EPPO Global Database

Thaumetopoea processionea(THAUPR)

EPPO Datasheet: Thaumetopoea processionea

Last updated: 2020-11-26

IDENTITY

Preferred name: Thaumetopoea processionea
Authority: (Linnaeus)
Taxonomic position: Animalia: Arthropoda: Hexapoda: Insecta: Lepidoptera: Notodontidae
Other scientific names: Cnethocampa processionea (Linnaeus)
Common names in English: oak processionary caterpillar, oak processionary moth
view more common names online...
Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature

The genus name Thaumetopoea comes from the Greek words “θαύμα” (=miracle) and “ποιώ” (=do), quite likely due to some remarkable biological traits such as the gregarious behaviour through egg and larval stages, the urticating setae for the protection against vertebrate predators and the prolonged (up to nine years) diapause as pupa in soil in order to avoid unfavourable environmental conditions that could put its survival at risk (Battisti et al., 2015). The species name refers to the typical behaviour of the larvae that build up a procession (processionea) when searching for a place to pupate in the soil.

EU Categorization: PZ Quarantine pest (Annex III)
view more categorizations online...
EPPO Code: THAUPR

HOSTS 2020-11-23

Thaumetopoea processionea (oak processionary moth) feeds on the different Quercus species that can be found across Europe and the Near East. In general, preferred hosts are Quercus cerris, Q. ilex, Q. pubescens, Q. petraea, Q. pyrenaica and Q. robur (Dissescu & Ceianu, 1968; Pascual, 1988; Moraal, 1996; Stigter et al. 1997; Tomiczek & Krehan, 2003; Damestoy et al., 2020) while in the near East, it can also attack Quercus infectoria subsp. veneris and Q. calliprinos (Démolin & Nemer, 1999; Halperin & Sauter, 1999). Based on observations at the Royal Botanical Gardens (Kew, GB), North American and Asian species can also be infested by the oak processionary moth (Townsend, 2009). 

During population outbreaks, other species belonging to genera such as Acacia, Fagus, Betula, Crataegus, Juglans, Pistacia, Robinia, Sorbus or even Pinus have been affected; nevertheless, this pest can complete its development only on Quercus spp. and Fagus spp. (Nicosia, 1923; Kiriukhin, 1946; Bay, 1961; Carter, 1984; Stigter et al. 1997; Evans 2007). 

Host list: Acacia, Betula, Crataegus, Fagus, Quercus calliprinos, Quercus cerris, Quercus frainetto, Quercus infectoria subsp. veneris, Quercus petraea, Quercus pubescens, Quercus pyrenaica, Quercus robur, Sorbus

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 2020-11-23

T. processionea is present in almost all European countries and also in parts of the Middle East, including Israel, Lebanon and Jordan (Maksymov, 1978; Bogenschütz et al. 1988; Stigter & Romejin, 1992; Roskams, 1995; Mirchev et al., 2011; Roversi, 2008; Groenen, 2010; Groenen & Meurisse, 2012). T. processionea is present in all countries located on the northern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, in Anatolia (Turkey), and in the mountains surrounding the Dead Sea (Groenen & Meurisse, 2012). In the north of Europe, this species is present in the Netherlands, Germany and Ukraine while recently it has been rediscovered in Poland after a long period of absence (Groenen & Meurisse, 2012). Males of this species have also been caught in Denmark and Sweden (Skule & Vilhelmsem, 1997; Lövgren & Dalsved, 2005). Finally, this species was caught in the United Kingdom for the first time in 2006, which was considered quite likely to be due to the international plant trade (Baker et al., 2009; Mindlin et al., 2012).

