Periodical Cicadas in Ohio

Cicadas (order Hemiptera; family Cicadidae) are medium to large-sized insects that occur worldwide (Dietrich, 2009). Ohio is home to both “annual” and “periodical” cicadas. Periodical cicadas emerge as adults in the spring, 13 or 17 years after completing their development underground. Annual cicadas also develop underground but emerge each year in the summer.

Cicadas are noisy insects with their loudest sound made by males to attract females. Male cicadas are equipped with two flexible phonatory organs called tymbals, or timbals, located near the top of the first abdominal segment and attached to muscles that contract at frequencies as high as 50 times per second (50 Hz) (Nahirney et al., 2006). The resulting vibrations of these ribbed membranes are amplified by the rest of the abdomen.

Annual cicadas emerge in relatively low numbers, and many people consider the singing of the males to be a pleasant “sound of summer.” Periodical cicadas emerge in enormous numbers with the collective noise made by tens of thousands of males perceived as far from pleasant.

Periodical cicadas are sometimes referred to as locusts in the United States. However, cicadas are related to sapsucking insects like planthoppers, leafhoppers, and spittlebugs. They bear no relation to the plant-chewing true locusts, which are grasshoppers (order Orthoptera). This mistaken identity originated with early European colonists who interpreted the sudden appearance of huge numbers of periodical cicadas as a plague of locusts like those referenced in Exodus 10:1–20.

Identification

Periodical cicadas belong to the genus Magicicada, and they only occur in North America. Ohio is home to six species of periodical cicadas. Three species have 17-year life cycles:

1. M. cassini (Fisher).
2. M. septendecula Alexander and Moore.
3. M. septendecim (Linnaeus).

Three species have 13-year life cycles:

1. M. tredecassini Alexander and Moore.
2. M. tredecula Alexander and Moore.
3. M. tredecim (Walsh and Riley) (Kritsky et al., 2017).

Adult periodical cicadas have black bodies and orange-to-yellow wing veins. Their wide-set red to orangish-red compound eyes are located next to short, bristle-like antennae. The abdominal segments on the underside of some species are yellow to yellowish orange which is a feature used to identify the different species. Cicadas measure between 1 to 1 ¹/₂ inches from the front of the head to the tip of their wings, depending on the species.

Immature periodical cicadas are called nymphs, and they live in the soil. The tan to brown-colored nymphs vaguely resemble wingless versions of the adults. However, their enlarged front legs are modified for digging through the soil. The eyes of the nymphs turn red the autumn before they are to emerge in the spring.

A prominent feature found on both the adults and nymphs is a tube-like proboscis that houses piercing-sucking mouthparts. As shown in Figures 9 and 10, the proboscis is held on the underside of the cicada but swings forward during feeding. Both nymphs and adults use their piercing-sucking mouthparts to pull juices from plant xylem with the nymphs tapping into roots and adults feeding from stems.

Xylem plant juices are low in nutritional value. Research on periodical cicadas has shown that the nutritional value of their poor food sources is enhanced by symbiotic bacteria living in the gut of the nymphs and adults (Brumfield et al., 2022). Feeding by both stages appears to cause little to no damage to the overall health of the plant hosts (Hepler et al., 2023).

Life Cycle

Figure 11 shows the complete life cycle of 13 and 17-year cicadas. Adult cicadas live for approximately two weeks. During this brief time, they feed, mate, and lay eggs.

The mass emergence of enormous numbers of periodical cicadas increases mating success. Male cicadas “sing” to attract females. Their songs are so distinct, the species can be accurately identified without examining individuals (Cicada Mania, 2016).

Approximately 10 days after molting into adults, female cicadas mate and begin to lay eggs (oviposit) in plant stems. The females insert their sharp, spade-like ovipositors into plant stems to create slit-like pockets, or “egg nests,” where they deposit elongate, pearly-white eggs. Each nest may contain 20–30 eggs, and a female may lay 400 to 600 eggs in her lifetime (Karban, 1984).

