Ash (Fraxinus spp.) is in rapid decline across the northeastern USA due to the invasive emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire). Three recently co-occurring confamilial species may serve as alternative larval host plants for ash-reliant Lepidoptera. These prospective hosts are nonnative shrubs often planted in managed suburban landscapes and are sometimes invasive or naturalized in North America. Given the imminent decline of ash trees, we considered potential downstream effects on insect herbivores historically specialized on ash foliage. We measured the performance of three ash-specialist hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) on native white ash (Fraxinus americana L.) and alternative host plants: common lilac (Syringa vulgaris L.), weeping forsythia [Forsythia suspensa (Thunb.) Vahl], and European privet (Ligustrum vulgare L.). We found the nonnative host plants provided varied support for larval survival to pupation, with biomass and growth rate affected differently by both plant and insect identity. Nearly all caterpillars reared on one alternative host, European privet, exhibited distinct malformations of the wing buds at pupation. Given caterpillar presence on privet in the field, privet may constitute an ecological trap (i.e., when female moths select a sub-optimal host, offspring survival and fitness are reduced). This work demonstrates how performance testing can reveal species-specific effects of host plant loss on mono- or oligophagous insects. For some ash specialists, alternative nonnative host plants may be suboptimal, but some cultivated host plants may be able to support certain specialist insects during native host decline. We suggest that landscaping decisions can be tailored to support threatened insect species.

Aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) extract nutrients from host plant phloem via stylets that facilitate salivation and sap uptake. When navigating to the phloem, aphids periodically puncture nonvascular cells and sample cell contents, but rarely cause significant cell damage. As a result, aphids are considered "stealthy" feeders. In contrast, insects that do cause damage, such as chewing herbivores, will take up host cell contents-including DNA-into their guts. Researchers can use molecular barcoding methods to identify recent host use patterns of chewing herbivores. This information is valuable for both pest management and basic ecological studies. Because of their stealthy feeding style, it was assumed that host plant DNA could not be recovered from aphids and other Sternorrhyncha. However, several recent studies document host plant DNA uptake by psyllids, which feed in a similar manner to aphids. Therefore, we hypothesized that aphids may also acquire DNA from host plants. Since aphids puncture and sample cytosol contents from cells, we predicted that aphids would be most likely to acquire DNA from chloroplasts. To test this, we performed host feeding and host transfer experiments with Myzus persicae (Sulzer), then used PCR to recover and sequence a region between the trnT and trnF genes from acquired chloroplast DNA. We found that M. persicae readily acquires chloroplast DNA, even prior to phloem contact, and that fragment sizes sufficient for host plant identification can be recovered. Our work suggests that molecular gut content analysis is a viable tool for studying aphid-host interactions.