EPPO Region: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France (mainland), Germany, Greece (mainland), Hungary, Israel, Italy (mainland), Jordan, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal (mainland), Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain (mainland), Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom
Asia: Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria

BIOLOGY 2020-11-23

T. processionea is univoltine, with the eggs hatching in spring (April to May) depending closely on the temperatures of the preceding period (Pascual, 1988; Custers, 2003, Wagenhoff and Delb, 2011; Meurisse et al., 2012; Wagenhoff et al., 2013), and highly synchronized with oak bud flushing (Stigler et al., 1997; Wagenhoff & Veit, 2011; Wagenhoff et al., 2013; Damestoy et al., 2020). Larvae go through six instars and may feed until the end of June or the start of July, depending on ambient temperatures as higher temperatures favour a more rapid development (Dissescu & Ceianu, 1968). Larvae live in groups, with younger ones moving and feeding during daytime, and older ones feeding during the night as they spend the daytime in a silk tent (Schmidt, 1974; Wagenhoff et al., 2013). From the 3rd instar onwards, T. processionea larvae develop urticating setae on the dorsal parts of the abdomen, which are actively released once larvae are disturbed (Lamy, 1990; Maier et al., 2004; Battisti et al., 2011; Petrucco Toffolo et al., 2014). The silk tent is located on the lower part of the trunk, and is constructed during the fifth or sixth instars using silk, hairs, faeces and old larval skins (Battisti et al. 2015). Under very warm conditions, tents can be even partially on the ground (Dissescu & Ceianu, 1968). 

The population fluctuations of T. processionea are largely considered unpredictable, and thus there is still a great debate as to whether their epidemics are cyclic or eruptive (Pascual, 1988; Krehan, 1993; Tomiczek & Krehan, 1996; Wagenhoff & Veit, 2011). However, recently it has been shown that fluctuations are mostly determined by aridity in May-July (Klapwijk et al., 2013; Csóka et al., 2018), and the changing climate appears to be linked to the increase in frequency and intensity of the observed outbreaks (Stigler et al., 1997; Maier et al., 2004; Jans & Franssen, 2008; Moraal & Jagers op Akerhuis, 2011; Groenen & Meurisse, 2012).

DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION 2020-11-23

Symptoms

The main signs of occurrence of T. processionea in an oak forest are the following:

- Skeletonized remains of leaves.
- White silken nests at the base of lower branches, on the trunk or at the base of the trunk. Later on, these nests become less bright white due to the shed skins that larvae change during instars.
- Nose-to-tail processions of the caterpillars on the branches of oak trees. 

Morphology

Eggs

Eggs are laid by females in batches of 50-200 eggs which are covered by scales. Predominantly these egg batches are laid in rows along the terminal branches of oak trees, most commonly on one- or two-year-old twigs (Dissescu & Ceianu, 1968; Maksymov, 1978; Bin & Tiberi, 1983; Pascual, 1988; Tsankov et al., 1991).  

Larva

Larvae go through six larval stages that differ in size and colour, with the newly emerged larvae being brown, and the later instars becoming grey. The 1st instars overwinter within the eggs, and hatch in mid- or late April, just before bud burst. The 3rd instar, larvae which are disturbed produce barbed, urticating setae from the eleventh dorsal segment, that contain thaumetopoein, an allergenic protein. The next larval stages produce urticating setae in other segments (in the 4th instar they are produced in both the 10th and 11th segment, while in the 5th and 6th instars, setae are produced in all abdominal segments).  The 5th or 6th instar, larvae build the silken nests. 

Pupa

Pupation takes place inside the nests, with the larvae spinning cocoons during mid-summer (late June, early July). 

Adult

Adult moths have grey forewings, with white and grey marking, and a wingspan that can be up to approximately 30 mm. 

Some diagnostic features for T. processionea are included in the EPPO Diagnostic Protocol PM 7/37 Thaumetopoea pityocampa (EPPO, 2004).

Detection and inspection methods

Monitoring of T. processionea is based on egg and nest counting, visual assessment of the level of tree defoliation (Moller, 2006) or on the use of pheromone traps to assess population dynamics (Bogenschütz 1998b; Breuer et al., 2003; Fransen et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2013). 

PATHWAYS FOR MOVEMENT 2020-11-23

The pathways that oak processionary moth employs when expanding to new territories include both natural spread and human-mediated transport. 

