1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Rapid
Assessment
Report
Contents
Page
1. Context .................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................3 Requirements.........................................................................................................................................3 Document controls ................................................................................................................................3
1982
2. Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.
Recommendation ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3. Initial Situation report ............................................................................................................ 5
Act
3.1.
Summary findings .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.
Initial Notification ................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3.
Urgent measures (if applicable) ............................................................................................................... 8
4. Initial Risk assessment ......................................................................................................... 10
4.1.
Risk identification .................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.
Risk assessment definitions and context ................................................................................................ 10
4.3.
How likely is it to enter? ........................................................................................................................ 10
4.4.
How likely is it for exposure to occur? .................................................................................................. 11
4.5.
What are the consequences and how do they impact MPI? ................................................................... 11
4.6.
Assessment of overall risk ..................................................................................................................... 12
5. Initial options analysis .......................................................................................................... 14
Information
5.1.
Possible options to respond to situation ................................................................................................. 14
5.2.
What methods can we use to respond? .................................................................................................. 15
5.3.
What limits exist for responding? .......................................................................................................... 16
5.4.
Summary of options ............................................................................................................................... 16
6. Initial Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 17 7. References ............................................................................................................................. 18
Official
8. Appendix A ............................................................................................................................ 21
the
under
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 2
Rapid
Assessment
Report
1. Context
The ‘Rapid Assessment Report’ is an output from the Investigation stage of the Biosecurity
response process. The Rapid Assessment Report (RAR) provides a means for MPI Diagnostic
& Surveillance Directorate to recommend actions to MPI Response Group, following an
investigation of a post border biosecurity issue that could impact the way MPI delivers “Our
Strategy 2030” of Growing and Protecting New Zealand. A RAR is completed for each positive
or inconclusive investigation where potential harm remains after an initial investigation has been
1982
carried out.
This is particularly important when the project structure of a response will be beneficial when
implementing recommendations. In investigations where the biological risk has been effectively
Act
addressed during the investigation, reporting of the biosecurity issue will be done via the
monthly report.
The RAR incorporates essential elements of a business case with a focus on providing detailed
information as required to decide whether to proceed with a post-border response to the issue.
It is considered the first cycle through the process of information gathering and analysis.
Purpose
The purpose of the RAR is to provide an initial situation report, risk assessment, options
Information
analysis and recommendations from an investigation where a situation may require further
action to address the biosecurity issue, i.e. initiate a post border response.
Requirements
The RAR may be either a stand-alone document or embedded as a summary section in a more
detailed investigation report. In either case, for consistency the report should contain each of the
headings in the order documented below. Enter “Not applicable” in any sections that are not
Official
relevant.
Document controls the
The report must be retained as a unique record in a master information system supported by
backup and disaster recover systems. The master information system from which the report is
released must be subject to user access controls. The issuance of the report must be subject to
delegation of authority controls. All signed-off versions of this report must be saved in PDF
format with a date stamp and retained in the master information system, as this will provide an
under
audit trail.
Required format
The report must:
x be
electronically
transmittable
x be in a commonly printable format
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 3
Rapid
Assessment
Report
2. Recommendation
2.1. Recommendation
The Incursion Investigation Plant Health Team (IIPH) has concluded the investigation. The
investigation confirmed a biosecurity issue and biological risk remains. IIPH has considered the
1982
level of risk and feasibility of potential response options and approaches as follows:
1.
Take no action: This millipede presents an unknown level of biological risk, given
Act
uncertainties with regards to the unpredictable nature of millipedes feeding on green
plant material and unknown impacts on native flora and native millipedes. Tasmania has
a similar climate to New Zealand and was not included in the list of southern regions of
Australia that have experienced damage to broadacre agriculture, particularly canola.
Conversely, some sources have reported the millipede as not damaging to broadacre
crops and canola. These contrasting reports suggest high variation in pest status.
However, there is a report that the Portuguese millipede has become a dominant
species in bush in some long-farmed parts of Tasmania, and it is also implicated, along
with land conversion, in the decline of native millipedes.
Taking no action to further control, contain or eradicate may not be acceptable to
industry partners and stakeholders of MPI, including DOC. This option may also not be
Information
favourable to the local community and KiwiRail given the millipede’s reputation as a
nuisance pest overseas and possible implication in a train crash, delays and
cancellations as reported in Australian media.
2.
Eradicate source of harm: Given the level of uncertainty of its impact, industry partners
and stakeholders are likely to prefer this option. However, given the known distribution
(2.19km), anecdotal timeline (~20 years) and population numbers observed, eradication
Official
will be costly with limited probability of success. Site visits and reports from transitional
facilities (TFs) have shown the distribution of the millipede is not isolated to a single area
and millipede populations elsewhere in New Zealand cannot be ruled out.
the
3.
Sustained long term control of issue to slow spread and reduce impacts: This may
be achievable with TFs, business and community engagement however, the degree of
success depends on the control strategy and tools utilised. Even if companies choose to
manage millipede populations in and around their site, there are likely other areas (e.g.
the scrub underneath manuka trees at the Wainuiomata Mountain Bike Park) acting as a
under
reservoir for millipede populations. These reservoirs could hamper control efforts unless
they are addressed in the overarching surveillance and control strategy.
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 4
Rapid
Assessment
Report
3. Initial Situation report
3.1. Summary
findings
What is the context and scope of the situation?
x Live Portuguese millipedes (
Ommatoiulus moreleti) were found on 19/03/21 at a Transitional
Facility (TF1) in Seaview, Lower Hutt. The identification was confirmed by PHEL
1982
Entomology on 23/03/21. This is the first record of
O. moreleti in New Zealand
. Urgent
measures were undertaken to treat and contain the pest at TF1 on 25/03/21 and 16/04/21
with one more planned.
Act
x On
24/03/21
another
TF
(TF2),
reported
millipedes
and
PHEL
Entomology
confirmed
these
as
O. moreleti. TF1 and TF2 had shared a container several times prior to the detection at
TF1, and it is possible the millipedes were inadvertently transported from TF2 to TF1. Staff
at TF2 stated they have observed the millipedes for at least 20 years. A site visit by an
Incursion Investigator (II) and Quarantine Officer (QO) found many more millipedes ~1.85km
away from TF1 at the WMBP, which PHEL confirmed as
O. moreleti. Interviews with TF staff
indicate a long-established millipede population in the area.
x PHEL confirmed Portuguese millipede at a third TF (TF3) in the north west area of Seaview
(~2.19km from WMBP). No relationship between TF3 with either TF1 or TF2 was apparent.
The II received reports of millipedes at other locations in the proximity of TF2. Staff at
Information
business nearby TF2 were interviewed and they believed they have also observed
millipedes at their site for “many years”. The intelligence collected during the investigation
phase indicated a large and widely distributed population in the Seaview, Gracefield and
Wainuiomata areas, and anecdotal evidence of presence in Seaview for many years.
Further mitigation of the biological risk under urgent measures is no longer within the scope
of investigation.
Official
Why is this situation of concern for MPI?
x The
detection
of
O. moreleti in the New Zealand environment may provoke media interest,
political and reputational risk. In March 2021 SIIPH (via Comms: Tanya Katterns) received
the
an enquiry from Kate Green, a Stuff journalist, about
a report to MPI of the Portuguese
millipede. In December 2020, during a student environmental science monitoring project in
Wainuiomata, an environmental DNA (eDNA) sequence from a sample from the Waiu
Wetland1 was shown to be a 99% match of the Portuguese millipede, (
O. moreleti). This was
reported in a local news article: https://issuu.com/wsn11/docs/3 march wainuiomata news.
No specimens were found, and no investigation initiated.
under
x There is an article potentially implicating Portuguese millipedes in a minor train crash in
Australia, and also reports that these millipedes are thought to have caused train delays and
cancellations: https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/portuguese-millipedes-suspected-in-
clarkson-train-collision-ng-
1ac4c3bed117fc458c3ec4cb6ec1669d#:~:text=HUNDREDS%20of%20tiny%20millipedes%
20could,on%20passengers%20going%20to%20Perth.
