Skip to content

Table 3. Details of host-range testing conducted on Leptoypha hospita in the USA with plants in the Oleaceae. Results for Forestiera are included although, to our knowledge, this is absent from NZ. Comparisons are in relation to L. sinense controls (e.g. an oviposition of 10.5% indicates that the number of eggs laid on a test plant was 10.5% of the number that were laid on L. sinense controls). Fundamental host = a species on which Leptoypha hospita could development from egg to adult in no-choice tests, which may or may not be utilised as a host in natural field conditions. Realised host = a plant species which is utilised in the field

Oleaceae genus Tribe (subtribe) Species tested Result no-choice test Result choice test Notes
Fontanesia Fontanseiae F. fortunei No adult feeding Not required Not a host
No oviposition
No development (egg to adult)
Forsythia Forsythiae F. × intermedia No adult feeding Not required Not a host
No oviposition
No development (egg to adult)
Jasminum Jasminiae J. nudiflorum Minor adult feeding (13.5%) Not required Not a host
Minor oviposition (10.5%)
No development (egg to adult)
Syringa Oleeae (Ligustrinae) S. patula Similar adult feeding (105%) Not done Fundamental host, no-choice tests indicates it is a poor host, but there may be a risk of spill-over attack.
Lower oviposition (27.2%)
Lower development (egg to adult; 29.2%)
S. meyeri Lower adult feeding (22.8%) Very low feeding (0.2%) Fundamental host, but low development in no-choice test and lack of oviposition in choice-test indicates it is unlikely to be attractive to L. hospita in field conditions
Lower oviposition (21.5%)
Lower development (egg to adult; 29.1 %) No oviposition
S. oblata Lower adult feeding (18.1%) Not done Fundamental host, no-choice tests indicates it is a poor host, but there may be a risk of spill-over attack.
Similar oviposition (69.7%)
Lower development (egg to adult; 22.6 %)
S. vulgaris Low adult feeding (9.4%) Not done Fundamental host, no-choice tests indicates it is a poor host, but there may be a risk of spill-over attack.
Similar oviposition (51.3%)
Lower development (egg to adult; 11.9 %)
Ligustrum Oleeae (Ligustrinae) L. japonicum Lower adult feeding (41.1%) Lower feeding (10.4%) Low development in no-choice tests indicates it is unlikely to be a good field host
Lower oviposition (19.6%)
Very low development (egg to adult; 2.1%) Low oviposition (7.2%)
L. vulgare Similar feeding (70.6%) Lower feeding (56.1%) Likely field host, but clear preference for L. sinense
Similar oviposition (78.7%)
Similar development (egg to adult; 142%) Lower oviposition (39.4%)
Fraxinus Oleeae (Fraxininae) F. pennsylvanica Minor adult feeding (15.2%) Very low adult feeding (4.8%) Fundamental host, but low oviposition in both tests indicated this is unlikely to be a realised host.
No oviposition
Very low development (egg to adult; 1.1%) Very low oviposition (0.4%)
F. nigra Lower adult feeding (48.3%) Lower low adult feeding (15.3%). Fundamental host, but low oviposition and development (egg to adult) indicates that it is a sub-optimal host.
Low oviposition (6.6%)
Lower development (egg to adult; 10.3%) Low oviposition (5.1%)
F. americana Lower adult feeding (11.4%) Low adult feeding (9.8%) Not a host
No oviposition
No development (egg to adult) No oviposition.
F. caroliniana Lower adult feeding (45%) Low adult feeding (6.3%) Not a host
No oviposition
No development (egg to adult) Very low oviposition (2.5%).
F. profunda Very low adult feeding (4.6%)   Not a host
Very low oviposition (1.9%)
No development (egg to adult)
F. quadrangulata Very low adult feeding (0.4%)   Not a host
Lower oviposition (14.4%)
No development (egg to adult)
Chionanthus Oleeae (Oleinae) C. virginicus Lower adult feeding (29.4%) Very low adult feeding (4.4%) Fundamental host. No-choice test indicates that it is a poor host and the choice test indicates  L. hospita is unlikely to be attracted to  C. virginicus in natural situations
Lower oviposition (29%)
Lower development (egg to adult; 17.6%) Very low oviposition (0.4%)
C. pygmaeus Lower adult feeding (37.2%)   Fundamental host. No-choice test indicates that it is a very poor host. 
Lower oviposition (16.4%).
Very low development (egg to adult; 2%)
Forestiera Oleeae (Oleinae) F. acuminata Greater adult feeding (207%) Low adult feeding (10.4%) Fundamental host. Low number of newly emerged adults indicates it is a relatively poor host and choice tests indicate a preference for Ligustrum, but spill over non-target attack is possible.
Similar oviposition (110%)
Fewer newly emerged adults (28%) Low oviposition (16.3%)
F. godfreyi No adult feeding   Not a host
Few eggs (11%)
No newly emerged adults
F. neomexicana Similar adult feeding Very low adult feeding (4.6%) Fundamental host. Reduced attack in choice tests indicates it is not as attractive to L. hospita as Ligustrum, but spill-over non-target attack is possible.
Similar oviposition
Similar newly emerged adults Low oviposition (23.1%)
F. segregata Lower adult feeding (26.7%) Low adult feeding (8%) Fundamental host. Low number of newly emerged adults in the no-choice test indicates it is a poor host and low adult feeding and oviposition in choice tests indicates it is not as attractive to L. hospita as Ligustrum, but spill over non-target attack is possible
Fewer eggs (49.5%)
Few newly emerged adults (8.9%) Low oviposition (17.1%)
Olea Oleeae (Oleinae) O. europaeus Very low adult feeding (3.8%) Very low feeding (0.3%) Not a host
No oviposition.
No development (egg to adult) Very low oviposition (0.4%) 
Osmanthus Oleeae (Oleinae) O. americanus No adult feeding Not required Not a host
No oviposition
No development (egg to adult)