Males are generally considered strong flyers (up to 100 km per year), as in some cases they have been found in light traps far away from places where nests have been reported (Stigter et al., 1997; Lövgren & Dalsved, 2005). On the contrary, females fly much shorter distances, reaching only up to 20 km per year (Stigter et al., 1997). 

However, the major pathways that T. processionea follows when expanding are human-mediated. Plants-for-planting can be a source of egg masses, larvae or pupae (pupae may be present in nests from April to July). The presence of nests can easily escape attention, as at low population densities, nests are not larger than the size of a tennis ball, something that makes it more difficult to be detected particularly in the case of larger trees (Stigter et al., 1997). Additionally, transported oak roundwood with bark from infested trees may have small nests that contain viable larvae and/or pupae (from April to late July). Nevertheless, it should be noted that, given the fact that oak trees are normally felled during winter, the probability to already have nests with living larvae and pupae is low. Finally, T. processionea may expand its distribution through the trade of cut branches of host trees, though this pathway is of much lesser importance compared to the above-mentioned ones. 

PEST SIGNIFICANCE 2020-11-23

Economic impact

Though the exact impact of T. processionea on tree health remains relatively unknown, repeated defoliation in spring increases tree susceptibility to drought and secondary pests and reduces earlywood width (Blank, 1997; Chauvel, 2000; McManus & Csóka, 2007; Nageleisen, 2008; Roversi, 2008; Hirka et al. 2011). Moreover, the infestation by T. processionea has been hypothesized to be associated with oak decline which has repeatedly emerged during the past centuries and particularly in the most recent decades. This syndrome of oak decline has been attributed to single or combined effects of abiotic and biotic factors, among which defoliating insects seem to play a significant role (Thomas et al., 2002). However, the exact impact of these biotic factor still needs to be further evaluated. 

In addition to the effect on forest health, outbreaks of T. processionea have an even greater impact on health due to the urticating setae the larvae produce after the 3rd larval stage that cause ocular and respiratory problems in animals and humans (Lamy, 1990; Maier et al., 2004; Gottschling & Meyer, 2006; Jans & Franssen, 2008; Green 2015; Battisti et al. 2011; Petrucco Toffolo et al., 2014; Battisti et al. 2017). 

Control

A variety of different natural enemies have been described to regulate the populations of T. processionea in natural stands (Battisti et al., 2015). These range from egg-, larvae- and pupae-specific parasitoids (Stratan, 1971; Tschorsnig, 1993; Stigter et al., 1997; Zwakhals, 2005) to generalist insect predators (Maksymov, 1978; Dajoz, 2000) and birds (Wagenhoff et al., 2013). In addition to these, late instar larvae and pupae have been found to be infected by microsporidia (Hoch et al., 2008) and nuclear polyhedrosis baculovirus (Murphy et al., 1995). Nevertheless, it should be noted that the influence of these natural enemies on the populations oak processionary moth has been investigated only at a qualitative and not quantitative perspective and thus, none of these approaches has been evaluated in their efficacy to control the populations of T. processionea.

The only method that is currently used to control the population outbreaks of T. processionea is based on the use of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (B.t.k.) agents (Bogenschütz, 1988; Bogenschütz 1998a; Bub et al. 2005; Fransen et al., 2008) and insect growth regulators (Pascual et al., 1990; Stigter et al., 1997). These approaches are primarily implemented in highly frequented public places in order to avoid the impact of urticating setae, and secondarily to protect infested oak stands from repeated defoliation. In addition, the physical removal of nests can be effective, in areas where the level of infestation is limited. 

Phytosanitary risk

Though the exact impact of T. processionea on the health of oak stands and its contribution to the general syndrome of oak decline is still under investigation, the effects on human and animal health have been clearly shown.

PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 2020-11-23

Due to the natural dispersal ability of the species in concert with its broad distribution in Europe, it is highly unlikely that any phytosanitary measures could effectively prevent the natural dispersal of the oak processionary moth. However, measures aimed at plants-for-planting could reduce the probability of introduction in areas where it is currently absent or under control.