Released
1 Although the article specifies the location being Wainuiomata Recreation Reserve the GPS coordinates
confirm sample location as Waiu Wetland, which is adjacent to the WMBP carpark.
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 5
Rapid
Assessment
Report
How is it likely that harm could result from this situation?
x The
Portuguese
millipede
is an invasive and nuisance pest in Australia and South Africa and
impacts are likely to be greatest to human habitats. The Portuguese millipede is mainly
detritivorous and feeds on decomposing organic matter, however, in Australia it is a sporadic
1982
pest where high numbers are known to feed on seedlings of fruit and vegetable crops.
These crops include seedlings of brassica and cereal crops, strawberries, melons, tomatoes
and potatoes. In small numbers they have minimal impact. In Australia, the presence of
Act
millipedes in crops does not necessarily mean damage will occur, and crop feeding damage
is relatively rare. There are many instances where high numbers of millipedes are present in
a paddock but no crop damage occurs. Actual damage estimates are hard to come by due
to the unpredictable nature of millipedes feeding on green plant material. Within the
southern region of Australia, damage has been reported in medium and high rainfal zones
in New South Wales, Mid North, Western Districts, South Australia and Victoria. Damage
was reported as worst in areas with high volumes of retained stubble or where plant matter
from the previous year was present (GRDC, 2015).
x Although management options are limited for the Portuguese millipede, some control
methods can curb populations: biological control, pesticides or physical barriers. Although
there are no insecticides registered to control millipedes in broadacre agriculture in Australia
Information
(GRDC 2015), residual insecticides can be used to kill millipedes before they enter a
building (PaDIS 2020).
Who and what is likely to be affected?
x Predominantly
TFs
that
are required under the Standard for TFs for General Uncleared Risk
Goods (TFGEN) to manage regulated pests in and around their facility, as well as
Official
businesses and homeowners in the Seaview, Gracefield and Wainuiomata areas. There is a
possibility that grain crops may be impacted if the millipedes spread to farming regions,
however, crop feeding damage is relatively rare and there is an absence of reports of
damage to broadacre crops from Tasmania which has the highest climate match with New
the
Zealand. For instance, as of 2017 there is 3,900.40 hectares of grain seed and fodder crop
land and land prepared for these crops in the South Wairarapa, and 1046.10 hectares
dedicated to horticultural land and land prepared for horticulture in the South Wairarapa
(Stats NZ 2017), ~19km away from the WMBP detection. Within the Wairarapa, crops grown
include broadacre seed production (e.g. peas, grass seed, red clover), broadacre crops,
grains for food and feed, apples, grapes, berries, vegetables (e.g. squash), olives, high
under
value seed production for sweetcorn, maize and onions, and forage crops for silage and
feed for example. Land is also used for irrigated pasture and dryland pasture (e.g. dairy,
sheep, beef, lamb), apiculture, plantation forestry, plantation hard woods, conservation, and
indigenous forests (Leftfield Innovation Limited 2020). Given the length of time the
millipedes have anecdotally reported to be in Seaview, and their ability to move up to
several hundred metres per year, it is considered possible that they may reach the farming
area in under a decade, if they have not done so already.
What actions have been completed and what is proposed to address any potential harm?
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 6
Rapid Assessment Report
x Actions taken to date include: site visits, sample collections, validated identification of the
millipede, insecticide application at TF1 and PHEL technical report development. Further
details are available below.
What is the likely effect of our action?
x These actions confirmed the presence of the Portuguese millipede in Seaview, Gracefield
and Wainuiomata areas. The return of millipedes following each round of insecticide
1982
treatment at TF1 indicates that treating individual premises in isolation is ineffective.
Are there any uncertainties in the information we have that could impact the situation or the way
we act to address potential harm from the situation?
Act
x There is uncertainty about the amount of damage these millipedes are likely to cause to
commercial crops in New Zealand, impacts on native flora and native millipedes. Damage to
crops is relatively rare and Tasmania, with a similar climate to New Zealand, was absent
from canola damage reports in GRDC (2015). In some long-farmed parts of Tasmania (e.g.
Conara) the Portuguese millipede has invaded the bush and is now the dominant millipede
species (Mesibov, 2021). Ms Turner, Senior Curator of Invertebrate Zoology at the
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery comments that the Portuguese millipede are not as
large or in the same proportions as the ones in South Australia (Raabus 2010). However,
Mesibov (2021) states that in some backyards Portuguese millipedes can number 1000 –
5000, and in 2016, he states that on Hobart’s Eastern Shore they are in their “millions”.
Information
x Given the known distribution and length of time it has likely been in New Zealand, it is
possibly more widely spread than currently known because the transitional facilities have
distributed large volumes of containers, pallets, and goods across New Zealand. However,
MPI has not received any reports of millipedes from other areas.
x Hedgehogs are a known predator of the Portuguese millipede, they are present in New
Zealand but not Australia. While large millipede numbers were reported at TF2 (“1000s”), it
Official
is unknown whether hedgehogs have or could control populations. As hedgehogs are a pest
in New Zealand they should not be relied on as a control tool.
MPI role regarding responding to the risk:
the
x MPI has a role in responding to the new to New Zealand organisms that may present
unwanted risk to our economy, environment, cultural, social and Maori values, including
human health.
3.2.
Initial Notification
under
Notification time and date, and notifier details:
x Notified to SIIPH at 9:32am on 22/03/2021 by 9(2)(a)
(Senior Quarantine Officer,
Border Clearance Services) through the MPI Exotic Pest & Disease Hotline.
Locations affected (fig 1):
x TF1 eNZoil - 127 Port Road, Seaview, Lower Hutt (-41.24832, 174.90591)
Released
Subsequently detected at:
x TF2 Quantem - 212 Gracefield Road, Gracefield, Lower Hutt (-41.24445, 174.91317)
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 7
Rapid
Assessment
Report
x Wainuiomata
Mountain
Bike
Park
(WMBP), Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt (-41.24932,
174.92816)
x TF3 New Zealand Van Lines – 19 Barnes Street, Seaview, Lower Hutt (-41.24184,
174.90409)
1982
Act
Information
Official
Figure 1. Distribution of Portuguese millipede in Seaview, Gracefield and Wainuiomata. Red pin:
confirmed detection of Portuguese millipede. Yellow pin: unvalidated report of Portuguese
millipede.
the
3.3. Urgent measures (if applicable)
x First QO visit to collect samples at TF1 (19/03/21), TF2 (26/03/21)
x Second site visit by II and QO at TF1, TF2, Wainui lookout and WMBP 29/03/21
under
x PHEL
identification
of
Ommatoiulus moreleti samples from TF1 23/03/21; TF2 30/03/21;
WMBP 31/03/21; TF3 14/04/21
x Validation
of
identification
by Dr Akkari at the Natural History Museum Vienna Austria
28/04/21
x Multiple insecticide treatments by Kwikill at TF1 (25/03/21, 16/04/21, one more planned)
x PHEL technical report 20/05/21
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 8
Rapid Assessment Report
3OHDVH VHH SDJHV
Ommatoiulus
moreleti Technical R
What immediate actions are required?
x TF Operators are required under section 3.8(1) of the
Standard for TFs for General
1982
Uncleared Risk Goods (TFGEN) to ensure TFs are effectively managing pests (Regulated
and Non-Regulated) in and around their TF, and that their TF manual must describe the
processes that will be undertaken to manage them. This could present an opportunity to
canvas TFs in the Lower Hutt and Wainuiomata areas with factsheets on the millipede and
Act
their requirement to effectively manage the millipede.
Are the authority and legal powers available to carry immediate actions out?
x The Portuguese millipede is not an unwanted organism therefore actions cannot be
enforced by an Inspector warranted under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (BA). MPI could
consider making the Portuguese millipede an unwanted organism to enact powers under the
BA.
x Under the TFGEN, TFs are expected to effectively manage both Regulated and Non-
Regulated Pests at their site.
