Climatic Change

, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 735–746 | Cite as

Divergence of the potential invasion range of emerald ash borer and its host distribution in North America under climate change

  • Liang LiangEmail author
  • Songlin Fei


Climate change is likely to induce range divergence of invasive herbivore insects and native host trees given their different response rates to temperature increase. In this study we used the invasion of emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire), which is host-specific to ash (Fraxinus spp.), to demonstrate the significant implications of this climate change induced insect-host divergence for management of invasive species. The least constrained climatic limits of EAB were derived from its native range in East Asia, then projected to North America under the current and future climate conditions, and finally compared with the assumedly static ash distribution. Results suggest that the divergence between the invasion range of EAB and the distribution of ash in North America is likely to enlarge as climate change proceeds. In this case, many original ash stands could remain intact in the southern range, possibly forming refugia of the host species. The realization of this prediction, however, requires that the spread of EAB be reduced by continued management effort to allow climate change to take effect in time. Our study highlights the important role climate change has in the course of biological invasion and herbivore-host dynamics, which provides key information for continental scale pest risk prediction and strategic planning.


Native Range Climatic Suitability Northern Range Suitability Zone WorldClim Dataset 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Jonathan Phillips and John Cox for helpful comments and editorial support. Jonathan Lelito (USDA-APHIS) provided valuable information on the up to date development of EAB ecophysiology research. Douglas A. Bopp (USDA-APHIS) provided historical EAB infested county maps Erin Bullas-Appleton (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) also provided EAB distribution maps in Canada. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This study was partially supported by a NSF Grant (No. 1241932).

Supplementary material

10584_2013_1024_MOESM1_ESM.docx (483 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 482 kb)


