Brown Marmorated Stink Bug IPM Working Group Meeting

Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center 121 Northville Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302

June 11-12, 2013

Submitted by:

Dr. Tracy Leskey Research Entomologist USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville WV 25430-2771 USA TEL: 304-725-3451 x329 FAX: 304-728-2340 EMAIL: [email protected]

Dr. George Hamilton Extension Specialist in Pest Management Professor of Entomology and Chair Department of Entomology 93 Lipman Drive Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08901 TEL: 732-932-9774 PEST MANAGEMENT OFFICE: 732-932-9801 FAX: 732-932-9751 EMAIL: [email protected]

Table of Contents

Working Group Participants 3-10

Executive Summary 11

Research Priorities 12-13

Extension Priorities 14

Regulatory Priorities 15

Consumer Priorities 16

Overall Priorities 17

Oral Presentation Summaries 18-38

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Working Group Participants

Name Affiliation Full Address

Bansal, Raman Ohio State University Ohio State University 1680 Madison Avenue OARDC Wooster, OH 44691

Basnet, Sanjay Virginia Tech Virginia Tech 301 B, Price Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061

Bernhard, Karen Penn State University Lehigh County Cooperative Extension Lehigh County Agricultural Center, Room 104 4184 Dorney Park Road Allentown, PA 18104

Biddinger, David Penn State University Penn State University Department of Entomology Fruit Research and Extension Center 290 University Drive Biglerville, PA 17307

Blaauw, Brett Rutgers University Rutgers University 121 Northville Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Chen, Shi University of Tennessee University of Tennessee Department of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences 2407 River Drive Knoxville, TN 37996

Coffey, Peter University of Maryland University of Maryland 4112 Plant Sciences Building College Park, MD 20742-4454

Colavecchio, Ashley University of Delaware University of Delaware 501 South Chapel Street Newark, DE 19713-3814

Concklin, Mary University of Connecticut University of Connecticut 1376 Storrs Road U-4067 Storrs, CT 06269

Cortez-Mondaca, Edgardo INIFAP Instituto Nacional De Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) Camp Experimental Valle del Fuete CA. International México-Nogales km 1609 Guasave, Sinaloa, México 81110

Davis, Paula DuPont Pioneer DuPont Pioneer 7100 NW 76 Avenue PO Box 1150 Johnston, IA 50131

Dieckhoff, Christine USDA/ARS USDA-ARS/BIIRU 501 South Chapel Street Newark, DE 19713

Dively, Galen University of Maryland University of Maryland 4112 Plant Sciences Building College Park, MD 20742

Dorsey, Thomas NJ Department of Agriculture New Jersey Dept of Agriculture Bureau of Biological Pest Control Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory West Trenton, NJ

Epstein, David USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-OPMP 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Room 3871-South Building Mail Stop 0314 Washington, DC 20250-0314

Faubert, Heather University of Rhode Island University of Rhode Island 9 East Alumni Avenue Woodard Hall Kingston, RI 02881

Fleischer, Shelby Penn State University Penn State University 501 ASI Building Department of Entomology University Park, PA 16802

Fraser, Hannah Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Agriculture Development Branch 4890 Victoria Avenue North Vineland, Ontario, CA L0R2E0

Fravel, Deborah USDA-ARS USDA-ARS GWCC, Room 4-2238 5601 Sunnyside Avenue Beltsville, MD 20705

Gariepy, Tara Agriculture and Agri-Food Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre 1391 Sandford Street London, Ontario, Canada N5X 4L8

Gonzales, Chris Northeastern IPM Center Cornell University Northeastern IPM Center Insectary Ithaca, NY 14853

Grieshop, Matt Michigan State University Michigan State University 578 Wilson Road 205 CIPS East Lansing, MI 48824

Hahn, Noel Rutgers University Rutgers University 93 Lipman Drive New Brunswick, NJ 09801

Hamilton, George Rutgers University Rutgers University 93 Lipman Drive New Brunswick, NJ 09801

Hansen, Keoki Northeastern IPM Center Cornell University Northeastern IPM Center Insectary Ithaca, NY 14853

Haye, Tim CABI – Switzerland CABI-Switzerland Rue des Grillons 1 CH-2800 Delemont Switzerland

Hedstrom, Chris Oregon State University Oregon State University 4109 ALS Corvallis, OR 97330

Herbert, Ames Virginia Tech Virginia Tech Tidewater AREC 6321 Holland Road Suffolk, VA 23437

Herlihy, Megan USDA-ARS USDA-ARS BARC-West Building 011A Room 107 Beltsville, MD 20705

Hitchner, Erin Syngenta Syngenta 380 Jefferson Road Elmer, NJ 08318

Hoelmer, Kim USDA-ARS USDA-ARS European Biological Control Lab 810 Avenue Campus d’Agropolis CS 90013 Monferrier 34988 St. Gely du Fesc Cedex France

Inkley, Douglas National Wildlife Federation National Wildlife Federation 11100 Wildlife Center Drive Reston, VA 20191

Jasinski, Jim Ohio State University Ohio State University 1512 South US Highway 68, Suite B100 Urbana, OH 43078

Johnson, Norman Ohio State University Ohio State University 1315 Kinnear Road Columbus, OH 43212

Jones, Sharon USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Joseph, Shimat University of California University of California 1432 Abbott Street Salinas, CA 93901

Judd, Kevin Northeastern IPM Center Cornell University Northeastern IPM Center Insectary Ithaca, NY 14853

Koplinka-Loehr, Carrie Northeastern IPM Center Cornell University Northeastern IPM Center Insectary Ithaca, NY 14853

Krawczyk, Greg Penn State University PSU FREC 290 University Drive Biglerville, PA 17307

Krupke, Christian Purdue University Purdue University 901 West State Street West Lafayette, IN 47907

Lee, Doo-Hyung USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Legrand, Ana University of Connecticut University of Connecticut 1376 Storrs Road U-4067 Storrs, CT 06269

Leskey, Tracy USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

López-Arroyo, J. Isabel INIFAP Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) Campo Experimental Gral. Teran, General Teran N.L. 64700 Mexico

Maclean, Priscilla Hercon Environmental Hercon Environmental 105 E. Sinking Springs Lane Emigsville, PA 17318

Mayer, Mark NJ Department of Agriculture NJ Department of Agriculture Bureau of Biological Pest Control Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory West Trenton, NJ 08628

Mersing, Teresa USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Michel, Andy Ohio State University Ohio State University 210 Thorne Hall OARDC 1680 Madison Avenue Wooster, OH 44691

Myers, Clayton US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C.

Nielsen, Anne Rutgers University Rutgers University 121 Northville Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Nortje, Gerhard SUBTROP Tzaneen, South Africa

Pagac, Benedict U.S. Army PHCR-North Building 4411 Llewllyn Avenue Fort Meade, MD 20755-5225

Polk, Dean Rutgers University Rutgers University Fruit Research & Extension Center 283 Route 539 Cream Ridge, NJ 08514

Pote, John Rutgers University Rutgers University 121 Northville Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Rentzel, Kay National Peach Council National Peach Council 22 Triplett Court Dillsburg, PA 17019

Rice, Kevin Penn State University Penn State University 47 Leland Avenue Columbus, OH 43214

Rodriguez-Saona, Cesar Rutgers University Rutgers University 125A Lake Oswego Road Chatsworth, NJ 08019

Rosa, Marco Antonio Reyes INIFAP Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) Carretera Matamoros-Reynosa KM 61 Rio Bravo Tamaulipas Mexico, CP 88900

Sarver, Kristopher WV Wesleyan College WV Wesleyan College 59 College Avenue Buckhannon, WV 26201

Seetin, Mark US Apple Association US Apple Association

Short, Brent USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Soergel, Deonna Penn State University Penn State University 505A ASI Building University Park, PA 16802

Suits, Rachel NC State University NCSU MHCREC 455 Research Drive Mills River, NC 28759

Sullivan, Jeanne WV Wesleyan College WV Wesleyan College 59 College Avenue Buckhannon, WV 26201

Talamas, Elijah USDA-ARS Systematic Entomology Lab c/o NMNH, Smithsonian Institution 10th & Constitution Avenue NW PO Box 37012 MRC-168 Washington, DC 20560

Tatman, Kathy USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-BIIRU 501 South Chapel Street Newark, DE 19713

Taylor, Christopher University of Maryland University of Maryland 2929 Findley Road Kensington, MD 20895

Timer, Jody Penn State University Penn State University 662 North Cemetery Road North East, PA 16428

Trope, Taliaferro Virginia Tech Virginia Tech 295 Tanglewood Drive Christiansburg, VA 24073

Venugopal, Dilip University of Maryland University of Maryland 4112 Plant Sciences Building College Park, MD 20740

Walgenbach, Jim NC State University NCSU MHCREC 455 Research Drive Mills River, NC 28759

Weber, Donald USDA-ARS USDA-ARS BARC-West Building 011A Room 107 Beltsville, MD 20705

Welty, Celeste Ohio State University Ohio State University Rothenbuhler Lab 2501 Carmack Road Columbus, OH 43210

Whalen, Joanne University of Delaware College of Ag. and Natural Resources University of Delaware 531 South College Avenue Newark, DE 19716

Wiman, Nik Oregon State University Oregon State University 4109 Agri & Life Science Bldg Corvallis, OR 97330

Xu, Jiawu Rutgers University Rutgers University 180 Jones Avenue New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Executive Summary

The brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB), Halyomorpha halys (Stål) continues to spread throughout the United States. BMSB has been detected in 40 states, posing severe agricultural problems in six states and nuisance problems in thirteen other states. Large populations are now established in PA, NJ, DE, MD, WV, VA and D.C.; each state documented severe losses in crops and serious nuisance problems from BMSB since 2010. Crop injury has been also reported in NY, OH, and TN. Established populations also exist in CA, CT, IN, KY, MA, MI, NC, NH, OR, RI, VT, and WA though crop losses have not yet been reported they are considered a nuisance problem only. In addition, BMSB has been detected in AL, AZ, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KS, ME, MN, MO, MS, NE, NM, SC, TX, UT, and WI. BMSB has also been repeatedly detected in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada over the past year.

The sixth formal BMSB Working Group meeting was held at Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center on June 11-12, 2013. Research and extension personnel from Rutgers University, USDA-ARS, Penn State University, Cornell University, North Carolina State University, Oregon State University, Ohio State University, University of Delaware, University of Maryland, Michigan State University, Virginia Tech, University of Tennessee, University of California, University of Connecticut, University of Rhode Island and WV Wesleyan College as well as EPA, Northeastern IPM Center, INIFAP Mexico, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, CABI- Switzerland, National Wildlife Federation, New Jersey Department of Agriculture, and industry representatives attended the meeting. In addition, participating through webinar were representatives from the University of Connecticut, Cornell University, Purdue University, industry members from DuPont and Hercon Environmental and South African Avocado Growers’ Association.

The meeting began with a biological control identification workshop. Following the 2-day workshop, regional BMSB updates were reported from the four IPM regions; Northeast, North Central, Southern and Western regions. International updates were provided by colleagues from Canada, Mexico and Switzerland. An EPA representative discussed regulation updates and how it is getting more complicated to add pesticide uses. In addition to regional updates there were presentations ranging from Pheromone-Based Trapping, Climate Driven Models, Tracing BMSB Origin, Outreach, Rearing, and Gut Symbionts to Updates on Biological Control with Asian Parasitoids and Imaging Stacking Software uses. There were approximately seventy participants in attendance. Research, Extension, Regulatory, Consumer and overall priorities were updated by the group.

Research Priorities

Mean # Rank Research Priority Score Responders 1 Development of IPM-friendly management tactics 86 33 2 Studies of basic BMSB behavior (host preferences, movement, response to visual cues) 83 33 3 Biocontrol agents-identification and study of parasitoids, fungal pathogens, and predators 82 33 4 Impact of landscape and habitat on population 79 33 5 Studies of basic BMSB biology (physiology, generations) 79 33 6 Determine factors affecting population densities 72 33 7 Host utilization, preference, and range 70 33 7 Examine overwintering biology (e.g. triggers for seeking and leaving sites; overwintering 70 33 mortality factors) 8 Define damage diagnostics, economics injury thresholds 68 33 8 Role of the guy symbionts and their potential for management 68 33 8 Response of indigenous natural enemies in relation to BMSB densities and their potential 68 33 for management 9 Evaluate efficacy and host range of candidate classical biological control agents 67 33 9 Crop susceptibility and timing 67 33 9 Further study of pheromone-based monitoring (e.g. active space, trap design, attractants) 66 33 10 Examination of potential for trap-cropping 63 33 10 Evaluation of parasitoid host specificity 63 33 11 Investigation of host-plant volatiles as attractants 62 33 12 Standardized sampling methods 61 33 12 Evaluate effects of BMSB management plans on beneficial agents, including pollinators 61 33 13 Mapping and assessment of distribution 59 33 14 Develop forecasting models to identify BMSB risk to new areas 57 33 15 Assess secondary pest outbreaks related to chemical control of BMSB 54 33

Rank Mean # Score Responders 16 Standardize multiple methods for screening of new insecticide materials 53 33 17 Develop baseline insecticide toxicity data for resistance monitoring 52 33 18 Evaluate potential impacts of cultural control measures 50 33 18 Identification of potential repellents 50 33 19 Validate current physiology and phenology models in laboratory 49 33 19 Evaluate long term sublethal effects on BMSB (e.g. effects on reproduction) 49 33 19 Evaluate landscape-level/watershed-scale population distribution 49 33 20 Determine low and high temperature thresholds for all stages 48 33 20 Risk analysis of overwintering populations in natural landscapes 48 33 20 Determine how far BMSB will travel to overwintering sites 48 33 21 Determine why BMSB appears to not be present in coastal plain areas 47 33 22 Develop economic models that include injury, monitoring and management costs 46 33 22 Determine the impact of elevation on overwintering sites 45 33 23 Study potential damage of harvested/value-added crops by contamination with BMSB 42 33 24 Evaluate impact of orchard groundcover management 40 33 25 Assessment of displacement of native stink bugs 39 33 25 Evaluate potential impact of vertebrate predation 39 33 26 Examination of cross-attractancy of BMSB and green stink bugs 37 33 26 Development of toxicants and inhibitors for plant transgenic delivery 37 33 26 Determining monitoring strategies for urban areas 37 33 27 Assessment of economic impact in urban environment 30 33

Priority rank is based on scores provided by individual Working Group participants (importance of a particular priority on a scale of 0-100), calculating the mean value for each, and ranking them accordingly.

Extension Priorities

Mean # Rank Extension Priority Score Responders 1 Education programs to growers and the general public 83 30 2 Develop revised and unified management plans 77 30 2 Coordinate efforts of state and regional extension programs 77 30 3 Deliver economic injury thresholds 76 30 4 Educating professionals to pest ID and diagnosis of injury 74 30 5 Educational programs relevant to invasive biology using BMSB 66 30 5 Educational programs relevant to development of biological control projects 66 30 6 Demonstrate field application techniques for chemical control 61 30 7 Develop treatment recommendations and guidelines for urban environments 60 30 8 Raise awareness of importance of BMSB as pest – APHIS, local political channels, etc. 52 30 9 Educational programming for structural and landscape industries 51 30 9 Extension outreach and education programming for urban environment/homeowners 51 30 10 Include education programs relevant to classical biological control 50 30 11 Initiate public awareness campaigns – posters, public service announcements, educational 48 30 materials, etc. 11 Use BMSB as an opportunity to educate children 48 30 12 Structure extension groups by commodity or region 46 30 13 Direct homeowners to local politicians for complaints 42 30 13 Initiate an eXtension community of practice (COP), potentially as a central website for 42 30 information

Regulatory Priorities

Mean # Rank Regulatory Priority Score Responders 1 Use of toxins in combination with attractants (regulatory status) 75 27 2 Product testing and labeling of new active ingredients/products 70 27 3 Coordinate interagency and interdisciplinary funding 69 27 3 Define the economic and ecological threat 69 27 4 Expand use of existing registered products 62 27

Consumer Priorities

Mean # Rank Consumer Priority Score Responders 1 Define triggers for movement into homes 73 27 2 Forecasting population size 67 27 3 Preventative measures for reducing entry into human-made structures 62 27 4 Important biological control agents around residential areas 58 27 5 Determining repeated entry and exit by BMSB from overwintering sites 50 27 6 Development of IPM friendly management strategies for homeowners 43 27 7 Evaluate efficacy of insecticides/killing agents for homeowners 39 27 8 Evaluate materials for home-garden and home-landscape protection 36 27

Overall Priorities

# Rank Overall Priority Votes 1 Research Development of IPM-friendly management tactics 11 2 Research Studies of basic BMSB behavior (host preferences, movement, responses to visual cues) 10 3 Extension Education programs to growers and the general public 9 4 Research Biocontrol agents—identification and study of parasitoids, fungal pathogens, and predators 8 (native and foreign) 5 Research Define damage diagnostics, economics injury thresholds 6 6 Research Develop forecasting models to identify BMSB risk to new areas 5 7 Research Studies of basic BMSB biology (physiology, generations) 4 7 Research Mapping and assessment of distribution 4 8 Research Further study of pheromone-based monitoring (e.g. active space, trap design, attractants) 3 8 Research Evaluation of parasitoid host specificity 3 8 Research Impact of landscape and habitat on population 3 8 Research Crop susceptibility and timing 3 8 Extension Develop revised and unified management plans 3

Overall priority rank is based on Working Group participants designating their five top priorities across all categories; those priorities receiving designations by at least 10% of the membership were ranked.

Oral Presentation Summaries

Regional BMSB Updates

Northeast Region Presented by: George Hamilton Rutgers University Department of Entomology

Summary: • Year one of the SCRI project was a very productive year • As of November 2012 we are ahead of the projected schedule on most objectives o Objective 1 – Establish Biology and Phenology of BMSB in Specialty Crop o Objective 2 – Develop Monitoring and Management Tools for BMSB o Objective 3 – Establish effective management programs for BMSB in specialty crops o Objective 4 – Integrate stakeholder input and research findings to form and deliver practical outcomes • What’s next? o Year 2 will see a lot of training going on and looking at landscape . The big question to answer is where are they coming from and where do they go? o Get the word out. Share StopBMSB.org website. o Development of a renewal application is to be submitted in January 2014 • OREI grant was approved for 3 years and involves 14 different organizations o It is different than the SCRI grant because it only targets organic growers o Investigate dispersal behavior within the farmscape o Integrates behavior with core organic pest management strategies: . Trap Crops . Conservation biological control . Natural enemy surveys . Physical barriers o It’s important that it complements the SCRI grant without duplicating it • Multistate project brings states together to work on one specific project o Objective will be similar to the SCRI o Ten states participating . Anyone is welcome to be a member o Annual meeting . Possibly meeting at the end of the ESA meeting or Working Group Meeting o Currently in the process of converting it to a 5 year project

Western Region Presented by: Nik Wiman Co-authors: Peter Shearer, Vaughn Walton, Silvia Rondon, Jana Lee, Jeffrey Miller, Chris Hedstrom, Richard Hilton, Shannon Davis and Preston Brown Oregon State University Department of Entomology

Summary: • Background o 2004 BMSB identified in Portland OR o 2004-2011 nuisance problem o 2012 first find in commercial agriculture, widely distributed o 2013 more finds in commercial agriculture • 2012 was infested in the most important growing region in Hood River, tree fruit region and Southern Willamette Valley counties where there is a potential for severe damage • Southern OR is important for wine grapes and BMSB is making headway there • Current research o Degree Day model is currently being used. There are some reports from people saying they are seeing BMSB on sunny winter days sunning themselves. • New research o Host plant - 2013 will look at what host plants BMSB are attracted to . In 2012, BMSB were found in 90 holly trees. maple, dogwood and Himalayan blackberry are important host plants to look at . Crop plants – hazelnut orchard and cane berries o Phenology and Voltinism Cage study . Purpose is to follow life history events in a controlled outdoor environment. Currently it is thought there is 1 generation in Oregon but this study will help determine how many generations there really are. . Sleeve cages are used in Hood River, it’s a bag that opens from the top and has peas and bean plants . Potential trigger – degree day (DD) length, 14 hrs of daylight • At 4 different sites there is anywhere from 2 – 11 degree day difference o Hood River OR and Vancouver WA DD 4/24/13 o Corvallis OR DD 4/26/13 o Ashland OR DD 4/29/13 o Winchester VA DD 5/5/13 . Calendar day survival – overwintering bugs live half as long as summer adults . Most reproduction occurs soon after collection . Conclusion: Methodology appears to have predictive potential; reproductive periods agreed with observed, better than development model. Potentially more informative model than that based solely on developmental thresholds. Model predicts survival and reproduction of overwintered females for most of the season. Almost no females

classified as summer generations were fertile. If there was a 2nd generation in 2012 it was very small and partial o Electronic SB feeding monitor. . Built structure to determine feeding patterns of male, female and nymphs, determine seasonal patterns and examine how environment shapes feeding behavior . SB will stick stylet through the screen and feed on the bean. Each time it feeds a circuit is completed. . Possible future uses of this technology is insecticide bioassay, feeding stimulants and feeding deterrents o Biocontrol Work . Sentinel Egg Work. Objective – determine parasitoid diversity and rank • Problem they face is growers will not allow fresh viable egg masses in the field o Solution is freezing the egg masses and making them sterile o If you keep them cool they will last almost 7 days. If they get a lot of heat they start to degrade and a fresh egg mass is only good for about 24 hrs o 6% parasitism on sentinel egg masses o 2012 hazelnut feeding damage trials. . All stages of hazelnuts tested appear to be susceptible to feeding damage . Damage is very similar to other tree nuts by other members of Pentatomidae . Trends observed suggest early season feeding can result in corking and necrosis . Will repeat trial in 2013 o Tainted wine . Will BMSB in grapes taint wine? . Taint likely depends on the process. A triangle test was done on the high quality Pinot Noir grapes and low amounts of BMSB taint had a negative impact on Pinot Noir quality Southern Region Presented by: Jim Walgenbach North Carolina State University Department of Entomology

Summary: • Southern regions affected o 2007 Mississippi first detected BMSB on pear trees o 2010 Tupelo Mississippi, o 2012 Hancock Mississippi, o 2012 three detections in Texas. A student going to college in VA carried them back to TX in their car o Multiple detections in Florida. Important is that the detections have not become established yet

o Residential areas and the city of Birmingham Alabama, Atlantic Georgia, and Columbia SC have limited establishment o Western North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have an agriculture and nuisance problem o Virginia has a severe problem spread throughout parts of the state • Southern region sponsored BMSB projects o Southern Region IPM Program – NC and VT . Objectives: • Quantify stink bug species diversity, abundance, phenology, and natural enemy complex in different habitats. • Evaluate damage caused by different life stages of BMSB to tomato and pepper. • Determine effects of different insecticides on BMSB, and develop guidelines for tree fruits and vegetable crops. o Voltinism study . Objective: • To determine the maximum number of generations that occurs at different latitudes. • Ovarian development can occur at 13-15 h day length; 14 h reported most often. • In 1012, colonies initiated with laboratory reared eggs placed in cages on date of 14-hr day length. In 2013, additional cage with overwintered adults o Biological Control of BMSB and Native Stink Bugs on Southern Region Organic Farms . KY, NC, TN and VA participating in USDA-OREI project . Sentinel egg masses deployed to assess parasitism and predation of BMSB eggs . Two crops and two farms per state . NC has expanded survey to include conventional farms, other crops, and non-managed habitats North Central Region Presented by: Matt Grieshop Co-authors: Larry Gut, Mark Whalon and Earnest Delfosse Michigan State University

Summary: • BMSB was a late comer to Michigan and Ohio o Ohio 2012 blacklight and pheromone trials were set up in 12 counties . 1 county reported more than 300 BMSB blacklight captures in central Ohio . 3 southern counties reported 1-10 captures mostly in blacklight traps . 8 counties reported 0 captures o Michigan 2011-2012 blacklight, sweep net, limb jarring and attractant traps were set up in 12 counties

. 1 BMSB was caught in a blacklight trap in 2012 o Michigan 2013 projects include: . State-wide survey with traps . Multi-state pheromone trial in tree fruit . Natural enemy survey (OREI) . Classical biological project • Experimental apparatus being tested o Will be setting up a video system to record sentinel egg mass in the field for a 48 hour period to see what is going on. • Questions: o What was the cost of the system you are using? Approximately $650, the camera system was $100, the DVR $50, batteries $100 and $400 per channel. o Have you used wireless camera? Yes, but the bandwidth was too tight and we received ghost images. Single channel worked much better.

Discussion Period Summary: • During this time the priorities were updated; remove priorities that have been completed, refine existing priorities and identify future priorities and key gaps in knowledge o Research Priorities . Removed 4 priorities • Identification of true pheromone • Generate methods and baseline for evaluation of resistance development • Host plants • Translation and synopsis of research to date from Asia . Changed 3 existing priorities • Define damage diagnostics, economic injury thresholds • Develop baseline insecticide toxicity data for resistance monitoring • Standardize multiple methods for screening of new insecticide materials . Added 7 new priorities • Develop forecasting models to BMSB risk to new areas o Determine why BMSB appears to not be present in coastal plain areas • Determine low and high temperature thresholds for all stages o Question: If temperature is too high then what happens to the eggs? Eggs don’t hatch above 35̊ C. o Discussion: China developed a prediction model based on temperature not host plant. VT currently working with MEX Chinese model to use weather data. So far it is grossly in error so they are overlaying altitude, host plant etc to develop this predictor. VT is working with 2002-

2008 data so far. Intensity and year to year level of intensity. Still in question is “does it include weather patterns from various years” and “can you use following year environmental factors to give risk factor to growers? • Determine the impact of elevation on overwintering sites o Discussion: Thousands of BMSB are found at high elevation on top of ridge lines. Nothing nearby these sites. Example of geography at two sites in Virginia (Mt. Weather and National Zoo site). Peek days are same each year, same pattern of density of bugs year after year. Switzerland sees a similar pattern at a restaurant on top of a mountain. • Determine how far BMSB will travel to overwintering sites • Develop economic models that include injury, monitoring and management costs • Validate current physiology and phenology models in laboratory o Extension Priorities . Changed 2 priorities • Deliver economic injury thresholds • Demonstrate field application techniques for chemical control . Moved #14 and 15 to Consumer Priorities • Evaluate efficacy of insecticides/killing agents for homeowners • Evaluate materials for home-garden and home-landscape protection o Regulatory Priorities – no changes o Consumer Priorities . Removed 6 priorities • Efficacy and deployment strategies of homeowner traps • Factors associated with selection of overwintering sites • Efficacy of traps or home-garden use • Timing of treatment for homeowners • Repellents (push/pull) for homeowners • Efficacy of treating exterior plants/landscapes . Changed 1 • Define triggers for movement into homes . Moved 2 from Extension Priorities • Evaluate efficacy of insecticides/killing agents for homeowners • Evaluate materials for home-garden and home-landscape protection . Added 1 • Development of IPM friendly management strategies The Invasion of BMSB in Europe Presented by: Tim Haye Co-authors: Denise Wyniger and Tara Gariepy CABI - Switzerland

Summary: • BMSB were officially reported in Europe in 2008 based on material collected in Zurich in 2007. Original introduction was probably much earlier in the 1990’s o A Swiss newspaper article from 2004 shows a picture of BMSB o Initially it was not recognized because it looked like a native Rhaphigaster nebulosa and has a similar ecology o 2006 numbers increased in houses and it was identified as BMSB o Possible causes are that it came in with a shipment from Asia or a US shipment from PA . Could it be a coincidence that in 1993 a Chinese garden was built at the Lake of Zurich with plants and material imported from China . In 1998 roof tiles of the temple were replaced with original material from China which BMSB could have come in with these shipments and projects from China o Since 2007 it had quieted down and no one looked into it again until 2012 when they decided to see what the population looked like in the area o Although present since 2004, first damage was reported in 2012 from pepper crops in the Swiss Canton Aargau . Private gardeners reported damage on cherries, almonds, apricots, nectarines etc. . Attracted to houses with balconies directed to the southwest, light painted walls, exposed houses on top of mountains and houses with plants growing up the walls (ivy, Japanese creeper) o It is not considered an economically important pest …yet • The question is: Why is H. halys only slowly spreading in Europe? Could native European parasitoids be the reason? • Current studies o Egg exposure of 62 egg masses in Switzerland no parasitism observed . Saw them sitting on egg masses but no parasitism observed . More than 11,000 eggs of 7 Pentatomids species were exposed in the CABI Switzerland institute garden . Laboratory no-choice tests with European parasitoids . Behavior observations - they attack but cannot development them • Future Work o Ecological host range studies in China in 2013/2014 o Testing of additional native European egg parasitoids o Exposure of H. halys egg masses in Europe will be continued o Phenology of BMSB in Europe • Questions: o Do eggs die? No they don’t die, nymphs emerge o What is the process of introducing exotic species into Europe? It is extremely difficult. You must do a lot of testing and is a difficult process. o Do the species that invade the homes spill over into the fields? No, so far it has only spilled over into the forest habitat

Plant Health Task Force of PROCINORTE: Activities in Mexico against BMSB Presented by: J. Isabel Lopez-Arroyo Co-authors: J.A. Quijano-Carranza, A. González-Hernández, M.L. Ramírez-Ahuja, E. Cortez-Mondaca PROCINORTE, Mexico

Summary: • Even though BMSB have not been detected in Mexico yet, they are taking a proactive approach by checking crops and wild life areas, parks and homes • Resources for managing BMSB are slim • BMSB is not ranked in the first 30 species that are a problem in Mexico. They rank 3rd in the second group of passive pests • They are monitoring borders in Baja California Sur, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas Mexico • Puerto Vallarta is a hot spot and they are afraid it will come to Mexico via boats from CA or FL • Mexico has 8 host plants that BMSB are attracted to • National Center for Biological Control will get involved if BMSB becomes a problem • They currently monitor information from our StopBMSB.org website

2013 Update on BMSB Research Initiatives Presented by: Hannah Fraser Co-authors: Cynthia Scot-Dupree, Tara Gariepy, and Tracey Baute Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Ontario, Canada

Summary: • BMSB is established locally in one area and probably others • Interceptions as early as 1993 coming in through shipments from China or US campers crossing over the boarder • 2010 found BMSB in Hamilton Ontario and continued to find them in 2011 and 2012 • Hamilton is a transportation corridor from Niagara Falls to Toronto • 3rd instar nymphs found in July 2012 in her neighborhood • Also found a lot of BMSB at Princess Point feeding on buckhorn. Homeowners are finding them and the press is starting to report finds • Hotspot is currently in Hamilton and Burlington. Most finds were 2012 and winter 2013 • 2013 did have their most recent find in an agriculture area • Concerned they are in more locations than just Hamilton area but the big concern is where? • Research plan funded for 2013-2014 o Assessing the distribution and abundance of, and patterns of host use by BMSB in southern Ontario; . Sentinel plants – known non-crop landscape hosts . Surveys in field and horticulture crops • Sweeps, beat trays, and nets

• Visual observations (including binoculars) • Traps • Based on Nik Wiman’s work, OSU o Identifying agricultural areas in southern Ontario at risk from BMSB impact; . Landscape factors conducive to population build-up and migration, abundance of seasonal hosts, overwintering sites, track movement of BMSB o Inventory parasitoids and predators that are using BMSB as a resource. This will provide baseline data on the potential for augmentative biological control of BMSB in Canada. • Expose newly-laid sentinel egg masses of several stink bug species (non-BMSB!) on a weekly basis • Obtain parasitoids for morphological ID • Determine host-parasitoid associations (if any) • Collect BMSB egg masses to determine level of parasitism/ predation by native natural enemies o Evaluation of new pheromone trapping system . Efficacy . Active space . Utility for early detection o Public Outreach . Facilitate knowledge transfer on the status of BMSB in Ontario . Develop information for use in communications including websites (e.g., ontario.ca\stinkbug and stopBMSB.org) . Newsletters, tweets/blogs, conferences, online tools for IPM (e.g., CropIPM), outreach to traditional (i.e., grower) . Non-traditional (e.g., homeowner, botanical gardens, pest control companies and tourism) stakeholder groups. Progress in Pheromone-Based Trapping Presented by: Tracy Leskey USDA-ARS

Summary: • Data was collected from colleagues across the country • 2012 field season o Black pyramid trap o Olfactory included three treatments . #10 . 2) MDT . 3) unbaited control o Results . Early season • #10 attracted 13:1 over MDT Unbaited 2:1 . Mid season

• Nymphs captured greater number with MDT 19:1 over 8:1 with #10 • Adults #10 11:1 over MDT 8:1 . Late season • Adults very attracted to MDT 26:1 over #10 9:1 • Nymphs attracted to MDT 14:1 over #10 4:1 • Dose response trial o Works well when dose is increased o Important note - you don’t have to have a highly purified lure to have it work o Effect of synergist when combined with #10 saw an increase in bug captures o Saw good response with combination throughout the season • 2013 field season o Comparing commercially available synergists in combination with #10 o 21 states participating in the trial o Coordinated data so far seeing enhanced activity over #10 alone. • Threshold studies o USDA and VT developing threshold for orchard crops. Setup with fruit block trap at each border and one interior. Residential woodlots, neighboring fruit block and row crops/pastures • Dispersal from Overwintering sites o VT and USDA trying to answer 3 questions . Under what abiotic conditions (temperature), do BMSB become active? . What does the pattern of emergence from overwintering sites look like? . Do they respond to pheromone traps immediately after exiting overwintering sites? o Trap Type Study . Are capture patterns similar among ground-mounted standard 4-ft pyramid trap and smaller pyramid style traps deployed in canopies? . 4 trap types in season long trial in commercial orchards Climate Driven Individual Based Model for Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Presented by: Shi Chen Co-authors: Anne Nielsen, Jody Timer, Shelby Fleischer, Michael Saunders University of Tennessee

Summary: • Key idea is tracking each individual BMSB versus tracking the population • Pros and Cons o Pros . Track each individual explicitly (deal with distributions) . Incorporate interactions between individuals . Easy to visualize o Cons . Need to have comprehensive knowledge of the modeling system . Computational burden • External environmental variable

o Temperature is very important, it drives . Diapause Termination . Development Rate (Stage-Specific) . Mortality Rate . Fecundity o Photoperiod linked to . Diapause Induction . Diapause Termination (unverified) o Key processes. . Each process is temperature or photoperiod dependent . Each individual has specific time to development • The model o Initialization . 1000 Overwintering (Previtellogenic) Adult o Simulation (in 1-day time step) . Degree day accumulation in each day for each adult . Determine life history transit, birth/death, etc. o Output . Individual adult life history trajectory • Results o We see 2 generations using the data set in PA • Questions still exist for the model o How to do model validation? Population in the field is hard to verify and want to hear suggestions to verify the model of population in the field Tracing the Origin of U.S. BMSB Presented by: Jiawu Xu Co-authors: Dina Fonseca, George Hamilton, Kim Hoelmer, and Anne Nielsen Rutgers University

Summary: • First question is where are they from? o Native range: China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan o Invasion to the US: Allentown, PA in 1996; now in 40 states, confident it entered from Beijing o Damages: serious loss in agriculture, residential nuisance, erosion of local biodiversity o Control: insecticide application • Need genetic marker o Genetic analysis – used mitochondrial genome (mtDNA sequences) o Sequence the gene . Cytochrome c oxidase II (COII) . 12S ribosomal RNA to control region (12S/CR) . Cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) o Haplotype distribution . Sequence 77 samples had 43 haplotype; 26 from China and 7 from Korea

. Detected very limited gene flow in China only 5 were linked . Recovered two haplotypes in the US • Relationship among populations o Genetic population - all populations from China, Korea and Japan are different • Genetic Diversity o Native range: 43 haplotypes in 77 bugs o US: 2 haplotypes in 55 bugs • Significant genetic differentiation in native range • High genetic diversity in East Asia versus extremely low diversity in the US BMSB in Grape and Raspberry: Research to Date Presented by: Sanjay Basnet Co-authors: Doug Pfeiffer, Tom Kuhar and Curt Laub Virginia Tech

Summary: • Most of the research of BMSB is focused on tree fruits and vegetables. Very few studies have been conducted on the impact of BMSB in grapes • There is a potential to taint the taste of wine, but taint intensity fades away with the fermentation process • Significant economic problem in vineyards in mid-Atlantic states • In 2011, three different geographical locations were selected to investigate the distribution of BMSB in grapes o Northern Virginia, Southwestern Virginia and the Eastern shore o 3 vineyards were sampled in each location and three samples were taken at the border rows and middle rows o There was a significant difference in the abundance of BMSB with respect to locations . In northern Virginia, the highest population density of BMSB was found . Southwest Virginia, a very few number was collected . The Eastern Shore, no BMSB were found, but farmers have seen BMSB in vineyards • Feeding preference and injury o BMSB move in early in as fruit matures, found BMSB usually in pairs o BMSB do have a preference to the white varieties versus the red varieties. It appears it’s not white or red but the sugar content of the berry o Injury to berries was not found when the grapes were in pea-sized and versain stage o Saw some punctures when the berries were in pre-harvest stage. The white varieties had punctures in all the stages • Raspberry in southwest Virginia o In 2012, found BMSB population had become established in raspberries o Adults collected were significantly higher than nymphs

BMSB Outreach: Recent Work and Your Counsel Presented by: Keoki Hansen, Carrie Koplinka-Loehr and Chris Gonzales Co-authors: Kevin Judd Cornell University and Northeastern IPM Center

Summary: • Keoki Hansen is working with Eric Day and conducted an outreach survey to get a baseline for seeing what growers want to know about BMSB. • BMSB Survey Results o Identification . 37% properly identified both the adult and nymph BMSB; 56.9% identified either the adult or nymph; and 6.1% did not properly identify either. . 43.2% scouting for BMSB properly identified both the adult and nymph BMSB. . 42.9% using IPM properly identified both the adult and nymph BMSB. . Those able to identify BMSB reported greater percentage and amount of profit loss due to BMSB and were more aware of their losses . If BMSB are not properly identified then errors in reporting will be higher o Use of IPM tactics . There was more loss reported in both percentage and amount for farmers using IPM. . There was more loss reported in both percentage and amount for farmers that reported scouting for BMSB. . If any control tactics were used, the majority of reporters used sprays as their means of pest control, with only 5 reporting the use of traps and only 2 using biological sprays. . Those using IPM reported a greater number of damaged crops compared with those not using IPM. . Participants that reported using IPM indicted being stressed by the BMSB more often than those not using IPM. . The more aware you are the more aware of loss and aware of damage survey o Next Steps . Assess the possibility of administering another survey . Revise current survey, based on previous findings . Administer to only growers, farm managers and farm workers . Delete questions with low reliability (i.e. damage assessment) . Assess need for additional questions based on learning’s from past year . Make survey shorter, shorten things up, reword survey o Questions . How many growers were surveyed? 800 growers and independent consultants. Mostly coming from VA and some from NY . What portion of it was done in specialty crops? It was done mostly in vegetables and some fruit.

. How did you determine if they could identify BMSB? Pictures were used for them to look at. One had two correct answers and in the revision they will be separated out. Look alike was green stink bug and western conifer seed bug. Native brown should be used and spine solders bug. Do away with green stink bug. . Will you be expanding to other crops other then specialty crops? Eric Day volunteered to do it when he went out to grower meetings, but if everyone could take the survey when they go out it could expand the survey. Survey may have to be modified depending on the grower. . Could it be put online so they could have more input? When you go online growers may not access it versus going to the meeting and getting them to do it. . Does the survey let them identify what commodity they are growing? No, can change the survey according to fruit, vegetables or row crop growers. • Chris Gonzales o How to move forward . Website updating news updates, writing articles, featuring news issues . Working on map and keeping it up to date. Hawaii’s on the map . Surveyed 50 PD/PIs - asked what media they are in contact with • 13 responses reporting o 7 workshops, symposia and conference papers o 50 media interviews, features, non-referred publications and media outlets o At least 35,000 people reached . Homepage updates on imagines and thumbnails . Articles • Tracking by spreadsheet to help keep organized • Put stories on facebook and twitter . Videos • Story placement trade public pubs, trade sites, . Statistics • stopBMSB.org unique visitors 11,894 • stopBMSB.org pageviews: 42,454 • NortheastIPM.org – BMSB Working Group pageviews: 4,508 • YouTube views: 3,173 • Twitter followers: 577 • Facebook likes: 121 . What do you want to see on website • Want to see more on chemical management of BMSB • Homeowner issues • Gardener information o Question: Do you see the profile of who is accessing the website? Yes, but we can only see the state not the person. • Carrie Koplinka-Loehr o We are in the process of deciding how the host plant project could be most useful for everyone

. Plan is to create an electronic version that can be downloaded on home or office computer. Is there any other way the document can be useful for you? Possibly could print a professionally document if you feel it is necessary. . It’s important to know what BMSB are feeding on. There is a big difference of preference depending on the growth stage. o Questions . Homeowners are asking if there are any trees you recommend not to plant? In the article of designing stink bug-free landscapes, ornamentals are mentioned. . How confident do you think homeowners will know the actual name of the plant? Unfortunately there is not enough space to add pictures and homeowners will likely not know the scientific name of a tree or plant. o Would like to produce an info-graphic on BMSB to drive home what it looks like, something like Ontario has produced. Info graphic illustration publication. . Recommend using a combination of things that emphasize what BMSB has versus what it doesn’t have o Are there any other topics you want other then identification and management? Send your ideas to Chris Gonzales ([email protected]) or Carrie Koplinka- Loehr ([email protected])

Role of Gut Symbionts in Development of BMSB Presented by: Christopher Taylor Co-authors: Peter Coffey and Galen Dively University of Maryland

Summary: • Many true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) vertically transmit bacterial symbionts with their eggs for inoculation every generation, including BMSB o BMSB will smear on egg mass and nymphs will get it that way • 1st generation significant delays in development without symbiont, 10 day delay between sterile and molt. Did not do well from 3rd instar • Behavior results: when they hatch they sit clustered on the egg mass until they molt. Saw faster dispersal rate in the control group versus the sterilized group • Conclusion BMSB relies on symbionts. When removed it sees manifestation in 1st generation not in 2nd generation • Conclusion o BMSB is heavily reliant on its gut symbionts for development and survival o Deprival of its symbionts manifests itself biologically in the first generation and causes massive die off in as little as the second generation • Questions still remain; does temperature affect symbionts which affect development and survivorship?

BMSB Rearing: Knowledge needed to maintain Consistent Colony Performance Presented by: Galen Dively University of Maryland

Summary: • Colony rearing is an essential prerequisite in doing research on BMSB • It requires sentinel eggs year round to do the research • Currently there is no one designing experiments to optimize the method of rearing BMSB. There is a need to know the best possible method of rearing because the experiment will be going along fine and then something goes wrong with the colony. o Example is, it peaked at Christmas with 60 egg masses per day, lab reared, 30 cages 1/3 young nymphs and 1/3 adults o Gradually we saw a decline even though there had been no change in the process o In March started bringing in field collected post diapauses bugs o Kept field ones in separate cages o Was surprised to see the 2 field collected cages that were kept separated continued to lay eggs and their mortality rate was high versus the lab rearing cages o 2 lab reared cages, 40 egg masses in a cage, laid eggs for two weeks and then stopped . High mortality rate in lab reared , there may be too many bugs in a cage • There are still many questions that need to be answered o What is optimum, what size cage should be used, split cages once they get more then 250 in cage? o What food sources should be used? Spanish peanuts work well in OSU experiment and Rutgers experiment. Carrots and apples are used. Sunflower seeds and soybean seeds. Dry figs and raisin. We need to test what is the best food source for maximum egg production. o Population from time to time needs to go through diapauses to reset themselves. Do they need to be replenished? o Give them dirty water versus tap water? o How do you store them? o Bugs with lower weight have died off. Should we feed them in the fall before they go to overwintering storage? o Have to watch how you grow the plants that you feed them also. • Questions: o How many generations have you reared in the lab? About 6 generations reared in the lab. o What’s the humidity? 65% o Are pesticide related issues a factor for decline in colony? Shouldn’t be they are fed organic beans, greenhouse plants so feel pesticides shouldn’t be an issue. No guarantee they are pesticide free but try and limit it.

BMSB Parasitoids Presented by: Elijah Talamas Co-authors: Kim Hoelmer and Christine Dieckhoff USDA-ARS

Summary: • Historically it was divided into two families’ platygastridae and scelionidae. Now it is treated as a single family, Platygastridae • Taxonomy is the foundation for species identification o Naming and identification keys are done so people know what they are dealing with and minimize confusion and use of correct names. It is the basis of all other biological studies • Platygastroid diversity largely unexplored o Oreiscelio: 4 → 19 species o Trichoteleia: 2 → 42 species o New World Paridris: 2 → 15 species o Paridris neptha species group 1 → 15 species • Revision of East Palearctic Trissolocus o Multiple authors on subject but didn’t look at other authors work when they did their work o Rarely examined holotypes o Stability of species names is dubious o Real species distributions is unknown o Trissolcus may be prone to over-description • Status of the revision o All holotypes/lectotypes of Trissolcus (worldwide) in USNM have been imaged o 5 additional holotypes from East Asia examined/imaged o Additional type material in . St. Petersburg . Kiev . Lund . Hanoi . Vienna o All work associated with hymenoptera is located in an online database at Ohio State University . Phenology diagram shows when species are collected, can see by geographic area . Part of database designed for host association . Database automatically has history tool group and repositories . Images produced automatically goes into the data base. Once it’s in the database you can search by name, area, cuid etc. . It can be made public or nonpublic

. It can link images to another matrix and results created for all specimens and list of identifiers o Near future . Lucid Key to species of North America • Each species/character system illustrated with high resolution images . Freely available online • Bar-coding specimens o Put barcode on each collected event and each specimen for tracking. It seems like a lot of work but essential to track specimen o Do you want OREI project to do the same barcoding? If you do not have your own unique methods use their method. o Data is going to be put in the database so it won’t be lost Update on Biological Control of BMSB with Asian Parasitoids Presented by: Kim Hoelmer Co-authors: Christine Dieckhoff USDA-ARS

Summary: • Diversity of information collected from Asia: o Last 6 years visited Japan, Korea and China and collected BMSB at a variety of locations. o Japan has cooperators that collect throughout the season and has a variety of Trissolcus species • Looking at selection of species to provide molecular data o Interesting pattern correlates o Tree at top of list falls into several distinct groups but all are Trissolcus. Interestingly it is attached to other groups related species but different enough that may be another species. Value of making repeated collections • Funding for host range evaluations: o Farm Bill funding (APHIS PPQ) o NIFA SCRI multi-institution BMSB grant o Collaborators: . University of Delaware . Florida Dept. Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry . MSU – Michigan State University – Department of Entomology . Oregon Department of Agriculture . Oregon State University – Department of Horticulture . USDA-ARS Stoneville & Mississippi State University, MS • Host specificity screening. OR CA MI DE MS FL screening o Standard test protocol for all collaborators o Parasitoid females used in the tests . 24 h old

. Mated but naïve (no previous experience) . 24 h exposure to each egg mass . 20 replicates of each non-target species o Measures of host acceptability: . Attack rate (# eggs parasitized/egg mass) . Proportion of undeveloped parasitoids in eggs . Number of viable adult parasitoids emerged . Size of emerged parasitoids . Sex ratio (proportion adult males : females) o No Choice Test . 24 hr single egg mass of non-target species. • If there is an attack on an egg mass then they continue to do more testing • If there is not an attack then no further testing is required . No choice tests: no successful parasitism means parasitoids emerged out of eggs and came out versus parasitoids that did not emerge o Results . Some parasitism recorded. Some adults came out of egg masses so some level of parasitism. . Euschistus servus a non-target host was not attacked • Questions: o Are you doing any field cage studies? We can’t do field studies because they need to be quarantined. We are gathering information as we are rearing them Consensus is they will overwinter in crevasses but have not see that in quarantine yet. o Did you ever alternate non-target vs. target? We have not done that but it’s a good idea. o Did you look at mortality? What percent of non-target was killed? There are some cases of mortality rate. The size of host eggs may make a difference. • Further assessments o Choice Tests o Behavioral Observations . Searching Behavior (role of plant texture, chemical cues etc.) . Patch Residence Times & Leaving Tendency . Oviposition Behavior . Intra- and Interspecific Competition o Role of Parasitoid Physiology . Effect of parental experience & physiology on host choice behavior . Effect of host choice on offspring (sex ratio, fitness, size)

Regulatory Update Presented by: Clayton Myers Environmental Protection Agency

Summary: • Good news - bifenthrin has been re-authorized and is registered for a lot of uses o Apples and peaches have to go state by state o Sample residue much higher and made risk assessment worse. Toxicologist found a way to apply a processing factor which decreased the risk. 2013, 7 states and 7 areas in NY have been accepted o Trying to get more sampling from PDP for more balanced sample in apple o Since it was granted earlier in the season there should be more time for more samples to be collected o Hopefully in a few years bifenthrin can be registered without having to go state- by-state • Moving forward more complicated to add new pesticide uses. Need to figure out best way to assess risk with insecticides. Turn around maybe slower than in the past. • Additional states may be added in future, think of priority for peaches, apples or certain states. Be aware of where severe crops are and if you need to use a new chemical let EPA know if you are thinking about section 18 BMSB Imaging using Stacking Software Presented by: Benedict Pagac

Summary: • Why do we want imaging? Vector born diseases were the focus at first. They wanted to come up with a low cost and practical use for medical importance. Instead of sending a specimen to a specialist they could have an electronic way to see it. Took several items and married them all together. It was important to get a high resolution image. o This process may be something the BMSB researchers would like to use • Use of a digital camera on a rail that moves and is controlled by a controller o It takes stacking imagines and stitches them together • The camera moves and takes picture while the object stays in place • The military is looking at a smaller item and have the specimen move versus the camera • You can set up your own system for approximately $5000 o Camera Canon EOS 5D MarkII [$2.6k] o Macro Lens Canon Manual 60 mm 1-5X (MP-E65/2.8) [$1k] o Macro Flash Canon Twin Lite MT24EX [$700] o StackShot Rail 1.4 by Cognisys, Inc (www.cognisys-inc.com) [$525] o Zerene Stacker V1.04 (www.zerenesystems.com) [$280] o Styrofoam Cooler approx 15”W x 16”D x 13”H [$6] o Misc: camera-rail interface cord, black fabric, clay, pins [$100] • Questions: What is the smallest thing you’ve photographed? 2mm, some as small as heads off of bees. • How did the 2mm images look? It still needs to be worked on for a clearer picture.

• Would the BMSB image be made available for us to use? Yes, there are no restrictions for your use. • How do you mount them? This is the time consuming part, superglue a pin on their back, photo chopping to get rid of the pin. • Can you image vertically in alcohol? They are looking at how to take pictures of specimens suspended in hand sanitizer. It is in the works.

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug IPM Working Group Meeting

Alson H. Smith, Jr. Agricultural Research and Extension Center Virginia Agriculture Experiment Station 595 Laurel Grove Road, Winchester, VA 22602

December 3, 2013

Submitted by:

Table of Contents

Working Group Participants 3-9

Executive Summary 10

BMSB Presentations 11-37

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Working Group Participants

Name Affiliation Full Address

Acebes, Angelita Virginia Tech Virginia Polytechnic Institute 1424 S Main St. Blacksburg, VA 24061

Agnello, Art Cornell Cornell University NYS Agricultural Experiment Station 630 W. North St. Geneva, NY 14456

Bakken, Amanda NCSU North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695

Bergh, Chris Virginia Tech Virginia Tech 301 B, Price Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061

Bernhard, Karen Penn State University Lehigh County Cooperative Extension Lehigh County Agricultural Center, Room 104 4184 Dorney Park Rd., Allentown, PA 18104

Bessin, Ric University of Kentucky University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 40506

Blaauw, Brett Rutgers University Rutgers University 121 Northville Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Butler, Bryan UMD Extension University of MD Extension 6615 Reisterstown Rd #201 Baltimore, MD 21215

Coffey, Peter University of Maryland University of Maryland 4112 Plant Sciences Building College Park, MD 20742-4454

Colavecchio, Ashley University of Delaware University of Delaware 501 South Chapel Street Newark, DE 19713-3814

Cook, Stanley EPA USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 7502P Washington, DC 20460

Cullum, John AFRS USDA AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Davis, Paula DuPont Pioneer DuPont Pioneer 7100 NW 76 Avenue PO Box 1150 Johnston, IA 50131

Dieckhoff, Christine USDA/ARS USDA-ARS/BIIRU 501 South Chapel Street Newark, DE 19713

Dively, Galen University of Maryland University of Maryland 4112 Plant Sciences Building College Park, MD 20742

Epstein, David USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-OPMP 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Room 3871-South Building Mail Stop 0314 Washington, DC 20250-0314

Fiola, Joe UMD Extension University of MD Extension 6615 Reisterstown Rd #201 Baltimore, MD 21215

Frank, Daniel West Virginia University West Virginia University PO Box 6201 Morgantown, WV 26506

Fraser, Hannah Ontario Ministry of Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Development Branch 4890 Victoria Avenue North Vineland, Ontario, CA L0R2E0

Gill, Stanton University of Maryland Ext University of MD Extension 6615 Reisterstown Rd #201 Baltimore, MD 21215

Gish, Moshe Penn State Penn State 507 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802

Gonzales, Chris Northeastern IPM Center Cornell University Northeastern IPM Center Insectary Building Ithaca, NY 14853

Grant, Jerome University of Tennessee The University of Tennessee Entomology and Plant Pathology Department 2505 E. J. Chapman Drive 128 Biotechnology Bldg Knoxville, TN 37996-4500

Green, Tom IPM Institute of North Am, IPM Institute of North America, Inc. WI 4510 Regent St. Madison, Wisconsin 53705 USA

Haas, Tom Cherry Hill Orchards, PA Cherry Hill Orchards, Inc. 2183 New Danville Pike Lancaster, PA 17603

Hamilton, George Rutgers University Rutgers University 93 Lipman Drive New Brunswick, NJ 09801

Hancock, Torri AFRS USDA AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Herbert, Ames Virginia Tech Virginia Tech Tidewater AREC 6321 Holland Road Suffolk, VA 23437

Hoddle, Mark University of California University of California, Riverside Coop Ext 900 University Ave. Riverside, CA 92521

Hogue, Jamie Tidewater Ag Research & Ext Virginia Tech 301 B, Price Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061

Ingels, Chuck University of Cali Coop Ext University of California, Riverside 900 University Ave. Riverside, CA 92521

Jones, Sharon AFRS USDA AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Khrimian, Ashot ARS USDA ARS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Kleynhans, Elsje SUBTROP South African Avocado Growers Association P O Box 866, Tzaneen, 0850

1A Prosperitas Bldg, 27 Peace Str + 27 15 306 6240 / +27 15 307 3676 Tzaneen, 0850

Koplinka-Loehr, Carrie Northeastern IPM Center Cornell University Northeastern IPM Center Insectary Building Ithaca, NY 14853

Krawczyk, Greg Penn State University PSU FREC 290 University Drive Biglerville, PA 17307

Kunkel, Brian UDEL University of Delaware 531 South College Avenue Newark, DE 19716

Kuhar, Tom Virginia Tech Virginia Tech 301 B, Price Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061

Lara, Jesus University of California University of California, Riverside Coop Ext 900 University Ave. Riverside, CA 92521

Leskey, Tracy USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Bill MacKintosh MacKintosh Fruit Farm Mackintosh Fruit Farm 1608 Russell Rd Berryville, VA 22611

Mathews, Clarissa Shepherd Shepherd University University/Redbud Redbud Organic Farm PO Box 5000 Shepherdstown, WV 25443

Mitchell, William Penn State Pennsylvania State University 0530 AG SCI & IND Building University Park, PA 16802

Menely, Jan AgBio AgBio, Inc. 9915 Raleigh St. Westminster, CO 80031

Myers, Clayton US EPA USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 7505P Washington, DC 20460

Nielsen, Anne Rutgers University Rutgers University 121 Northville Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Petty, Bryan Rutgers University Rutgers University 121 Northville Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Pickett, Charlie CA Dept of Food & CA Depart of Food and Agriculture Agriculture 1220 N Street Sacramento, California, U.S.A. 95814

Plasters, Kevin Helena Chemical Co. Helena Chemical Company 224 A Welltown Pike Winchester , VA 22603

Pogoda, Mitch Rutgers University Rutgers University Fruit Research & Extension Center 283 Route 539 Cream Ridge, NJ 08514

Polk, Dean Rutgers University Rutgers University Fruit Research & Extension Center 283 Route 539 Cream Ridge, NJ 08514

Raupp, Michael University of Maryland University of Maryland 4112 Plant Sciences Building College Park, MD 20742

Rice, Kevin Penn State University Penn State University 47 Leland Avenue Columbus, OH 43214

Rodriguez-Saona, Cesar Rutgers University Rutgers University 125A Lake Oswego Road Chatsworth, NJ 08019

Schumacher, Dave Hercon Environmental Hercon Environmental Aberdeen Road P.O. Box 435 Emigsville, Pennsylvania 17318

Seetin, Mark US Apple Association US Apple Association 8233 Old Courthouse Road Suite 200 Vienna, Virginia 22182

Shearer, Peter Oregon State University Oregon State University 4017 Agriculture and Life Sciences Building Corvallis, OR 97331

Short, Brent USDA-ARS USDA-ARS-AFRS 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430

Stamm, Greg CBC America CBC America 4 Owenwood Drive Lincoln University, PA 19352

Simpson, Annie US Geological Survey USGS National Center John W Powell Building 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20192

Tatman, Kathy Beneficial Insects Intro Res USDA-ARS-BIIRU Unit 501 South Chapel Street Newark, DE 19713

Taylor, Chris University of Maryland Department of Entomology 4112 Plant Sciences Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-4454

Taylor, Philip Beneficial Insects Intro Res USDA-ARS-BIIRU Unit 501 South Chapel Street Newark, DE 19713

Van Steenwyk, Robert University of Cali-Berkeley Dept of Environmental Science, Policy, & Management UC Berkeley 130 Mulford Hall #3114 Berkeley, CA 94720

Varela, Lucia UCal Coop Ext & UC Cooperative Extension Statewide IPM 133 Aviation Boulevard Suite 109 Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2894

Vargas, Chad Adelsheim Vineyards, OR Adelsheim Vineyards 16800 NE Calkins Lane Newberg, OR 97132

Venugopal, Dilip University of Maryland Department of Entomology 4112 Plant Sciences Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-4454

Walgenbach, Jim NC State University NCSU MHCREC 455 Research Drive Mills River, NC 28759

Weber, Donald USDA-ARS USDA-ARS BARC-West Building 011A Room 107 Beltsville, MD 20705

Welty, Celeste Ohio State University Ohio State University Rothenbuhler Lab 2501 Carmack Road Columbus, OH 43210

Whalen, Joanne University of Delaware College of Ag. and Natural Resources University of Delaware 531 South College Avenue Newark, DE 19716

Zobel, Emily University of Maryland Department of Entomology 4112 Plant Sciences Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-4454

Executive Summary

The brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB), Halyomorpha halys (Stål) continues to spread throughout the United States. BMSB has been detected in 40 states The BMSB IPM Working Group updated the BMSB map that is published on the www.stopbmsb.org web site. At present severe agricultural injury has been detected in PA, NJ, DE, MD, WV, VA and D.C. States recently reporting agriculture injury include NY, NC, TN, KY, OH, OR and WA. Nuisance problems have been reported in NH, MA, CT, RI, MI, IN and CA as well as in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada over the past year.

The eighth formal BMSB Working Group meeting was held at Alison H. Smith, Jr. Agricultural Research and Extension Center Virginia Agriculture Experiment Station on December 3, 2013. Research and extension personnel from Rutgers University, USDA-ARS, Penn State University, Cornell University, North Carolina State University, Oregon State University, Ohio State University, University of Delaware, University of Maryland, Virginia Tech, University of Tennessee and University of California as well as EPA, Northeastern IPM Center, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, and industry representatives attended the meeting. In addition, participating through webinar were representatives from the Cornell University, industry members from DuPont, Hercon Environmental and South African Avocado Growers Association.

There were approximately eighty-nine participants in attendance. Specific discussions on hosts at risk, rearing and national coordination efforts were discussed. In addition, research and outreach updates including adult and nymphal dispersal, efficacy of organic insecticides, BMSB injury on different apple cultivars and phenological stages, updates on the BMSB pheromone and synergist, potential collaborations with the Department of Interior BISON project as well as a webinar from researchers in South Africa discussing stink bug problems in horticultural production systems.

BMSB Presentations

Presented by: Tracy Leskey & George Hamilton USDA-ARS-AFRS & Rutgers University Department of Entomology

Summary:  Overview of day’s schedule  Agricultural injury in Kentucky  Detection in Arkansas submitted to NAPISS  Introduction to Florida in cut flowers from Columbia, South America  Agricultural/nuisance problems for Oregon and Washington  News reel on BMSB stating they are in many states now

Insights on Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Behavior from a Mark/Recapture Field Experiment Presented by: Kevin Rice Co-Authors: William Mitchell, Moshe Gish, Shelby Fleischer, and John Tooker Department of Entomology Penn State

Summary:  Dispersal o Dispersal hazards . Increased predation - Failure to find host plant - Failure to find mates o Host plant availability . Induced defense - Phenological changes o Patchy agricultural landscape . 1 week they are in corn, next week in soy - No action thresholds - We are developing mark recapture technique for BMSB that allows us to work with large numbers.  Goals o How much does BMSB move? o When does BMSB move? o Where does BMSB move to? o Mark/Recapture . A good way to answer these questions is with mark recapture. . With insects, we need to mark a lot to get a good recovery. . Elisa-more time and expensive  Fluorescent Marking o Mark insect with powder - We have developed a technique of mark recapture of BMSB using fluorescent powders. o UV light o Visible light reflection  Problems Marking BMSB

o Fluorescent powders o Sensory interference o Flight interference o Fluorescent paints o Flight interference . Ideal marker for one insect is useless for other insects-Hagler Jackson 2001. . There are lots of methods available-protein markers.  Neon Pens o Pen marking - UV fluorescent, Inexpensive, No cross contamination, Waterproof, Long lasting, Non-toxic - Time consuming - Potential handling damage  Tracking BMSB Dispersal o 2,500 adult BMSB from soybean o Knockdown CO2 o Individually hand marked . Yellow released in woods/5% in 48H . Pink released in soy/5% in 48H . Bugs found for 3 weeks post-release . Higher dispersal rate in woods  Recapture-UV Flashlights o GPS Points recorded o Don’t bring back to lab = large scale and fast o Used to track adults at night  Mass Marking Technique o Fluorescent powder - Diluted with water for improved marking technique for masses of bugs / Spray and rinse / Less handling  Increased Fluorescence Coverage o Increased detection-see from under leaves; Clean antenna; Eye not covered  Recapture Distance - Neon pens = 11.2 m; Powder spray = 6.5 m  Conclusions o Recapture 3 weeks after marking o Some BMSB stay in system 3 weeks o Established 2 mark/recapture methods-BMSB o Marking doesn’t appear to negatively affect most BMSB behaviors o Looking into use of large mounted UV spotlights to cover more area and to be able to higher in canopies of trees.  Marking Does Not Appear to Interfere with Behavior (In Captivity) o Flight - Host plant finding – Feeding - Mating - Oviposition - Diapauses induction – Longevity - Predation?  Dispersal from Overwintering Sites o Spring 2014 - Mark 10,000 if possible - ID wild host plants  Improved Recapture o Cherry picker - Access tree canopy - Mounted UV spotlights - Field site (collaborations)

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug: An Update from Ontario Presented by: Hannah Fraser Co-author: Tara Gariepy, Cynthia Scott-Dupree, Tracey Baute Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Ontario, Canada

Summary:  Known distribution and abundance o Brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) has been detected in 40 states, posing severe agricultural problems in six states and nuisance problems in thirteen others. First detections of BMSB in Ontario were homeowner finds starting in 2010. Ontario shows up as yellow here because homeowners in Hamilton and Burlington, where we’ve had the most reports, are reporting high numbers, sometime in the hundreds.  Cootes Paradise, Hamilton, on August 2012 o In August, an established breeding population was identified at Cootes Paradise, part of the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton.  Assessment of the Distribution and Natural Enemies of the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Southern ON o Funding through the OMAF / MRA University of Guelph Partnership Agreement - Emergency Management Theme (2013-14), and financial support from the following grower organizations: . Grain Farmers of Ontario . Ontario Apple Growers . Ontario Tender Fruit Producers . Niagara Peninsula Fruit & Vegetable Growers’ Association . Grape Growers of Ontario  Research Plans for 2013-2014 1. Assessing the distribution and abundance of, and patterns of host use by BMSB in southern Ontario; I. Sentinel plants – known non-crop landscape hosts* II. Surveys in field and hort crops o How? a) Sweeps / beat trays / nets b) Visual observations (including binoculars) c) Traps * Based on Nik Wiman’s work, OSU  Site Categories o Urban / Industrial (n=65) . Areas of land with potential plant hosts surrounded on at least 3 sides by urban subdivisions, industrial and / or commercial zones. . Parks, walking trails and conservation authority properties can be placed in this designation if they fit the above criteria. o Natural / Rural (n=36)

. Areas of land with potential plant hosts that do not border directly on urban subdivisions or industrial / commercial zones. They may however, border on agricultural land on one side of the property. . Examples: trails, parks, conservation authority properties that fit the above described criteria. o Agricultural (n=136) . Areas of land with potential native / invasive plant (i.e., hedgerows) or cultivated crops with no urban/industrial connection at all. . Survey will take place either in the actual cultivated crops, or in hedgerows or pastureland bordering these areas. o Transportation Corridor (n=27) . A linear tract of land that contains lines of transportation like highways, railroads, or canals. . Focus will be on MTO truck inspection sites, picnic areas and truck stops along major transportation corridors in southern Ontario . Examples: HWY 401, QEW and county roads. 2. Identifying agricultural areas in southern Ontario at risk from BMSB impact; I. Landscape factors conducive to population build-up and migration, abundance of seasonal hosts, overwintering sites, track movement of BMSB 3. Inventory parasitoids and predators that are using BMSB as a resource. This will provide baseline data on the potential for augmentative biological control of BMSB in Canada. I. Expose newly-laid sentinel egg masses of several stink bug species (non- BMSB!) on a weekly basis II. Obtain parasitoids for morphological ID III. Determine host-parasitoid associations (if any) IV. Collect BMSB egg masses to determine level of parasitism / predation by native natural enemies 4. Evaluation of new pheromone trapping system I. Utility for early detection? Public Outreach 5. Facilitate knowledge transfer on the status of BMSB in Ontario: I.Develop information for use in communications including websites (e.g., ontario.ca\stinkbug, stopBMSB.org), II.Newsletters, tweets / blogs, conferences, online tools for IPM (e.g., Crop IPM), outreach to traditional (i.e., grower) and III.Non-traditional (e.g., homeowner, botanical gardens, pest control companies and tourism) stakeholder groups.  Exposure of Sentinel Egg Masses o 434 egg masses exposed June - October 2013 o Thyanta acerra (n=57), Euschistus variolarius (n=101), Acrosternum hilare (n=25), Podisus maculiventris (n=210), and Holcostethus limbolarius (n=41) o 50.5% produced stink bug nymphs once returned to the laboratory for rearing o 49.5% failed to produce stink bug nymphs … o 15% of the egg masses showed signs of attack by predators o Parasitoids emerged from 3.5% of the exposed egg masses

o 31% failed to produce nymphs or parasitoids, and showed no signs of predation . suspect that many of these eggs were attacked by parasitoids which failed to complete development to the adult stage . will be confirmed using DNA-based technology to detect parasitoid DNA within unhatched eggs  Items to think about and future work: o No information regarding potential populations in Quebec o Believes that there are multiple reintroductions of BMSB from the U.S., which makes it difficult to tell whether it is spreading o BMSB may already be widespread in Southern ON o Establishment in agricultural crops not confirmed. o OW and new adults by mid July - is there potential for a partial 2nd generation of BMSB in southwestern ON??? o Pheromone trapping systems may be useful as early detection tools. o Survey in 2014 needed to determine the potential impact of NEs on BMSB in newly invaded areas. o Additional survey work in 2014 will be required to confirm BMSB in other parts of Ontario, including those areas associated with new homeowner finds.

Virginia Field Crops and Vegetables BMSB Research Update Presented by: Tom Kuhar Co-author: D. Ames Herbert Department of Entomology Virginia Tech

Summary:  Evaluating indoor light traps o Paper in review (Aigner, J.) about citizen scientists evaluating light traps for capturing BMSB in homes in VA. Turkey roasting pan with light captured most BMSB. o Aigner, J.D. and T.P. Kuhar. 2014. Using Citizen Scientists to Evaluate Light Traps for Catching Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs in Homes in Virginia. J. of Extension (in review)  Deltamethrin-incorporated polyethylene mosquito netting o Can last up to 10 years, not publicly available o Work well for certain crops – eggplant o Cucumber & Flea Beetles and BMSB killed o Deltamethrin screen kills BMSB after exposure to elements after one year o 104°F/40°C = kills bugs after 4H  BMSB threat to cotton o Kamminga, K., D. A. Herbert, M.D. Toews, S. Malone, and T. Kuhar. 2013. Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) feeding injury on cotton bolls. J. Cotton Sci. in press o In southwest VA, H. halys is dominant SB. However, in Eastern Shore it is found in very low numbers.

 Can BMSB take the heat? o In the lab, temps. >40˚C (104˚F) resulted in significant mortality to all life stages of BMSB after < 4hrs exposure. o BMSB development is negatively impacted at temps > 33˚C (91˚F) and no development occurs > 35˚C (Nielsen et al. 2008). o Nielsen, A.L., G.C. Hamilton, and D. Matadha. 2008. Developmental Rate Estimation and Life Table Analysis for Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Environ. Entomol. 37(2): 348-355 (2008)  Species complex of stink bug adults observed on wooded borders and agricultural crop plants* from May until Oct 2012 and 2013 in two regions of Virginia. o Host plants – Paulownie, Tree of Heaven, Catalpa, Peach, Mulberry, Wild Cherry, Corn -- Stopbmsb website has continually updated list of BMSB host plants o Host plants along border of favorable crops created hot spot on border (woods) and move slightly into crop and not much further o Border sprays working for control of BMSB at F5 stage on soy/20-30% acreage sprayed o Edge of field corn hard to control BMSB damage because dusted with plane, which doesn’t cover edge well o BMSB infestations are usually concentrated on the perimeters of soybean and corn fields o Can have 10+ BMSB on developing ears o Insect injury is often associated with increased levels of fungal infections and mycotoxin contamination o FDA has established regulatory levels for aflatoxin and guidelines for fumonisin and deoxynivalenol (DON) in food and feed (no advisory guidelines for zearalenone) o Stink bugs move into soybean fields at the R4 (full pod) stage o Injury to soybeans includes undeveloped (flat) pods, punctured and deformed seed

Spread of BMSB in Northern California Presented by: Charlie Pickett Co-author: Chuck Ingels and Mark Hoddle California Department of Food & Agriculture University of CA Coop Extension

Summary:  Est. populations in LA and Pasadena  First Reproducing Population of BMSB in California outside LA Basin Downtown Sacramento, September 4, 2013 – Found in high numbers  Future Plans: 2014 to 2016 o Host range testing o Define state distribution of BMSB

o Identify extant natural enemies, host plants o Release parasitoids  Observed commonly on Chinese Pistachio trees  Sacramento has 10-20 days of at least 100F  Not doing any citrus or avocado surveys for BMSB The Dispersal Capacity and Host Choice of BMSB Nymphs Presented by: Brett Blaauw Co-authors: Doo-Hyung Lee, Anne Nielsen, and Tracy Leskey Rutgers University USDA-ARS-AFRS

Summary:  Anecdotal evidence suggests that BMBS nymphs have strong walking capacity and can easily move among host plants within a planting or among different host plants on a farm.  This work was done to elucidate the spatial scale of their movement and host preferences of nymphs.  Walking capacity test in the lab o To validate this, first we used laboratory behavioral bioassay where we tested 2nd through 5th instars and adult together to estimate the baseline walking capacity of each BMSB life stage. We included adults, so that we can also compare nymph walking capacity in the context of adults. o We used this petri-dish arena and video tracking system to record and measure horizontal walking capacity of BMSB. Each individual was observed for 1 hour in the trial and analyzed with EthoVision software.  Under lab conditions 3rd instar nymphs moved the greatest distances o First of all, there was a significant difference in the horizontal distance moved by BMSB among the life stages tested in the Petri dish arenas. 3rd instars moved significantly greater distances compared with adults. 2nd, 4th and 5th instars exhibited intermediate walking distances with no significant difference compared with 3rds or adults in the study.  Direct observation of nymph movement in the field o We have extended our trials to field conditions to first validate the laboratory results and also measure BMSB walking capacity directly from the field. o We used open mowed grass field between orchard plots to directly observe BMSB nymph’s walking. o In this study, we observed 3rd and 5th instars over 30 min for each individual. o Observations were made throughout different times of day, so that we can have varying abiotic conditions (e.g., temperature) in the data sets. o We marked their positions every 5 min to measure BMSB walking paths and distances at the end of observations.

 Under field conditions 5th instar nymphs moved further at higher temperatures o Here is the result where each individual’s walking distance is plotted across temperatures measured throughout the day. o First of all, 5th instars moved on average 230 cm over 30 min and this was nearly twice greater than the distance moved by 3rd. Second, there was a significant temperature effect on the walking distance. Under 25oC of ground temperature, shorter bouts of movement were dominant, whereas individuals showed longer walking distances, e.g., >3 m above 25oC. It was also observed that some individuals seemed to try to escape from direct sunlight by moving close to the ground surface under shade created by upright grass, especially when the temperature exceeded 40oC.  Mark-release-recapture study 5m o Another field experiment was a mark-release-recapture study. We set up these pyramid traps as recapture stations and they were baited with #10mg + MDT as an olfactory attractant  Mark-release-recapture study 20m o Then, we released color-marked 4th and 5th instars from the center of the pyramid trap circle. o The distances between the insect release point and traps were established at 5 m and 20 m. o Then, we checked the all the traps every hour for 12 hours, starting at 30 min after sunrise.  Recapture rates o In this mark-release-recapture study, first of all recapture rates were quite high in both 5 m and 20 m distance settings. Therefore, this study system, where we used the baited pyramid traps, is valid and useful to study BMSB nymph dispersals in the field.  At 5m peak recapture after 3 hours o Both 4th and 5th instars first arrived at the traps within two hours after release, then they picked between 3 and 4 hours.  At 20m peak recapture after 7 hours o In this longer distance setting, as expected, it took longer for BMSB to get to the traps but still they were able to move to the traps within 4 or 5 hours after the release. o Therefore, these data sets confirm again the strong walking capacity of BMSB nymphs in the field and also their strong response to the olfactory attractant baited on the traps. o During the mark release and recapture study, we also caught a significant number of nymphs, 2nd through 5th, from the wild populations present in/around the experimental plot.

o In the experimental plot, the nearest distance from the traps to woodlots was about 20 m and over the course of the study, we saw many wild BMSB nymphs getting to the traps. o This strongly supports that BMSB nymphs have strong walking capacity to actively disperse to the olfactory attractant even by leaving their current wild host plants and waking through an open grassy fields where there would be virtually no food resource available. o These data sets strongly support that BMSB nymphs can successfully disperse between crops by walking substantial distance with strong walking capacity.  Nymphal host choice o Establish the dispersal capacity of BMSB nymphal stages, and how the phenological stage of host plants affects their host selection.  Field Set-Up o To assess nymphal dispersal and host choice, a mark-release-recapture experiment was used to examine movement from a center host plant to four other representative host plants at progressive phenological stages. We evaluated nymphal dispersal among four host plants; bell pepper, Swiss chard, soybean, and sweet corn. Experimental plots consisted of 3 m x 3 m plantings broken into 4 - 1 m2 subplots planted to one of the four host plant species with a fifth host plant positioned in the center as a release point. Host plant species were arranged in a random Latin square design within each main plot with four replications for a total of 16 plots.  Mark-release-recapture o Nymphs were marked with oil-based paint pens, with each plot receiving a unique color combination. o The marked nymphs were then placed on one of the center host plants and covered with a fine mesh bag to confine the nymphs to the plant. o The nymphs remained on the center plant for 2 days in order to acclimate to the conditions. o After 2 days, the plants with the nymphs were placed in the center of each of the 16 plots and the mesh bags were carefully removed, allowing the nymphs to either remain on the plants or disperse to the surrounding plants. o Plots were monitored 1, 3, and 5 days after each release with the number and stage of nymphs within each plot recorded. o Releases of marked nymphs were made six times over the course of the 2013 growing season.

Discussion Period – Crops at Risk

Summary:  Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, West Coast o Almonds, avocados, pistachio, asparagus, Sudan grass, sorghum, citrus, sunflower, hops, endive, pomegranate, tobacco, marijuana, dates, lentils, rice, buckwheat, kumquat, tomatillo, buckhorn, currants, figs, walnuts, pearl millet, Swiss chard, popcorn, and persimmon.

Comparison of alternative trap designs for stink bugs in sweet corn & apples in Ohio Presented by: Celeste Welty Co-author: Jim Jasinski Ohio State University

Summary:  Traps for BMSB o Still important in ‘fringe’ States! o Lure now worked out by USDA o But what about trap type? . Black pyramid is standard in fruit (but we do not like using them!) . Clear standard in vegetable crops  Field trials 2013 o 4 weeks in August o Trap types not replicated - 13 traps in corn -9 traps in apples o Locations shifted once per week o Data taken 3 times per week o All with ARS#20 + MDT lures o Corn: 2 weeks in 1 early field, then 2 weeks in adjacent later field  Conclusions o PVC pipe topped with Dead Inn performed well o Netting increases catch (100), especially with nymphs (over 800) o Color (black vs. yellow) not critical

BMSB on Specialty Cut Flowers and Herbaceous Perennials Presented by: Stanton Gill Co-author: Karen Rane, Debby Smith-Fiola, Suzanne Klick, Ginny Rosenkranz, Chuck Schuster University of Maryland Extension Extension Specialist, IPM and Entomology for Nurseries and Greenhouses

Summary:  Purpose of this project o To establish if BMSB feeds on herbaceous perennials o To establish if BMSB feeds on specialty cut flowers o If they feed, determine if there is detectable damage to the plants from feeding or any diseases transmitted to the plants  Herbaceous Perennial Operations monitored in 2013 o Grasshopper Nursery, Knoxville, MD (Washington county) – hot bed of BMSB activity – Scouted by Debby Smith-Fiola o Glade Nursery, Walkersville, MD (Washington County) – Scouted by Debby Smith-Fiola o North Creek Nursery, PA – scouted by Brian Kunkel o Holly Hill Nursery, Earlsville, MD – Scouted by Brian Kunkel o Marshall River Bank Nursery, Salisbury, MD – scouted by Ginny Rosenkranz  Size of the Herbaceous Perennial Industry o 326 wholesale listed growers in the Perennial Plant Growers Association o Perennial Industry Grosses $820,000,000 per year (2012 figure) o Average size operation is 10 acres for something over 3000 acres. o Source: Steven Stills, Ohio State University of Exe Secretary of PPA  Specialty Cut Flower Industry o The Association of Specialty Cut Flower Growers (ASCFG) has 514 active growers in 36 states. Fifty six cut flower growers in Maryland o Field acreage o 48 Under half acre o 150 ½ t0 3 acres o 74 3 to 10 acres o 21 10 to 50 acres o 17 50+ acres o Source: Judy Lauschman, Executive Secretary ASCFG  Farmhouse Flowers and Plants - Flowers chosen based on previous year’s reports from growers of BMSB activity on cut flowers o Started monitoring on June 12, 2013 and continued through October of 2013 o Crops monitored: o Zinnias (examined 3 different planting dates)

o Amaranthus (Orange and Red flowering varieties) o Gladiolus o Sunflowers (examined 4 different planting dates) o Dahlias (Karma series) o Celosia (examined two different planting dates) o Hydrangea (Limelight variety)  Trap baited with #10 USDA pheromone and standard pheromone and kill strip Vapona strip placed at each nursery and cut flower operation that was monitored  Used three people each time for timed examination of 50 plants  Zinnias and Amaranthus o Survey of cut flower growers at field days in 2011 and in 2012 revealed most frequent plants that they find BMSB feeding on is zinnias and amaranth. o Amaranth before bloom time was covered with Disonycha glabrata - Pigweed Flea Beetle o Amaranth before bloom BMSB did not feed on the stems or leaves but nymphs and adults were all over the plant when in flower and seed production. o Orange flower was preferred by BMSB when in flower; Red fed on by BMSB but not as preferred as orange flowers o No measureable damage detected in Amaranth blooms; grower brushed off insects and sold stems  BMSB on Smartweed – August 26, 2013 o We found egg masses on some cut flowers, but not the number that correlated to the number of BMSB being found  BMSB on wheat celosia flower little activity until blooms started to form  Procut sunflower planting block - 4 sequenced planting blocks examined from June until October o Stink bugs like to feed on unopened sunflower buds o Feeding on leaves and stems but no damaged detected o Cut flower growers harvest the flowers when one or two petals separate from the disk. This prevents cucumber beetles from feeding on the petal rays. o They place the sunflowers in the barn or cooler and let them open. o Little chance of BMSB injury to flower heads with the system used by most growers  Zinnias - Adults do feed on flower parts, stems and leaves. We had some egg-laying on foliage. o 2nd and 3rd instars reached a peak on zinnias on August 14, 2013 o No damage noted on flowers or leaves o No diseases were found associated with the feeding sites o Peak adult BSMS on Sept 3, 2013 on zinnias. Again no major damage detected.

 In August, a greenhouse cut flower grower had BMSB feeding on snapdragons in his greenhouse damaging flowers  We found egg masses laid on Zinnias, Sunflowers, Hydrangea & Smartweed  We recorded predators in the cut flowers - Praying mantis & Assassin bugs  Florida predacious stinkbug, Euthyrhynchus floridanus - Peak activity in – Late June to mid August 2013  Egg masses found on hydrangea early in July  BMSB on Dahlias peaked in July and August  BMSB on gladiolus o Injury detected on leaves and flower buds. Flowers opened normal. o Sample taken to Karen Rane lab – negative for any disease transmission  Grasshopper Perennial Nursery o Grasshopper Perennial Nursery (GPN), a small wholesale/retail operation near Sharpsburg, MD. GPN both propagates and grows perennial liner plants for use in its landscape division, as well as for direct sale. GPN grows 4,000 perennials (~300 varieties) o In the spring of 2013 overwintering BMSBs were found by the hundreds between pots, bags of soil mix, between stacked pavers. o Perennial plants were monitored weekly in 2013 from the first week of May through mid June, and then bi-weekly until frost (mid October). o Each cultivar of perennial plant was monitored for BMSB for a total of 2 – 5 minutes each. Five to ten individual plants were inspected visually for BMSBs on foliage and stems, and then the pot lifted up to inspect for egg masses and bugs on the undersides of leaves. o All sightings of BMSBs were recorded for each plant, including life stage, time of day, weather conditions, feeding/non-feeding, specific location on plant (leaf/stem/flowers/seed) and the percent damage. In addition, any beneficial insects noticed were also recorded.  Trap counts form May 16 to October 15 2013 o Trap Counts. The numbers of BMSBs in and around the nursery site were high the entire monitoring season - A total of 3,685 BMSBs were counted - 1,327 adults - 2,358 immatures  Grasshopper nursery – Perennials that BMSB was found feeding on: o Caryopteris 'Dark Knight, Centranthus ruber (Jupiter’s beard – native to med area, Cleome, Helenium 'Rotgold', Hibiscus moschetos, Hibiscus, Lobelia, Persicaria, Sedum 'Autumn Joy', Solidago 'Rigida Sun', Stokesia, Verbena tenuisecta, Veronica 'Sunny Border Blue', Monarda 'Marshall's Delight' (Bee balm) ) , Phlox 'Franz Schubert  BMSB Egg masses laid on - Persicaria (knotweed family), Stokesia, Veronica ‘Sunny Border’

 Egg masses – only 4 egg masses were found on perennial plants (Althea, Veronica, and Persicaria) at GPN in 2013. The first egg mass was found on July 12. Low counts found on plants  BMSB Feeding on foliage o Feeding on foliage (7 different plant species) o Lychnis 'Maltese Cross' (total 1) o (1 Adult; 5/30) o Caryopteris 'Dark Knight' (Blue mist shrub) - (total 8) o (1 adult; 6/14),(1- 3rd N, 6/20),( 1- 4th N; 7/12),(2- 2nd +3rd; 8/8),(2: 2nd N+5th N; 8/22), 1-5th feeding on foliage, 9/5) o Polemonium viscosum 'Blue whirl’ (Jacob's-Ladder)(total 1) o (1 adult; 6/20) o Veronica 'Sunny Border Blue' (total 8) o (1- 3rd N; 7/12), (7- 1st N, hatching from EM; 7/25) o Althea lasiocarpus (= Hibiscus moscheutos subsp. lasiocarpos, Hairy rose mallow) (total 9) o (5 newly hatched 1st instars from EM; 7/12)(1 adult, 9/5)(3 adults, 9/20) o Monarda 'Marshall's Delight' (Bee balm) (total 3) o (2: 1-2nd N and 1-3rd N, 7/25) o Phlox 'Franz Schubert' – (total 1) o 1 adult, 9/20  BMSB FEEDING –BMSBs preferred to feed on flowers, buds, or just under a bud (on the swollen peduncle/receptacle of a flower) and newly forming seeds or seedpods when existing on plants. The following perennial plant species/cultivars were documented with active BMSB feeding:  BMSB Feeding on flowers/flower buds (11 different perennials species) o Stokesia ‘Klaus Jelitto’ ( Stoke's Aster ) - (total 8) o (7 adults & 1- 2nd on flower bud about to open) o Eupaporium coelestinum (Mist flower) –(total 1) o 1-5thN; 7/25- feeding at base of flower o Coreopsis ‘Zagreb’ – (total 1) o (1-4th N feeding beneath flower/base 8/8) o Verbena tenuisecta (moss verbena)- (total 1) o 1 adult feeding at base of flower cluster 8/8 o Hibiscus macheatos (Dwarf rose mallow)- (total 9) o 5: 1 A; 2- 3rd Ns, 1- 4th N, 1-5th N; 8/22) (1-2nd N; 7/25),(3 adults, 9/20) o Althea lasiocarpus (= Hibiscus moscheutos subsp. Lasiocarpos, Hairy rose mallow) (total 3) o 1-adult at base of flower+ 2-5th N on buds, 9/5) o Echinacea ‘Big Sky Sundown’-(Purple Coneflower) – (total 1)

o 1 A feeding on base of flower, 9/5 o Aster novae-angliae ‘Purple Dome’ (Dwarf New England Aster ) (total 1) o 1 adult feeding on yellow center ray, 9/20 o Shasta Daisy ‘silver princess’ – (total 1) o 1 adult on flower, 9/20 o Chrysanthemum ‘Pink Sheffield’ (total 1)  No feeding injury found on any of the perennials o BMSB will lay eggs on herbaceous perennials which do not appear to be preferred host site o BMSB Egg masses laid on - Persicaria (knotweed family), Stokesia, Veronica ‘Sunny Border’ o They will feed on stems, leaves, flowers and seed pods but do not do any major damage.  Conclusion o BMSB feeds on sunflowers, amaranth, celosia, dahlias, hydrangea but no significant damage or economic impact to growers. There is a level of damage to snapdragons and gladiolus from BMSB feeding. o BMSBs were quite active at Grasshopper Perennial Nursery during the 2013 season, but did not cause aesthetic nor economic damage to perennials. The top preferred perennial species that were both fed upon and visited by BMSB at GPN were Althea lasiocarpus, Caryopteris, Veronica, and Hibiscus.

Efficacy of Organic Insecticides for Control of BMSB on Pepper Presented by: Galen P. Dively Co-author: Terry Patton, Peter Coffey and Jesse Ditillo Department of Entomology University of Maryland

Summary:  Only effective against nymphs and relatively poor control of adults.  Most effective available insecticides (% control): o Azera alone (74-84%) o Azera + M-Pede (65-90%) o Entrust (68-89%) o Entrust + M-Pede (68-92%) o PyGanic (58-79%)  F-2994 product (Veratran D, sabadilla alkaloids, MGK Co.) looks promising and further refinement should increase its efficacy against nymphs and adults.  Control will be expensive, given that two or three applications of product mixtures may be needed. o The best level of control still yielded 40% injury in pepper.

o Very, very short residual activity from organic materials o Overall, some materials effective against nymphs, but all poor against adults  Bacterial symbionts of the invasive brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys o Two taxa of bacterial symbionts detected from BMSB culture by 16S rDNA: . Wolbachia . Pantoea agglomerans o Detected in: . 4th crypt-bearing region of midgut (verified by FISH) . Salivary glands . Surface of egg mass (PCR) o Pantoea is deposited on surface of eggs; Wolbachia through transovarial transmission o Pantoea agglomerans has potential to cause rot disease in plants, but many strains occur.  We plan to: o Identify the strain in BMSB and compare with the strain in host plants. o Examine effects of high temperatures (C. Taylor). o Test adjuvant, competitive replacement products, and antibiotics for suppression (C. Taylor)  Future suppression of BMSB populations or injury may be possible by manipulating the symbionts.

Overview of the South African Stink Bug Problem as Well as Possible Solutions Presented by: Schalk Schoeman South Africa

Summary:  Introduction o First macadamias in South Africa 1935 o Initial research on macadamia pests ± 1980 – Nezara viridula o Comprehensive research 1987 - 9 new species of stink bugs o Bathycoelia natalicola and Pseudotheraptus wayi major pests o First symptoms of P. wayi on avocado 1987 o Damage quickly escalated since then mainly because of increases in production volumes of avocado o Avocado and macadamia direct crop losses ± US$ 5 – 6 million/annum o First records of P. wayi on litchis 2009 o Magnitude of damage on litchis, guavas and mangoes currently poorly studied  Control methods o Initally Aldicarb and endosulfan was registered

o Currently we have a range of synthetic pyrethroids, Thiamethoxam & Pymetrozine + 2 diamide products o 4 – 6 sprays/ season for macadamias o No classical biological control o Tachinids Trichopoda pennipes & T. giacomelii were introduced no significant improvement in control  Problem description (Macadamias) o Environmental concern regarding overuse of pesticides o Resistance of lesser important pests (Tortricid moths & Citrus thrips) o Monitoring very difficult to do (use Dichlorvos EC 100g/L as a knockdown) – results are erratic o Bugs occur at a very low densities (range 0 – 7.7 bugs/tree/week average = 1.75) o Most growers spray on a prophylactic basis o Processors have a very low tolerance for damage (typically less than 2%) o Macadamia are very tall & vigorous growing trees –making physical spraying rather difficult o We have a burgeoning amount of small holder farmers who cannot control these  Problem description (Avocados) o Complex of bugs occurring on this crop is not sorted out o Until recently damage symptoms of coconut bug was mistaken for fruit fly damage. o Fruit become more susceptible towards the end of the production season – limits the use of chemicals o Field weathered residues of synthetic pyrethroids only control the bugs for a very short time o Bugs migrate into orchards unabated after residue levels had worn off. o Limited range of chemicals o Very difficult to monitor, no pheromones o Very wide host range – indigenous hosts largely not quantified o Damage heterogeneously distributed in various production regions o Low density feeder  Aspects that were previously investigated on macadamias o Effect of tree density on stink bug damage o Quantification of cultivar susceptibility/tolerance o Quantification of compensation for early season damage o Advantages of monitoring based spraying vs. fixed interval spraying o Damage studies (characterization and seasonality)  Aspects that were previously investigated on avocados o Damage characterization of P. wayi damage o Relative seasonal abundance of Heteroptera damage symptoms o Quantification of link between fruit phenology and susceptibility to P. wayi. o Effect of field weathered residues of synthetic pyrethroids on Heteropterans  Aspects that are currently being investigated (Stink bugs)

o On-going population survey (± 4 years) o Website for the Nelspruit region with weekly updates and recommendations. o Immigration patterns (attract and kill technology early in the season or perimeter sprays to reduce chemical usage) o Vertical distribution of heteropterous and lepidopterous pests (optimise spray operations) o Investigate the use of refugia to optimise the biological control component o Basic decision support for farmers regarding economics of spraying o Pheromones & chemical communication  Conclusion o No control program can function independently o Must integrate programme with control options for Lepidoptera and Thysanoptera complexes o Must also integrate macadamias with other subtropical crops (avocados, mangos and litchis) o Such a programme will have to be based on sound ecological principles otherwise it will not be successful

BMSB Damage to Apples at Different Growth Stages Presented by: Amanda Bakken Co-author: Jim Walgenbach North Carolina State University

Summary:  H. halys is an occasional pest of tree fruit  Past cage experiments have demonstrated that H. halys can cause damage to developing fruit during mid and late season growth periods  Feeding at shuck split/petal fall in peaches and apples caused fruit abscission  Feeding damage can occur throughout the growing season  Studies have not been conducted to illustrate how damage size progresses throughout the growing season  Objectives o Determine width and depth of injury over time o Determine width and depth of injury occurring in different locations on the fruit o Determine distribution of puncture marks for each introduction period  Materials and Methods o To determine stink bug damage appearance, nylon mesh exclusion cages (25’’ circumference, 27’’ height) were fitted around cylindrical deer fencing (19’’ circumference) which contained a 6’’ wooden dowel o Cages were placed on the terminal ends of fruit bearing branches o Seven different apple varieties o Two adult H. halys were placed in each treatment at three week intervals for a 48 hour period

o At harvest all apples were removed and separated into their respective introduction period bags o Fruit was stored in 35-40°F cooler to await processing o Number of intact and aborted fruit was recorded for each introduction period o Amount of feeding marks were recorded by feeding locations; shoulder, middle and ventral o Feeding damage was assessed first by a superficial examination of the fruit, then by peeling and cutting each fruit o Each feeding mark was measured o Control cages were treated identically o Apples were measured for both height and width, then each feeding mark was measured for width and depth of damage o Mid season feeding damage on a Ginger Gold; notice the brown necrotic tissue and surface depression  Conclusions o Type of damage appearance did not change during the course of the growing season o Injury inflicted early in the season tends to be larger in both puncture width and puncture depth than later in the season o Damage is more prevalent and severe in the middle portion of the fruit o There was no significant difference between introduction periods for amount of aborted fruit

Emergence of Adult Brown Marmorated Stink Bug from Overwintering Shelters Presented by: Chris Bergh Co-author: Tracy Leskey Associate Professor of Entomology Alson H. Smith-AREC/Virginia Tech

Summary:  A return to sustainable crop protection programs in fruit orchards vulnerable to BMSB will require applied and basic research on monitoring and management tactics  When do BMSB emerge from overwintering sites? o (presence, risk to crops, intervention timing)  Do captures in traps reflect emergence? o (optimize traps as decision tool) o Shelters placed individually in square, screened cages o One cage with top on, other with top removed o Cages placed in apple crates with metal screen insert o Deployed in pairs in protective domes at six woodland sites in mid-February

o Temperature/humidity sensors placed inside one shelter and suspended beneath one plastic dome o Shelters encircled by 8 alternating baited and un-baited traps  Captures in traps and number of bugs emerged from shelters in closed cages recorded weekly, then twice weekly thro’ early July  Largest number of BMSB emerged in late May/early June with an earlier smaller peak of emergence in early –mid April  Emergence of BMSB from shelters in closed cages and captures in pyramid traps o 97.6% of captures (n = 290) were in baited traps o Pyramid traps did not capture any of the marked bugs emerging from the overwinter shelters, but did capture overwintering populations

A Comparison of Two BMSB Sampling Techniques in Peaches & Nectarines Presented by: George Hamilton Co-authors: John Cambridge, Noel Hahn, April Heliothis, Alex Kaufman, Thomas Pike, & Martha Wilkinson Department of Entomology Rutgers University

Summary:  The BMSB Invasion -- Introduced in the mid-1990’s; Now established or detected in over 40 states and the District of Columbia; Established in Canada; Detected and/or established in Europe; APHIS Florida find in flowers shipped from Columbia  Impact of Invasion -- 2009/10 explosion in the mid-Atlantic US; Damage to field, nursery, tree fruit and vegetable crops; Increased pyrethroid use; Secondary pest outbreaks; Need for effective monitoring techniques  Study Design -- Cream Ridge Fruit Research Station; Mixed block of peaches and nectarines; Sampled once a week during the growing season in 2011 and 2012; 1.5 minute visual samples, 5 beats per tree  Conclusions and Next Steps -- Beat sheets worked best in early season; A significant relationship between beat samples and visual counts was found; The models developed need further refinement; Determine if the data can be combined

Identification of Aggregation Pheromone of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Presented by: Ashot Khrimian Co-authors: Aijun Zhang, Donald C. Weber, Hsiao-Yung Ho, Jeffrey R. Aldrich, Karl E. Vermillion, Maxime A. Siegler, Shyam Shirali, Filadelfo Guzman, and Tracy C. Leskey USDA-ARS Beltsville Maryland

Summary:  Natural occurrence of 1,10-bisaboladien-3-ols and 10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ols o Representative 1,10-bisaboladien-3-ol (a.k.a. zingiberenol) was isolated from ginger, Zingiber officinale o 1,10-Bisaboladien-3-ols were identified as rice stalk sting bug, Tibaca limbativebtris, pheromone o 10,11-Epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol (called murgantiol) was identified as aggregation pheromone of harlequin bug, Murgantia histrionica o Male brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys, produce 10,11-epoxy-1- bisabolenols o In all four studies, absolute configurations and field attractiveness of pheromones have not been demonstrated  Two stereoisomers from one reaction  X-Ray (Cu Kα) structure determination of intermediate triol o Displacement ellipsoid plot of crystalline RSRS triol  Synthesis of individual stereoisomers of 10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol  (3S,6S,7R,10S)-10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol, main component of brown marmorated stink bug aggregation pheromone  Synthetic work: Summary o We synthesized and streochemically characterized previously unknown: . All 8 possible stereoisomers of 1,10-bisaboladien-3-ol . All 16 possible 1-bisabolen-3,10,11-triols . All 16 possible 10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ols  BMSB main pheromone component (A) identified!  BMSB minor pheromone component (B) identified!  Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Pheromone Identification: Summary o Main component of BMSB aggregation pheromone (A) has been identified as (3S,6S,7R,10S)-10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol o Minor component of BMSB aggregation pheromone (B) has been identified as (3R,6S,7R,10S)-10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol o Availability of all 16 stereoisomers and combination of two chiral columns streamlined the assignments and bioassay confirmed the identification.  H. halys captures in pyramid traps with pheromone components

 Trapping H. halys with mixed-isomer lures Synergy of Aggregation Pheromone with MDT in Trapping of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Presented by: Don Weber Co-authors: Ashot Khrimian, Tracy C. Leskey and Guillermo Cabrera Walsh USDA-ARS Beltsville Maryland

Summary:  Plautia stali Brown‐winged green stink bug o Aggregation pheromone is methyl (E, E, Z) ‐2, 4, 6‐decatrienoate (MDT); produced by male and attractive to both males and females MDT attracts other insects which do not produce it! Halyomorpha halys Glaucias subpunctatus Chinavia hilare + several tachinid species  MDT attracts other pentatomids which do not produce it. This cross‐attraction is not uncommon and includes other stink bug species; why? o food signal for polyphagous species o overwintering site signal o promotes aggregation which passively protects them from natural enemies  Asian native responsive to MDT o but in most years, almost exclusively late in the season o or, during outbreak years (axis is 60 vs. 10 to 30 in subsequent years) o and occasionally in the early season o but usually only after harvest of apple crop, in late season  Trapped BMSB with BMSB pheromone + MDT synergist and showed significantly higher captures than with either pheromone alone. Showed synergistic effect rather than just additive.  Found no difference in attraction by instar or by sex of adults in response to combined lure.  Harlequin bug also attracted to BMSB pheromone but not to MDT  Need to fine tune the ratio of the components and adjust doses for maximizing capture  Challenges to understanding and application of pentatomid semiochemicals – big picture o Knowledge of biology << knowledge of chemistry o Pheromone may have multiple functions depending on... o Other senses involved: visual and especially short-range substrate-borne vibrational o Species are polyphagous and highly mobile; need to consider wild hosts and entire [agro]ecosystems o Additional attractants: other species’ semiochemicals and also various phytochemicals o Natural enemies respond to pheromones

o Making pest suppression work: general challenges with managing trap-cropping or mass trapping  Next steps with BMSB pheromone research o Individual isomers: determine optimal ratios (how much increased dose compensates for off-ratios) o Combined lures: determine optimal doses and ratio of MDT to pheromone o Trap design, including toxin-free models o Making pest suppression work: implement trap-cropping and/or mass trapping, while protecting natural enemies and other non-targets

Discussion Period – Factors Affecting Population Dynamics Summary:  Should look at historical data for relationship with rain/storms at the end of the season impacting numbers of overwintering  Impact of late season cool versus warm weather affecting numbers going to overwintering  Mild winter may permit overwintered adults to maintain higher metabolism and run out of stored resources  Impact of very hot days on survivorship of gut symbionts and ability to pick up gut symbionts  Impact of predators and look at phenology of predators in conjunction with BMSB  Start evaluating reasons why BMSB is not present in areas in which it could be  Is it cyclical?  Generate life table. Start with single colony of BMSB and distribute across country and to different areas and follow development and all future survivorship.

Targeting BMSB via Organic Tactics: Trap Cropping and Compost Tea Presented by: Clarissa Mathews1,2 Co-authors: M.H. Hallack2 1Institute of Environmental and Physical Sciences Shepherd University, Shepherdstown, WV 2Redbud Farm, LLC, Inwood, WV

Summary:  Evaluate ability of sunflower and BMSB pheromone/MDT in Rescue trap to act as a combo trap crop to pull bugs from protected crops. Compared with sunflower crop with no bait

 Colonization of cash crop occurred two weeks later in plots with baited traps and sunflower border than those without baited traps  Low levels of injury even in controls in 2013.  Eggs treated with compost tea within 24h of oviposition had a lower hatch rate than untreated. No difference in 2-3 day old eggs

Fate of BMSB Sentinel Eggs in NC Agroecosystems Presented by: Jim Walgenbach Co-author: Rachel Suits, and Amanda Bakken Department of Entomology NC State University Mtn Hort Crops Res & Ext Ctr Mills River, NC

Summary:  Evaluated predation and parasitism on fresh, frozen sentinel egg masses and natural egg masses  Sources of Variation -- Type of egg mass; Sentinel Fresh; Sentinel Frozen; Natural o Habitats -- Organic and conventional vegetables, Organic and conventional apples, Woodlands (native eggs)  Sentinel egg masses (frozen or healthy) had comparable levels of predation and parasitism as naturally laid eggs.  Impact of parasites in agricultural settings may be underestimated due to low rates of parasite development in BMSB eggs.  Predation was generally higher in organic vs. conventional agriculture, but overall rates were low in both systems (≤10%).  Telenomus podisi was the most common parasite of BMSB encountered in agriculture settings, but Anastatus reduvii may be more effective against BMSB.  No observed difference in field weed border between sentinels and natural for predation  No difference in fresh and frozen sentinel egg masses in crops  Majority of eggs that were prey upon were from chewing predators. Very few parasitoids observed. Organic systems had a greater level of chewing predation than in conventional systems.  Level of predation increased over time with peaks from mid-August to mid September  Had higher percentage of parasitism in wooded habitats than in crops

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Development and Survival on Single and Mixed Diets of Selected Fruit Trees and Wild Hosts Presented by: Angelita Acebes-Doria Co-author: Tracy C. Leskey and J. Christopher Bergh Virginia Tech USDA-ARS-AFRS

Summary:  Mixed diets proved to be optimal for nymphal survivorship and development  Combining 2 sub-optimal single diets (apple & ToH) resulted in increased survivorship  Nymphs reared on mixed diets and ToH resulted into bigger and larger adults  Peach appeared to be the most suitable single host for BMSB development among the host plants tested  Apple and catalpa were found to be least suitable as single diets  Tree of heaven showed higher suitability toward the latter part of the growing season  Evaluated impact of single and mixed diets on adult emergence, survivorship, body size, development of BMSB  Peach alone and the mixed diets yielded high percent adult emergence  High survivorship on single diets of tree of heaven, peach and mixed diets  Mixed diets yielded higher weights and larger pronotal widths Bugs and BISON: How Can the Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation Project Help BMSB-NEIPM? Presented by: Annie Simpson U.S. Geological Survey, Core Science Analytics and Synthesis (CSAS) Program Core Science Systems (CSS) Mission Area

Summary:  Developed by the U.S. Geological Survey o Core Science Analytics and Synthesis (CSAS) Program (Core Science Systems Mission Area) o A species occurrence data aggregator providing 110+M species occurrence records for the U.S. and Territories including: . Various taxonomic groups (animals, plants, fungi) . Terrestrial and aquatic species . Various data types: observation-based data, natural history collections (specimen-based) data, and literature-based data . Federal and non-federal data  BISON Goals o Increase Data Access, Exposure, o Discoverability, and Quality

o Data Mobilization through integration and application of standards, open data technologies, machine readable access  BISON is an information system that allows users to access, explore and download U.S. species occurrence data  How can BISON help members of the BMSB-NEIPM working group? o “Submit-a-dataset” o Search for host species occurrences o Post BISON API search results on your Web pages o Use BISON data or visualizations in your publications  Site allows users to submit data for storage and analysis, search for species occurrences, post results from BISON on web pages or in publications  Currently has a list of over 300,000 taxonomic What We Learned in 2013 and Revised Grower Survey Presented by: Carrie Koplinka-Loehr Northeastern IPM Center

Summary:  Provided survey to group about how to present information to growers and how to present BMSB for identification  Details about website activities and general traffic of visitors  More training and investment in providing information to grower consultants, master gardeners, and extension professionals as they have more regular access to growers

BMSB Outreach 2013 Presented by: Chris Gonzales Northeastern IPM Center

Summary:  Tracking the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Video Series o Ten-part video series: . www.StopBMSB.org/video – 15,100 views since April 2013 . One-Minute Trailer on YouTube  StopBMSB.org o We’ve been making lots of updates to the website. o 37 links to media reports in last year o 2 feature stories, 5 other articles o Over 26,000 unique visitors in year ending September 30 o Website traffic - (Sep. 1, 2012 – Nov. 21, 2013) 44,461 unique visitors  Host Plants Publication o We published a list of host plants of BMSB. 36

o BMSB eats and uses for reproduction 170 species o View them at www.stopbmsb.org/where-is-bmsb/host-plants/

Group Discussion Period – National Coordination Efforts

Summary:  Western BMSB Working Group needed?  Collaboration with other IPM centers for funding to bring west coast folks to meetings.