Ommatoiulus moreleti is a Regulated pest therefore, TFs are
required to manage for this pest. During audits, Border Clearance Services check the TF’s
Information
records to ensure management of such pests have taken place.
Summary of estimated costs of immediate required actions, including estimate of any
diagnostics cost that would not be considered part of business as usual:
x Diagnostic costs for the Australian native parasitic nematode (
Rhabditis necromena)
detection: $230 per hour by Dr Zheng. It is unknown how much time would be required per
Official
millipede to determine presence/absence of the nematode. eDNA could be considered as
another option for detecting the presence of the nematode although these costs are
unknown.
the
x Single insecticide treatment at TF1: ~$500. TF1 is one of four known sites, and likely easier
to treat compared to the WMBP. A delimiting survey has not yet been completed so this cost
is unlikely to represent all known sites. Bearing in mind the limitations, if chemical control is
considered as a management option at TF1 for example, it is likely to be required multiple
times during each season (autumn and spring) when millipedes appear. For example, two
treatments have occurred at TF1 with one final treatment planned due to reoccurrence of
under
millipedes following treatment. Assuming three treatments per season, approximately
$3,000 would be required per annum to manage millipede numbers at TF1. Millipede
numbers are likely to be less significant in Spring so it is possible less treatments in Spring
would be required. To maximise the effectiveness of chemical control, surrounding areas
that provide suitable millipede habitat should be considered in the treatment plan. This
would likely significantly increase expenditure.
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 9
Rapid
Assessment
Report
4. Initial Risk assessment
4.1. Risk
identification
The ‘risk’ refers to a: Risk organism
Scientific name:
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Julida: Julidae)
1982
Common name: Portuguese millipede; Black Portuguese millipede
Synonyms:
Act
Julus moreleti, Julus lusitanicus, Julus karschi, Hemipodoiulus karschi, Palaioiulus (Mesoiulus)
karschi, Archiulu (Hemipodoiulus) moreleti, Schizophyllum moreleti, Schizophyullum
(Eleutheroiulus) karschi, Schizophyllum moreleti, Ommatoiulus (Hemipodoiulus) karschi,
Ommatoiulus moreletii
Legal status of organism:
Not an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Undetermined under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO).
Spread mechanisms: Natural spread and/or human mediated through transportation of risk
Information
goods. Portuguese millipede outbreaks spread slowly but steadily. Millipedes can move a
maximum of several hundred metres a year and are transported from a property to other
locations in plant material, soil, woodchips and farm machinery (Exopest 2013, Umina and
Kimber 2015). Portuguese millipedes are distasteful to birds due to hydrogen cyanide secretions
and unlikely to be spread by them.
4.2. Risk assessment definitions and context
Official
Entry:
The organism crosses New Zealand’s border
Exposure:
The organism transfers to a suitable host or niche in New Zealand
the
Establishment:
The organism reproduces to create a viable population in New
Zealand for the foreseeable future
Consequences:
The extent of spread and impact of the organism on growing and
protecting New Zealand (as defined in the Biosecurity Act)
Overall risk:
The combination of entry, exposure, establishment and consequences
under
4.3. How likely is it to enter?
How could the risk enter New Zealand?
x See
below.
What is the likelihood the risk may enter New Zealand? What are the factors that affect the
chances/ likelihood? Why is it at this level?
Released
x The investigation confirmed the presence of widespread populations of
O. moreleti in
Seaview, Gracefield and Wainuiomata, New Zealand. In 2016, MPI Plants & Pathways
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 10
Rapid
Assessment
Report
drafted an Emerging Risk Report stating that there had been recent border and post border
detections of the Portuguese millipede. The specimen was found in luggage of a passenger
who had just returned from Western Australia fol owing an outbreak in that area. The report
states that it is a hitchhiker species not associated with any one commodity but most likely to
be found associated with machinery and shipping containers, followed by passengers
particularly in association with camping equipment. The highest risk of introduction is from
Australia. The TF2 and TF3 in the Seaview and Gracefield area have a history of importing
products from Australia.
1982
4.4. How likely is it for exposure to occur?
How could the risk become exposed to a suitable host or niche in New Zealand?
Act
x The millipede has already been exposed to a suitable host or niche in New Zealand given its
confirmed presence in Seaview, Gracefield and Wainuiomata, and anecdotal reports that it
has been in the Seaview area for at least 20 years.
What is the likelihood the risk will be exposed to a suitable host or niche once it has entered
New Zealand?
x The
millipede
is established in New Zealand and has found convivial habitats e.g.
undisturbed leaf litter, mulched garden beds, ground covered with plants. The industrial area
where TFs 1,2, and 3 are located is bordered by bush, which can support large populations
of the Portuguese millipede. MPI Plants & Pathways (2016) states that the description of
Information
their ecology indicates New Zealand would provide a suitable habitat for survival, breeding
and establishment.
How likely is it to establish?
x The
facts
and
anecdotal
evidence
accrued
during this investigation confirms that the
Portuguese millipede is at least locally established in Seaview and Gracefield. That is
Official
supported by both adults and juveniles being detected in the samples collected from those
areas. Adult Portuguese millipedes were also detected in WMBP. Additionally, anecdotal
reports from TF1 suggests that the millipedes have bred successfully given the presence of
large numbers of very small millipedes at their facility this month (June 2021). Portuguese
the
millipedes are usually mature after 2 years and this is when they are likely to start invading
buildings and become detected for the first time as observed at all TFs concerned.
4.5. What are the consequences and how do they impact MPI?
Spread in New Zealand: How likely is the pest or disease to spread or have already spread in
under
the New Zealand environment? What harm has a similar pest or disease had overseas?
x The Portuguese millipede is already in the environment as indicated by its presence in leaf
litter beneath manuka trees in the WMBP.
x Portuguese millipede can colonise a wide variety of habitats including forests, grasslands,
agricultural fields, urban gardens and sand dunes. Given a high climate match with
Tasmania (MPI Plants & Pathways 2016) where the Portuguese millipede
is established,
combined with years of opportunity to spread to new areas via commerce and an ability to
move up to several hundred metres per year, it is likely that it could establish elsewhere in
Released
New Zealand if it has not done so already.
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 11
Rapid
Assessment
Report
x As previously discussed, the Portuguese millipede is an invasive and nuisance pest in
Australia. It is more likely to be a pest species to New Zealand households than to
commercial operations. Tasmania has a similar climate to New Zealand and was not
included in the list of southern regions of Australia that have experienced damage to
broadacre agriculture, particularly canola (GRDC 2015). Conversely, some sources have not
reported the millipede as damaging to broadacre crops and canola. These contrasting
reports suggest high variation in pest status. However, there is a report that the Portuguese
millipede has invaded the bush and become a dominant species in some long-farmed parts
1982
of Tasmania. It is also implicated, along with land conversion, in the decline of native
millipedes (Mesibov 2016, Mesibov 2021).
Affected stakeholders: What industries, environments or people will be affected by this pest or
Act
disease? How might they be affected?
x Department of Conservation (DOC) since this is a new record of a locally established
organism living in the environment.
x GIA
stakeholders
(Horticulture
NZ,
Tomatoes NZ, Potatoes NZ) may be affected since
brassica and cereal crops, strawberries, melons, tomatoes and potatoes are recorded hosts
of the Portuguese millipede. Crop feeding damage is relatively rare and depends on
millipede numbers, although high numbers does not necessarily mean damage will occur.
x The WMBP is a joint venture between Hutt City Council and volunteers involved in the
Wainuiomata Trail Project. While it is unknown if the millipede detection in this park will
Information
become a nuisance pest to park users (e.g. unpleasant smells from millipedes squashed by
runners and mountain bikers), a courtesy report to these parties may be required.
What is the potential for adverse impacts on the following five Biosecurity values?
Biosecurity value Description of harm.
Official
Environmental
Unknown but considered negligible based on available information: Environmental impacts are very small
and have no effects on the overall outcome.
Economic
Unknown but considered very low-low based on available information: Economic impacts are in the order
the
of $tens of thousands - $hundreds of thousands.
