Economic Evaluation of an Invasive Forest Pathogen at a Large Scale: The Case of Ash Dieback in France

Abstract

The invasion of a forest by a pathogen is a complex dynamic and spatial problem. The induced disturbances do not only reduce the present availability of the affected tree species but alter its future availability, population structure and distribution as well. These disturbances also have an impact on the prices of wood products via supply shocks, which, in turn, influence forest management choices, thus introducing feedback effects between market and ecological dynamics. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the economic impact of an invasive pathogen at a large scale by integrating the biophysical and economic aspects of the invasion into a dynamic and spatially explicit setting. The analysis is developed using a modified version of the French Forest Sector Model (FFSM), a recursive partial equilibrium model, to which a specifically designed pathogen spread and mortality model have been coupled. We calibrated the model to represent the ash dieback invasion in France. Results showed that impacts are not homogeneous across regions and generally depend on the resource distribution, pathogen spread and market structure. We observed that the behavioural adaptation of forest managers (i.e. regeneration and harvesting choices) is a non-negligible component of the total standing volume loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the Appendix A for details on the ash volume estimation and distribution in diameter classes.

  2. 2.

    The assumption of imperfect substitutability between domestic and foreign products is justified by product heterogeneities that depend from production places, by the consumers habits or by the market structure [33].

  3. 3.

    The consumer surplus is the difference between what consumers are willing to pay for a given good and the actual market price. The producer surplus is the difference between the price at which producers are willing to supply that good and the actual market price.

  4. 4.

    Other studies report a disease progression rate in Europe (or in European countries) between 40-75 km per year [25, 39, 40], which is in line with the values indicated for France.

  5. 5.

    The annual harvested loss is the difference between the harvested ash volume without ash dieback and the harvested ash volume with ash dieback in a specific year.

  6. 6.

    The reduction in the ash harvested volume is robust for the tested values of the cross-elasticity of substitution between ash products and other hardwood species, i.e. 𝜖a, b: − 0.01, − 0.1, − 0.5, − 1, − 2.5, -5 (results not reported in the text, but available upon request).

  7. 7.

    It was not possible to directly estimate the Weibull parameters for 17 ecological regions because they did not have enough observations, i.e. less than 30 data points. When it was possible, these regions were merged with similar (in terms of soil pH, water stress, forest type composition and elevation) low-observation neighbouring ecological regions and the parameters were then estimated. This aggregation was not possible for three ecological regions due to the lack of other neighbouring ecological regions with low observations. In these cases, we used the estimated parameters from a similar neighbouring ecological region with enough observations as a proxy.

References

  1. 1.

    Holmes, T.P., Aukema, J.E., Von Holle, B., Liebhold, A., Sills, E. (2009). Economic impacts of invasive species in forests. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162, 18–38.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Turner, J., Bulman, L., Richardson, B., Moore, J. (2004). Cost-benefit analysis of biosecurity and forest health research. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 34, 324–343.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D. (2005). Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics, 52, 273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Colautti, R.I., Bailey, S.A., Van Overdijk, C.D., Amundsen, K., MacIsaac, H.J. (2006). Characterised and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada. Biological Invasions, 8, 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cook, D.C., Thomas, M.B., Cunningham, S.A., Anderson, D.L., De Barro, P.J. (2007). Predicting the economic impact of an invasive species on an ecosystem service. Ecological Applications, 17, 1832–1840.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Yemshanov, D., McKenney, D.W., Pedlar, J.H., Koch, F.H., Cook, D. (2009). Towards an integrated approach to modelling the risks and impacts of invasive forest species. Environmental Reviews, 17, 163–178.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    McKenney, D.W., Pedlar, J.H., Yemshanov, D., Barry Lyons, D., Campbell, K.L., Lawrence K. (2012). Estimates of the potential cost of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) in Canadian municipalities. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 38, 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Yemshanov, D., McKenney, D.W., de Groot, P., Haugen, D., Sidders, D., Joss, B. (2009). A bioeconomic approach to assess the impact of an alien invasive insect on timber supply and harvesting: a case study with Sirex noctilio in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39, 154–168.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kovacs, K.F., & et al. (2010). Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in U.S. communities, 2009–2019. Ecological Economics, 69, 569–578.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kovacs, K.F., Mercader, R.J., Haight, R.G., Siegert, D.G., McCullough, N.W., Liebhold, A.M. (2011). The influence of satellite populations of emerald ash borer on projected economic costs in U.S. communities, 2010–2020. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 2170–2181.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cook, D.C., & Matheson, A.C. (2008). An estimate of the potential economic impact of pine pitch canker in Australia. Australian Forestry, 71, 107–112.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sharov, A.A., & Liebhold, A.M. (1998). Model of slowing the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) with a barrier zone. Ecological Applications, 8, 1170–1179.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Holmes, T.P. (1991). Price and welfare effects of catastrophic forest damage from southern pine beetle epidemics. Forest Science, 37, 500–516.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Soliman, T., Mourits, M.C., Van Der Werf, W., Hengeveld, G.M., Robinet, C., Oude Lansink, A.G. (2012). Framework for modelling economic impacts of invasive species, applied to pine wood nematode in Europe. PLoS One, 7, e45505.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lobianco, A., Delacote, P., Caurla, S. (2016). Barkaoui, A. Accounting for active management and risk attitude in forest sector models. An impact study on French forests. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 21 (3), 391–405.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lobianco, A., Delacote, P., Caurla, S., Barkaoui, A. (2015). The importance of introducing spatial heterogeneity in bio-economic forest models: Insights gleaned from FFSM++. Ecological Modelling, 309-310, 82–92.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Worrell, R. (2013). An assessment of the potential impacts of Ash dieaback in Scotland. Tech. Rep., Forestry Commission Scotland.

