Figure 1.
Satellite views of Trexler Nature Preserve used in 2019 (A) and Beaver Brook Wildlife Management Area used in 2020 (B), where Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted (parklands outlined in orange). Adult spotted lanternflies Lycorma delicatula (SLF) were tagged and released at designated release points (R). The two primary release trees at each site were approximately 1 km apart. The white box in Trexler Nature Preserve (A) is enlarged in (C) to depict the sample movements of four different SLF originating from release tree R2 (shown as blue, green, yellow, and pink travel vectors). The longest two vectors (shown in blue and green) represent two SLF that crossed over Jordan Creek, suggesting flight occurred with the RT tags (satellite images by Google Earth).
Figure 1.
Satellite views of Trexler Nature Preserve used in 2019 (A) and Beaver Brook Wildlife Management Area used in 2020 (B), where Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted (parklands outlined in orange). Adult spotted lanternflies Lycorma delicatula (SLF) were tagged and released at designated release points (R). The two primary release trees at each site were approximately 1 km apart. The white box in Trexler Nature Preserve (A) is enlarged in (C) to depict the sample movements of four different SLF originating from release tree R2 (shown as blue, green, yellow, and pink travel vectors). The longest two vectors (shown in blue and green) represent two SLF that crossed over Jordan Creek, suggesting flight occurred with the RT tags (satellite images by Google Earth).
Figure 2.
Spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula, example tag attachments and step frequency for each experiment: Experiment 1 (A) (Photo Credit: Kelly Murman), Experiment 2 (B) (Photo Credit: Kyle Kaye), and Experiment 3 (C) (Photo Credit: Matthew Siderhurst). The HR-tagged adult (B) and nymph (C) are each shown with a nitinol wire tag. In (A–C), the points representing the frequency of step distances of zero m are highlighted with a yellow circle while all other distances are shown in black. The total distance moved for Experiments 1 (D), 2 ((E), data from both years combined), and 3 (F) are shown in the second row of graphs. Differently colored circles in (D,E) represent different individual tracked SLF. Turning angle and flight direction are shown for Experiments 1 (G,H), 2, (I,J), and 3 (K,L), respectively, with N representing the number of insects used in each calculation.
Figure 2.
Spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula, example tag attachments and step frequency for each experiment: Experiment 1 (A) (Photo Credit: Kelly Murman), Experiment 2 (B) (Photo Credit: Kyle Kaye), and Experiment 3 (C) (Photo Credit: Matthew Siderhurst). The HR-tagged adult (B) and nymph (C) are each shown with a nitinol wire tag. In (A–C), the points representing the frequency of step distances of zero m are highlighted with a yellow circle while all other distances are shown in black. The total distance moved for Experiments 1 (D), 2 ((E), data from both years combined), and 3 (F) are shown in the second row of graphs. Differently colored circles in (D,E) represent different individual tracked SLF. Turning angle and flight direction are shown for Experiments 1 (G,H), 2, (I,J), and 3 (K,L), respectively, with N representing the number of insects used in each calculation.
Figure 3.
The period of time (days) between successive observations, or step duration, of individual adult spotted lanternflies (SLF), Lycorma delicatula, tracked with radio telemetry (Experiment 1), ranged from 1 to 20 d and varied over time, but SLF were located most often after a period of 1–3 d (A). Thus, standard-sized tracking periods of 1–3 d were used to calculate movement parameters. The frequency of movement (B) (when SLF moved from their previously known location as opposed to staying in the same place), over these 1–3 d tracking periods, changed significantly over five adult stages for both females (white) and males (gray) (asterisks indicate when observations with movement were significantly outnumbered by those without movement, Chi-square test, p < 0.05).
Figure 3.
The period of time (days) between successive observations, or step duration, of individual adult spotted lanternflies (SLF), Lycorma delicatula, tracked with radio telemetry (Experiment 1), ranged from 1 to 20 d and varied over time, but SLF were located most often after a period of 1–3 d (A). Thus, standard-sized tracking periods of 1–3 d were used to calculate movement parameters. The frequency of movement (B) (when SLF moved from their previously known location as opposed to staying in the same place), over these 1–3 d tracking periods, changed significantly over five adult stages for both females (white) and males (gray) (asterisks indicate when observations with movement were significantly outnumbered by those without movement, Chi-square test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4.