Human health
Negligible: Impacts on human health are very small and have no effects on the overall outcome
Socio-cultural
Low-moderate: Socio-cultural impacts are minor and permanent or moderate and transient; Significant
socio-cultural impacts felt across one or more of the considerations listed.
under
Maori values
Unknown: communication needs to occur with iwi to determine the description of harm however it is
possible there may be interest in the Wainuiomata detection due to the association with native bush and
the Waiu wetland.
4.6. Assessment of overall risk
The Portuguese millipede is indigenous to continental Portugal and Spain, and since spread via
commerce to the Macaronesian Islands, Bermuda, South Africa, United Kingdom and Australia.
Its distribution within Australia significantly expanded to four states and one territory since its
first discovery in 1953. This includes Tasmania which has a high climate match with New
Released
Zealand. Although Portuguese millipede outbreaks move slowly, they can spread via commerce
and can colonise a wide variety of habitats.
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 12
Rapid
Assessment
Report
While the millipedes have no direct impact on human or animal health (MPI Plants & Pathways
2016), they can be a significant nuisance pest when they are most active in autumn and to a
lesser extent, spring. Attracted to lights, the Portuguese millipede tends to invade homes in
large numbers although once inside they die. When squashed they can stain carpets and
clothes permanently and create an unpleasant smell. When threatened they secrete a
substance that has a similar unpleasant smell, and the substance can be irritating if rubbed into
eyes. MPI Plants & Pathways (2016) reported that the invading swarms may contaminate food
and infest carpet and bedding. The Portuguese millipede can infest rainwater tanks and lower 1982
real estate values. Additionally, they have been possibly implicated in a train crash, delays and
cancellations in Australia having thought to have made the tracks slippery.
There are unknowns about the pest status of the Portuguese millipede due to variable reports.
Act
Outside of Australia there are no records of the Portuguese millipede causing damage to
agricultural crops (Heddle et al 2021). The Portuguese millipede is mainly detritivorous and
feeds on decomposing organic matter however, in Australia it is a sporadic pest where high
numbers are known to feed on seedlings of fruit and vegetable crops. These crops include
seedlings of brassica and cereal crops, strawberries, melons, tomatoes and potatoes, but in
small numbers they have minimal impact. The presence of millipedes in crops does not
necessarily mean damage will occur, and crop feeding damage is relatively rare. Actual damage
estimates are hard to come by due to the unpredictable nature of millipedes feeding on green
plant material. Laboratory trials found that when millipedes did feed on live plants it was mainly
lupin and lucerne, occasionally canola seedlings, but rarely other crops e.g. wheat, oats,
chickpeas, faba beans or lentils (Douglas et al 2017). There are reports of damage to broadacre
Information
and canola crops in certain Australian states while conversely, some sources have not reported
the millipede as damaging to broadacre crops and canola. These contrasting reports suggest
high variation in pest status. Whole canola plants can be killed if damage is severe and damage
to cereals can also occur where the stems of young plants are chewed. Retallack (2019) reports
that wine taint may occur if millipedes are fermented with grapes. Grain contamination has been
reported by farmers as wel (Hamdorf and van Helden 2019).
Official
Although there are reports that do not indicate impacts on native millipedes by the Portuguese
millipede, there are others which suggest the opposite. Stoev et al. (2010) state that alien
myriapods are unlikely to pose major threats to native biodiversity and ecosystems. In South
Australia, Baker (1985) and Griffin and Bull (1995) suggest there was no evidence for
the
competition between the Portuguese millipede and native millipedes. In 2010, a Senior Curator
of Invertebrate Zoology at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery advised in an ABC Local
news article that there was no evidence these millipedes were causing any trouble to native
millipedes or the environment in general, that they are smaller and not in the same proportions
as those in South Australia (Raabus 2010). However, in a 2016 Tasmanian Times news article,
Dr Robert Mesibov implicated Portuguese millipedes, along with land conversion, in the decline
under
of native iulomorphids. Furthermore, the numbers of Portuguese millipedes can be variable
depending on location. While Mesibov (2021) reports that the Portuguese millipede can number
from 1000 – 5000 in backyards, in 2016 Mesibov described Portuguese millipede numbers in
their “millions” on Hobart’s eastern shore. Mesibov (2016) states, “in dry woodland, Portuguese
millipedes can completely replace our native millipedes.” Mesibov (2021) comments that the
millipede invaded the bush in some long-farmed parts of Tasmania and is now the dominant
millipede species. There is a single genus from the family lulomorphidae in New Zealand from
which there are at least 12 known species in New Zealand. While millipedes are not protected in
New Zealand, very little is known about their ecological importance (Massey University 2019).
There are a range of exotic millipede species in New Zealand including five from the same
Released
Family as the Portuguese millipede (Julidae),
Cylindroiulus britannicus,
Brachyiulus pusillus,
Ophyiulus pilosus, Ophyiulus verruculiger and
Cylindroiulus londinensis (Johns 1966).
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 13
Rapid
Assessment
Report
Cylindroiulus britannicus and
Ophyiulus pilosus have entered
Nothofagus and
Podocarpus
forests and do not appear to have any effect on the endemic Cambalidae population (Johns
n.d). The risk to native New Zealand plant species is unknown since this has not been studied.
In 1988, the Department of Agriculture South Australia released the native parasitic nematode
Rhabditis necromena in more than 2000 locations in that state to control the millipede. It is
possible to control millipedes in domestic backyard situations. The pest status of the Portuguese
millipede has decreased in many areas in South Australia since that time but does not provide 1982
total control (PaDIS 2020). Although it is possible to reduce millipede populations via the
release of this nematode, there is no record of
R. necromena presence in New Zealand and it is
unknown what impact this would have on New Zealand native millipedes. An investigation would
be required into the nematode to determine biological risk if it is detected.
Act
5. Initial options analysis
5.1. Possible options to respond to situation
1.
Take no action: This millipede presents an unknown level of biological risk, given
uncertainties with regards to the unpredictable nature of millipedes feeding on green
plant material and unknown impacts on native flora and native millipedes. Tasmania has
a similar climate to New Zealand and was not included in the list of southern regions of
Australia that have experienced damage to broadacre agriculture, particularly canola.
Conversely, some sources have reported the millipede as not damaging to broadacre
crops and canola. These contrasting reports suggest high variation in pest status.
Information
However, there is a report that the Portuguese millipede has become a dominant
species in bush in some long-farmed parts of Tasmania, and it is also implicated, along
with land conversion, in the decline of native millipedes.
Taking no action to further control, contain or eradicate may not be acceptable to
industry partners and stakeholders of MPI, including DOC. This option may also not be
favourable to the local community and KiwiRail given the millipede’s reputation as a
Official
nuisance pest overseas and possible implication in a train crash, delays and
cancellations as reported in Australian media.
the
2.
Eradicate source of harm: Given the level of uncertainty of its impact, industry partners
and stakeholders are likely to prefer this option. However, given the known distribution
(2.19km), anecdotal timeline (~20 years) and population numbers observed, eradication
will be costly with limited probability of success. Site visits and reports from transitional
facilities (TFs) have shown the distribution of the millipede is not isolated to a single area
and millipede populations elsewhere in New Zealand cannot be ruled out.
under
3.
Sustained long term control of issue to slow spread and reduce impacts: This may
be achievable with TFs, business and community engagement however, the degree of
success depends on the control strategy and tools utilised. Even if companies choose to
manage millipede populations in and around their site, there are likely other areas (e.g.
the scrub underneath manuka trees at the Wainuiomata Mountain Bike Park) acting as a
reservoir for millipede populations. These reservoirs could hamper control efforts unless
they are addressed in the overarching surveillance and control strategy.
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 14
Rapid
Assessment
Report
5.2. What methods can we use to respond?
[Briefly document possible approaches and options in the fol owing operational areas that could
be deployed to achieve response options]:
Movement control: What actions could control the spread and/or size of the situation?
x Movement control is not considered feasible and unlikely to change the level of risk given 1982
the distribution and multiple anecdotal reports of the millipedes being present for many
years.
