DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme Final Report Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme Final Report 19 February 2016 This page is intentionally blank Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme Final Report A report submitted by ICF International in association with Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Date: 19 February 2016 Job Number 30300452 Andrew Jarvis ICF International Watling House 33 Cannon Street London EC4M 5SB T +44 (0)20 3096 4800 F +44 (0)20 3368 6960 www.icfi.com Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Document Control Document Title Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme – Final Report (r) Job No. 30300452 Prepared by Mavourneen Conway, Andrew Jarvis, David McNeil, Naazia Ebrahim (ICF) Michael Pocock, Colin Harrower, John Redhead (CEH) Checked by Andrew Jarvis Date 19 February 2016 This report is the copyright of Defra and has been prepared by ICF Consulting Services Ltd under contract to Defra. The contents of this report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any other organisation or person without the specific prior written permission of Defra. ICF has used reasonable skill and care in checking the accuracy and completeness of information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project under which the report was produced. ICF is however unable to warrant either the accuracy or completeness of such information supplied by the client or third parties, nor that it is fit for any purpose. ICF does not accept responsibility for any legal, commercial or other consequences that may arise directly or indirectly as a result of the use by ICF of inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project or its inclusion in this project or its inclusion in this report. 19 February 2016 Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................ i Glossary ................................................................................................................. vi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Structure of the report .............................................................................................................. 2 2 The OPM control programme 3 2.1 OPM control between 2006 and 2012 ..................................................................................... 3 2.2 OPM control under the OPMCP – 2013 to 2015 ..................................................................... 4 3 The evaluation approach 13 3.1 Evaluation questions .............................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Counterfactual ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Evaluation methods ................................................................................................................ 13 4 Impact evaluation findings 19 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.2 Policy level ............................................................................................................................. 21 4.3 Social impacts ........................................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Environmental impacts ........................................................................................................... 32 5 Process evaluation findings 38 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 38 5.2 Programme level governance and management ................................................................... 45 5.3 Operational delivery ............................................................................................................... 55 5.4 Implementation of control measures ...................................................................................... 63 5.5 Data gathering and data management .................................................................................. 73 5.6 Awareness and engagement ................................................................................................. 78 5.7 Research and analysis ........................................................................................................... 87 5.8 Capabilities ............................................................................................................................. 92 6 Learning evaluation findings 97 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 97 6.2 Learning evaluation questions ............................................................................................. 101 7 Conclusions and recommendations 112 7.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 112 7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 113 Annex 1 References ............................................................................................. 116 Annex 2 Life cycle of OPM and available control options ...................................... 119 Annex 3 OPMCP Schematics ................................................................................ 122 Annex 4 Full list of evaluation questions .............................................................. 128 Annex 5 Further details on the different methodologies used for the evaluation .. 131 Annex 6 Stakeholders consulted .......................................................................... 137 Annex 7 Interview questions ............................................................................... 139 Annex 8 Questions asked in the request for written responses............................. 