Examples of phytosanitary measures for T. processionea have been applied in the European Union (EU, 2019) where protected zones have been identified (i.e. Ireland and some areas of the United Kingdom). For these areas, oak trees that are used as plants-for-planting of a girth of at least 8 cm measured at 1.2 m height from the root collar should be examined. In addition oak trees should have a certificate that these plants have been grown throughout their life a) in places of production where T. processionea is not known to occur, b) in an area free from T. processionea established by the NPPO in accordance with ISPM 4 (2017) and c) in a site with complete physical protection against the introduction of T. processionea and have been inspected at appropriate times and found to be free from this pest. 

REFERENCES 2020-11-26

Baker R, Caffier D, Choiseul JW, De Clercq P, Dormannnsné-Simon E, Gerowitt B, Karadjova OE, Lövei G, Lansink AO, Makowski D, Manceau C, Manici L, Perdikis D, Puglia AP, Schans J, Schrader G, Steffek R, Strömberg A, Tiilikkala K, van Lenteren JC, Vloutoglou I (2009) Scientific opinion of the Panel of Plant Health on a pest risk analysis on Thaumetopoea processionea L., the oak processionary moth, prepared by the UK and extension of its scope to the EU territory. The EFSA Journal 491, 1-63. 

Battisti A, Holm G, Fagrell B, Larsson S (2011) Urticating hairs in arthropods: their nature and medical significance. Annual Review of Entomology 56, 203-220.

Battisti A, Avci M, Avtzis D, Ben Jamaa M, Berardi L, Berretima W, Branco M, Chakali G, Alaoui El Fels M, Frérot B, Hóddar J, Ionescu-Mălăncus I, Ipekdal K, Larsson S, Manole T, Nemer N, Paiva M, Pino J, Protasov A, Rahim N, Rousselet J, Santos H, Sauvard D, Schopf A, Simonato M, Yart A, Zamoun M (2015) Chapter 2: Natural history of the processionary moths (Thaumetopoea spp.) – New insights in relation to climate change. In Processionary moths and climate change: an update (ed Roques A), pp. 15-81. Springer Dordrecht. 

Battisti A, Larsson S, Roques A (2017) Processionary moths and associated urtication risk. Annual Review in Entomology 62, 323-342. 

Bay E (1961) The distribution of Pinus sylvestris in the province of Bolzano [Sul pino silvestre in provincia di Bolzano] Monti e Boschi 12(1), 27-30. 

Bin F, Tiberi R (1983) Notizie preliminari sui parassitoidi oofagi di Thaumetopoea processionea L. in Italia centrale (Hym., Chalcidoidea: Lep., Thaumetopoeidae). Redia 66, 449-459.

Blank R (1997) Ring-porous wood structure and frequent insect defoliation as specific risk factors in oaks. Forst und Holz 52, 235-242.  

Bogenschütz H, Schwartz G, Limberger S (1988) Auftreten und Bekämpfung des Eichenprozessionsspinners, Thaumetopoea processionea L., in S üdwestdeutschland 1986 bis 1988. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft 245, 427–428. 

Bogenschütz H (1998a): Erfahrungen mit dem Eichenprozessionsspinner in Baden-Württemberg. Mitteilugen der Deutschen Phytomedizinischen Gesselschaft 28, 46-47. 

Bogenschütz H (1998b) Sexuallockstoffe zur Überwachung von forstschädlichen Schmetterlingen. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift für Waldwirtschaft und Umweltvorsorge/Der Wald 53, 438–442. 

Breuer M, Kontzog HG, Guerrero A, Camps F, Loof A de (2003) Field trials with the synthetic sex pheromone of the oak processionary moth Thaumetopoea processionea. Journal of Chemical Ecology 29(11), 2461-2468.

Bub G, Delb H, Schröter H (2005) Bekämpfung des Schwammspinners und E ichenprozessionsspinners in Baden-Württemberg 2005. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift für Waldwirtschaft und Umweltvorsorge/Der Wald 60, 316–319.