Tracing: What tracing activities could increase our knowledge of the movements of the risk in
Act
New Zealand?
x Customers of sites confirmed to have Portuguese millipede could be contacted to ask if they
have observed millipede populations outside of Seaview, Gracefield and Wainuiomata.
Organism management: What options are available to eliminate or reduce harm from the
situation?
x Trap
options
are
available
such as light traps and a moat trap system for control and as a
physical barrier. Light traps can be positioned along the outside wall or in the garden, and
the floor of the trap treated with an appropriate insecticide to kill millipedes as they enter.
Information
x Smooth, vertical or rounded surfaces fixed to walls, below doorsteps, window ledges and
vent bricks can provide a physical barrier to prevent millipede entry to facilities and homes.
Wide (at least 48mm) smooth vinyl, polypropylene or polythene tape can be fixed to the wal
for example although this is a less permanent barrier.
x Chemical barriers can be used at sites where Portuguese millipedes are known (e.g. outside
walls, paths, garden beds) but must be re-applied for ongoing control and may have
Official
unintended consequences such as the death of natural enemies. As evidenced by urgent
measures at TF1, repeated chemical control at a single site does not eliminate the
millipedes from an area. This approach does not address the surrounding areas owned by
other businesses which may provide suitable habitat and shelter for these millipedes.
the
x Umina and Kimber (2015) state preventative action is key for crops because there are
limited Portuguese millipede management options after crop-emergence and no registered
insecticides against them in broad acre crops in Australia. Umina and Kimber recommend
trash removal and reducing stubble retention, especially in summer and early autumn to
minimise numbers in future. The Government of South Australia (2019) recommends
under
avoiding planting lupin or lucerne where high numbers of millipedes are present.
Surveillance and investigation: What can we do to increase our knowledge of the pest or
disease and where it has, or could, occur in New Zealand?
Evidence suggests a local establishment of Portuguese millipede in Seaview, Gracefield and
Wainuiomata areas therefore there would not be benefit to additional surveillance in the area.
Customers of TFs known to have the Portuguese millipede could be contacted to find out if the
millipede may have spread to regions beyond the known detections.
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 15
Rapid
Assessment
Report
5.3. What limits exist for responding?
[Briefly document your current understanding of constraints such as]:
Do time constraints exist for the different options that could affect their efficacy?
x Multiple anecdotal reports suggest that the millipedes have been in the Seaview area for
many years. Based on these reports and the millipede’s wide distribution, the risk of spread
1982
to other areas has likely already been realised.
What sources of uncertainty could affect how we respond to the risk?
x
Act
There is uncertainty around actual damage estimates to crops, and uncertainty about
whether native New Zealand plants would be impacted.
Are statutory powers available to support actions required?
x Statutory powers are not available to support actions required. The Portuguese millipede is
a suspected New Organism under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
(HSNO) 1996 however statutory powers against suspected New Organisms only apply at
the border. As mentioned above, MPI could declare the Portuguese millipede an unwanted
organism or apply for a determination to the Environmental Protection Agency.
x Under the Standard for TFs for General Uncleared Risk Goods (TFGEN), the TF Operator
Information
must ensure that regulated pests are effectively managed in and around the TF as per
below:
Official
the
5.4. Summary of options
What is the most feasible option to use in response to the situation?
There are three options:
under
1) Take no action
2) Eradicate source of harm
3) Sustained long term control of issue to slow spread and reduce impacts
Take no action or sustained long term control of issue to slow spread and reduce impacts would
be the two most feasible options. Based on the timeline and distribution, eradicate source of
harm is considered unlikely to be feasible.
Released
What are the advantages and limitations of taking this option?
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 16
Rapid
Assessment
Report
The advantage of taking the take no action option is that it will save costs; however, the
limitation is that the millipede will likely spread more rapidly to other areas of New Zealand if it
has not done so already. While there is likely to be a reputational risk around inaction, these
millipedes were reported for the first time in 2021 despite anecdotal reports of being observed in
Seaview for at least 20 years.
The advantage of sustained longterm control is that this can be cost effective if the right tools
are utilised together using an overarching strategy. The limitations of this option are the
1982
millipede might already be far more widely spread than currently known and so the success of
these control options may therefore be limited. Regardless, TFs are required to manage both
Regulated and Non-Regulated pests at their facilities.
Act
6. Initial Recommendations
After investigation IIPH have concluded that a biological risk remains and have provided a
Rapid Assessment Report for Readiness & Response Services (RRS) to consider the
recommendations made in the RAR and whether a response is required to manage this
incursion and any related work.
Recommended urgent actions:
x Canvas TFs in the Seaview, Gracefield and Wainuiomata areas with a factsheet of the
Portuguese millipede to make TFs aware of this pest and advice to manage. TF’s are
Information
already under obligation to manage pests in and around their facility.
Recommended option to achieve/preserve most desirable outcome in the medium term, after
urgent measures have been completed:
x TFs to control millipedes at their sites as specified under TFGEN.
x Canvas recipients of goods to make them aware of this pest and advice to manage.
Official
x Determine presence/absence of parasitic nematode in Portuguese millipede from NZ
samples.
the
Estimate of resource requirements (including testing/diagnostics costs) to achieve the
recommended interim response outcomes, from one of the following scale categories:
less than 5 person days or $5,000
between 5 person days or $5,000, and 20 person days or $20,000
under
between 20 person days or $20,000, and 100 person days or $100,000
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 17
Rapid Assessment Report
7. References
Investigation Numbers and Titles from the Investigation Register for all relevant investigations:
x LT113565 – Suspect Portuguese millipede at TF, Lower Hutt
DSS Accession Numbers for all relevant diagnostic work:
1982
x C21_00589
x C21_00633
Act
x C21_00634
x C21_00635
x C21_00692
Bibliography of scientific literature cited within the Rapid Assessment Report:
Baker, G.H. 1985. The distribution and abundance of the Portuguese millipede
Ommatoiulus
moreletii (Diplopoda: Iulidae) in Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. Vol 10, Issue 3. P. 249-
259.
Information
Exopest. 2013. Exopest fact sheet – Portuguese millipedes. Available at:
https://www.exopest.com.au/pdfs/Fact Sheet Millepede.pdf
Douglas et al. 2017. Crop seedling susceptibility to
Armadillidium vulgare (Isopoda:
Armadillidiidae) and
Ommatoiulus moreletii (Diplopoda: Iulidae). Journal of Economic
Entomology, 10(6). P. 2679-2685. Available at: e64b6db7-5f86-e911-94a1-
0050568d0279 Thesis-Josh Douglas.pdf (unimelb.edu.au)
Official
Government of South Australia. 2019. Black Portuguese millipede on the move after recent rain.
Available at:
https://pir.sa.gov.au/research/services/reports and newsletters/pestfacts newsletter/archive/20
19/pestfacts-issue-10-2019/black portuguese mil ipedes on the move after recent rain.
the
GRDC. 2015. Canola Southern Region. Canola GrowNote. Available at:
https://grdc.com.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0034/364876/grdc-grownotes-canola-southern.pdf
Griffin, T., and Bull, C. 1995. Interactions between introduced and native millipede species in
South Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 43(2): 129-140.
under
Hamdorf, R. and van Helden, M. 2019. Black Portuguese millipedes on the move after recent
rain. PestFacts South Australia, SARID (South Asutralian Research and Development Institute),
Adelaide, Australia. Available at:
https://pir.sa.gov.au/research/services/reports and newsletters/pestfacts newsletter/archive/20
19/pestfacts-issue-10-2019/black portuguese millipedes on the move after recent rain
9(2)(a) 2021.
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Diplopoda: Julida: Julidae) in Lower Hutt. Plant Health &
Environment (PHEL) Diagnostics Report.
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 18
Rapid Assessment Report
3OHDVH VHH SDJHV
Ommatoiulus
moreleti Technical R
Heddle, T., Umina, P.A., van Helden, M., Alhwash, L., Cheng, X., Binns, M., Hoffman, A.A.
2021. Life stages of the non-native
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Lucas, 1860) (Julida, Julidae) in
Austrailan small grain systems. Agricultural and Forest Entomology.