Clay et al. (2009) provided an accurate overall description of the oviposition sites, “Multiple egg nests typically are deposited in rows of 4–12 nests, leading to a zipper-like appearance on the underside of the branches.” This is demonstrated in Figure 17. Although the cicadas show a preference for ovipositing on the underside of the stems, oviposition sites will appear on all sides of the stems as preferred egg sites become utilized.

The cicadas prefer to lay their eggs in live woody stems, particularly young tree stems, measuring no more than approximately 1/2 inch in diameter. However, as shown in Figure 18, females will occasionally oviposit in unusual locations such as in the stems of annuals and herbaceous perennials after preferred locations have been taken.

Six to 10 weeks later, the white ant-like nymphs hatch from the eggs and drop from the egg nests to the ground. They immediately burrow into the soil, typically 6–18 inches below the soil surface, and begin feeding on plant roots.

Most the cicada’s life cycle is spent out-of-sight, below ground. Indeed, periodical cicadas are so named because adults appear periodically after 13 or 17 years in the soil. “Magi-” in the genus name Magicicada comes from the Ancient Greek magos which means “magician” and captures the almost magical simultaneous mass appearance of these insects.

Periodical cicada nymphs molt and develop through five instars. Last instar nymphs develop vertical burrows in the spring to provide them with easy access to the soil surface. Where soils are regularly or periodically saturated, the emerging nymphs may construct mud tubes that can extend 1–4 inches above the soil as shown in Figure 19. These are often called “mud chimneys” and can become brick-hard if they dry out as demonstrated in Figure 20. The burrow opening can be seen if the chimney top is removed.

The emergence of fifth instar nymphs typically occurs at night with nymphs crawling out of the soil leaving behind a 1/2-inch hole (Figure 21). These nymphs are, in essence, adults wrapped in the exoskeletons of the final nymph stage. As demonstrated in Figure 22, they crawl up nearby trees, vegetation, or other vertical objects to molt. Cast skins (exuviae) are left behind after the adults emerge.

Heath (1968) found that the mass emergence of periodical cicadas in the spring occurs once average soil temperatures reach 64 degrees Fahrenheit at approximately 8 inches below the soil surface, with the emerging cicadas having an average body temperature of 64 F. Researchers have observed that cicada emergences often commence after warm rains. It has been speculated that the warm water elevates soil temperatures (Alexander & Moore, 1962).

Periodical Cicada Broods

The term “brood” is applied to the predictable, synchronous appearances of periodical cicadas. Roman numerals are used to define the year and the geographical distribution of each brood. For example, Brood XIV (14) are 17-year cicadas and will emerge in Ohio in 2025; and Brood XXII (22) are 13-year cicadas and will emerge in Ohio in 2027 (Cicada Mania, 2014).

Ohio experiences five broods. Their distribution and upcoming emergence dates are illustrated in Figure 23. Four of the broods are 17-year cicadas with all three species emerging. The three 13-year cicada species emerge during the XXII (22) brood.

Periodical Cicada Natural Controls

The mass-emergence of enormous numbers of periodical cicadas help them survive many potentially fatal pitfalls with large numbers remaining to reproduce. The first challenge occurs as adults try to break free of their nymphal skins as shown in Figure 24. Failures are common, with dead, partially emerged adults as well as cast skins littering the ground beneath trees or clinging to stems and leaves.

Wings may become distorted as new adults emerge from their nymphal skin or fail to fully expand after the new adults emerge. Figure 26 shows a cicada with its wings tangled in its nymphal skin. Cicadas with distorted wings cannot fly to find a mate, and they are easy prey for predators.

Although many cicadas are eaten, the vast numbers of periodical cicadas that remain support a survival strategy known as “predator satiation.” There are too many cicadas for predators to have a significant impact on the overall cicada population density (Williams et al., 1993).

Both 13- and 17-year periodical cicadas may suffer from infections by an entomopathogenic fungus, Massospora cicadina Peck (Speare, 1919). As shown in Figure 28, the abdomens of infected cicadas become filled with a chalky, white to off-white mass of fungal filaments called mycelium. The infection eventually causes the abdomen to fall off which is a death sentence.

