Corresponding author: Mark Cody Holthouse ( cody.holthouse@aggiemail.usu.edu ) Academic editor: Deepa Pureswaran
© 2021 Mark Cody Holthouse, Lori R. Spears, Diane G. Alston.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Holthouse MC, Spears LR, Alston DG (2021) Urban host plant utilisation by the invasive Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae) in northern Utah. NeoBiota 64: 87-101. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.64.60050
|
The invasive and highly polyphagous brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stål), is a severe agricultural and urban nuisance pest in North America. Since its initial invasion into Utah in 2012, H. halys has become well established in urban and suburban locations along the western foothills of the Wasatch Front in northern Utah. Bordering the Great Basin Desert, this area is unique from other North American locations with H. halys due to its high elevation (> 1200 m), aridity (30-year mean RH = 53.1%; dew point = -1.9 °C) and extreme temperatures (the 30-year mean minimum and maximum in January and July in Salt Lake City range from -3.1 to 3.6 °C and 20.3 to 32.4 °C, respectively). To document which plant species harbour H. halys, surveys were conducted in 17 urban/suburban sites in four counties during 2017 and 2018. Halyomorpha halys was more abundant in Salt Lake and Utah counties than in the more northern counties of Davis and Weber and was found on 53 plant species, nine of which hosted two or more developmental stages in both years. The majority of hosts were in the families Fabaceae, Rosaceae and Sapindaceae. Northern catalpa, Catalpa speciosa (Warder), was the most consistent host, supporting a majority of H. halys detections in all life stages; thus we identify it as a sentinel host. Twenty-nine species were novel hosts for H. halys in North America; of these, Acer ginnala Maxim, Populus tremuloides Michx., Prunus armeniaca × domestica ‘Flavor King’ and Prunus virginiana ‘Schubert’ were detected with two or more life stages of H. halys in both years. Peak populations of H. halys occurred from mid-June to mid-September. We describe H. halys plant utilisation by life stage and seasonal period to aid future detection and management of this invasive insect in the greater Intermountain West region.
Brown marmorated stink bug, Catalpa speciosa, host plant, Intermountain West, sentinel host, survey
Native to Asia, Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) has become an urban nuisance and severe agricultural pest in many parts of the world (
In northern Utah, surveys in 2017 and 2018 were initiated to document plant species harbouring H. halys egg mass, nymph and adult life stages and their seasonal occurrence. Surveys were conducted along the urbanised western foothills of the Wasatch Front, which is considered part of the greater Rocky Mountain Range and stretches 258 km south from the Idaho border to central Utah. Approximately 80% of Utah’s human population lives within 25 km of the Wasatch Range, creating a band of urban and suburban sprawl between the western mountain foothills and the eastern edge of the Great Basin Desert where much of Utah’s vegetable and fruit crop production occurs (data.census.gov, nass.usda.gov). Established urban populations of H. halys in northern Utah present risks to speciality and field crops. For example, early season feeding by H. halys on tart cherry (Prunus cerasus ‘Montmorency’) fruit can invoke substantial abscission and yield loss (
The high elevation (> 1200 m), aridity (30-year mean RH = 53.1%; dew point = -1.9 °C) and extreme seasonal temperature fluctuations of northern Utah (the 30-year mean minimum and maximum in January and July in Salt Lake City range from -3.1 to 3.6 °C and 20.3 to 32.4 °C, respectively) (ncdc.noaa.gov, climate.usu.edu, worldclimate.com) present a novel environmental setting for H. halys. Many other regions of the world with established H. halys populations, especially those in North America, include more humid and lower elevation habitats (
A total of 17 urban and suburban host plant survey sites were selected in 2017 and 2018, based on previous positive H. halys collections in Davis, Salt Lake, Utah and Weber Counties (Fig.
Map of 17 host plant survey sites in northern Utah, 2017 and 2018. Black dots represent sites that were visited in both years, blue dots represent sites visited only in 2017 and turquoise dots represent sites visited only in 2018. Geographical coordinates are as follows: Site 1: 40°13'44.7"N, 111°39'56.2"W; Site 2: 40°13'49.9"N, 111°39'50.6"W; Site 3: 40°16'05.2"N, 111°39'22.6"W; Site 4: 40°41'33.6"N, 111°50'53.8"W; Site 5: 40°44'06.4"N, 111°52'35.9"W; Site 6: 40°44'55.0"N, 111°52'05.8"W; Site 7: 40°44'56.1"N, 111°51'15.8"W; Site 8: 40°45'49.1"N, 111°51'02.1"W; Site 9: 40°46'16.5"N, 111°51'18.6"W; Site 10: 40°46'23.4"N, 111°52'07.1"W; Site 11: 40°46'04.8"N, 111°49'25.8"W; Site 12: 41°11'03.7"N, 112°02'29.2"W; Site 13: 41°03'35.9"N, 111°58'12.3"W; Site 14: 41°02'48.1"N, 111°54'26.2"W; Site 15: 41°12'40.3"N, 111°57'37.8"W; Site 16: 41°01'13.0"N, 111°56'13.1"W; and Site 17: 40°59'45.5"N, 111°53'08.5"W.
At each site, a line sampling transect, 200 m long by 40 m wide, was established. Twenty of the total available plants within each transect were randomly selected regardless of species and surveyed by one or two observers using visual inspection (e.g. underside of leaves, limbs and tree trunks) and beating sheets (BioQuip Products Inc., Rancho Dominguez, CA) for 3 min (
Mean number of H. halys egg masses (E), nymphs (N) and adults (A) present per sample* of plant species during surveys in northern Utah, 2017 and 2018. Plant species in bold were documented with two or more H. halys life stages in 2017 and 2018. The number of times each plant species was surveyed (no. of unique specimens × no. of visits) is found in the column labelled (n). The NS term indicates no surveys were conducted on the indicated plant and year.
Family name | Scientific name | Year | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | 2018 | ||||||||
(n) | E | N | A | (n) | E | N | A | ||
Apocynaceae | Vinca major † | 40 | – | 0.05 | – | 37 | – | – | – |
Araliaceae | Hedera helix † | 35 | – | – | 0.08 | 32 | – | 0.16 | – |
Berberidaceae | Mahonia repens † | 18 | – | – | 0.06 | 29 | – | – | – |
Bignoniaceae | Campsis radicans † | 10 | – | – | 0.10 | 8 | – | 0.13 | 0.13 |
Catalpa speciosa | 284 | 0.05 | 8.81 | 2.70 | 288 | 0.11 | 7.22 | 0.78 | |
Caprifoliaceae | Lonicera maackii † | 10 | – | 0.20 | – | 10 | – | 0.10 | – |
Cornaceae | Cornus alba ‘Elegantissima’† | 10 | – | 0.10 | 0.10 | 10 | – | – | – |
Cupressaceae | Thuja plicata † | 11 | – | – | – | 11 | – | 0.18 | 0.09 |
Fabaceae | Caragana arborescens | 9 | – | 0.11 | 0.11 | 8 | – | – | 0.38 |
Cercis canadensis | 26 | 0.04 | 0.81 | – | 27 | – | 0.07 | 0.15 | |
Gleditsia triacanthos | 10 | – | 0.10 | – | 10 | – | 0.10 | – | |
Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis | 24 | – | – | – | 30 | – | – | 0.03 | |
Robinia pseudoacacia | 36 | – | 0.03 | 0.08 | 47 | – | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Purple Robe’ | 10 | – | – | 0.10 | 11 | – | – | – | |
Fagaceae | Fagus sylvatica ‘Purpurea Tricolor’† | 30 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.20 | 30 | – | – | – |
Quercus macrocarpa ‘Urban Pinnacle’† | 17 | – | – | – | 11 | – | – | 0.05 | |
Malvaceae | Tilia cordata † | 8 | – | 0.13 | – | 8 | – | – | – |
Oleaceae | Forsythia × intermedia ‘Lynwood Gold’† | NS | NS | NS | NS | 8 | – | 0.06 | – |
Fraxinus pennsylvanica | 39 | – | 0.03 | 0.05 | 32 | – | – | 0.03 | |
Ligustrum vulgare † | 29 | – | 0.10 | – | 22 | – | – | – | |
Syringa vulgaris † | 62 | – | 0.10 | 0.10 | 62 | – | – | 0.05 | |
Rosaceae | Amelanchier × grandiflora † | 18 | – | – | – | 16 | – | 0.06 | – |
Crataegus mollis † | 11 | – | – | 0.09 | 11 | – | – | – | |
Crataegus monogyna | 8 | – | 0.13 | 0.13 | 8 | – | – | – | |
Malus domestica | 55 | – | 0.35 | 0.47 | 53 | – | 0.25 | 0.89 | |
Malus floribunda † | 8 | – | 0.13 | 0.75 | 8 | – | – | 0.13 | |
Malus ‘Prairifire’† | 8 | – | – | 0.63 | 8 | – | – | 0.13 | |
Malus sylvestris † | 18 | – | 0.06 | – | 16 | – | – | – | |
Prunus armeniaca × domestica ‘Flavor King’† | 28 | – | 0.21 | 0.14 | 22 | – | 0.05 | 0.18 | |
Prunus avium | 35 | – | 0.03 | 0.03 | 29 | – | 0.10 | – | |
Prunus cerasifera | 9 | – | – | – | 8 | – | 0.13 | – | |
Prunus cerasifera ‘Nigra’ | 73 | – | 0.04 | 0.08 | 76 | – | – | 0.03 | |
Prunus domestica | 11 | – | – | 0.55 | 21 | – | 0.71 | 0.05 | |
Prunus persica | 51 | – | – | – | 35 | – | 0.11 | 0.17 | |
Prunus virginiana ‘Schubert’† | 61 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 54 | 0.06 | 0.31 | 0.28 | |
Pyrus calleryana | 24 | – | – | – | 30 | – | 0.03 | – | |
Rosa acicularis † | 89 | – | 0.03 | 0.03 | 109 | – | – | – | |
Spiraea japonica ‘Goldflame’† | 10 | – | 0.30 | – | 10 | – | 0.20 | – | |
Salicaceae | Populus angustifolia † | NS | NS | NS | NS | 8 | – | 0.25 | – |
Populus tremuloides † | 49 | – | 0.12 | 0.53 | 39 | – | 0.11 | 0.23 | |
Salix purpurea † | 10 | – | 0.20 | – | 10 | – | – | – | |
Sapindaceae | Acer freemanii | 10 | – | 0.10 | – | 10 | – | – | – |
Acer ginnala † | 9 | – | 2.78 | 1.78 | 8 | – | 0.25 | 0.13 | |
Acer grandidentatum † | 14 | 0.06 | – | – | 16 | – | – | – | |
Acer negundo | 78 | – | – | 0.03 | 112 | – | 0.02 | 0.06 | |
Acer nigrum † | 8 | – | 0.25 | 0.13 | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Acer palmatum ‘Fireglow’ | 18 | – | – | 0.06 | 18 | – | 0.06 | – | |
Acer platanoides | 127 | – | 0.26 | 0.06 | 118 | – | 0.03 | 0.04 | |
Acer platanoides ‘Crimson King’ | 17 | – | 0.04 | 0.35 | 26 | – | – | – | |
Acer rubrum | 8 | – | – | – | 8 | – | 0.13 | – | |
Scrophulariaceae | Buddleia davidii | 25 | – | 0.04 | 0.12 | 24 | – | – | – |
Ulmaceae | Ulmus pumila † | 70 | – | – | 0.06 | 80 | – | – | 0.05 |
Vitaceae | Vitis Vinifera | 28 | – | – | – | 28 | – | 0.04 | – |
Each plant surveyed within a site was assigned a unique serial number and re-sampled on bi-weekly visits, providing insights into seasonal phenology of H. halys on the representative plant species. Each surveyed plant was tracked with the mapping application Collector by Esri and data were transferred into ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Pro for management and visualisation (Esri, Redlands, CA). Plant identifications were confirmed by the Utah State University Intermountain Herbarium (
A total of 53 plant species from 17 families were observed with one or more H. halys life stages present between May and September of 2017 and 2018 (Table
Plant species without H. halys detections during surveys in northern Utah, 2017 and 2018. Surveys (n) indicates the number of times a species was sampled.
Family name | Scientific name | Surveys (n) |
---|---|---|
Adoxaceae | Sambucus cerulea | 8 |
Viburnum opulus | 16 | |
Amaryllidaceae | Allium aflatunense | 35 |
Anacardiaceae | Cotinus coggygria | 20 |
Rhus typhina | 7 | |
Rhus typhina ‘Laciniata’ | 56 | |
Apocynaceae | Asclepias syriaca | 7 |
Asteraceae | Artemisia tridentata | 15 |
Berberidaceae | Berberis thunbergii var. atopurpurea ‘Rose Glow’ | 15 |
Berberis vulgaris | 21 | |
Betulaceae | Betula nigra | 7 |
Betula papyrifera | 17 | |
Cannabaceae | Celtis occidentalis | 15 |
Caprifoliaceae | Lonicera × heckrottii ‘Goldflame’ | 17 |
Symphoricarpos albus | 21 | |
Celastraceae | Euonymus alatus | 30 |
Euonymus fortunei | 48 | |
Cornaceae | Cornus alba ‘Siberica’ | 24 |
Cornus kousa | 15 | |
Cornus sericea | 19 | |
Cucurbitaceae | Cucumis sativus | 9 |
Cupressaceae | Juniperus chinensis | 15 |
Metasequoia glyptostroboides | 16 | |
Elaeagnaceae | Elaeagnus angustifolia | 23 |
Fabaceae | Cladrastis kentukea | 8 |
Cladrastis lutea | 15 | |
Maackia amurensis | 8 | |
Fagaceae | Quercus gambelii | 74 |
Quercus rubra | 8 | |
Ginkgoaceae | Ginkgo biloba | 21 |
Grossulariaceae | Ribes alpinum | 21 |
Hydrangeaceae | Philadelphia × virginalis | 8 |
Juglandaceae | Juglans regia | 53 |
Lamiaceae | Nepeta cataria | 16 |
Lauraceae | Lindera benzoin | 15 |
Magnoliaceae | Liriodendron tulipifera | 21 |
Magnolia denudata | 15 | |
Malvaceae | Alcea rugosa | 56 |
Hibiscus syriacus | 7 | |
Tilia platyphyllos | 16 | |
Tilia tomentosa | 8 | |
Oleaceae | Forsythia × ‘Northern Sun’ | 8 |
Syringa ‘Bailbelle’ | 8 | |
Syringa reticulata ‘Ivory Silk’ | 8 | |
Syringa vulgaris ‘Ludwig Spaeth’ | 8 | |
Syringa × hyacintriflora | 15 | |
Plantaginaceae | Penstemon strictus | 16 |
Rosaceae | Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis | 16 |
Crataegus laevigata ‘Paul’s Scarlet’ | 14 | |
Crataegus × lavellei | 16 | |
Fragaria vesca | 15 | |
Malus ioensis | 33 | |
Physocarpus opulifolius ‘Dart’s Gold’ | 23 | |
Physocarpus opulifolius ‘Diablo’ | 8 | |
Prunus americana | 8 | |
Prunus dulcis | 14 | |
Rosaceae | Prunus mahaleb | 16 |
Prunus × cistena | 19 | |
Pyrus pyrifolia | 7 | |
Rosa spp. | 168 | |
Rosaceae | Prunus virginiana | 59 |
Sorbus alnifolia | 8 | |
Rutaceae | Tetradium daniellii | 8 |
Salicaceae | Populus deltoides | 7 |
Salix lasiolepis | 8 | |
Sapindaceae | Acer campestre | 18 |
Acer griseum | 21 | |
Acer saccharinum | 7 | |
Aesculus hippocastanum | 16 | |
Aesculus × carnea ‘Briotii’ | 8 | |
Koelreuteria paniculata | 8 | |
Saxifragaceae | Astilbe × arendsii ‘White Gloria’ | 17 |
Simaroubaceae | Ailanthus altissma | 40 |
Solanaceae | Capsicum annuum ‘Big Bertha’ | 9 |
Lycium barbarum | 19 | |
Solanum melongena | 25 | |
Ulmaceae | Ulmus americana ‘Lewis & Clark’ | 8 |
Ulmus parvifolia ‘Emer II’ | 8 | |
Ulmus propinqua ‘Emerald Sunshine’ | 8 | |
Vitaceae | Parthenocissus quinquefolia | 66 |
Additional H. halys host plant species documented in northern Utah, but extramural to the surveys in this study, 2017–2020.
Family name | Scientific name |
---|---|
Asteraceae | Helianthus annuus |
Boraginaceae | Borago officinalis |
Cucurbitaceae | Cucurbita pepo |
Fabaceae | Phaseolus vulgaris |
Lamiaceae | Ocimum basilicum |
Moraceae | Morus alba |
Poaceae | Zea mays |
Zea mays ‘Everta’ | |
Rosaceae | Prunus armeniaca |
Prunus cerasus | |
Prunus persica | |
Pyrus communis ‘Williams’ | |
Rubus idaeus | |
Salicaceae | Populus fremontii |
Solanaceae | Solanum lycopersicum |
Halyomorpha halys egg masses were detected in low numbers (< 40 masses) in both survey years (Table
Total number of H. halys per life stage observed during plant surveys in northern Utah from May through to September, 2017 (top row) and 2018 (bottom row). Tick marks on the x-axis represent the beginning of a month. Note the unique y-axis scales for each life stage.
In general, sites surveyed in Salt Lake and Utah Counties had higher densities of H. halys in both years than sites in Weber and Davis Counties to the north (Fig.
Surveys in northern Utah for H. halys have documented several prominent host plant species belonging to the families Bignoniaceae, Fabaceae, Rosaceae and Sapindaceae. These families, along with their most commonly encountered genera (Catalapa, Cercis, Malus, Prunus and Acer), have been documented as beneficial hosts for H. halys in other regions of North America (
Acer ginnala was a novel host with consistent nymph and adult detections in both survey years, especially from May to June. This early season preference could be due to nutrient availability and plant health, as many A. ginnala experience foliar chlorosis in mid to late summer due to a lack of iron from alkaline soils in Utah (
The most common and consistent host plant for H. halys in northern Utah is the northern catalpa, C. speciosa; the highest number of egg masses, nymphs and adults were found on this host in both survey years. Our observations support other surveys in North America and Eurasia where H. halys was common on C. speciosa (
The occurrence and abundance of certain plant species impacted the survey results, as stated for P. virginiana ‘Schubert’ above. This is largely due to H. halys quickly dispersing by flight (
Although H. halys has been detected on plants, in pheromone traps and by the public in multiple locations in Utah, established populations are primarily concentrated along the Wasatch Front (west side of the Rocky Mountain range). To date, the highest densities of H. halys reside within Salt Lake and Utah Counties. The concentration of H. halys in the larger metropolitan areas of Salt Lake and Utah Counties is most likely due to its original detection and establishment in Salt Lake City with expansion into nearby urban centres. These urban areas offer overwintering shelter in human structures (
Using C. speciosa and other prominent host plants identified in this study as sentinel hosts, property owners and land managers in Utah, as well as other surrounding States in the greater Intermountain West, can more accurately track the invasion and establishment by H. halys (
Interestingly, overall populations of H. halys nymphs and adults decreased from 2017 to 2018. The reason for this population decline is unknown. No major differences in relative humidity, temperature and cumulative degree-days occurred between the two survey years when utilizing the predictive phenology model of
Another limiting factor could be egg mortality by parasitoid wasps. Trissolcus japonicus Ashmead, a parasitoid of H. halys native to its home range, was first detected in Utah in Salt Lake City in June 2019 and expanded its abundance and range in 2020 (
Plant surveys for the invasive brown marmorated stink bug, H. halys, within the urban landscape of northern Utah, have revealed 53 host plant species from 17 families capable of harbouring one or more developmental life stages of the insect. Of these plant species, C. speciosa, northern catalpa, harboured the predominance of H. halys eggs, nymphs and adults across survey sites and years. Peak numbers of H. halys nymphs, the most abundant life stage, occurred between June and early September in both years with highest densities in Salt Lake and Utah Counties. A notable novel host is P. tremuloides, an important native tree in the Intermountain West and other interior western regions. We documented that H. halys can be found season-long on a wide variety of managed ornamental plants and identified 29 novel host species in northern Utah.
We thank Kate Richardson, Hanna Kirkland, Chelise Dever, Zachary Schumm, Ben Steadman, Lily Bourett, James Withers, Loren Linford, Stephanie Hall, Erin Berdahl and Ryan West for their assistance with field research. Special thanks to Michael Piep, Kristian Valles and the Utah State University Intermountain Herbarium for help with plant identification and curation. Funding was provided by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Specialty Crop Research Initiative under award number 2016-51181-25409; USDA Specialty Crop Block Grant; Utah Department of Agriculture and Food; Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program under award number 2017-38640-26913 and subaward number [GW18-106]; and Utah State University Extension. This research was supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University and approved as journal paper number 9395.
USDA is an equal opportunity employer and service provider.
Maps were created using ArcGIS software by Esri. ArcGIS and ArcMap are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under licence. Copyright Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri software, please visit www.esri.com.