1982
:LWK UHIHUHQFH WR VHFWLRQ G RI WKH 2,$ WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV SXEOLFO\ DYDLODEOH
KWWSV UHVMRXUQDOVRQOLQHOLEUDU\ZLOH\FRPGRLDEVDIH
Lifestagesofthenon
Act
-nativeOmmatoiulus
Johns., P.M. 1962. Introduction to the endemic and introduced millipedes of New Zealand. New
Zealand Entomologist. 3(1) 38-46.
Johns., P.M. 1966. A note on the introduced millipedes of New Zealand. New Zealand
Entomologist 3(5). Available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254283252 A Note on the Introduced Millipedes of
New Zealand
Johns., n.d. Introduction to the endemic and introduced millipedes of New Zealand. Department
of Zoology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch. Available here:
Information
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.6258&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Leftfield Innovation Limited. 2020. Wairarapa Water. Available at:
https://www.wwl.net.nz/web/documents/library/Land-use-Opportunities-Report -17-June-
2020.pdf
Massey University, 2019. Diplopoda. Guide to New Zealand soil invertebrates. Available here:
http://soilbugs.massey.ac.nz/diplopoda.php
Official
Mesibov 2016. Long, dark and handsome. Available at: Long, dark and handsome - Tasmanian
Times
the
Mesibov, R. 2021. Invasive species. Tasmanian millipedes. Available at:
https://datafix.com.au/tasmanian millipedes/invasives.html
PaDIS 2020. Portuguese millipedes. Department of Primary Industries and Regional
Development. Available at: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pest-insects/portuguese-
millipedes?page=0%2C1
under
Raabus, C. 2010. Home invasion numbers soar in Tasmania in the search for a date. Available
at: https://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/03/12/2844050.htm
Retallack, M. 2019. Millipedes! How to manage populations so they do not become damaging at
vintage. Grape Growing. Available at:
https://www.australianbiologicalfarmingconference.org/uploads/2/9/1/9/29197227/v662pp28-
30.pdf
MPI Plants & Pathways, 2016. Portuguese millipede (
Ommatoiulus moreleti ) Emerging Risk
Released
Report ERR0071. Disseminated by: National Operations Centre.
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 19
Rapid Assessment Report
3OHDVH VHH SDJH
20160114 ERR0071
Portuguese Milliped
Stats NZ. 2017. Land use on farms in the South Wairarapa District, New Zealand. Available at:
https://figure.nz/chart/ZsjUTQ3Hp0I1cDnW-v7iBuW5FdOlZJlm5
Stoev, P., Zapparoli, M., Golovatch, S., Enghoff, H. 2010. Chapter 7.2: Myriapods (Myriapoda) 1982
In: Roques A et al. (Eds) Alien terrestrial arthropods of Europe. BioRisk 4(1). doi:
10.3897/biorisk.4.42. Available at: http://www.supagro.fr/ress-
tice/plants uved/grain1/res/Biorisk arthropodes.pdf
Act
Umina, P., and Kimber, B. 2015. Black Portuguese millipede. PestNotes southern. Available at:
Black Portuguese millipede – Cesar Australia
Experts consulted/peer review:
x Diagnostics and technical expertise: 9(2)(a)
, 9(2)(a)
at the Natural History
Museum Vienna Austria
x Peer review: 9(2)(a)
, 9(2)(a)
, 9(2)(a)
, 9(2)(a)
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Ministry for Primary Industries
x 20
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Organism background
Scientific name:
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Lucas, 1860)
Common name: Portuguese millipede, Black Portuguese millipede
Synonyms:
Julus moreleti Lucas, 1860
Julus moreleti: Porat 1870
1982
Julus lusitanicus Karsch, 1881
Julus karschi Verhoeff, 1892
Hemipodoiulus Karschi: Verhoeff 1892
Palaioiulus (Mesoiulus) Karschi: Verhoeff 1894
Act
Archiulus (Hemipodoiulus) moreleti: Attems 1928
Schizophyllum moreleti: Brolemann 1921
Schizophyllum (Eleutheroiulus) karschi: Machado 1946
Schizophyllum moreleti: Lohmander 1955, Mauriès 1964, Schubart 1966
Ommatoiulus (Hemipodoiulus) Karschi: Ceuca 1974
Ommatoiulus moreleti: Mauriès 1975
Ommatoiulus moreletii: Vicente 1985
Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Information
Ommatoiulus moreleti exhibits considerable variation of the male gonopods and has been the source of
much taxonomic confusion (Akkari & Enghoff 2012).
Description
O. moreleti is a distinctive robust millipede (Figure 1). It has a smooth, cylindrical body consisting of up
Official
to 50 segments when fully developed. Adults are 30-45 mm in length. Body colour is highly characteristic.
Larger juveniles and adults vary in colour from uniform grey with pinkish legs and antennae, through
increasing darker shades to almost uniform black with contrasting burgundy legs and antennae. Immature
the
specimens are pale grey, often with a pair of indistinct dorsal stripes (Gregory et al. 2018).
under
Released
Page
2 of
11
1982
Act
Information
Figure 1: O. moreleti
Official
Photo - Plant Health and Environment Laboratory, Biosecurity NZ
Diagnosis
the
The gonopods of the copulatory male are of primary importance in the taxonomy of millipedes. Mature
male specimens of
O. moreleti may be readily identified from the distinctive profile of the gonopods in
posterior view (Akkari & Enghoff 2012; 2017).
Distribution
under
O. moreleti is indigenous to continental Portugal and Spain. It has been spread through commerce and
been introduced to the Macaronesian Islands, Bermuda, South Africa, United Kingdom and Australia
(Gregory et al. 2018). It was first recorded in Australia on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia in 1953. It has
since been recorded in New South Wales, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Western
Australia (Baker et al. 2013).
Life cycle
Released
In the southern hemisphere,
O. moreleti begin mating in March and April and lay most of their eggs in
April and May. During this period (autumn and early winter), the millipedes are active on the surface and
may be observed mating (Baker 1985a). Mature females lay about 200 yellowish-white eggs into the soil.
Immobile, legless juveniles hatch from eggs and develop over a week into the first active stage of the life
Page
3 of
11
cycle. This first stage has only three pairs of legs. Millipedes grow through a series of moults. At each
moult, the millipede adds more legs and body segments until it is mature. After the first year, juveniles
have reached the seventh, eighth or ninth stage of development and wil be about 1.5 centimetres long.
After this, they moult only in spring and summer. During moulting, millipedes are particularly vulnerable
because the new cuticle (outside skin layer) is soft and easily damaged when first formed.
O. moreleti
usually mature after two years when they are in the tenth or eleventh stage of growth (Umina & Kimber
2015).
Adult males of
O. moreleti are periodomorphic i.e. alternating between a sexual and a non-sexual form. 1982
In their sexual form, males have gonopods (mating legs) in the seventh body segment (Figure 2), which
they lose when they moult in spring. They remain in the non-sexual ‘eunuch’ form until their late summer
moult (Baker 1978b).
Act
Information
Official
the
Figure 2: Ommatoiulus moreleti, adult male; head and anterior body rings.
under
(Image:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ommatoiulus moreleti anterior anatomy.tiff)
Behaviour
O. moreleti gather in large numbers and become quite mobile and noticeable after the first rains in
autumn. Rainfall often stimulates activity of
O. moreleti. They are most active in autumn and to a lesser
extent spring (Baker 1984). Copulatory males predominate during autumn and winter, but intercalary
males are most common during spring and summer (Baker 1985a).
Released
O. moreleti prefer high relative humidity (around 95%) and moderate temperatures (17-21°C) (Baker
1980). They typically inhabit areas with mean annual rainfal of >300 mm, mean daily minimum
temperatures in winter of 0-15°C and mean daily maximum temperatures in summer of 18-33°C (Baker
et al. 2013).