142 19 February 2016 Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Annex 9 Full method and results of the modelling exercise .................................. 146 Annex 10 Landowner survey screening questions .................................................. 170 Annex 11 Annual observed extent of OPM ............................................................. 174 Annex 12 Calculating the OPM rate of spread (2012 – 2015) .................................. 179 Annex 13 Number of infested trees ....................................................................... 184 Annex 14 Additional evidence on OPM health impacts .......................................... 186 Annex 15 List of Advisory Group Members ............................................................ 187 Annex 16 Scale of control activities carried out by outbreak area as has been reported to the OPMCP .......................................................................... 188 Annex 17 Communications activity ........................................................................ 189 Annex 18 Overview of OPM research and monitoring activity ................................ 190 19 February 2016 Evaluation of the Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme - Final Report Executive summary Introduction An established colony of the oak processionary moth (OPM), which is not native to the UK, was discovered in the Kew area of London in 2006. Initial control efforts (administered under plant health legislation) had limited success and in 2011 the UK Government policy objective for the outbreak, which had spread across south west London, shifted from eradication to containment. Other, smaller outbreaks were discovered in Pangbourne (Berkshire), the Croydon/Bromley area and on the site of the 2012 Olympic Park. In March 2013 Defra ministers approved a pilot programme, the ‘Oak Processionary Moth Control Programme’ (OPMCP), that would develop and test an alternative approach to tackling the OPM problem. The OPMCP applied a mix of complementary interventions and established new kinds of partnership and governance. The most significant change was to provide public funding for the control of OPM. Previously landowners had to pay for the control themselves. The pilot programme also supported enhanced levels of OPM survey and surveillance, and used communications campaigns and active stakeholder engagement to support its objectives. The case for Defra’s investment was based on the threat posed by OPM to oak tree health and the risk that contact with the toxin contained in OPM larval hairs poses to human and animal health. Analysis showed that restricting the spread of the moth would yield significant benefits. This evaluation has considered the 2013-2015 programming period of the OPMCP, during which it spent almost £4.1 million. The evaluation comprises an appraisal of the pilot programme’s impacts, an analysis of what worked well and what not so well in process terms, and the identification of lessons that can be learned from the programme experience. It is informed by: consultation with stakeholders via interviews
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forest Health & Biosecurity Working Papers OVERVIEW OF FOREST PESTS ROMANIA January 2007 Forest Resources Development Service Working Paper FBS/28E Forest Management Division FAO, Rome, Italy Forestry Department DISCLAIMER The aim of this document is to give an overview of the forest pest1 situation in Romania. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. © FAO 2007 1 Pest: Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products (FAO, 2004). Overview of forest pests - Romania TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Forest pests and diseases................................................................................................. 1 Naturally regenerating forests..................................................................................... 1 Insects ..................................................................................................................... 1 Diseases................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oakprocessionarymoth.Pdf
    1 The scientific name of this moth is Thaumetopea processionea (Linnaeus). It has been known previously under the names Cnethocampa processionea (Linnaeus), Liparis processionea (Linnaeus), and Phalaena processionea (Linnaeus). Other common names include cluster caterpillars, oak processionary, oak processionary caterpillar, procesionaria de la encina, processionnaire du chene, Eichen prozessionsspinner, Processsionaria della quercia, and the EPPO code THAUPR (1 and 12). Oak processionary moth is named for how they move in nose to tail processions. It is native to southern Europe, and is found in almost all European countries. The moths almost exclusively feed on oak trees, and build distinctive white silk nest on trunks and branches (3). Oak processionary moth can cause severe defoliation of trees and reduce tree health. Another major concern is that the caterpillars have poisonous hairs (1). The hairs contain thaumetopoein, a toxin that can cause itching, rashes, eye irritation, sore throat, and difficulty breathing in both humans and animals (3). These hairs, or setae, can remain in the environment and cause symptoms for at least a year (7). 2 Oak processionary moth is native to southern Europe, but is found across Europe and in some parts of Asia. It is established in: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, former USSR, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Channel Islands, and Ukraine (12). The moth was recently introduced to Great Britain in 2005 (3). However, this is believed to be a reintroduction from a previous range that the moth had sometime before 1700 (5). 3 Oak species, Quercus spp., are the primary host for T.