Parameters for distance moved by female (white) and male (gray) adult spotted lanternflies (SLF), Lycorma delicatula, tracked with RT (Experiment 1). Total distance moved (sum of all step-distances per SLF) by sex and release date are shown as means (±SE) (A) and individual SLF (B). The total time (days) that individual SLF were tracked is plotted against the total distance (m) they moved (with linear regression lines) in (C). The average non-zero distances travelled during steps that were 1–3 d in duration and 4–20 d in duration are shown for females (D) and males (E) over five adult stages, with the number of steps represented by each bar indicated by (N). The frequency of total distances that tracked individual SLF males and females traveled is shown in (F). In (A,D,E), bars in the same comparison with no letters in common are significantly different (ANOVA using ranked data for A, and log-transformed data for (D,E), followed by Tukey HSD means separations, p < 0.05, back-transformed data are shown).
Figure 4.
Parameters for distance moved by female (white) and male (gray) adult spotted lanternflies (SLF), Lycorma delicatula, tracked with RT (Experiment 1). Total distance moved (sum of all step-distances per SLF) by sex and release date are shown as means (±SE) (A) and individual SLF (B). The total time (days) that individual SLF were tracked is plotted against the total distance (m) they moved (with linear regression lines) in (C). The average non-zero distances travelled during steps that were 1–3 d in duration and 4–20 d in duration are shown for females (D) and males (E) over five adult stages, with the number of steps represented by each bar indicated by (N). The frequency of total distances that tracked individual SLF males and females traveled is shown in (F). In (A,D,E), bars in the same comparison with no letters in common are significantly different (ANOVA using ranked data for A, and log-transformed data for (D,E), followed by Tukey HSD means separations, p < 0.05, back-transformed data are shown).
Figure 5.
Rate of movement over time of adult female (white) and male (gray) spotted lanternflies (SLF), Lycorma delicatula, tracked with radio telemetry (Experiment 1). The movement rates (m/d) of all non-zero individual steps by date are shown in (A), plotted on a logarithmic scale. The mean rate of movement (m/d) (±SE) of SLF tracked over shorter tracking periods (1–3 d), and longer tracking periods (4–20 d) are shown for females (B) and males (C) over five stages. The number of steps represented in each bar is indicated by (N). Bars in the same comparison that do not share the same letter are significantly different (ANOVA on log-transformed data followed by Tukey HSD means separations, p < 0.05).
Figure 5.
Rate of movement over time of adult female (white) and male (gray) spotted lanternflies (SLF), Lycorma delicatula, tracked with radio telemetry (Experiment 1). The movement rates (m/d) of all non-zero individual steps by date are shown in (A), plotted on a logarithmic scale. The mean rate of movement (m/d) (±SE) of SLF tracked over shorter tracking periods (1–3 d), and longer tracking periods (4–20 d) are shown for females (B) and males (C) over five stages. The number of steps represented in each bar is indicated by (N). Bars in the same comparison that do not share the same letter are significantly different (ANOVA on log-transformed data followed by Tukey HSD means separations, p < 0.05).
Figure 6.
The height (m) above ground of male (gray diamonds) and female (open circles) (with linear lines for each) spotted lanternflies (SLF) L. delicatula tracked with radio telemetry (RT) is shown in scatter plots of raw step data by observation date in 2020 (A) and 2019 (B). Average SLF height in trees ± SE (m) at Trexler and Beaver Brook sites in 2019 and 2020, respectively (C) (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05, with different letters indicating significant difference). The number and frequency of SLF steps at different height ranges tracked with RT in 2020 for males and females combined over the entire season are shown in (D). The frequency of those steps that occurred above or below 8 m is shown in (E) for males (gray) and females (white) at each stage, with an asterisk indicating when the frequency was significantly greater in one height range than the other (Chi-square test, p < 0.05). Frequencies of male and female heights during each stage compared to the average height of 8 m are shown in (F).
Figure 6.