Page
4 of
11
When disturbed
O. moreleti either curl up in a tight spiral or thrash about trying to escape.
Habitat
O. moreleti colonises a wide variety of habitats including forest, grasslands, agricultural fields, urban
gardens and sand dunes (Baker et al. 2013). The abundance of
O. moreleti can vary markedly between
habitat types (Baker 1984, Bailey & de Mendonca 1990). Due to their feeding habits, they accumulate in
higher numbers where there is undisturbed leaf litter and organic mulch, and where winter weeds form a
mostly continuous ground cover. They are general y not numerous in lawns, cultivated areas or bare 1982
ground.
O. moreleti are attracted to visible lights from houses and are often found in wel mulched garden
beds near houses (Bailey & Baker 2016).
Act
Dispersal
O. moreleti do not move far. Individual outbreaks spread slowly but steadily. Adults millipedes can move
a maximum of several hundred metres a year (Bailey & Baker 2016). Human assisted transportation
appears to be a major factor in the establishment of new outbreaks of
O. moreleti (Baker et al. 2013).
Movement over long distances can occur through the transport of soil, woodchips, and machinery from
one area to another. According to Gregory et al. (2018), it is likely
O. moreleti was unintentionally
introduced into the UK as a consequence of industrial activity in the Valleys of south Wales.
Diet and Damage
Information
O. moreleti is mainly detritivorous. It feeds on decomposing organic matter such as leaf litter, damp
decaying wood, fungi and plant roots, mosses and pol en. However,
O. moreleti will occasionally attack
living plants by chewing the leaves and stems. These include canola, lucerne and lupins (GRDC 2013).
In canola, they remove irregular sections from the leaves, and can kil whole plants if damage is severe.
Damage to cereals can also occur when the stems of young plants are chewed (Umina & Kimber 2015).
Official
High numbers of
O. moreleti are known to feed on seedlings of fruit and vegetable crops. It has been
suggested that they may feed on crop plants to access moisture when moisture is limited (Umina &
Kimber 2015). Crop hosts include seedlings of brassica and cereal crops, strawberries, melons, tomatoes
the
and potatoes (Baker 1978a). However, small numbers of millipedes have minimal impact. The presence
of millipedes in crops does not necessarily mean damage will occur, and crop feeding damage is relatively
rare. There are many instances where high numbers of millipedes are present in a paddock, but no crop
damage occurs. No damage to broadacre crops has been reported (Umina & Kimber 2015). Actual
damage estimates are hard to come by due to the unpredictable nature of millipedes feeding on green
plant material (Douglas et al. 2019).
under
Pest status
O. moreleti is an introduced pest in Australia and South Africa (Lawrence 1984, Baker et al. 2013).
O.
moreleti is not directly harmful to humans. It is primarily a nuisance pest. They enter houses in large
numbers especial y when they are most active during autumn and, to a lesser extent, spring (Baker 1984).
O. moreleti infest food, bedding and rainwater tanks, stain floors when squashed, stink, and lower real
estate values (Baker 1978a).
O. moreleti do not breed inside houses, and once inside a house will usually
Released
die. In Australia, populations can be so abundant that they can prevent trains from achieving traction on
railway lines because of their squashed remains (Baker et al. 2013).
Page
5 of
11
Natural enemies
There are very few natural predators of
O. moreleti. This is due to their chemical defence mechanism
(Eisner et al. 1998). Highly repellent chemical compounds include benzoquinones, phenols, hydrogen
cyanide, quinazolinones, and alkaloids. These are ejected by the millipede from its defensive glands
when attacked, rendering them inedible to most predatory arthropods and birds (Shear 2015). Some
spiders, beetles and scorpions will eat millipedes, but these predators do not significantly reduce millipede
numbers. According to McKillup et al. (1988), a native Australian nematode
Rhabditis necromena
(Nematoda: Rhabditidae) appears to be a causal agent for the decline of populations of
O. moreleti in
South Australia).
1982
Monitoring
Act
Visual inspection
O. moreleti are mostly active at night. Hence, visual inspections at night can be carried out using a torch.
In hot dry weather,
O. moreleti hide in the soil. During the day, it is best to search under rocks, stubble
residue, wood, or to dig up the soil with a spade. Peak activity across south eastern Australia is around
March-April and October-November (GRDC 2013, Umina & Kimber 2015).
Management options
Current methods for control ing
O. moreleti are limited but can curb populations. In southern Australia,
these include biological control, and the use of pesticides or physical barriers to prevent entry to buildings
(GRDC 2013, Umina & Kimber 2015).
Information
Biological
Releases of the European fly parasitoid,
Pelidnoptera nigripennis (Diptera: Sciomyzidae) were made in
Australia in attempts to control
O. moreleti (Baker 1985b). However, the fly was unable to establish.
Bailey (1989) suggested that host specimens in Australia were unsuitably small compared with millipedes
in Portugal and that parasitoid eggs might therefore fail to adhere.
Official
The native Australian nematode
R. necromena has been shown to be lethal to
O. moreleti (Schulte 1989).
The nematodes are ingested by millipedes and bore through their gut wall lining. Bacteria from the gut
the
then infect millipedes which kills them (Bailey & Baker 2016). In 1988, the nematodes were released to
parts of South Australia to provide biological control. The nematodes appear to be effective in
suppressing millipede populations in many areas of South Australia. However, it is unclear how widely
the nematode has spread.
It is possible to control millipede populations in domestic backyard situations via the release of
Rhabditis
under
necromena. The nematodes are available commercially in Australia. They are distributed initially using
baiting stations. The nematode attack only mil ipedes and are active during late autumn and winter. There
may be seasons when conditions are unsuitable for nematodes and the millipede numbers temporarily
increase. Nematodes may take several years after introduction to reduce millipede numbers, especially
in areas adjoining bushland which can support enormous populations of the pest (Bailey & Baker 2016).
Physical Barriers
Smooth vertical barriers can stop millipedes from entering dwellings as they are unable to cross smooth,
Released
vertical or rounded surfaces. The barriers can be fixed to wal s, below doorsteps, window ledges and
vent bricks but should be kept clean and free of bridging vegetation. A barrier should be continuous with
no breaks, unless placed under doorways.
Page
6 of
11
A moat and trap system can also be constructed as a permanent barrier. Millipedes fall into a moat, which
has overhanging sides, and cannot climb out. Instead they must move to the ends of the channel, where
they fal into a container and are trapped (Bailey & Baker 2016).
A less permanent barrier can be formed using a wide (48mm at least) smooth vinyl, polypropylene or
polythene tape. The tape can be fixed to the wal with contact adhesive.
Light traps can offer good control of
O. moreleti as they are attracted to lights. Light traps can be set up
along the outside wall near where the millipedes are entering. The floor of the trap can be treated with an 1982
appropriate insecticide to kill the millipedes after they enter. Light traps may also be set up in the garden
to lure millipedes away from dwellings (Bailey & Baker 2016).
Act
Cultural
In southern Australia, increases in
O. moreleti populations in recent seasons are likely due to increased
uptake of no-till practices and stubble retention. Stubble retention has made broadacre production areas
more suitable for
O. moreleti by creating moist habitats attractive to millipedes (Umina & Kimber 2015).
Reducing the amount of rubbish and stubble over summer and early autumn is likely to be the most
effective way to reduce millipede numbers (GRDC 2013).
Chemical
Chemical barriers can be applied to kill millipedes before they are able to enter dwellings. However,
pesticides usual y have a limited active life and must be re-applied for ongoing control. The use of broad-
spectrum pesticides may also have unintended consequences, leading to the death of natural enemies
Information
or facilitate secondary pest outbreaks (Hill et al. 2017).
Appropriate chemicals can be applied to outside wal s, paths or garden beds and other areas where
millipedes may breed. Chemicals registered for use against millipedes are generally available from
supermarket or hardware stores. In Australia, there are currently no insecticides registered against
O.
moreleti in broadacre crops (Umina & Kimber 2015).
Official
Testing Methods
the
Specimens were identified morphologically using Blower (1985) and Akkari & Enghoff (2012; 2017). The
gonopods of several male specimens were dissected. In posterior view, the gonopods are of highly
characteristic shape (Gregory et al. 2018). An image of the gonopods in posterior view (Figure 3) was
sent to Dr. Nesrine Akkari at The Natural History Museum Vienna, Austria.
under
Released
Page
7 of
11
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Figure 3: Ommatoiulus moreleti male; gonopods, posterior view, from 127 Port Road, Seaview, Lower
Hutt (C21_00589).
Photo - Plant Health and Environment Laboratory, Biosecurity NZ
Results
PHEL’s identification of
O. moreleti was confirmed by Dr. Nesrine Akkari. The posterior view of the
Released
gonopods is typical for
Ommatoiulus moreleti (and its variants) (N. Akkari pers. comm.).
Page
8 of
11
Conclusion
The investigation finds indicate
O. moreleti has been established in the local area for many years. Adult
O. moreleti that invade houses are about two years old (Bailey & Baker 2016). Before invading, they
develop in the surrounding soil and litter where they are easily overlooked. Therefore, based on their life
cycle, it is likely that
O. moreleti has been present in the vicinity of TF1 for at least two years. Furthermore,
anecdotal evidence from TF staff suggest high numbers of
O. moreleti being observed in Lower Hut ‘for
more than 20 years’. Coincidentally, environmental DNA (eDNA) samples collected by students at
Wainuiomata Recreation Reserve in December 2020, showed a 99% sequence match to
O. moreleti 1982
(https://issuu.com/wsn11/docs/3 march wainuiomata news). However, no millipede specimens were
collected, and no investigation was initiated.
Act
New Zealand is climatically similar to southern Australia. Baker et al. (2013) records
O. moreleti has
expanded its distribution to occupy most areas of southern Australia with mean annual rainfall of 300-
2400 mm (excluding areas with summer rain maxima), mean daily minimum air temperatures in winter of
0-15°C and mean daily maximum temperatures in summer of 18-33°C. Based on the climatic envelope
of southern Australia, New Zealand is climatically suitable for
O. moreleti establishment.
Potential dispersal and establishment of
O. moreleti outside Lower Hutt, depends upon human assisted
transportation. Moreover, the dynamics of potential new outbreaks of
O. moreleti in New Zealand is
unknown. Baker (1985a) showed that within South Australia,
O. moreleti initially erupts in very large
numbers fol owing invasion of a new area, then declines to a lower abundance. The mechanisms driving
this temporal pattern are not properly understood (Bailey 1997). Baker (1985a) suggest the decrease in
Information
abundance may be caused by a shortage of food. However, recognition of this phenomenon has reduced
the perceived urgency for applied research to halt the problems experienced by urban residents afflicted
by
O. moreleti. Nevertheless,
O. moreleti continues to expand its range in Australia, with newly invaded
landowners and the environment experiencing the ‘boom and bust’ dynamics of this invasive pest (Baker
et al. 2013).
Official
References
the
Akkari, N. & Enghoff, H. 2012. Review of the genus
Ommatoiulus in Andalusia, Spain (Diplopoda:
Julida) with description of ten new species and notes on a remarkable gonopod structure, the fovea.
Zootaxa, 3538: 1-53.
Akkari, N. & Enghoff, H. 2017. Revision of the genus
Ommatoiulus Latzel, 1884 (Julida, Diplopoda) in
Portugal, with description of six new species.
European Journal of Taxonomy, 295: 1-42.
under
Bailey, P.T. 1989. The millipede parasitoid
Pelidnoptera nigripennis (F.) (Diptera: Sciomyzidae) for the
biological control of the mil ipede
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Lucas) (Diplopoda; Julida; Julidae) in Australia.
Bulletin of Entomological Research, 79: 381-391.
Bailey, P.T. 1997. Decline of an invading millipede,
Ommatoiulus moreleti in South Australia: the need
for a better understanding of the mechanism (Diplopoda,Julida: Julidae
). Entomologica Scandinavica
Suppl, 51: 241-244.
Released
Bailey, P.T., de Mendonca, T.R. 1990. The distribution of the millipede
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Diplopoda,
Julida: Julidae) in relation to other
Ommatoiulus species on the south-western Iberian Peninsula.
Journal
of Zoology, 221: 99-111.
Page
9 of
11
Bailey, P.T. & Baker, G.H. 2016. Fact sheet: Portuguese millipedes. Vol. 2017.
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0009/285516/Portuguese Millipedes Fact Sheet.pdf
Baker, G.H. 1978a. The distribution and dispersal of the introduced millipede,
Ommatoiulus moreletii
(Diplopoda: Iulidae), in Australia.
Journal of Zoology London, 185: 1-11.
Baker, G.H. 1978b. The post-embryonic development and life history of the millipede,
Ommatoiulus
moreleti (Diplopoda: Iulidae) introduced into south-eastern Australia.
Journal of Zoology London, 186: 1982
209-228.
Baker, G.H. 1984. Distribution, morphology and life history of the millipede
Ommatoiulus moreletii
Act
(Diplopoda: Iulidae) in Portugal and comparisons with Australian populations
. Australian Journal of
Zoology, 32: 811–822.
Baker, G.H. 1985a. The distribution and abundance of the Portuguese millipede
Ommatoiulus moreletii
(Diplopoda: Iulidae) in Australia.
Australian Journal of Ecology, 10: 249-259.
Baker, G.H. 1985b. Parasites of the millipede
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Lucas) (Diplopoda: Iulidae) in
Portugal and their potential as biological control agents in Australia.
Australian Journal of Zoology, 33:
23-32.
Information
Baker, G.H., Grevinga, L. & Banks, N. 2013. Invasions of the Portuguese millipede,
Ommatoiulus
moreleti, in southern Australia.
Pedobiologia, 56: 213-218.
Blower, J. G. 1985. Millipedes. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series). No 35. The Linnean Society
of London, 242pp.
Official
Douglas, J., Hoffmann, A. Umina, P. & Macfadyen, S. 2019. Factors Influencing damage by the
Portuguese Millipede,
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Julida: Julidae), to Crop Seedlings.
Journal of Economic
Entomology, 112: 2695–2702. the
Eisner, T., Eisner, M. Attygal e, A.B. Deyrup, M. & Meinwald, J. 1998. Rendering the inedible edible:
Circumvention of a millipede’s chemical defense by a predaceous beetle larva (Phengodidae).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95:1108-1113.
GRDC. 2013. Black Portuguese Millipedes & Slaters Fact Sheet.
under
Gregory, S.J., Owen, C. & Jones, G. 2018.
Ommatoiulus moreleti (Lucas) and
Cylindroiulus pyrenaicus
(Brölemann) new to the UK (Diplopoda, Julida: Julidae) and a new host for Rickia Laboulbenioides
(Laboulbeniales).
Bulletin of the British Myriapod and Isopod Group, 30: 48-60.
Hill, M.P., Macfadyen, S. & Nash, M.A. 2017. Broad spectrum pesticide application alters natural enemy
communities and may facilitate secondary pest outbreaks. PeerJ, 5:e4179.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4179
Released
Lawrence, R.E. 1984. The centipedes and millipedes of Southern Africa: a guide. Balkema, Rotterdam,
184pp.
Page
10 of
11
McKil up, S.C., Al en, P.G. Skewes, M.A. 1988. The natural decline of an introduced species following
its initial increase in abundance; an explanation for
Ommatoiulus moreletii in Australia.
Oecologia,
77:339-342.
Schulte, F. 1989. The association between
Rhabditis necromena Sudhaus and Schulte 1989 (Nematoda:
Rhabditidae) and native and introduced millipedes in South Australia.
Nematologica, 35: 82-89.
Shear, W.A. 2015. The chemical defenses of millipedes (diplopoda): Biochemistry, physiology and
ecology.
Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 61:78-117.
1982
Umina, P. & Kimber, B. 2015. Black Portuguese millipede. PestNotes southern. Available at:
http://www.cesaraustralia.com/sustainable-agriculture/pestnotes/insect/Black-Portuguese-millipede.
Act
Checked
by: 9(2)(a)
Date: 19
May
2021
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Page
11 of
11
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