    [Show full text]
  • Eindhoven University of Technology MASTER Predicting the Oak
    Eindhoven University of Technology MASTER Predicting the Oak Processionary Moth Population using Statistical Modeling Scholtens, Tim P.H. Award date: 2021 Link to publication Disclaimer This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required minimum study period may vary in duration. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Predicting the Oak Processionary Moth Population using Statistical Modeling Master's Thesis T.P.H. Scholtens Supervisors Prof. dr. Jakob de Vlieg (TU/e) Dr. Rogier Brussee (TU/e) Dr. ir. Arie Weeren (VAA) Assesement commitee Prof. dr. Jakob de Vlieg (TU/e) Dr. Rogier Brussee (TU/e) Prof. dr. ir. Boudewijn van Dongen (TU/e) Dr. Bert M. Sadowski (TU/e) Eindhoven, January 12, 2021 ABSTRACT Context The oak processionary moth is an infamous insect within the Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Effects of Exposure to Setae of Oak Processionary Moth Larvae Systematic Review
    Health effects of exposure to setae of oak processionary moth larvae Systematic review Health effects of exposure to setae of oak processionary moth larvae: A systematic review About Public Health England Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation's health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities. It does this through world-class science, knowledge and intelligence, advocacy, partnerships and the delivery of specialist public health services. PHE is an operationally autonomous executive agency of the Department of Health. Public Health England Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UG Tel: 020 7654 8000 www.gov.uk/phe Twitter: @PHE_uk Facebook: www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland Prepared by: Emer O’Connell, Thomas Inns and Barry Walsh For queries relating to this document, please contact:Emer O’Connell © Crown copyright 2015 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit OGL or email [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to [email protected] Published: May 2015 PHE publications gateway number: 2014650 2 Health effects of exposure to setae of oak processionary moth larvae: A systematic review Contents About Public Health England 2 Contents 3 Executive summary 4 Background 7 Methods 8 Results
    [Show full text]
  • Fairy Tales RECEPTION Rewrite Some
    1st March 2019 PAWS, CLAWS & SHROVE WHISKERS TUESDAY Year 1 get How to make a DOWN to some FLIPPING perfect ANIMAL art PANCAKE! Fairy tales RECEPTION Rewrite some CLASSICS A QUICK WORLD BITE BOOK DAY WATCH out FOR the COSTUMES at the OAK Processionary READY! MOTH OASIS Weekly Feature The Executive Principal’s Blog It was such a lovely start to the half term on Monday and really felt as though spring had arrived early. I had just relaxed into the start of work when I had a call from the secondary school I support to tell me Ofsted was on the way. This was why I wasn’t here as planned and now feel as though I need a holiday. I am amazed, as always, at the creativity you have shown in the family learning projects that now enhance our foyer. Please come and admire them if you have not yet done so. We have had 244 applications for entry into Reception in September. Many of these cite recommendations from existing families as their reason for choice, thank you. Many of you are aware that we have had a few issues with our use of the common for forest school activities. I am working with the WPCC conservators and our PTFA to reach an agreement as to our future usage. In the meantime, we will be using the common for outside activities linked to our curriculum. I intend to be here next Monday, Wednesday and Friday as usual. Di Morgan World Book Day- 7th March Weekly Attendance Reception Acorns: 90.8% Children and staff can come dressed as their favourite book character.
    [Show full text]
  • OAK PROCESSIONARY MOTH Thaumetopoea Processionea
    Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management/Division of Agriculture Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) OAK PROCESSIONARY MOTH Thaumetopoea processionea The Oak Processionary (Thaumetopoea processionea) is a moth whose caterpillars are pests in oak forests and pose a health hazard because of their poisonous setae (hairs), which may cause skin irritation and asthma. Gyorgy Csoka, Hungary Forest Research Inst. Identifying Features: The wingspan of adult stage moths is between 25 and 35 mm. Their pattern of tan, brown and white make the adults difficult to see against oak bark. Adults fly during July and August. The larvae construct communal nests of white silk from which they crawl at night in single file, head to tail in large processions to feed on foliage in the crowns of trees, returning in the same manner. Gyorgy Csoka, Hungary Research Inst. Oak is its preferred food source, but it also attacks hazel, hornbeam, sweet chestnut, birch and beech. Damage: The moths are posing an increasing threat to humans as their range is being extended by the warming European climate. The backs of older caterpillars (3rd to 6th instars) are covered with up to 63,000 pointed defensive bristles containing an urticating toxin. The setae break off readily, become airborne and can cause epidemic caterpillar dermatitis, manifested as a papular rash, pruritus, conjunctivitis and, if inhaled, pharyngitis and respiratory distress, including asthma or even anaphylaxis. Ferenc Lakatus, University of West Hungary Information Source Oak Processionary Moth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Processionary> Image Sources Oak Processionary Moth, 24 November 2008 http://www.forestryimages.org/ This fact sheet was made possible, in part, by a Cooperative Agreement from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Processionary Moth Caterpillars
