Montana to Minnesota:
Transport of raw logs with
live insects and fungi
Mike Albers
Forest Health Specialist
MN DNR Forestry
Grand Rapids, MN
Invasive pests from overseas vs. within-continent invasives
Everyone is aware of the problems that have resulted from the movement of nonnative forest insects and fungi from overseas into North America: DED, EAB,
ALB, Chestnut blight, etc.
Much less attention and study have been done on potential problems with
movement of insects and fungi native to the United States to new locations and
new hosts within the United States.
The Great Plains serve as a
natural east-west barrier for
the movement of forest
insects and fungi.
This talk will be about insects and fungi that were moved from
Montana to Minnesota in western larch logs and some of the
concerns this caused.
2001
While trapping eastern larch beetles using
baited funnel traps near Grand Rapids, MN,
Steve Seybold and I caught 65,000 eastern
larch beetles (ELB).
We also caught 3 Douglas-fir beetles (DFB) .
(About 1 DFB for every 20,000 ELB.)
A local wood
processing facility
was bringing raw
western larch logs
into northern
Minnesota.
Approximately
2,000 tons of logs
per year by rail
between 1996 and
2004.
Why? For use in extracting a long chain polysaccharides to be used
in dietary supplements and health care products.
It was perfectly legal for them to do this. There are no laws against
moving raw logs across the country as long as they don’t come out
of quarantined areas, such as, for gypsy moth.
Libby
Kalispell
Grand
Rapids
Some logs were quite fresh and had tight bark while others were
rotten and falling apart. Many were butt logs; too big or
irregularly shaped for western mills.
It was easy to find DFB, other insects and fungi on the logs.
Piles of western larch
debris, bark, broken logs
were observed scattered
and piled on the site.
Starting in 2002, Steve Seybold UMN,
staff from the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture and MN DNR initiated
investigations at the wood processing yard
near Grand Rapids, as well as, trapping
studies at the site and into surrounding
areas.
While we trapped DFB both
on the site and miles from the
site , we have no evidence that
DFB or any of the other
insects or fungi that we found
have become established in
Minnesota.
But we still have concerns.
2002
DFB trapping results
MDA set traps on the site and out to 8 miles to the NE.
• 111 DFB caught in traps on site,
• fewer caught away from the plant,
• 5 DFB caught 8 miles out, their farthest trap.
120
110
Number of Beetles Caught
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Distance From Source in Miles
8
9
10
2002
DFB trapping, 4 additional directions
Douglas-fir beetles
caught up to:
11 miles to NW
12 miles to SE
5 miles to S
7 miles to N.
Only 1 or 2 beetles per
trap, but found even in
our furthest traps.
Albers, DNR & Seybold, U of MN
2002-2009
March 2003. A compliance agreement was signed by the
company and MDA.
The company switched over to tamarack (from MN) a couple
years later.
Trapping was discontinued after 4 years of no DFB being caught.
Robert Koch, MDA
Logs and debris were examined for insects on site. Insects
were collected and logs were placed in emergence boxes
to find additional insects.
April, May 2002
Many different insects emerged from the western larch
logs kept in the emergence boxes.
Douglas-fir beetle, Dendroctonus pseudosugae
Larch engraver, Scolytus laricis
Blue-Green Trogositid, Temnochila chlorodia
Four-eyed spruce beetle, Polygraphus rufipennis
Flatheaded woodborer, Phaenops drummondi
Flatheaded woodborer, Chrysobothris trinervia
Roundedheaded wood borer, Pygoleptura nigrella
Roundedheaded woodborer, Xylotrechus longitarsus
Roundheaded woodborer, Neoclytus muricatulus muricatulus
Roundheaded woodborer, Phymatodes dimidiatus
Roundheaded woodborer, Tetropium velutinum
False powderpost beetle, Stephanopachys substriatus
Carpenter ants, Camponotus novaeboracensis
Rove Beetles and Ground beetles, unidentified
Weevil, unidentified
Miscellaneous Coleoptera/Hymenoptera/Lepidoptera, unidentified.
Fungal fruiting bodies were present and
collected from western larch logs on site.