  18. 18.

    Pautasso, M., Aas, G., Queloz, V., Holdenrieder, O. (2013). European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) dieback–a conservation biology challenge. Biological Conservation, 158, 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Boshier, D., & et al. (2005). Ash species in Europe: biological characteristics and practical guidelines for sustainable use, (p. 128). United Kingdom: Oxford Forestry Institute, University of Oxford. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0850741637.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dobrowolska, D., Hein, S., Oosterbaan, A., Wagner, S., Clark, J., Skovsgaard, J.P. (2011). A review of European ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.): implications for silviculture. Forestry, 84(2), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    IGN. (2017). Le mémento – Inventaire forestier. Tech. Rep., Institut National de l’Information Geographique et Forestiére. https://inventaire-forestier.ign.fr/IMG/pdf/memento2017.pdf.

  22. 22.

    Kowalski, T. (2006). Chalara fraxinea sp. nov. associated with dieback of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) in Poland. Forest Pathology, 36, 264–270.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Queloz, V., Grünig, C.R., Berndt, R., Kowalski, T., Sieber, T.N., Holdenrieder, O. (2011). Cryptic speciation in Hymenoscyphus albidus. Forest Pathology, 41, 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Baral, H.-O., Queloz, V., Hosoya, T. (2014). Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, the correct scientific name for the fungus causing ash dieback in europe. IMA Fungus, 5, 79–80.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gross, A., Holdenrieder, O., Pautasso, M., Queloz, V., Sieber, T.N. (2014). Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, the causal agent of European ash dieback. Molecular plant pathology, the causal agent of European ash dieback. Molecular Plant Pathology, 15, 5–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    McKinney, L.V., Nie lsen, L.R., Collinge, D.B., Thomsen, I.M., Hansen, J.K., Kjær, E.D. (2014). The ash dieback crisis: genetic variation in resistance can prove a long-term solution. Plant Pathology, 63, 485–499.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Sales, M H., Souza, C.M., Kyriakidis, P.C., Roberts, D.A., Vidal, E. (2007). Improving spatial distribution estimation of forest biomass with geostatistics: A case study for Rond.onia, Brazil. Ecological Modelling, 205, 221–230.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Räty, M., Heikkinen, J., Kangas, A. (2011). Kriging with external drift in model localization. Mathematical and Computational Forestry. Natural Resource Sciences, 3, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    IGN. (2014). Un inventaire annuel sur la France entiére. Tech. Rep., Institut National de l’Information Geographique et Forestiére. http://inventaire-forestier.ign.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/140916-2p-newmetho.pdf.

  30. 30.

    Caurla, S., Delacote, P., Lecocq, F., Barkaoui, A. (2013). Stimulating fuelwood consumption through public policies: An assessment of economic and resource impacts based on the French Forest Sector Model. Energy Policy, 63, 338–347.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Samuelson, P. (1952). Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming. American Economic Review, 42, 283–303.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Armington, P.S. (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff papers, 16, 159–176.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sauquet, A., Lecocq, F., Delacote, P., Caurla, S., Barkaoui, A., Garcia, S. (2011). Estimating Armington elasticities for sawnwood and application to the French Forest Sector Model. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 771–781.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Buongiorno, J., Zhu, S., Zhang, D., Turner, J., Tomberlin, D. (2003). The global forest products model: structure, estimation, and applications Academic Press.

  35. 35.

