Abstract The brown marmorated stinkbug (Halyomorpha halys) and the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum) are Hemipteran insects that are prevalent pests in homes, gardens, and agricultural practices. Suggested pest control methods for pest population reduction include synthetic pesticides, organic pesticides, and dish detergents. Preference and avoidance behaviors to dish detergent were observed in A. pisum and the lethal effects of dish detergent were evaluated in H. halys. Behaviors and lethality were observed in arenas with different configurations of soaked and dried filter papers. Brown marmorated stink bug lethality tests were not choice-based, whereas the pea aphid preference/avoidance tests were choice-based. Pea aphids spent the most time in the dry locations of the arena. Direct physical contact of the treatment killed all of the stink bugs. Despite the preference of dry substrate, contact with the wet treatment were most commonly followed by fatalities. However, since dish detergent is a readily available household chemical, the option to use dish detergent for pest control could provide a faster and safer way to eliminate pests as opposed to synthetic pesticides that are associated with human health risk and environmental pollution. 1 Introduction Insects are a very diverse group of animals, but are often viewed as pests. The insects most often considered as pests endanger human health, affect agricultural practices, and can damage various buildings or structures (Welfare, 1976). Pestilent insects cause massive infestations in a relatively short amount of time. When people are overwhelmed or outnumbered by the large population of insects, a very common response is to annihilate the infestation to be relieved of the annoyance (Brockerhoff et al. 2006). However, there could be a negative tradeoff when trying to eliminate their populations. When these harmful methods are applied, we often neglect the consideration of the long-term impact for the sake of fast results. Certain eradication methods involving the use of synthetic pesticides can potentially be harmful to humans, animals, plants, and the environment (Damalas & Elefthorinos, 2011). Alongside these efforts to decrease their populations, we are also increasing the cost of management for the pests. The negative impacts of our control methods should be considered in order to determine whether the costs outweigh the benefits for the situation. There are two general types of insecticide, systemic and contact. Systemic pesticides are water soluble chemicals that become incorporated into the plants’ cells upon absorption (Merchant, 2014). When the insect eats the plant it also takes in the chemical eventually causing its demise. Whereas contact pesticides involve physical contact with the pest. Chemical insecticides can cause nerve impulse interference, enzyme inhibition, irregular growth, and disrupt ion movement across nerve cell surfaces 2 (Eaton, 2002). These chemicals are very lethal to insects, thus eliminating the pest problem. The easiest solution to eradicate an infestation is to use chemical pesticides. These chemicals can lead to negative environmental consequences and increase risk for human health (Ye, et al. 2016). Ingestion of some of these chemicals can be very dangerous. Certain groups are more sensitive to exposure of pesticides, including but not limited to elderly, children, and pregnant women. Pesticides can be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and genotoxic; they can also function as endocrine disruptors (Damalas & Elegtherohorinos, 2011). Unprotected exposure to any sort of toxin for an extended period of time will inevitably become detrimental to a person’s long-term health. Traces of these toxins could contaminate drinking water or be found on crops that could eventually be sold to the public (Arias-Estevez et al. 2008). As a safety hazard, these chemicals are federally regulated, but that does not always guarantee safety. Additionally, synthetic pesticides can also act as environmental pollutants and endanger human health (Damalas & Eleftherohorinos, 2011). The degradation and absorption influence how pesticides remain in soil (Arias-Estevez, et al. 2007). When pesticides remain in soil, they can potentially be transferred into groundwater based on the landscape’s characteristics as well as the chemical composition of the pesticide. Groundwater makes up almost half of the nation’s drinking water, and people in agricultural areas use 95% of their groundwater for drinking water (USGS, 2016). Pesticides can also be transported into water through agricultural runoff, where the chemicals travel from farm waters into streams, ponds, lakes, or coastal areas. 3 Water from the farms is transported through rain, melted snow, or irrigation systems. Erosion rills and slope are very important for determining whether an area has a high potential for agricultural runoff (Dabrowski, et al. 2002). One way or another, pesticides can travel into our drinking water, and increase health risks associated with contaminated drinking water. Pesticides can harm non-target animals that could be beneficial to a local ecosystem. The ideal goal for pest control is to prevent the insect from damaging or invading an environment without affecting non-target species. As a pollutant, pesticides can negatively affect environmental characteristics necessary for the reproductive success of other living organisms. Altering the composition of soils, water, and air could potentially endanger species that are sensitive to environmental changes. Birds are typical non-target species that are affected by chemical pesticides. There are numerous studies that show how insecticides can cause massive mortality in bird populations as well as reduced breeding success (Mineau, 2005). Using a chemical that is safe for non-target species is critical for reducing environmental impact. Potentially, pesticides can lose effectiveness after a period of time has passed where the pests have developed a resistance to the toxin (Brattsten et al. 1986). Organisms with toxin resistance rely on genetic, biochemical, and ecological components. The resistance gene could result from a mutation, translocation, or rearrangement within the organism’s genome. That gene is passed onto the next generation, then continues to be spread in the population. In the insects’ case, this process is faster since insects reproduce frequently and have large numbers of offspring. Environmental pressures reduce the amount of individuals that lack the resistance gene, 4 and favor the survival of individuals with the resistance gene. The surviving individuals live longer to produce more offspring, hence passing on the gene into the next generation. Biochemical mechanisms include metabolic defenses, target site insensitivity, and physiological combinations of resistance mechanisms. Organisms can also develop behavioral resistance mechanisms with preference and avoidance behaviors to overcome physical or chemical obstacles produced from pesticides. Pesticide resistance is an inevitable fate for all chemical pesticides. Evolutionary mechanisms across a spatial and temporal scale must be considered for a dynamic pest management plan. Alternative pest control methods can be combined with additional methods for effective pest management. Variation in treatment can increase the arsenal of tools that can be used for pest management, and changing the types of applied treatments could help fight the evolutionary component associated with pesticide resistance. Understanding the lethal effects a chemical has on an organism allows us to measure how long it takes for exposure to cause mortality in pests (Bergmann & Raupp, 2014). Using percent mortality to indicate effectiveness of pesticide provides a simple way to measure pesticide effectiveness. Studying lethal, non-lethal, and sub-lethal effects of an insecticide can show how the pest reacts when the pesticide is present (Hanna & Hanna, 2012). The effectiveness of a pesticide is important to know prior to application. Without the knowledge of pesticide effectiveness, money could be wasted and the environment could suffer with the presence of pests and pesticides. Alternatives to synthetic pesticides include organic insecticides, crop rotation strategies, home remedies, and biological control (Lee et al. 2014). One home remedy to combat insect infestations is Dawn dish detergent mixed with water. Dawn dish detergent 5 proclaims to save wildlife by removing grease while being gentle on the animals (Newman, et al. 2003). Cranshaw (1996) described that small soft-bodied insects were more susceptible to the lethal effects of dish detergent, and that larger hard-bodied insects and caterpillars were immune to the lethal effects. Aphids are most vulnerable to soapdetergent-based insecticide since they are small soft-bodied insects, and stinkbugs are also susceptible to this type of pesticide (Weigel, 2011). Soaps and detergents must be directly applied to the insect in order for it to be effective, and are most likely to kill softbodied small insects. Although the causation to lethality from soaps is not thoroughly understood. Either soap is thought to disrupt the cell membranes of the insect or the detergent removes protective waxy coatings secreted by the insect to prevent desiccation (Cranshaw, 1996). Since dish detergent is an easily accessible household cleaning product, home owners can easily create a solution that could deter the stench and eliminate stink bugs. The stink bugs can encounter the solution in multiple forms. Encounter types include direct contact, a treated wet surface, and a treated dry surface. This experiment can determine if more individuals die when the soap solution is applied directly onto their backs, and see if more individuals die on the wet filter paper, and less individuals die on the dried filter paper. In addition, time of death was measured to see how long it takes for the treatment or control to kill the individual. Halyomorpha halys are an invasive stink bug species that can be found in homes and agricultural practices (Bergmann & Raupp, 2014). Agricultural and ornamental plants are the main food sources for H. halys; soybeans, tomatoes, peaches, and apples are the most common agricultural targets. This species was accidentally introduced into 6 the United States, and was initially spotted in Allentown, Pennsylvania (Lee et al, 2014). Their populations are massively growing on a regional scale, since they are very fast reproducers. The nymphs and adults feed on fruit (Lee, et al. 2014). One female stinkbug can lay twenty-eight eggs on the underside of leaves (Nielson & Hamilton, 2009). Due to their growing numbers, scientists have been developing efficient methods to try to reduce the negative ecological and economic impacts of their growing population. Aphids are very prevalent agricultural pests that are also in the same order as the stinkbug, Hemiptera. Infestations begin when winged adults fly to a plant, lays the eggs, and the hatched young feed on the plant. Aphid herbivory kills plants by injecting their phytotoxic saliva while they are feeding (Dedryver et al. 2014). During toxin injection, aphids can also transmit viruses to the plant host, and a byproduct of phloem feeding, honeydew, can attract deadly molds that can disrupt photosynthesis (Dedryver et al. 2010). Needless to say, aphids are lethal to their host plants in numerous ways. In order to combat aphid-caused plant mortalities, agricultural practices typically use insecticides in attempt to kill the insects. Aphids a are known to be sensitive to dish detergent (Cranshaw, 1996). Within a laboratory arena, preference and avoidance behaviors were recorded to study how dawn dish detergent could alter insect behavior or lead to death. To determine the preference/avoidance behaviors of aphids, the insects were placed into arenas with different substrates. Showing that dish detergent kills aphids and stinkbugs through various exposure methods, could provide an effective method that can be incorporated into a dynamic pest management plan. Brown Marmorated Stinkbug: Methods 7 Stink bugs were collected from a volunteer’s property in Brownsville, Pennsylvania. She collected them from a tarp or coat on mornings and evenings. Halymorpha halys were kept in a plastic container with apple slices. For lethality evaluation, ten individuals had the treatment directly placed on the dorsal side, ten individuals had the control (water) directly placed on the dorsal side, ten individuals were placed in the wet control arena, ten individuals were placed in the wet treatment arena, ten individuals were placed in the dry control arena, and ten individuals were placed in the dry treatment arena. Altogether, sixty stinkbugs were observed during this experiment. The container was kept in laboratory settings throughout the study. Each specimen was used once for each sample. The individuals that survived were sacrificed after observations were complete in order to prevent further spread of these invasive insects. A one-to-one dilution (100 ml Dawn dish soap and 100 ml water) will be created for each treatment. Water was used as a control to compare the effects of the treatment. The three types of contact that were used included: soaked filter paper, dried filter paper, and direct contact. Each of these contact types were sampled ten times for treatment and ten times for the control, making the samples size a total of sixty separate monitoring periods. Ten pieces of filter paper was soaked with 6ml of the solution, and ten pieces of filter paper were soaked with 3 ml of water. In order to fully soak the filter paper with the treatment, a larger amount was applied since the treatment solution was thicker. Another set of ten pieces of filter paper were soaked with 6ml of the solution, then placed on a line with a clothespin to dry; the same drying method was also used for 3ml of water. For both of the control or the solution direct contact samples, 3 ml of either water or the 8 solution was applied. A single specimen was placed into a 100x20mm petri dish with a water or soap mixture. If the specimen did not die after an hour, it was counted as living. A binomial regression model was used to analyze the amount of deaths for each exposure type, and a chi-square test was used to determine the test statistic. Using a twosample t-test, the amount of time until death for both direct contact treatment and control was compared in vassarstats.net. To determine the difference in the amount of time until death in the wet control, wet treatment, dried control, and dried treatment, a one-way ANOVA was used. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the difference in amount of time until death for the direct contact control and treatment. Brown Marmorated Stinkbug Results Direct contact of the solution killed all of the stinkbugs in less than an hour, and direct contact with water killed two stinkbugs. The groups with filter paper that was soaked in water then dried mostly lived, except for one. Filter paper soaked in water showed no lethal results, and filter paper soaked in the solution resulted in less than half living and more than half dead. The chi-square test showed that the p-value was less than 0.001, which means there is a statistical significance in the results. It took 4 minutes for the only individual in the dried control arena to die (see Figure 2). The two-sample t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the average time of death observed in direct contact with the control and direct contact with the treatment (see Table1). On average the amount of time it took for individuals in the direct contact control arena to die was 3 minutes (see Figure 1). The average amount of time it took for individuals in the direct contact treatment arena was 9.4 minutes. The average amount of 9 time it took for individuals in the wet treatment filter paper was 21.4 minutes. The oneway ANOVA showed that there was not a significant difference between groups (see Table 2). Average Time of Death for Each Arena Type Average Time of Dath 15 12 9 6 3 0 DCC Arena Type DCT Figure 1. Average time of death for direct contact. DCC= Direct contact control, DCT= Direct contact treatment. 10 Table 1. Stinkbug Lethality T-test comparing direct contact exposure with the control and the treatment solutions Average Time of Death in Each Arena 30 Average Time of Death 25 20 15 10 5 0 WFT WFC DFC DFT Arena Type Figure 2. Average time of death comparing wet and dried filter paper. WFT= Wet treatment filter paper, WCT= Wet control filter paper, DFC= Dried control filter paper, Dried treatment filter paper 11 Table 2. Stinkbug Lethality ANOVA comparing wet and dried exposure methods. 1= Wet control, 2= Wet treatment, 3= Dried control, and 4= Dried treatment Figure 3: Plots percent mortality seen in the various treatment categories, DCC= Direct Contact Control, DCT= Direct Contact Treatment, DFC= Dried Filter paper with Control, DFT= Dried Filter paper with Treatment, WFC= Wet Filter paper with Control, and WFT= Wet Filter paper with Treatment. 12 For the treatment samples: direct contact resulted in 100% mortality, dry filter paper resulted in 0% mortality, and wet filter paper resulted in 70%. The control samples showed that: direct contact caused 20% mortality, dried filter paper caused 10% mortality, and wet filter paper caused 0% mortality (see Figure 3). Due to the accident during transfer, the results for the dried control filter paper can lead to false conclusions about the effect dried filter paper on stink bugs. Aside from that sampling error, the results were statistically significant for the various types of exposure to the solution or the control water. There was a difference in percent mortality in each of the treatment categories, where the dried treatments had less mortalities than the wet treatments. Pea Aphid Methods One-hundred insects were ordered from an online resource. They were kept inside of a plastic container, and a plant was placed inside as a food source. The experiments were conducted shortly after the delivery of the aphids due to their short life cycle (Flat & Weisser, 2000). A one-to-one dilution (100 ml water and 100 ml Dawn dish soap) was used as the treatment and water was used as the control solution. Filter paper was cut into four pieces prior to soaking in water or the solution for 40 trials for a two-choice observation experiment. Filter paper fragments were soaked in the treatment solution or soaked in water for the control study. The two-choice trial arena was made inside a petri dish with the wet control and a wet treatment filter paper slices placed diagonally from one another (see Figure 4A). A single aphid was placed into the empty space in petri dish between the two choices, and individual aphid behavior was recorded using continuous focal animal sampling over a 45-minute time period. Aphids were euthanized inside excess solution after observations were completed. 13 The four-choice trial arena was made inside a petri dish (see Figure 4B). Filter papers were soaked in treatment or water, then hung to dry on a line with clothespins. Other pieces of filter paper were only soaked in water or the treatment. Dried treated filter papers were placed on the left and right portions of the arena, and the wet treated filter papers were placed on the top and bottom portions of the arena. The arena floor was completely covered by the pieces of filter paper, and the only other choice was to crawl on the walls or lid of the petri dish. After the behavioral monitoring study, surviving aphids were doused in the treatment solution. Behaviors were categorized and described in the ethogram below. Duration of time elapsed during a behavioral state was measured. The statistical significance of preference for two-choice and four-choice trials was tested using an ANOVA. Statistical significance of death location was determined based on the observed amount of deaths at each station compared to the expected amount of deaths at each station. Deaths were counted in each category, and the dead individuals were taken out of the data set for the statistical analysis. Behavior On Wet Control Neither Initial On Wet Treatment On Dried Control 2- Choice and 4-Choice Behaviors Abbreviation Description WC The individual is directly on top of the wet control filter paper. (State) N Individual is not on any of the filter paper stations. This includes individuals on the lid, empty floor space (2Choice only), and the walls of the arena. (State) I 2-Choice only: On the empty space where the aphid was initially placed for observations. Individual is not moving to other stations. (State) WT Individual is directly on top of the wet treatment filter paper. (State) 4-Choice Only DC Individual is directly on the dried control, could be underneath or on top of the paper. (State) 14 On Dried DT Individual is directly on the dried treatment, could be Treatment underneath or on top of the paper. (State) Table 3: Aphid Ethogram describing the behaviors observed in the arena. Empty WC DT WC WT Empty WT DC Figures 4 A & B: Figure 4A is a diagram of the layout of the 2-choice arena. Figure 4B is a diagram of the layout of the 4-choice arena. Key: WC= wet control, WT=wet treatment, DC= dried control, and DT=dried treatment. Pea Aphid Results During the two-choice trials, individuals spent an equal amount of time at both the wet control and wet treatment stations. Individuals spent the most time in empty spaces (neither) or stayed in the initial space where they were placed (Figure 6). The one-way ANOVA test showed a p-value less than 0.0001 (Table 2). With the Tukey HSD Test, pvalue could be measured for each category (Table 3). Comparing the initial and empty space locations had a p-value less than 0.01, and comparing the wet control and the wet treatment had a nonsignificant p-value. In the 4-Choice Trials spent most time at dry control and empty spaces. Individuals spent about 3 minutes at dried treatment station. Average spent an equal small amount of time at wet control and wet treatment. 15 ANOVA I 20.62 413.67 20.34 N 20.83 395.08 19.88 WC 1.76 18.48 4.30 WT 1.93 66.42 8.15 Standard Error 3.78 3.69 0.80 1.51 ANOVA-n 29 ANOVA-F 15.42 ANOVA-p <0.0001 ANOVA-df 3 Average Variance Standard Deviation Table 2 Two-choice ANOVA results Tukey HSD I vs N I vs WC I vs WT N vs WC N vs WT WC vs WT p-value Nonsignificant P<0.01 P<0.01 P<0.01 P<0.01 Nonsignificant Table 3 Two-choice Tukey HSD, compares the four variables to each other Average Amount of Time Spent at Each Station in 2-Choice Trials 30 Minutes 25 20 15 10 5 0 I N WC WT Type of Exposure Figure 6: Average amount of time spent at each station in minutes within the two-choice arena. Key: I= Initial, N= neither, WC= wet control, and WT= wet treatment. 16 In four-choice trials, most of the time was spent in the dry control and other locations. The least amount of time was spent on the wet treatment, wet control, and the dried treatment respectively. About eighteen minutes were spent at dried control and neither locations (Table 4). Comparing the five choices: other, dried treatment, dried control, wet control, and wet treatment, the aphids spent the most time at the dry control station and other locations in the petri dish (Figure 7). The ANOVA test resulted in a pvalue less than 0.0001. Using the Tukey HSD Test, there was a significant difference (p<0.01) between the dried control and the dried treatment (Table 5). There was not a significant difference between the wet control and the wet treatment. In comparison to neither locations and the other four choices, there was a significant difference among neither and all choices except for dried control. The neither locations and the dried control had an insignificant p-value. Eleven out of the forty individuals died in the two-choice trials: zero died in the initial, two died in neither, four died in wet control, and five died in the wet treatment. With a Fisher’s Exact Test 2x4 contingency table, the probability observed death frequencies were compared to the probability expected death frequencies for each station, P A =0.535 and P B =0.507 with 3 degrees of freedom. Three out of the forty individuals died in the four-choice trials: two died in the dried control, zero died in the dried treatment, zero died in the wet control, and one died in the wet treatment. With a 2x5 contingency table, the probability of observed deaths was compared to the probability of the expected amount of deaths were compared. According to the 2x5 contingency table, the Chi-Square indicated that the p-value was less than 0.0001. ANOVA Average DC 18.86 DT 3.95 WC 2.89 O 18.86 WT 0.73 17 Variance Standard Deviation Standard Error 294.065 42.164 17.148 6.493 28.044 5.296 13.036 3.611 227.398 15.0797 2.819 0.871 0.594 2.479 1.0675 ANOVA-n 37 24.93 4 ANOVA-p <0.0001 Table 4 Four-choice ANOVA results ANOVA-F ANOVA-df Tukey HSD p-value <0.01 DC vs DT <0.01 DC vs WC <0.01 DC vs WT Nonsignificant DC vs N Nonsignificant DT vs WC Nonsignificant DT vs WT <0.01 DT vs N nonsignificant WC vs WT <0.01 WC vs N <0.01 WT vs N Table 5 Four-choice Tukey HSD, compares the five variables to each other Average Time Spent at Each Station in 4-Choice Trial 25 Minutes 20 15 10 5 0 DC DT WC WT N Treatment Type Figure 7: Average amount of time spent at each station in minutes within the four-choice arena. Key: DC= dried control, DT= dried treatment, WC= wet control, WT= wet treatment, and N=neither. 18 The statistical data showed that there was low standard error in the two-choice trials, as well as low standard error values in the four-choice trials. In regard to statistical significance, both the two-choice and four-choice trials had a p-value was less than 0.0001. This low statistical test value means that both experiments had significantly different results among treatment and control. Aphids spent more time in other spaces in the petri dish during the two-choice trials, and they spent the least amount of time in the wet spaces in the two-choice observations. During the four-choice trials, the aphids spent the most time at the dry control station and other locations within the petri dish. Based on the results, aphids spent the most time in dry spaces and spaces without the treatment solution. These results suggest that aphids prefer dry substrates and avoid wet substrates. Discussion Most insects with larger bodies were less likely to be affected by dish detergent (Cranshaw, 2008). However, results from the observation of lethal effects on stink bugs indicate that Halyomorpha halys. All stinkbugs were killed with the direct contact treatment, and half of the stinkbugs died on the treated substrate. Since the stinkbug experiment was designed to assess lethality of dish detergent, the individuals did not have choices on what substrate and treatments they were exposed to. One individual died in the dried control arena. That particular specimen was accidentally dropped on the ground during transfer from container to the petri dish, which may have been the main cause of death. Stinkbugs that were placed in a petri dish with dry filter paper that was previously soaked in the solution, did not die after an hour. According to the results from this study, stinkbugs were susceptible to the lethal effects of wet dish detergent. 19 Preference and avoidance behaviors were assessed in aphids since their softbodies were more susceptible to the lethal effects of dish detergent. The results from the two-choice trials showed that most time was spent at the initial introduction spot or a space that was neither the wet control or the wet treatment. In the two-choice trials, there was not a significant difference between amount of time spent at the wet treatment station and the wet control station. However, more individuals died on the wet treatment and wet control; two died in neither location and zero died in the initial space. For the four-choice trials, the aphids spent more time at the uncovered/neither region, dry control, and the dry control. This could suggest a preference for dry substrates and possible avoidance of wet substrates. With the growing amounts of stinkbug populations, we need more pest management methods to attempt to reduce their impact on homes and agricultural fields (Lee, et al. 2014). These chemicals can also be detrimental to human health, specifically harmful to children, pregnant women, and people with respiratory health complications (Ye, et al. 2016). As an air pollutant, pesticides could contribute to the greenhouse effect as well as increase risks for respiratory health. These pesticides can be carried away with the wind into populated areas, depending on wind velocity, humidity, and temperature (Damalas & Eleftherohorinos, 2011). Pesticide drift counts an air pollutant that can potentially endanger respiratory health issues and inadvertently cause surface water contamination (Harrison, 2011). Harmful insecticides can also affect non-target species abundance and distribution (Welch & Lundgren, 2016). Bird populations are shown to be affected the most; insecticides can cause increased mortality, reduced breeding success, or physiological 20 and behavioral effects (Mineau, 2005). Non-target invertebrates that are important to the ecosystem can also be adversely affected by pesticide application (Hanna & Hanna, 2012). Environmental consequences could be avoided if we use alternative pest management methods with organic pest control (Lee, et al. 2014). Using an easily accessible household product for stinkbug and aphid eradication would be more convenient to households and agricultural practices. Household products like dish detergent could be safer for human health. However, there could be negative ecological consequences when using dish detergent. The detergent could damage plants that are sensitive to the chemical in the detergent (Cranshaw, 2008). Cranshaw (2008) also stated that the detergent solution could be diluted more with water to reduce these negative impacts on plants. Stinkbugs and aphids are very common agricultural pests that require a dynamic pest management plan. Incorporating multiple different types of pest control methods into a plan adds diversity to treatment options that can reduce the likelihood of negative impacts on wildlife, human health, and the environment, as well as increased effectiveness. The integrated pest management strategy involves simultaneous management for an array of pests, monitor natural predators of the pest, apply a certain amount of pesticides, and use multiple suppressive techniques (Ehler, 2006). Adding another suppressive technique to an integrated pest management plan offers more pest control methods that could be chosen depending on the nature of the infestation as well as the environment. Future studies may want to investigate the impacts of dish detergent on crops and non-target species, or possibly replicate this study with an increased sample size. Other 21 researchers could possibly determine what chemical component of the dish detergent kills stinkbugs, then compare their results to commercial pesticides. Overall, the goal for future studies would be to determine alternative pest control methods that could be implemented into a pest management plan. 22 References Arias-Estévez, M., López-Periago, E., Martínez-Carballo, E., Simal-Gándara, J., Mejuto, J. C., & García-Río, L. (2008). The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 123(4), 247-260. Bergmann, E. J., & Raupp, M. J. (2014). Efficacies of common ready to use insecticides against Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Florida Entomologist, 97(2), 791-800. Brattsten, L. B., Holyoke Jr, C. W., Leeper, J. R., & Raffa, K. F. (1986). Insecticide resistance: challenge to pest management and basic research. Science, 231, 12551261. Brockerhoff, E. G., Liebhold, A. M., & Jactel, H. (2006). The ecology of forest insect invasions and advances in their management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36(2), 263-268. Cranshaw, W. (1996). Insect control: soaps and detergents. Colorado State University Extension Service. http://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/insect/05547.pdf Dabrowski, J. M., Peall, S. K., Van Niekerk, A., Reinecke, A. J., Day, J. A., & Schulz, R. (2002). Predicting runoff-induced pesticide input in agricultural sub-catchment surface waters: linking catchment variables and contamination. Water Research, 36(20), 4975-4984. Damalas, C. A., & Eleftherohorinos, I. G. (2011). Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk assessment indicators. International journal of environmental research and public health, 8(5), 1402-1419. 23 Dedryver, C. A., Le Ralec, A., & Fabre, F. (2010). The conflicting relationships between aphids and men: a review of aphid damage and control strategies. Comptes rendus biologies, 333(6), 539-553. Eaton, A. (2002). How insecticides work. University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. https://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/resource000504_rep526.pdfFlatt, T., & Weisser, W. W. (2000). The effects of mutualistic ants on aphid life history traits. Ecology, 81(12), 3522-3529. Hanna, C., & Hanna, C. (2012). The lethal and sublethal effects of three pesticides on the striped lynx spider (Oxyopes salticus Hentz). Journal of Applied Entomology, 137(1-2), 68-76. doi:10.1111/jen.12014 Harrison, J. L. (2011). Pesticide drift and the pursuit of environmental justice. Mit Press. Lee, D. H., Short, B. D., Nielsen, A. L., & Leskey, T. C. (2014). Impact of organic insecticides on the survivorship and mobility of Halyomorpha halys (Stål)(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in the laboratory. Florida Entomologist, 97(2), 414-421. Merchant, M. (2014). Understanding common house and garden insecticides. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Center. http://citybugs.tamu.edu/factsheets/ipm/ent-4002/ Mineau, P. (2005). Direct losses of birds to pesticides-Beginnings of a quantification. In Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference 2002 Muntz, H, Miller, R., and Alston, D. (2016). Alternative pest control methods for homeowners. Extension Utah State University. http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/AG_Pesticides_201602pr.pdf 24 Newman, S. H., Ziccardi, M. H., Berkner, A. B., Holcomb, J., Clumpner, C., & Mazet, J. A. (2003). A historical account of oiled wildlife care in California. Marine Ornithology, 31(1), 59-64. Nielsen, A. L., & Hamilton, G. C. (2009). Life history of the invasive species Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in northeastern United States. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 102(4), 608-616. USGS (2016). Pesticides in groundwater. US Department of the Interior | US Geological Survey https://water.usgs.gov/edu/pesticidesgw.html Weigel, G. (2011). Soaping the stink bugs. Penn Live http://www.pennlive.com/gardening/2011/04/soaping_the_stink_bugs.html Welch, K. D., & Lundgren, J. G. (2016). An exposure-based, ecology-driven framework for selection of indicator species for insecticide risk assessment. Food Webs, 9(Molecular and isotopic approaches to food webs in agroecosystems), 46-54. doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.02.004 Welfare, E. (1976). Safe and effective use of pesticides. Extension Bulletin, 1032, 8. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED158995.pdf Ye, M., Beach, J., Martin, J. W., & Senthilselvan, A. (2016). Review: Pesticide exposures and respiratory health in general populations. Journal Of Environmental Sciences, doi:10.1016/j.jes.2016.11.012