    Identifying OPM caterpillars For further information 1 They live almost exclusively in oak trees, which Visit: forestry.gov.uk/opm are identifiable by their distinctive leaves. Tel: 0845 367 3787 2 They move in nose-to-tail processions, in oak trees or on the ground, hence their name. E-mail: enquiries@ 3 They often cluster together. forestry.gsi.gov.uk 4 They build white, silken webbing trails and nests – usually dome or teardrop-shaped – on oak trunks and branches Oak Processionary (not among the leaves). Health information 5 The nests soon become discoloured. is available from NHS Moth Caterpillars 1 3 Choices at www.nhs.uk/ Livewell/bites-and-stings Information for the public 2 4 The Forestry Commission will consider all requests to make the content of publications available in alternative L Moraal, Wageningen URC formats. Please send any such requests 5 to [email protected] or call 0300 067 5046. forestry.gov.uk/england Gristwood & Toms Ralph Parks Forestry Commission If you see nests or caterpillars: woodlands have been certified in accordance with the • Follow the advice in this leaflet for staying safe. rules of the Forest • Report it to us using our Tree Alert app or on-line reporting FSC® C011771 Stewardship Council. form available at forestry.gov.uk/opm; or • Report it to your Council. Published by Forestry Commission England, 620 Bristol Business Park, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1EJ 0845 367 3787; [email protected] forestry.gov.uk/england But first, please: © Crown copyright Printed on FSC • CHECK that they’re in or near an oak tree - OPM certified paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyde Park Tree Benefits
    HYDE PARK TREE BENEFITS An integrated assessment of tree benefits in Hyde Park using i-Tree Eco and Capital Asset Valuation for Amenity Trees The Authors Kenton Rogers Treeconomics Jessica Goodenough Treeconomics Kevin Frediani Treeconomics James Watson Treeconomics The Steering Group Ian Rodger Royal Parks Ruth Holmes Royal Parks Matt Steinmann Royal Parks Acknowledgements Our thanks to the many people that made this project possible. Al Zelaya and Scott Maco of the Davey Tree Expert Company and Dr Dave Nowak and Robert Hoehn, USDA Forest Service for technical assistance and additional work for the calculations of stormwater values. Dr Kieron Doick, Phillip Handley and Kathryn Hand of Forest Research for assisting with the review and preparation of data for this report. Finally thanks to the volunteers who dedicated their time to make the tree survey possible. These are, in alphabetical order: Daniel Bellucci Joshua Davis Daria (Dasha) Fedorova Luke Hawke Stephanie O’Kane Collen O’Sullivan James Quinn Saima Raza Gonzalo Sancho Alan Williams 2 Hyde Park Tree Benefits Executive Summary Hyde Park is an important green space in central London some of their functions (benefits or eco-system services) and to covering an area of over 142 hectares (344 acres) within the value the services provided by those functions. City of Westminster. The Park is joined on its western side with In order to produce values for some of the benefits provided by Kensington Gardens and almost (through the large traffic island trees a state of the art, peer reviewed software system called at Hyde Park Corner) with Green Park to the south-east.
    [Show full text]
  • X Why Did Calosoma Sycophanta Disappear
    Why did Calosoma sycophanta disappear in the 1950’s? Luc Crevecoeur, Toon Willems & Bert Jamers 1. Historic and current situa0on of Calosoma sycophanta The Calosoma sycophanta beetle (Linné, 1758) is an indigenous species for Europe (Weber, 1801). In the last century however, its numbers have decreased drasFcally in Central and Western Europe (Trautner, et al., 2014; Desender, et al., 2008; Turin, et al., 2000; Nederlands Soortenregister, 2014; Lepri & Mériguet, 2018; Görn, 2019) In Belgium, for example, records reveal a vast decline of C. sycophanta from before the 1950s up to 2007, with the species being found in 63 UTM5 kilometre squares before 1950, in 3 UTM squares between 1950 and 1980, and in only 1 UTM square from 1980 unFl 2007. These numbers contrast with the higher amount of sampling acFons by means of piYall traps during the period of 1980-2007 (Desender, et al., 2008). Based on these findings and the IUCN criteria, C. sycophanta is classified as ‘criFcally endangered’ on the Red List of Flanders, updated in 2008 (INBO - InsFtuut voor Natuur en Bosonderzoek, 2008). In The Netherlands, C. sycophanta occurred mostly in the south. Records show that the species was frequently found unFl 1923, with occasional records unFl just before the start of the Second World War in 1940. The species is currently considered exFnct in the Netherlands, because it hasn’t been observed since 1940 (Turin, et al., 2000; Nederlands Soortenregister, 2014). The same trend can be seen in Germany. At the beginning of the 20th century C. sycophanta was considered a common species. With the excepFon of large parts of Bayern, the beetle occurred across Germany (Trautner, et al., 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Processionary Moth Glynn Percival, Phd, Plant Physiology Identification, Biology & Management