Carter DJ (1984) Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with special reference to the British Isles. Springer Dordrecht Netherlands. 431 pages.   

Chauvel G (2000) Lepidoptera damaging green spaces, nurseries and urban forests. PHM Revue Horticole 18-20, 22-28.   

Csóka G, Hirka A, Szöcs L, Móritz N, Rasztovits E, Pödör Z (2018) Weather-dependent fluctuations in the abundance of the oak processionary moth, Thaumetopoea processionea (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae). European Journal of Entomology 115, 249-255. 

Custers CJL (2003) Climate change and trophic synchronization. A case study of the oak processionary caterpillar. Master’s Thesis. Landbouw- Universitaet Wageningen, 107 pages.   

Dajoz R (2000) Forests and Insects. The role of diversity of insects in the forest environment. Intercept Ltd/Editions Technique et Documentation/Lavoisier Publishing, Paris. 668 pages. 

Damestoy T, Moreira X, Jactel H, Valdes-Correcher E, Plomion C, Castagneyrol B (2020) Growth and mortality of the oak processionary moth, Thaumetopoea processionea L., on two oak species: direct and trait-mediated effects of host and neighbor species identity. bioRxiv 865253; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/865253

Démolin G, Nemer N (1999) Defoliator insects of Quercus callyprinos Webb. and Quercus infectoria Oliv. in Lebanon. Bulletin OILB/SROP 22(3), 65-69.   

Dissescu G, Ceianu I (1968) [Studies on the ecology of the oak processionary moth] Cercetari asupra bioecologici omizii procesionare a steejarului (Thaumetopoea processionea). 120 pages. [in Romanian]

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 - OJ L 319, 10.12.2019, p. 1–279

EPPO (2004) EPPO Standards: Thaumetopoea pityocampa- PM7/37. EPPO Bulletin 34, 295–298.

Evans HF (2007) Pest risk analysis record for Thaumetopoea processionea. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 1-28. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Food and Environmental Research Agency.

Fransen JJ, Groenendijk D, Spijker JH, Stigter H (2008) Leidraad beheersing Eikenprocessierups. Update 2008 WUR-Alterra. Expertgroep Eikenprocessierups en Plantenziektenkundige Dienst Wageningen. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit. Netherlands. 

Gottschling S, Meyer S (2006) An epidemic airborne disease caused by the oak processionary caterpillar. Pediatric Dermatology 23, 64-66.  

Green P (2015) Oak processionary moths (Thaumetopoea processionea) in deer parks. Veterinary Records 177, 208-208.  

Groenen F (2010) Variation of Thaumetopoea processionea (Notodontidae: Thaumetopoeinae) in Europe and the Middle East. Entomologischen Berichten 70, 77-82. 

Groenen F, Meurisse N (2012) Historical distribution of Thaumetopoea processionea in Europe suggests recolonization instead of expansion. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 14, 147-155. 

Halperin J, Sauter W (1999) The occurrence of Thaumetopoea processionea L. (Lep.: Thaumetopoeidae) on Mt. Hermon. Phytoparasitica 27, 107. 

Hirka A, Szabóky Cs, Szöcs L, Csóka Gy (2011) 50 years of the forestry light trap network. Növényvédelem 47, 474-479. [in Hungarian]

Hoch G, Verucchi S, Schopf A (2008) Microsporidian pathogens of the oak processionary moth, Thaumetopoea processionea (L.) (Lep., Thaumetopoeidae), in eastern Austria’s oak forests. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesselschaft für allgemeine und angewandte Entomologie 16, 225-228. 

ISPM 4 (2017) Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Rome, IPPC, FAO. 

Jans HWA, Franssen AEM (2008) The urticating hairs of the oak processionary caterpillar (Thaumetopoea processionea L.), a potential problem for animals? Tijdschrift Voor Diergeneeskunde 133, 424-429. 

Kiriukhin G (1946) Les insectes nuisibles au pistacier en Iran. Entomologie et Phytopathologie Appliquées 1, 8-24. 