    Robinet, C., Kehlenbeck, H., Kriticos, D.J., Baker, R.H., Battisti, A., Brunel, S., Dupin, M., Eyre, D., Faccoli, M., Ilieva, Z., Kenis, M. (2012). A suite of models to support the quantitative assessment of spread in pest risk analysis. PLoS ONE, 7, e43366.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Maso, E.D., & Montecchio, L. (2014). Risk of natural spread of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus with environmental niche modelling and ensemble forecasting technique. Forest Research: Open Access, 3, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Grosdidier, M., Ioos, R., Marçais, B. (2018). Do higher summer temperatures restrict the dissemination of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus in France? Forest Pathology, 48, e12426.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Grosdidier, M., Ioos, R., Husson, C., Cael, O., Scordia, T., Marçais, B. (2018). Tracking the invasion: dispersal of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus airborne inoculum at different scales. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 94, fiy049.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Luchi, N., Montecchio, L., Santini, A. (2012). Situation with Ash in Italy: stand characteristics, health condition, ongoing work and research needs. In: Interim report from Chalara fraxinea, FRAXBACK Meeting in Vilnius, vol. 13, 14.

  40. 40.

    Laiviņš, M., Priede, A., Pušpure, I. (2016). Spread of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus in Latvia: analysis based on dynamics of young ash stands. In: Proceedings of the latvian academy of sciences. Section B. Natural, Exact, and Applied Sciences., vol. 70, 124–130 (De Gruyter Open).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Marcais, B., Husson, C., Cael, O., Dowkiw, A., Saintonge, F.X., Delahaye, L., Collet, C., Chandelier, A. (2017). Estimation of Ash Mortality Induced by Hymenoscyphus fraxineus in France and Belgium. Baltic Forestry, 23, 159–167.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D.A., Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J., Zimmermann, N.E. (2012). Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nature Climate Change, 3, 203–207.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hauptman, T., Piškur, B., De Groot, M., Ogris, N., Ferlan, M., Jurc, D. (2013). Temperature effect on c halara fraxinea: heat treatment of saplings as a possible disease control method. Forest Pathology, 43, 360–370.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Goberville, E., Hautekèete, N.C., Kirby, R.R., Piquot, Y., Luczak, C., Beaugrand, G. (2016). Climate change and the ash dieback crisis. Scientific Reports, 6, 35303.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    MAA. (2017). Résultats de l’enquête statistique annuelle MAAF/IRSTEA sur les ventes en France de plants forestiers pour la campagne de plantation 2015-2016. Note de service DGPE/ SDFCB/2017-229, Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (French Ministry of Agriculture). https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/instruction-2017-229/telechargement.

  46. 46.

    MAA. (2018). Résultats de l’enquête statistique annuelle MAA/ IRSTEA sur les ventes en France de plants forestiers pendant la campagne de plantation 2016-2017. Note de service DGPE/ SDFCB/2018-209, Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (French Ministry of Agriculture). http://agriculture.gouv.fr/telecharger/89465?token=4393eb9c2e5cde26cd8088f3824249ac.

  47. 47.

    Diggle, P.J., & Ribeiro, P.J. (2007). Model-based Geostatistics. Springer Series in Statistics, (p. 232). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Piedallu, C., Gégout, J.-C., Lebourgeois, F., Seynave, I. (2016). Soil aeration, water deficit, nitrogen availability, acidity and temperature all contribute to shaping tree species distribution in temperate forests. Journal of Vegetation Science, 27, 387–399.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    LERFoB, & IFN. (2008). Guide d’utilisation de la carte des pH de surface des sols forestiers français. Tech. Rep. n. 2007-CPA-2-072, AgroParisTech (UMR LERFoB) – IFN.

  50. 50.

    R Core Team. (2013). A language and environment for statistical computing.

  51. 51.

    IGN. (2014). BD FORÊT® Version 1.0 – Descriptif de contenu. Tech. Rep., IGN. http://professionnels.ign.fr/sites/default/files/DCBDForet1-0.pdf.

  52. 52.

    Palahí, M., Pukkala, T., Blasco, E., Trasobares, A. (2007). Comparison of beta, Johnson’s SB, Weibull and truncated Weibull functions for modeling the diameter distribution of forest stands in Catalonia (north-east of Spain). European Journal of Forest Research, 126, 563–571.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the helpful suggestions and comments of Anne Stenger and Pablo Andrés-Domenech (Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, AgroParisTech, CNRS, INRA, BETA), Benoit Marçais and Marie Grosdidier (UMR IAM, INRA, Université de Lorraine) as well as Christelle Robinet (INRA, UR0633, Zoologie Forestière). The authors would like to thank Alexandra Niedzwiedz at OLEF (Observatoire pour L’Economie de la Forêt) for the support with the empirical data. The authors are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the advisory editor for their insightful comments and suggestions. The contribution of Claudio Petucco in this paper is the result of his PhD thesis work carried out at the Laboratory of Forest Economics, INRA, AgroParisTech.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the “Investissements d’Avenir” program (ANR-11-LABX-0002-01, Lab of Excellence ARBRE).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Petucco.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 143 KB)