The height (m) above ground of male (gray diamonds) and female (open circles) (with linear lines for each) spotted lanternflies (SLF) L. delicatula tracked with radio telemetry (RT) is shown in scatter plots of raw step data by observation date in 2020 (A) and 2019 (B). Average SLF height in trees ± SE (m) at Trexler and Beaver Brook sites in 2019 and 2020, respectively (C) (Wilcoxon, p < 0.05, with different letters indicating significant difference). The number and frequency of SLF steps at different height ranges tracked with RT in 2020 for males and females combined over the entire season are shown in (D). The frequency of those steps that occurred above or below 8 m is shown in (E) for males (gray) and females (white) at each stage, with an asterisk indicating when the frequency was significantly greater in one height range than the other (Chi-square test, p < 0.05). Frequencies of male and female heights during each stage compared to the average height of 8 m are shown in (F).
Figure 7.
The step frequencies of female (A) and male (B) spotted lanternflies (SLF), L. delicatula, (including both RT- and HR-tagged SLF from both years) above and below eye level (<2 m) were compared against the expected frequency at eye level (15%), using a chi-square test for each stage. The total number of steps for each test is shown as N. Asterisks indicate that the frequency of steps above and below eye level deviated significantly from expected (p < 0.05). The frequencies that females and males were found at eye level for each stage were tabulated and used to calculate and plot the sex ratio of steps at eye level (solid line with squares) and above eye level (dashed line with triangles) (C).
Figure 7.
The step frequencies of female (A) and male (B) spotted lanternflies (SLF), L. delicatula, (including both RT- and HR-tagged SLF from both years) above and below eye level (<2 m) were compared against the expected frequency at eye level (15%), using a chi-square test for each stage. The total number of steps for each test is shown as N. Asterisks indicate that the frequency of steps above and below eye level deviated significantly from expected (p < 0.05). The frequencies that females and males were found at eye level for each stage were tabulated and used to calculate and plot the sex ratio of steps at eye level (solid line with squares) and above eye level (dashed line with triangles) (C).
Figure 8.
Survey results (A) showing the frequency of woody plants by genus in a 15 m radius around the release trees at the three main release sites for 2019 (R2) and 2020 (R3, and R4). The only Ailanthus present in either survey was the release tree in 2019 (‡), and SLF that never left their release trees were excluded from this analysis. The plant-weighted visit frequency (omitting release trees) is shown by genus in (B), where p is the plant frequency and v is the frequency of visits by spotted lanternflies (SLF), L. delicatula. A result between 0 and 1 is given, where 0.5 indicates plants were visited at the same frequency as their presence, greater than 0.5 suggests that species was favored, and less than 0.5 suggests that species was avoided. The number of encounters (N steps) with host plants recorded for adult male (C) and female (D) SLF, tracked with radio telemetry in 2019 (top) and 2020 (bottom) is shown by genus, with stages indicated by different colors. Asterisks indicate when one sex was found on a species at a relative frequency significantly greater than the other sex (chi-square test, p < 0.05).
Figure 8.
Survey results (A) showing the frequency of woody plants by genus in a 15 m radius around the release trees at the three main release sites for 2019 (R2) and 2020 (R3, and R4). The only Ailanthus present in either survey was the release tree in 2019 (‡), and SLF that never left their release trees were excluded from this analysis. The plant-weighted visit frequency (omitting release trees) is shown by genus in (B), where p is the plant frequency and v is the frequency of visits by spotted lanternflies (SLF), L. delicatula. A result between 0 and 1 is given, where 0.5 indicates plants were visited at the same frequency as their presence, greater than 0.5 suggests that species was favored, and less than 0.5 suggests that species was avoided. The number of encounters (N steps) with host plants recorded for adult male (C) and female (D) SLF, tracked with radio telemetry in 2019 (top) and 2020 (bottom) is shown by genus, with stages indicated by different colors. Asterisks indicate when one sex was found on a species at a relative frequency significantly greater than the other sex (chi-square test, p < 0.05).
Figure 9.
The frequencies at which adult spotted lanternfly (SLF), L. delicatula, males (gray) and females (white), tracked with both technologies in 2019 and 2020, and excluding those that never left their release trees, were found on the same surface as naturally occurring SLF populations at lower or higher densities (as estimated at eye level), at different stages. Asterisks indicate when SLF were found near one density significantly more than the other (p < 0.05, chi-square test). Numbers inside bars represent numbers of SLF found.
Figure 9.
The frequencies at which adult spotted lanternfly (SLF), L. delicatula, males (gray) and females (white), tracked with both technologies in 2019 and 2020, and excluding those that never left their release trees, were found on the same surface as naturally occurring SLF populations at lower or higher densities (as estimated at eye level), at different stages. Asterisks indicate when SLF were found near one density significantly more than the other (p < 0.05, chi-square test). Numbers inside bars represent numbers of SLF found.
Figure 10.
Comparison between (A) radio telemetry (RT) and harmonic radar (HR) showing the average distances (±SE) flown during flight tests by males (gray) and females (white) affixed with either HR or RT tags (Wilcoxon test comparing tag type within each sex); (B) non-zero 1–3 d step distances of males and females for each tag technology (ANOVA on log-transformed data); and (C) the amount of time over which tracking took place for individual L. delicatula, spotted lanternflies (SLF), until the last time each SLF was located. In statistical comparisons, bars with different letters are significantly different.
Figure 10.
Comparison between (A) radio telemetry (RT) and harmonic radar (HR) showing the average distances (±SE) flown during flight tests by males (gray) and females (white) affixed with either HR or RT tags (Wilcoxon test comparing tag type within each sex); (B) non-zero 1–3 d step distances of males and females for each tag technology (ANOVA on log-transformed data); and (C) the amount of time over which tracking took place for individual L. delicatula, spotted lanternflies (SLF), until the last time each SLF was located. In statistical comparisons, bars with different letters are significantly different.
Figure 11.
Fourth-instar nymphs of spotted lanternfly, L. delicatula, observed feeding on corn in 2019 in Lehigh County, PA, USA (A). The tangling of an HR tag made with a Wollaston process (platinum) wire antenna effectively reduced antenna length and severely attenuated the detection range of tags (B).
Figure 11.
Fourth-instar nymphs of spotted lanternfly, L. delicatula, observed feeding on corn in 2019 in Lehigh County, PA, USA (A). The tangling of an HR tag made with a Wollaston process (platinum) wire antenna effectively reduced antenna length and severely attenuated the detection range of tags (B).
Table 1.
Tracking parameters, over two years, for spotted lanternfly (SLF) L. delicatula adults affixed with either an RT or HR tag and tracked until the last time a tag was located, either detached, on a dead SLF, or on a live SLF that was subsequently never located again (lost). The total distance traveled and rate of travel for SLF that moved are also provided for females and males separately. Recovery frequencies were compared using the chi-square test and movement parameters were compared using t-test, or Wilcoxon test if not normally distributed. Means are followed by ±standard error, and values in the same row followed by different letters differed significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 1.
Tracking parameters, over two years, for spotted lanternfly (SLF) L. delicatula adults affixed with either an RT or HR tag and tracked until the last time a tag was located, either detached, on a dead SLF, or on a live SLF that was subsequently never located again (lost). The total distance traveled and rate of travel for SLF that moved are also provided for females and males separately. Recovery frequencies were compared using the chi-square test and movement parameters were compared using t-test, or Wilcoxon test if not normally distributed. Means are followed by ±standard error, and values in the same row followed by different letters differed significantly (p < 0.05).
Measurement | Radio Telemetry | Harmonic Radar |
---|
No. recovered/total N tagged SLF (%) | 148/185 (80%) | 33/60 (55%) |
No. not recovered (% of total) a | 37 (20%) a | 27 (45%) b |
No. recovered > 0 m (% of recovered) a | 116 (78%) a | 20 (61%) a |
No. recovered < 3 m (% of recovered) a | 75 (51%) a | 19 (58%) a |
No. recovered 3+ m (% of recovered) a | 73 (49%) a | 14 (42%) a |
Total no. steps | 535 | 62 |
No. steps with movement (% of tot.) | 226 (42%) | 23 (37%) |
No. steps with duration = 1–3 d (% of tot.) | 471 (88%) | 42 (68%) |
No. 1–3 d steps with movement (%) | 183 (81%) | 6 (26%) |
Mean (max) time tracked (d) b | 7.3 ± 0.7 (37) a | 5.9 ± 1 (22) a |
Mean (max) no. observations per SLF b | 3.7 ± 0.4 (21) a | 2.2 ± 0.4 (11) b |
Mean (max) total dist. per SLF (m) b,c | 20.6 ± 5.4 (434) a | 12.5 ± 3.7 (60) a |
Mean (max) rate of movement (m/d) b | 1.9 ± 0.4 (144.7) a | 0.7 ± 0.2 (5.2) b |
N tagged SLF females (N moved) | 91 (65) | 34 (12) |
Mean (max) total female distance (m) b | 31.8 ± 9 (434) a | 13.4 ± 6 (60) a |
Mean (max) female rate (m/d) b | 5.9 ± 1.3 (145) a | 1.8 ± 0.5 (5) b |
N tagged SLF males (N moved) | 94 (51) | 26 (8) |
Mean (max) total male distance (m) b | 6.3 ± 1.3 (57) a | 11.2 ± 3.9 (28) a |
Mean (max) male rate (m/d) b | 2.2 ± 0.3 (11) a | 2.8 ± 0.6 (5) a |
Table 2.
The frequencies (and number of steps) that all tracked SLF females (F) and males (M) were located in different habitat types. Movements by release habitat in three habitat types (field, forest edge, and inner forest) are shown. Those that were found in the same habitat type as where they were released are shown in bold, for each of the five release sites (R1–R5), and for both years and technologies.
Table 2.
The frequencies (and number of steps) that all tracked SLF females (F) and males (M) were located in different habitat types. Movements by release habitat in three habitat types (field, forest edge, and inner forest) are shown. Those that were found in the same habitat type as where they were released are shown in bold, for each of the five release sites (R1–R5), and for both years and technologies.
Release Location—Habitat | | Frequency Found (n) | Total Steps |
---|
Sex | Field | Forest Edge | Inner Forest |
---|
R1—Tree island in field | F | 100% (33) | 0% | 0% | 33 |
| M | 100% (32) | 0% | 0% | 32 |
R2—Forest edge | F | 9.4% (3) | 37.5% (12) | 53.1% (17) | 32 |
| M | 16.1% (5) | 58.1% (18) | 25.8% (8) | 31 |
R3—Inner forest | F | 9.4% (12) | 18.8% (24) | 71.9% (92) | 128 |
| M | 0% | 12.2% (14) | 87.8% (101) | 115 |
R4—Inner forest | F | 0% | 7.9% (11) | 92.1% (129) | 140 |
| M | 0% | 0% | 100% (65) | 65 |
R5—Forest edge | F | 0% | 100% (26) | 0% | 26 |
| M | 0% | 100% (5) | 0% | 5 |
Table 3.
Movement parameters for SLF adults tracked with HR over two years using tags of different materials. In 2019, each adult was affixed with a platinum antenna and released at Trexler Nature Preserve. In 2020, each adult was affixed with a nitinol antenna and released at Beaver Brook Nature Preserve. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Table 3.
Movement parameters for SLF adults tracked with HR over two years using tags of different materials. In 2019, each adult was affixed with a platinum antenna and released at Trexler Nature Preserve. In 2020, each adult was affixed with a nitinol antenna and released at Beaver Brook Nature Preserve. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Measurement | Platinum | Nitinol |
---|
Mean total distance (m) | 5.8 ± 4 a | 9.7 ± 4 a |
Max. total distance (m) | 60.0 | 50.2 |
Mean time tracked (d) | 4.0 ± 1 a | 8.2 ± 2 a |
Max time tracked (d) | 18 | 22 |
Mean obs./SLF | 1.2 ± 0.1 a | 2.7 ± 0.7 b |
Max. obs./SLF | 2 | 11 |
Mean rate (m/d) | 2.5 ± 0.8 a | 1.9 ± 0.4 a |
Max. rate (m/d) | 5.0 | 5.2 |
N SLF | 43 | 17 |
Table 4.
Movement parameters for SLF nymphs tracked with HR in a corn field. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Table 4.
Movement parameters for SLF nymphs tracked with HR in a corn field. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Measurement | Nitinol | Tungsten |
---|
Mean total distance (m) | 16 ± 4 a | 8 ± 3 a |
Max. total distance (m) | 27.6 | 17.7 |
Mean time tracked (d) | 5.07 ± 0.01 a | 3 ± 1 b |
Max. time tracked (d) | 5.09 | 5.10 |
Mean obs./SLF | 3 ± 0 a | 2 ± 1 a |
Max obs./SLF | 3 | 3 |
Mean rate (m/d) | 4.3 ± 0.6 a | 6 ± 2 a |
Max. rate (m/d) | 9.9 | 19.0 |
N | 5 | 5 |
Table 5.
Movement parameters for SLF nymphs tracked with HR at the corn field/forest interface. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Table 5.
Movement parameters for SLF nymphs tracked with HR at the corn field/forest interface. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Measurement | Nitinol | Tungsten |
---|
Mean total distance (m) | 3.0 ± 0.3 a | 0.8 ± 0.2 b |
Max. total distance (m) | 4 | 1.3 |
Mean time tracked (d) | 1.5 ± 0.2 a | 0.8 ± 0.3 a |
Max. time tracked (d) | 1.83 | 1.83 |
Mean obs./SLF | 3.4 ± 0.4 a | 2.0 ± 0.5 a |
Max obs./SLF | 4 | 4 |
Mean rate (m/d) | 2.2 ± 0.6 a | 1.8 ± 0.9 a |
Max. rate (m/d) | 4.7 | 5.5 |
N | 5 | 5 |
Table 6.
Movement parameters for nymphal SLF tracked with HR compared between micro-locations (in corn field “Corn” and at the corn field/forest interface “Edge”). Tag types have been combined for this analysis. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Table 6.
Movement parameters for nymphal SLF tracked with HR compared between micro-locations (in corn field “Corn” and at the corn field/forest interface “Edge”). Tag types have been combined for this analysis. Values followed by different letters are significantly different by t-test (p < 0.05).
Measurement | Corn | Edge |
---|
Mean total distance (m) | 12 ± 3 a | 1.9 ± 0.4 b |
Max. total distance (m) | 27.6 | 4.0 |
Mean time tracked (d) | 3.9 ± 0.6 a | 1.2 ± 0.2 b |
Max. time tracked (d) | 5.1 | 1.83 |
Mean obs./SLF | 2.5 ± 0.3 a | 2.7 ± 0.4 a |
Max obs./SLF | 3 | 4 |
Mean rate (m/d) | 3.3 ± 0.4 a | 2.1 ± 0.5 b |
Max. rate (m/d) | 5.4 | 5.5 |
N | 10 | 10 |
Table 7.
A summary showing the timing of activities of tagged SLF adult females (F) and males (M). A single X indicates the stage with the activity. If more than one stage had the activity, XX represents the stage with more intense activity.
Table 7.
A summary showing the timing of activities of tagged SLF adult females (F) and males (M). A single X indicates the stage with the activity. If more than one stage had the activity, XX represents the stage with more intense activity.
| | Timing of Peak Intensity * |
---|
Activity of Tagged SLF | Sex | Early-1 | Early-2 | Mid | Late-1 | Late-2 |
---|
Frequent movement (>50%) | F | XX | | X | | |
(Figure 3B) | M | | | XX | | X |
Greatest distances per SLF | F | | | | X | |
(Figure 4A) | M | | | X | | |
Longest step distances | F | | | | X | |
(Figure 4D,E) | M | | | | X | XX |
Fastest rates of movement | F | | | X | XX | |
(Figure 5B,C) | M | | | | X | XX |
Distance increases with height | F | X | | | X | |
(Figure 6D) | M | | | X | X | |
Shift above eye level (>85%) | F | | | | X | |
(Figure 7) | M | | X | | X | |
Mostly above 8 m high (>50%) | F | | | X | | |
(Figure 6F) | M | | | XX | X | |
Found near tight aggregations | F | | | X | XX | X |
(Figure 9) | M | | | X | XX | X |
Courtship observed | Both | | | X | XX | X |