4.4 Article

Current and future distribution of the invasive oak processionary moth

期刊

BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 523-534

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10530-019-02108-4

关键词

Biological invasion; Species distribution models; Thaumetopoea processionea; Quercus; Pest risk assessment; Invasion risk assessment; MaxEnt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predicting shifts in the distribution and abundance of pest organisms relies on an accurate forecasting of their response to climate change. The oak processionary moth (OPM) Thaumetopoea processionea causes serious damages to oak trees in forest, urban and other landscapes as well as severe allergic reactions to humans and animals. In the 1990's and 2000's, the OPM extended its range from mainland Europe and the Middle East into northern Europe. In 2005, it was also accidentally introduced in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the intensity and the frequency of OPM outbreaks are thought to have recently increased in several countries of Europe including Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In the present study, we aimed at forecasting the potential distribution of the OPM in Europe under current and future climate conditions. We thoroughly compiled available records of established populations all across Europe and fitted MaxEnt and BIOCLIM models to infer bioclimatic requirements for this species. Both models showed good predictive performance under current climate conditions. In particular, the surroundings of London where the OPM recently got established were predicted as highly climatically suitable. Models also predicted that many parts of northern Europe where the OPM currently does not occur (e.g. central UK, Wales, Ireland, southern Scotland, Denmark, southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula, etc.) might become climatically suitable by 2050. Our predictions warrant the need for proper communication and management planning around the risks associated with the potential expansion of the OPM in Europe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据