Klapwijk MJ, Csóka G, Hirka A, Björkman C (2013) Forest insects and climate change: long-term trends in herbivore damage. Ecology and Evolution 3, 4183-4196. 

Krehan Η (1993) Outbreaks of caterpillar forest pests in oak forests in eastern Austria. Forstschutz Aktuell 12, 1-4.  

Lamy M (1990) Contact dermatitis (erucism) produced by processionary larvae (genus Thaumetopoea). Journal of Applied Entomology 110, 425-437. 

Lövgren R, Dalsved B (2005) Thaumetopoea processionea L. (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) found in Sweden. Entomologisk Tidskrift 126, 93-94.  

Maier H, Spiegel W, Nikaciyan T, Hönigsmann H (2004) Caterpillar dermatitis in two siblings due to the larvae of Thaumetopoea processionea L., the oak processionary caterpillar. Dermatology 208, 70-73.  

Maksymov JK (1978) Thaumetopoea, Prozessionspinner. Die Forstschädlinge Europas Bd. 3 (ed Schwenke W), 391-404. Parey Verlag.  

McManus M, Csóka G (2007) History and impact of gypsy moth outbreaks in North America and comparison to recent outbreaks in Europe. Acta Silvatica & Lignaria Hungarica 3, 47-64.  

Meurisse N, Hoch G, Schopf A, Battisti A, Grégoire J-C (2012) Low temperature tolerance and starvation ability of the oak processionary moth: implications in a context of increasing epidemics. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 14, 239-250. 

Mindlin MJ, Polain O, Waroux D, Case S, Walsh B (2012) The arrival of oak processionary moth, a novel case of itchy dermatitis, in the UK: Experiences, lessons and recommendations. Public Health 126, 778-781.  

Mirchev P, Balov S, Kirilova M, Georgieva A (2011) Distribution of Thaumetopoea processionea in Bulgaria. Silva Balcanica 12, 71-80. 

Moller K (2006) Participation of defoliators in the oak decline symptoms in Brandenburg in 2004. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur allgemeine und angewandte Entomologie 15, 209-212. 

Moraal LG (1996) Infestations by insects and mites in 1995: in forests, nature reserves and roadside plantings. Nederlands Bosbouwtijdschrift 68, 111-120. 

Moraal LG, Jagers op Akkerhuis GAJM, Werf DCvd (2011) Changes in insect pests on trees: monitoring since 1946 makes trends visible. Nederlands Bosbouwtijdschrift 74, 29-32.

Murphy FA, Fauquet CM, Bishop DHL, Ghabrial SA, Jarvis AW, Martelli GP, Mayo MA, Summers MD (1995) Sixth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Archives of Virology. Springer Verlag, Wien New York. Supplement 10, 586 pages.

Nageleisen L, 2008. Actualités sur les dépérissements du "chêne". Bilan de la santé des forêts en 2006. Les Cahiers du Département de la Santé des forêts. Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche. France. Available at http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/thematiques/foretbois/sante-des-forets/annee2006/downloadFile/FichierAttache_2_f0/depeche_2006.pdf . Accessed on 4 June 2009 Accessed on 4 June 2009.

Nicosia (1923) Processionary caterpillar. Cyprus Agricultural Journal 18(2), 47-48. 

Pascual JA (1988) Biology of the oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea processionea L.) (Lep. Thaumetopoeidae) in the western central Iberian Peninsula. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal 14, 383-404.

Pascual JA, Robredo F, Galante E (1990) Aerial ULV applications of alpha-cypermethrin, diflubenzuron and Bacillus thuringiensis against the oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea processionea) (Lep., Thaumetopoeidae). Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal 16, 585-591. 

Petrucco Toffolo E, Zovi D, Perin C, Paolucci P, Roques A, Battisti A, Horvath H (2014) Size and dispersion of urticating setae in three species of processionary moths. Integrative Zoology 9, 320-327. 

Roskams P (1995) De eikeprocessievlinder in her Vlaamse gewest. De Boskrant 25, 160-166.  

Roversi PF (2008) Aerial spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki for the control of Thaumetopoea processionea in Turkey oak woods. Phytoparasitica 36, 175-186.  

Schmidt GH (1974) A contribution to the social behavior of the caterpillar of the oak processionary Thaumetopoea processionea. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie 75(2), 174-178.

Skule B, Vilhelmsem F (1997) Thaumetopoea processionea L. found in Denmark. URL: https://www.lepidoptera.dk/process.htm (last accessed 13 September 2020)

Stigter H, Romeijn G (1992) Thaumetopoea processionea locally observed in large numbers in the Netherlands after more than hundred years Lepidoptera Thaumetopoeidae. Entomologische Berichten (Amsterdam) 52, 66-69.

Stigter H, Geraedts WHJM, Spijkers HCP (1997) Thaumetopoea processionea in the Netherlands: Present status and management perspectives (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae). Proceedings of the Section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society (N.E.V.) 3-16. 

Stratan VS (1971) An egg parasite of the oak processionary moth. Zashchita Rastenii 16(5), 42.

Thomas FM, Blank R, Hartmann G (2002) Abiotic and biotic factors and their interactions as causes of oak decline in Central Europe. Forest Pathology 32, 277-307. 

Tomiczek C, Krehan H (1996) Occurrence of oak processionaries and inter moths in Vienna. Forstschutz Aktuell 23, 17-18.

Tomiczek C, Krehan H (2003) Increasing problems with the oak processionary moth in Eastern Austria. Forstschutz Aktuell 29, 17-18. 

Townsend M (2009) Report on survey and control of oak processionary moth Thaumetopoea processionea (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) (OPM) in London in 2008. Oxford, UK.

Tsankov G, Breuer M, Schmidt GH, Maslov A (1991) Scale shape and colour of egg batches of some Thaumetopoea species (Insecta Lepidoptera Thaumetopoeidae). Bollettino di Zoologia Agraria e di Bachicoltura 23(1), 45-60.

Tschorsnig HP (1993) Parasitoide aus dem Eichenprozessionsspinner Thaumetopoea processionea (Linneus) (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae). Mitteilungen des entomologischen Vereins Stuttgart 31, 105-107.

Wagenhoff E, Delb H (2011) Current status of Thaumetopoea processionea (L.) in south-western Germany. Biotic risks and climate change in forests. (eds Delb H, Pontuali S), pp. 175-178. Berichte Freiburger Forstlichen Forschung. 

Wagenhoff E, Veit H (2011) Five years of continuous Thaumetopoea processionea (L.) monitoring: tracing population dynamics in an arable landscape of South-Wesern Germany. Gesunde Pflanzen 63, 51-61. 

Wagenhoff E, Blum R, Engel K, Veit H, Delb H (2013) Temporal synchrony of Thaumetopoea processionea egg hatch and Quercus robur budburst. Journal of Pest Science 86, 193-202.  

Williams DT, Straw N, Townsend M, Wilkinson AS, Mullins A (2013) Monitoring oak processionary moth Thaumetopoea processionea L. using pheromone traps: the influence of pheromone lure source, trap design and height above the ground on capture rates. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 15(2), 126-134.

Zwakhals CJ (2005) Pimpla processioneae and P. rufipes: specialist versus generalist (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae, Pimplinae). Entomologische Berichten 65, 14-16.

CABI resources used when preparing this datasheet

CABI Datasheet on Thaumetopoea processionea (available at https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/53502) 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2020-11-23

This datasheet was prepared in 2020 by Dimitrios N. Avtzis (Forest Research Institute – Hellenic Agricultural Organization Demeter). His valuable contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

How to cite this datasheet?

EPPO (2021) Thaumetopoea processionea. EPPO datasheets on pests recommended for regulation. Available online. https://gd.eppo.int

Datasheet history 2020-11-23

This datasheet was first published online in 2020. It is maintained in an electronic format in the EPPO Global Database. The sections on 'Identity', ‘Hosts’, and 'Geographical distribution' are automatically updated from the database. For other sections, the date of last revision is indicated on the right.