|
|
|
|
| Home > Draft Report > Comments |
Harvesting trees, either selectively or in small blocks, as a means to reduce the pest risk or to control pest outbreaks and reduce their negative effects is omitted from the 4.5.1 Silviculture section. -- Draft Report
a. – Added the phrase “or small blocks of trees” to the discussion found at 4.5.4 – Sanitation
b. – Paragraph added to Section 4.1 Impact... acknowledging the potential negative effects of passive management
c. – To the present the record of biocontrol efforts in the southern forests is poor. The three examples of success presented in Section 4.5.6 were the only unqualified succcesses we could find which were relevant to the discussion of southern forests. In all other cases (the use of Phlebia gigantea to combat annosus root rot, the use of Bt and NPVs against the gypsy moth; the use of Bt to combat sawflies and forest tent caterpillar; the use of parasites and predators to combat the southern pine beetle; and many other examples – past and present) have required ongoing, repetitive release of the biocontrol agent into the environment. The initial releases failed to result in a self-sustaining antagonist population capable of controlling cyclic population buildup by the pest organisms.
-- Final Report
The USFS studied Dogwood anthracnose and found the combined effects of acid rain and the anthracnose caused far higher mortality rates than just anthracnose itself. Why is that report not considered when you discuss forest health and impending and occurring pest and disease outbreaks? Please fully address the impacts of all acidification and nitrogen assaults in conjuction with susceptibility of declining and threatened forest species. -- Draft Report
No change has been made to the document in response to this comment. Review of the noted literature (2 papers and an abstract) provided no support for the commentor’s stated disaster scenario. The following is quoted directly from the most recent of the three papers (Britton, K.O.; Berrang, P.; Mavity, O. 1996. Effects of pretreatment with simulated acid rain on the severity of dogwood anthracnose. Plant Disease 80:646-649.): “Additional research is needed to determine cause and effect relationships between acid rain and this disease. One must be cautious when extrapolating from a greenhouse or laboratory study to the field, but the results of our study suggest that there may be a relationship between the acidity of rain and dogwood anthracnose... these studies indicate that it may be possible for acidic rainfall to predispose dogwoods to infection and increase the severity of the disease.” While the research reported did show clear effects of acidification of water source on disease etiology, it did not go as far as to suggest that this is a prime – or even an important – mechanism by which infection of the host is facilitated in nature. Concurrent to the publication referenced Dr. Britton was coauthoring a paper (Daughtrey, M.L.; and others. 1996. Dogwood anthracnose: Understanding a disease new to North America. Plant Disease 80:349-358.) in which the citted research is mentioned – but not given any special significance. And, finally, the original draft of this paper was prepared by J.L. Knighten and was reviewed by R. L. Anderson. Neither of these men (coauthors of the abstract and the other paper under Forest Service authorship relating to this subject) felt the connection of the acid mist study to field experience significant enough to make even a generalized statement of probable effect.
-- Final Report
The chapter does not acknowledge the negative effects of passive (or total lack of) management of public lands on the forests of adjoining landowners. -- Draft Report
See response to comment 37 54 b. -- Final Report
Please address potential for introduction of invasive exotics, bioengineered tree crops, and invasive hybrids. Please address projected environmental impacts of such introductions. Please address the number of exotic pests and diseases to come into our forsts from the global market in the survey time period. Please address how many species will be lost in that time period. -- Draft Report
Section 4.2 acknowledges the problem of non-native pest species and suggests that it is an increasing problem. The potential for problems resulting from bioengineered species is covered in section 4.5.2. Neither of these areas is ripe for scientific analysis; both are subject to extreme uncertainty as to the future of their root causes. Rather than speculate without scientific basis, we have chosen to reflect the scope of the current problems and stat that we expect these problems to continue and probably get worse in the future. Speculation as to how many species will be lost is also a meaningless exercise. We reflect in the discussion of several of the identified pests that they have the potential (barring as yet unencountered genetic or environmental barriers) to cause major species displacementas a minimum, and possible elimination of the host species from their current position in the southern forest ecosystem. We do not go as far as to predict, nor do we expect, the extinction of any of the host species. We were unable to find a concensus as to the science that would allow predictions about the scope of the future problems resulting from the above causes. -- Final Report
This chapter implies (as it should) that all biological pests (plants included) would be addressed in the context of forest health and integrated pest management. Yet invasive, exotic, noxious plants are not mentioned. The reader must go to Terra-2 to find this subject addressed. At a minimum, some links and cross-referencing in both chapters and some explanation of why plants were not addressed is needed in HLTH-2. -- Draft Report
Sentences added to Section 2 – Introduction to allow the reader to link to the discussion of non-native invasive plants which are discussed in TERRA-2 Section 2.4.3 -- Final Report
|
|
webmaster: John M. Pye |
created: 4-OCT-2002 |