  1. Anulewicz A, McCullough D, Cappaert D, Poland T (2008) Host range of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire)(Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in North America: results of multiple-choice field experiments. Environ Entomol 37(1):230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bale J, Hayward S (2010) Insect overwintering in a changing climate. J Exp Biol 213(6):980–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bale J, Masters G, Hodkinson I et al (2002) Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob Change Biol 8(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer L, Haack R, Miller D, Petrice T and Liu H (2003) Emerald ash borer life cycle. The emerald ash borer research and technology development meeting, Morgantown, WV, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, pp 8Google Scholar
  5. Cappaert D, McCullough D, Poland T, Siegert N (2005) Emerald ash borer in North America: A research and regulatory challenge. Am Entomol 51(3):152–165Google Scholar
  6. Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuine I (2010) Why does phenology drive species distribution? Philos T R Soc B 365(1555):3149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleland EE, Chuine I, Menzel A, Mooney HA, Schwartz MD (2007) Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends Ecol Evol 22(7):357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon AFG, Honěk A, Keil P, Kotela MAA, Šizling AL, Jarošík V (2009) Relationship between the minimum and maximum temperature thresholds for development in insects. Funct Ecol 23(2):257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duan J, Ulyshen M, Bauer L, Gould J, Van Driesche R (2010) Measuring the impact of biotic factors on populations of immature emerald ash borers (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Environ Entomol 39(5):1513–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fei S, Liang L, Paillet FL, Steiner KC, Fang J, Shen Z, Wang Z, Hebard FV (2012) Modelling chestnut biogeography for American chestnut restoration. Divers Distrib 18(8):754–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24(01):38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gandhi K, Herms D (2010) North American arthropods at risk due to widespread Fraxinus mortality caused by the alien emerald ash borer. Biol Invasions 12(6):1839–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillott C (1995) Entomology, 2nd edn. Plenum Press, New York and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haack R, Jendak E, Houping L, Marchant K, Petrice T, Poland T, Ye H (2002) The emerald ash borer: a new exotic pest in North America. Newsl Mich Entomol Soc 47(3):1–5Google Scholar
  17. Hausman C, Jaeger J, Rocha O (2010) Impacts of the emerald ash borer (EAB) eradication and tree mortality: potential for a secondary spread of invasive plant species. Biol Invasions 12:2013–2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hijmans R, Graham C (2006) The ability of climate envelope models to predict the effect of climate change on species distributions. Glob Change Biol 12(12):2272–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hijmans R, Cameron S, Parra J, Jones P, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climato 25(15):1965–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodkinson I, Bird J (1998) Host-specific insect herbivores as sensors of climate change in arctic and alpine environments. Arctic Alpine Res 30:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huberty C (1994) Applied Discriminant Analysis. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contributions of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Iverson L, Prasad A (1998) Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecol Monogr 68(4):465–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iverson L, Prasad A, Matthews SN, Peters M (2008) Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecol Manag 254(3):390–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelly AE, Goulden ML (2008) Rapid shifts in plant distribution with recent climate change. PNAS 105:11823–11826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kovacs K, Haight R, McCullough D, Mercader R, Siegert N, Liebhold A (2010) Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in US communities, 2009-2019. Ecol Econ 69(3):569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindell C, McCullough D, Cappaert D, Apostolou N, Roth M (2008) Factors influencing woodpecker predation on emerald ash borer. Am Midl Nat 159(2):434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Little EL (1971) Atlas of United States Trees Volume 1 Conifers and Important Hardwoods. Miscellaneous publication 1146. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu H, Bauer L, Gao R, Zhao T, Petrice T, Haack R (2003) Exploratory survey for the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), and its natural enemies in China. Great Lakes Entomol 36:191–204Google Scholar
  30. Lyons D, Jones G (2005) The biology and phenology of the emerald ash borer. In: Proceedings of 16th USDA interagency research forum on gypsy moth and other invasive species. pp 62–63Google Scholar
  31. MacFarlane D, Meyer S (2005) Characteristics and distribution of potential ash tree hosts for emerald ash borer. Forest Ecol Manag 213:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacLean Jr SF (1983) Life cycles and the distribution of psyllids (Homoptera) in arctic and subarctic Alaska. Oikos:445–451Google Scholar
  33. Muirhead JR, Leung B, Van Overdijk C et al (2006) Modelling local and long-distance dispersal of invasive emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera) in North America. Divers and Distrib 12:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson AT (2003) Predicting the geography of species’ invasions via ecological niche modeling. Q Rev Biol 78(4):419–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petitpierre B, Kueffer C, Broennimann O, Randin C, Daehler C, Guisan A (2012) Climatic niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders. Science 335(6074):1344–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillips S (2008) Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence-only modelling: a response to Peterson et al. (2007). Ecography 31(2):272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips S, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31(2):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poland T, McCullough D (2006) Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J Forest 104(3):118–124Google Scholar
  39. Prasad A, Iverson L, Peters M, Bossenbroek J, Matthews S, Davis Sydnor T, Schwartz M (2010) Modeling the invasive emerald ash borer risk of spread using a spatially explicit cellular model. Landscape Ecol 25:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pureswaran D, Poland T (2009) Host selection and feeding preference of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) on ash (Fraxinus spp.). Environ Entomol 38(3):757–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rebek EJ, Herms DA, Smitley DR (2008) Interspecific variation in resistance to emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) among North American and Asian ash (Fraxinus spp.). Environ Entomol 37(1):242–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rohli RV, Vega AJ (2008) Climatology. Jones & Bartlett Learning, SudburyGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosenzweig C, Casassa G, Karoly DJ et al (2007) Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. In: Parry M et al (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 79–131Google Scholar
  44. San Souci J, Hanou I, Puchalski D (2009) High-resolution remote sensing image analysis for early detection and response planning for emerald ash borer. Photogramm Eng Rem S 75:905–909Google Scholar
  45. Sobek-Swant S, Kluza DA, Cuddington K, Lyons DB (2012) Potential distribution of emerald ash borer: What can we learn from ecological niche models using Maxent and GARP? Forest Ecol Manag 281:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strubbe D, Broennimann O, Chiron F, Matthysen E (2013) Niche conservatism in non-native birds in Europe: niche unfilling rather than niche expansion. Global Ecol Biogeogr 22:962–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. USDA–APHIS (2013) Emerald ash borer program manual, Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire) USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Plant Health Programs – Pest Management, Riverdale, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  48. Venette R, Abrahamson M (2010) Cold hardiness of emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis: a new perspective. In: Black ash symposium, Bemidji, MN, 2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chippewa National ForestGoogle Scholar
  49. Vermunt B, Cuddington K, Sobek-Swant S, Crosthwaite J (2012) Cold temperature and emerald ash borer: Modelling the minimum under-bark temperature of ash trees in Canada. Ecol Model 235–236:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang X, Yang Z, Gould J, Zhang Y, Liu G, Liu E (2010) The biology and ecology of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis, in China. J Insect Sci 128:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wei X, Reardon D, Wu Y, Sun J (2004) Emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), in China: a review and distribution survey. Acta Entomol Sinica 47(5):679–685Google Scholar
  52. Wiens J, Graham C (2005) Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 36:519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39(4):561–577Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations