Evaluation of Trap Designs and Deployment Strategies for Capturing Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)

Abstract

Halyomorpha halys (Stål) is an invasive pest that attacks numerous crops. For growers to make informed management decisions against H. halys, an effective monitoring tool must be in place. We evaluated various trap designs baited with the two-component aggregation pheromone of H. halys and synergist and deployed in commercial apple orchards. We compared our current experimental standard trap, a black plywood pyramid trap 1.22 m in height deployed between border row apple trees with other trap designs for two growing seasons. These included a black lightweight coroplast pyramid trap of similar dimension, a smaller (29 cm) pyramid trap also ground deployed, a smaller limb-attached pyramid trap, a smaller pyramid trap hanging from a horizontal branch, and a semipyramid design known as the Rescue trap. We found that the coroplast pyramid was the most sensitive, capturing more adults than all other trap designs including our experimental standard. Smaller pyramid traps performed equally in adult captures to our experimental standard, though nymphal captures were statistically lower for the hanging traps. Experimental standard plywood and coroplast pyramid trap correlations were strong, suggesting that standard plywood pyramid traps could be replaced with lighter, cheaper coroplast pyramid traps. Strong correlations with small ground- and limb-deployed pyramid traps also suggest that these designs offer promise as well. Growers may be able to adopt alternative trap designs that are cheaper, lighter, and easier to deploy to monitor H. halys in orchards without a significant loss in sensitivity.

Keywords: brown marmorated stink bug; captures; integrated pest management; invasive species; monitoring.

Fig. 1.

Various H. halys trap types assessed for use in monitoring pest populations in 2013 and 2014 in Smithsburg, MD, at two commercial orchards, including (A) experimental standard large wooden pyramid, (B) large coroplast pyramid, (C) small, ground-deployed pyramid, (D) small, limb-attached pyramid, (E) small, hanging pyramid, and (F) commercial Rescue trap.

Fig. 2.

Mean (± SE) effectiveness of traps for nymphal (gray bars) or adult (black bars) H. halys for April to October in 2013–2014 in Washington Co., MD. The coroplast traps were only deployed in one site starting from 2 July in 2013, and for the whole growing season in 2014 at the same site. Bars with shared letters are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05), with the letter case representing pairwise comparisons within a particular life stage.

Fig. 3.

Abundance of adult (black) or nymphal (gray) H. halys captured across trap types and aggregated for 2013 and 2014 in the early-, mid-, or late-season from Washington Co., MD. Bars with shared upper (within adult comparison) or lower case letters (within nymph comparison) are not significantly different from each other (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05).

Fig. 4

Mean combined captures of adult and nymphal H. halys per trap through the course of the season for (A) 2013 and (B) 2014 at two sites, each with three replicates, in Washington Co., MD. Trapping started later in 2013 for the large coroplast pyramid (2 July) and the Rescue semi-pyramid trap (11 June) than the other traps (23 April). Traps were established throughout the entire year in 2014 for all treatments. For the sake of simplicity, the standard errors have been left off the lines. For interpretation of the lines, please refer to the online version of the article.

Fig. 5.

Correlation between the mean trap capture of adult H. halys in a (A) Rescue, (B) small ground, (C) small hanging, or (D) small limb-based trap and the experimental standard pyramid traps on a given date over three replicates from April 2013 to October 2013 and April 2014 to October 2014 in Smithsburg, MD, at two orchards. The calculated best fit lines are as follows for each of the traps: small ground (y = 0.612 x + 0.372), small hanging (y = 0.426 x + 0.740), and small limb (y = 0.485 x + 0.484).

Fig. 6.

Correlation between the mean trap capture of nymphal H. halys in a (A) Rescue, (B) small ground, (C) small hanging, or (D) small limb-based trap and the experimental standard pyramid traps on a given date over three replicates from April 2013 to October 2013 and April 2014 to October 2014 in Smithsburg, MD, at two orchards. The calculated best fit lines are as follows for each of the traps: Rescue (y = 0.021 x + 0.023), small ground (y = 0.440 x + 0.175), small hanging (y = 0.159 x + 0.053), and small limb (y = 0.478 x + 0.551).

Fig. 7.

Correlation between the mean trap capture of adult H. halys in a (A) experimental standard plywood pyramid, (B) Rescue, (C) small ground, (D) small hanging, or (E) small limb-based trap and the coroplast pyramid traps on a given date over three replicates from July 2013 to October 2013 and April 2014 to October 2014 in Edgemont, MD. The calculated best fit lines are as follows for each of the traps: experimental standard (y = 1.167 x + 1.412), small ground (y = 0.376 x + 0.299), small hanging (y = 0.445 x + 0.575), and small limb (y = 0.321 x + 0.850).

Fig. 8.

Correlation between the mean trap capture of nymphal H. halys in a (A) experimental standard plywood pyramid, (B) Rescue, (C) small ground, (D) small hanging, or (E) small limb-based trap and the coroplast pyramid traps on a given date over three replicates from July 2013 to October 2013 and April 2014 to October 2014 in Edgemont, MD. The calculated best fit lines are as follows for each of the traps: experimental standard (y = 0.575 x + 0.419), Rescue (y = 0.0347 x – 0.0242), small ground (y = 0.672 x + 0.287), small hanging (y = 0.241 x + 0.118), and small limb (y = 0.679 x + 1.40).