Bolckmans, F.L. Consoli, F. Haas, P.G. Mason and J.R.P. Parra. 2010a. Do new access and benefit sharing procedures under the Convention on Biological Diversity threaten the future of biological control? BioControl 55: 199-218. DOI 10.1007/s10526-009-9234- 9. [attached] Cock, J.W., J.C. van Lenteren, J. Brodeur, B.I.P. Barratt, F. Bigler, K. Bolckmans, F.L. Consoli, F. Haas, P.G. Mason and J.R.P. Parra. 2010b. Do new access and benefit sharing procedures under the Convention on Biological Diversity threaten the future of biological control? BioControl 55: 199-218. DOI 10.1007/s10526-009-9234- 9. [attached] Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 2530260. [attached] Coutinot, D., J. Briano, J.R.P. Parra, L.A.N. De Sa and F.L. Consoli. 2013. Exchange of natural enemies for biological control? The road in the Euro-Mediterranean region and the South American Common Market. Neotropical Entomology 41: 1-14. DOI 10.1007/s13744-012-0103-3. [attached] - 2 - United States FAO (U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization). 2009. The use and exchange of biological control agents for food and agriculture. Background Study Paper No. 47. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Hoddle, M.S. 2004. Restoring balance: Using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conservation Biology 18(1): 38-49. [attached] Naranjo, S.E., P.C. Ellsworth and G.B. Frisvold. 2014. Economic value of biological control in integrated pest management of managed plant systems. Annual Review of Entonology. 60(32): 1-25. DOI 10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-021005. [attached] Suckling, D.M., and R.F.H. Sforza. 2014. What magnitude are observed non-target impacts from weed biocontrol? PLoS ONE 9(1): 1-12. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084847. [attached] Biological Control of the Ash Whitefly in California The ash whitefly (Siphoninus phillyreae [Haliday] [Homoptera: Aleyrodidae]), invaded and rapidly spread throughout California beginning sometime before August 18, 1988, when it was first detected. The ash whitefly's previous distribution was limited to Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa, where it feeds primarily on trees and woody shrubs. In 1989, outbreak populations of the ash whitefly occurred in several major urban centers in California, defoliating ornamental trees commonly planted by local governments and homeowners. Outdoor activities by homeowners also were curtailed by the high number of adult whiteflies in the air that posed a respiratory health threat. Within 3 years of the whitefly's invasion of California, Encarsia inaron (Walker) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), was imported, mass reared, and released in 43 of 46 affected counties. The summer infestation density of the ash whitefly before releases of E. inaron averaged 8 to 21 individuals/cm(2) leaf. Within two years of E. inaron releases, the infestation density of the ash whitefly averaged 0.32 to 2.18 individuals/cm(2) leaf. The decrease in the ash whitefly density resulted from the rapid spread and establishment of E. inaron. Parasitized ash whitefly, one year after E. inaron releases, averaged between 63 and 97% throughout the summer. Based on the economic value of preserving healthy ornamental/evergreen pear and ash trees, the ash whitefly biocontrol effort provided $219,822,823 and $298,803,970 in esthetic benefits to California in wholesale and retail replacement values, respectively. For every dollar spent by the State Biological Control Program and the University of California, approximately $181 in wholesale and $245 in retail esthetic value for the primary hosts of the ash whitefly were preserved. Pickett, C.H., J.C. Ball, K.C. Casanave, K.M. Klonsky, K.M. Jetter, L.G. Bezark and S.E. Schoenig. 1996. Establishment of the ash whitefly parasitoid Encarsia inaron (Walker) and its economic benefit to ornamental street trees in California. Biological Control. 6(2): 260-272. [attached] Biological Control of Leafy Spurge in Wyoming Three thousand black flea beetles (Aphthona lacertosa) and 3,000 brown flea beetles (A.nigriscutis) were released in 1998 at 76 sites in the vicinity of Devil’s Tower, Wyoming. At each of these sites, leafy spurge had become the dominant ground cover and had greatly reduced rangeland productivity.