Appendix A: Ash Volume Distribution Estimation

Appendix A: Ash Volume Distribution Estimation

A.1 The Ash Volume Spatial Distribution

In order to analyse the impact of ash dieback in France, we adapted the original French Forest Sector Model by including ash forest as an additional forest type. The first step was to estimate the ash volume distribution in each cell. We used geostatistical techniques to spatially predict the ash volume distribution in unsampled areas based on the identified spatial structure derived from sampled locations [47]. Specifically, we used the kriging with external drift method in which the predictions from a regression model are adjusted using the spatial correlation between neighbouring observations as a function of distance. Kriging techniques have been previously used to predict forest biomass and other forest characteristics over large areas [27, 28].

Data on ash populations was taken from the French National Forest Inventory (FNFI) carried out by the French National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information (IGN) for the years 2006-2010 [29]. We know the forest cover type and structure, the number of trees for each species, tree volume, diameter at breast height and a weight for computing the volume per hectare for each sample plot. All together, we had a total of 30,879 inventory plots, and ash was present in about 10% of the plots.

In the regression model, we used the ash volume per hectare from the inventory plots as the dependent variable. For independent variables, we selected the soil water deficit as defined in [48], the soil pH obtained from the portal on forest spatial data, SILVAE [49], and the elevation, as well as a categorical variable representing the 83 different types of ecological regions present in French forests. We had no observations of the dependent variable in three ecological regions, so they were not included; ser1 was used as a reference. The digital elevation map and the map of the French ecological regions were downloaded from the IGN website (www.geoportail.gouv.fr).

We divided the sample into four subsets, each containing observations on ash trees measured in the four different forest types, corresponding to the ones defined in FFSM: conifers (C), broadleaf high forest (BH), broadleaf coppice (BC) and broadleaf mixed high forest and coppice (BH&C). We then ran a separate linear regression model for every subset. This was done to improve the prediction performance since the observed spatial structure of the residuals was not homogeneous across forest types. In Table 8, we present the estimated coefficient for the regression models that generate the residuals that were then used to derive the spatial structure of the ash volume via kriging.

Table 8 Estimated coefficients of the linear regression model used in the kriging with external drift to predict the spatial distribution of the ash volume per hectare in the four forest types: BH = broadleaved high forest; BH&C = broadleaved mixed high forest and coppice; BC = broadleaved coppice; C = coniferous

Once obtained the residuals from the linear regression (Table 8), we applyed the kriging procedure to adjust the prediction of the model in unsampled locations based on the spatial correlation structure between neighbouring observations expressed as a function of the distance. In other words, we fitted the theoretical variograms to the empirical ones to determine the variogram parameters. We used an exponential variogram model for the broadleaved high forest and the broadleaved high forest and coppice, whereas we used a spherical variogram model for the broadleaved coppice and the coniferous forest types (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
figure9

Experimental and fitted variogram for ash volume per hectare in the four forest types

Successively, ash volumes per hectare were successively predicted on a 1-km2 grid covering the entire French territory, with the exception of Corsica for which we did not have data. The computation was carried out using the gstat package in R [50].

Once we estimated the ash volume per hectare within each forest type, we multiplied it by the forest area of the respective forest type in each pixel. By doing this, we were able to calculate the total ash volume per pixel. The forest-type areas were computed from a forest cover type map [51]. The total ash volume map was finally rescaled on a 8-km2 grid (Fig. 2) in order to correspond to the Forest Dynamics module (FD). Finally, we computed the total ash volume per pixel, we removed it from the general ”broadleaf” volume used in the original FFSM.

In the second step, we had to broke down the total ash volumes per cell by diameter classes, in order to match the data structure in FD module. Following the example of [52], we assumed that the volume distribution across diameters could be approximated by the 3-parameter Weibull distribution, with the third parameter (representing the minimum diameter) fixed at 7.5 cm. This is the minimum diameter measured in the forest inventory. The parameters were estimated via maximum likelihood for each ecological region using the FNFI data.Footnote 7 The volume within each diameter class was finally derived by multiplying the total ash volume in each pixel by the share of total volume within each diameter class obtained from the cumulative distribution function.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petucco, C., Lobianco, A. & Caurla, S. Economic Evaluation of an Invasive Forest Pathogen at a Large Scale: The Case of Ash Dieback in France. Environ Model Assess 25, 1–21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-019-09661-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Invasive species
  • Forest economics
  • Economic evaluation
  • Hymenoscyphus fraxineus
  • Ash dieback
  • Recursive partial equilibrium model