Laetiporus conifericola - not native to MN,
new species, never reported on western
larch before this (2001).
Fomes officinalis - hasn’t been reported in MN
Lentinus lepideus - native to MN.
Phaeolus schweinitzii – native to MN.
Fungi were identified by Hal Burdsall
and Robert Blanchette.
Burdsall was concerned that other fungi
such as Heterobasidion could also be
coming in on the logs and be a threat to
our pineries. (Annosum root disease)
Fungi associated with beetles
Isolations from DFB from
western larch logs in Minnesota
had too many contaminants to
isolate fungi.
Only one unidentified species of
Leptographium was found.
(Blanchette UMN, Harrington Iowa)
Fungi isolated from eastern larch beetle (native) from tamarack in
Minnesota include: Ophiostoma floccosum, O. picea, Leptographium
abietinum, Pesotum fragrans, Phelbiopsis gigantea, Pichia scolyti .
( Blanchette et al)
Eastern Larch Beetle
Dendroctonus simplex
3.4 – 5.0 mm
Douglas-fir beetle
Dendroctonus pseudotsugae
4.4 – 7.0 mm
Is there any reason to be concerned about
DFB becoming established in MN?
Furniss,1976, showed that in the lab, DFB could survive in tamarack. He also
concluded that DFB and eastern larch beetle were able to hybridize and
produce progeny in both tamarack and western larch. Thirty five percent of
the hybrids produced F2 adults.
He said that the ancestor of ELB and DFB was split into 2 populations during
the Wisconsin glaciation and over time the population were isolated long
enough to develop enough differences to be two different species.
In a study in Montana, Dodds, Seybold, Gilmore (2010) found that DFB were
attracted to, attacked and were able to reproduce in tamarack logs. They
found no significant difference in attack density, number of successful parent
galleries or number of eggs of DFB on Douglas-fir or on tamarack logs.
However, adult emergence was significantly higher from Douglas-fir than from
tamarack logs.
Risk assessments for these insects in MN
•
In both Dodds, et al 2004, and R Venette 2005,
Doug-fir beetle,
Overall Risk Rating : High
• “Perhaps more importantly, fungi associated with DFB could be
introduced into MN, transferred to ELB in tamarack . These
western fungi may … be more pathogenic to MN trees (Dodds, 2004).”
•
Dodds et al (2004) assessed the risk of 6 of the other
insects that emerged from the western larch logs in MN.
Scolytus laricis, larch engraver. Overall Risk rating: Moderate
Not native to MN.
Tetropium velutinum , western larch borer. Overall Risk Rating : Moderate.
Because this insect is also endemic to MN it is deemed a moderate risk.
Pygoleptura nigrella. Overall Risk rating: Low
Little is known about the biology of this insect.
Phaenops drummondi, flatheaded fir borer. Overall Risk Rating: Low
native to northern MN and typically considered a secondary species
Stephanopachys substriatus, false powderpost beetle. Overall Risk Rating: Low
Camponotus noveboracensis, Carpenter ant. Overall Risk Rating: Low
“However, there is a significant risk associated with introduction a
western insect populations into MN and subsequent interbreeding
with native populations. Associated fungi and phoretic organisms
that may not normally occur in MN may also be imported with the
insects.”
Recap
•
•
•
•
•
•
Western larch logs were transported to northern Minnesota
for a number of years.
Numerous insects and fungi, some of which are not know to
be native to MN, were in the logs.
None of the insects or fungi from these logs have been
shown to have become established in MN.
MDA and the company signed a compliance regulating
debris disposal, and timing of movement.
The company has since stopped importing western larch and
is using tamarack from MN.
DFB monitoring was stopped after 4 years of no DFB being
trapped.
Concerns
•
•
•
•
More research and attention should be given to the movement
of raw logs between eastern and western parts of the US.
The establishment of insects and fungi from one part of the
country to parts of the country where they are not native is
possible and ecological and environmental damage may occur.
Mixing of populations of an insect species that have been
isolated geographically for a long time may result in changes to
their habits, host preferences, etc.
Insects from distant areas may be carrying fungi and other
organisms that may cause more damage in the new area than
they cause in their “home” range.
Any questions?