However, before the hapless victim succumbs, the fungus, which is called a “manipulative neuroparasite,” alters the cicada’s behavior to do its bidding (Cooley et al., 2018). During “Stage I,” the fungus produces psychoactive chemicals that cause infectious males to flick their wings, mimicking receptive females. As a result, other males become infected when they try to mate with these so-called “zombie males.” Of course, infectious zombie males are still males in all other respects. So, they attract females which also become infected. Thus, the drug-fueled revelry spreads infectious spores through the population.

During “Stage II,” resting spores are produced in infected cicadas that rain down onto the soil. These ticking time bombs remain inactive until the next periodical cicada emergence, 13 or 17 years later. The spores activate as they contact newly emerging cicadas which restarts the fungal disease cycle.

The impact of fungal infections on cicada populations densities appears to be negligible. One study found that less than 1% of the 13-year cicada, M. tredecassini, emerging in Arkansas in 1998 (Brood XIX) were infected (Duke et al., 2002).

Periodical Cicadas: The Good

Periodical cicadas are remarkable insects. They should earn our appreciation at some level for their unique lifestyle; their almost magical, dramatic appearance that demands our attention; and for their significant position in our forest ecosystems. The deciduous trees found in Ohio forests coevolved with periodical cicadas, and vice versa. We only partially understand their natural partnership.

Periodical cicadas serve an important nutrient recycling function in forest ecosystems. The colossal number of decaying bodies of periodical cicadas provides a significant resource pulse that ripples through forest ecosystems. Research has revealed that a brood emergence is followed by an increase in soil microbial biomass and a subsequent release of nitrogen that supports tree growth (Yang, 2004; Yang & Karban, 2019).

Although predators have little overall impact on periodical cicada populations, the cicadas have a significant impact on predator populations. They serve as a bountiful food supply for birds, raccoons, shrews, foxes, and moles (Williams & Simon, 1995; Storm & Whitaker, 2007). Various studies have reported a direct link between a brood emergence and the subsequent rise in bird populations (Koenig & Liebhold, 2005; Koenig & Liebhold, 2013).

Periodical Cicadas: The Bad

The massive numbers of periodical cicadas that appear during a brood emergence certainly has an impact, but more markedly on people rather than trees. Periodical cicadas can be nuisance pests, owing to their sheer numbers and loud singing. Large numbers of cicadas crawling and flying in Ohio landscapes can interfere with outside activities, particularly for people who have a fear of insects (entomophobia).

The cacophonous afternoon “singing” of tens of thousands of individual males can be disturbing. Large numbers of males commonly synchronize their singing in a behavior called “chorusing” to produce a pulsating wall of sound that can penetrate even well-insulated homes. Fortunately, periodical cicadas do not sing at night and peak numbers of cicadas only last around one month.

The most obvious and lingering impact of periodical cicadas is their oviposition damage to woody trees and shrubs. Periodical cicada females insert their eggs deep into the xylem (white wood) causing stems to split and in some cases, to wither and die. The disruption of water flowing through the xylem causes leaves to wilt and turn brown, producing the characteristic symptom called flagging (White, 1981) shown in Figure 32.

Figure 33 shows flagging on a crabapple, which belongs to the rose family (Rosaceae). Members of this family are susceptible to bacterial fire blight, which produces stem dieback. Cicada flagging may mimic this characteristic disease symptom, or vice versa, meaning stems should be inspected to differentiate the two conditions.

Heavy oviposition damage may cause affected twigs to break and drop from trees. As shown in Figure 34, twig breakage may occur at sites of intense egg-laying damage, or twigs may detach from the tree at points of attachment. Figure 35 shows twigs with foliage still attached littering the ground beneath a hardy rubber tree. Research has shown that eggs seldom survive to hatch when twigs wither, die, or break from the tree. The egg hatch is; however, less affected if the breakage occurs shortly before the eggs hatch (White, 1981).

If the stems are not killed, woody plants respond to the oviposition injury by producing the lip-like wound closure tissue shown in Figure 36. Successful wound closure is shown in Figure 37; however, incomplete closure provides an entry point for wood decay fungi as shown Figure 38.

If the wound response does not return structural integrity to the stem, branch breakage may occur long after the cicada brood emergence. Figure 39 shows a cherry twig starting to break away 1 year after the twig was damaged by cicadas.

