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