    RESEARCH LABORATORY TECHNICAL REPORT Oak Processionary Moth Glynn Percival, PhD, Plant Physiology Identification, Biology & Management Oak processionary moth (OPM) is a defoliating pest of English, Sessile and Turkey oaks. Infestations of OPM caterpillars were first found in London in 2006. The larvae (caterpillars) will also feed on the foliage of hornbeam, hazel, beech, sweet chestnut and birch. Oak processionary moths present a risk to human health. The older caterpillars (3rd to 6th instars) are covered in irritating hairs that contain a urticating toxin (thaumetopoein). Contact with these hairs, or their inhalation, can result in skin irritation (dermatitis) and allergic reactions (rashes, conjunctivitis). Only individuals with specialised training should attempt to control OPM. Symptoms the characteristic nose to tail processions (Figure OPM larvae (Figure 1) feed on oak leaves. Large 2). populations can defoliate trees leaving them Eggs are laid from July to early September. weakened and vulnerable to other threats. Larvae hatch from the eggs in April. There are six stages during the larval feeding cycle (L1-L6), Figure 1: OPM larvae on English oak with the larvae getting progressively bigger from one moult to the next. L4-L6 larvae represent the greatest health hazard. Figure 2: Typical nose to tail procession Causal Agent Newly hatched larvae have a uniformly brown body and dark head. By the time they are mature, they have a grey body and dark head. These older larvae have a single dark stripe running down the middle of the back and a whitish line along each side (Figure 1). Adult larvae may be seen massing on the trunks and branches of trees and moving in Page 1 of 2 Control should NEVER be performed by non-trained individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological and Environmental Monitoring Report 2017
    WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT 2017 THANKS ARE DUE TO EVERYONE WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED RECORDS FOR THIS REPORT; TO THE WILLING VOLUNTEERS; FOR THE SUPPORT OF WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION FORUM MEMBERS; AND FOR THE RECIPROCAL ENTHUSIASM OF WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS STAFF. A SPECIAL THANK YOU GOES TO ANGELA EVANS-HILL FOR HER HELP WITH PROOF READING, CHASING MISSING DATA AND ASSISTANCE WITH THE FINAL FORMATTING, COMPILATION AND PRINTING OF THE REPORT. CONTENTS Page Context 1 A. Systematic Recording 5 Results 7 Reflections and Recommendations 27 B. BioBlitz 29 Reflections and Recommendations 34 C. References 35 List of Tables Table 1 Mowing Dates for the Conservation Zone of the Plain 2008-2017 4 Table 2 Summary of Systematic Recording in 2017 and Recent Years 6 Table 3 Recording Effort and Overall Plant Species Counts on The Plain 10 2014-17 Table 4 The Habitat Patches (for detailed records see Appendix 3b) 10 Table 5 Confirmed Bird Records for The Plain, March-September, 2017 12 Table 6 Comparison of the Most Abundant Butterfly Species Recorded 14 2015, 2016, 2017 Table 7 Dragonfly and Damselflies Species Found at the Standard 17 Sampling Locations 2017 Table 8 Locations and Site Descriptions of Refugia 20 Table 9 Summary of Frogs and Toads Sightings Reported 2nd March and 21 8th March 2017 Table 10 Mammals Sighted on Wimbledon and Putney Commons 2017 22 Table 11 Fauna at Putney Lower Common, January – December 2017 25 Table 12 Wet and Dry Periods as Revealed by Raynes Park (SW20) Rainfall 27 Data
    [Show full text]
  • Range-Expansion in Processionary Moths and Biological Control
    insects Review Range-Expansion in Processionary Moths and Biological Control Jetske G. de Boer 1,* and Jeffrey A. Harvey 1,2 1 Department of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Droevendaalsesteeg 10, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands; [email protected] 2 Department of Ecological Sciences, Section Animal Ecology, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +31-317-473632 Received: 30 March 2020; Accepted: 23 April 2020; Published: 28 April 2020 Abstract: Global climate change is resulting in a wide range of biotic responses, including changes in diel activity and seasonal phenology patterns, range shifts polewards in each hemisphere and/or to higher elevations, and altered intensity and frequency of interactions between species in ecosystems. Oak (Thaumetopoea processionea) and pine (T. pityocampa) processionary moths (hereafter OPM and PPM, respectively) are thermophilic species that are native to central and southern Europe. The larvae of both species are gregarious and produce large silken ‘nests’ that they use to congregate when not feeding. During outbreaks, processionary caterpillars are capable of stripping foliage from their food plants (oak and pine trees), generating considerable economic damage. Moreover, the third to last instar caterpillars of both species produce copious hairs as a means of defence against natural enemies, including both vertebrate and invertebrate predators, and parasitoids. These hairs contain the toxin thaumetopoein that causes strong allergic reactions when it comes into contact with human skin or other membranes. In response to a warming climate, PPM is expanding its range northwards, while OPM outbreaks are increasing in frequency and intensity, particularly in northern Germany, the Netherlands, and southern U.K., where it was either absent or rare previously.
    [Show full text]