Cicada oviposition injury may resemble symptoms of a fungal canker disease with the damage remaining obvious for several years. Figure 40 shows oviposition damage in 2016 that was produced in Ohio by Brood XIV (14) 17-year cicadas in 2008.

The tendency for periodical cicada females to become less discriminating as populations rise throughout an emergence makes it difficult to determine which plants are most preferred as oviposition sites. Hardwoods commonly found in Ohio’s forests, including beech, dogwood, hawthorn, maple, and oak, are heavily targeted.

Heavy oviposition also occurs on various fruit trees including apple, cherry, peach, and pear. As oviposition progresses, various shrubs may be selected such as holly, rose, Rose of Sharon, spirea, rhododendron, and viburnum.

Once preferred hosts are filled with oviposition sites, females will begin to lay eggs on some surprising hosts. Figure 41 shows a periodical cicada ovipositing on poison hemlock. Towards the end of a brood emergence, oviposition may be observed on various conifers as shown in Figure 42, but the nymphs are most likely doomed by the conifer’s sticky defense response.

Flagging is especially serious on trees 4 years old or younger because more of the branches are the preferred size for oviposition, 1/4–1/2 inch in diameter. Indeed, Miller and Crowly (1998) noted that heavy oviposition damage to the main stems of small trees can produce breakage leading to significant growth loss. However, they also observed that larger trees are not significantly affected and noted that the overall result is “a minor natural pruning event.”

Despite the aesthetic damage, oviposition does not appear to affect the health of mature trees or forest succession. Flory et al. (2008) and Clay et al. (2009) conducted studies assessing the impact of periodical cicada oviposition damage using trees netted to prevent oviposition and trees open to oviposition. The two studies focused on different tree species growing under different conditions, but both concluded that heavy oviposition damage did not significantly affect tree growth and performance. Cook and Holt (2002) investigated a brood emergence that resulted in widespread oviposition damage in a midwestern prairie forest-ecotone, finding that successional dynamics of the plant community remained unaltered.

Management Tactics

Periodical cicada nymphs must feed on tree roots for 13 or 17 years, so the severity of oviposition damage is associated with proximity to trees that supported nymphs throughout their development. Thus, trees in landscapes located in or near forests are at the greatest risk for oviposition damage.

Large, established trees can tolerate a considerable amount of flagging. However, oviposition damage may have more significant impacts on young trees that have the most desirable branch size for egg laying. Although the damage is mostly aesthetic rather than life-threatening, the loss of the stems can produce misshapen trees. This is particularly concerning in tree nurseries.

Cultural Management—Delay Tree Planting: If a periodical cicada emergence is predicted in your location, consider postponing planting small landscape trees until later in the summer or in the fall. Given the high potential for severe damage to fruit trees, it may be best to delay planting fruit trees in orchards and home landscapes until the following spring.

Cultural Management—Prevent Egg Laying: Figures 44 through 48 show how small trees and woody shrubs can be protected with nylon netting with a mesh size no larger than ¼-square inch. As shown in Figures 49 and 50, lightweight fabric that allows free air movement, such as tulle, may also be used.

Tightly woven fabric, such as bed sheets, should not be used as trapped moisture can support the development of fungal leaf diseases. Branch breakage can also occur as the result of high winds or the weight of saturated cloth after heavy rains.

The netting should be secured around the trunk below the lowest lateral branches to prevent cicadas from climbing up the trunk as shown in Figure 51. Figure 52 shows a tree wrapped with lightweight fabric. However, the incomplete closure may allow cicadas to enter and produce oviposition damage.

The netting should be lightly draped over plant material when the first male cicada songs are heard. It should be removed as soon as cicada activity has ceased. Allowing the netting to remain on too long may cause new shoots to become deformed.

Cultural Management—Selective Pruning: Pruning to remove oviposition damage can lessen long-term impacts if the injury is minimal. Of course, proper pruning techniques must be applied so the outcome is not worse than the overall cicada damage.

Chemical Control: Insecticide applications are typically not recommended. Spray applications have a limited, short-term effect requiring reapplications, and they pose a threat to non-target organisms. Netting to prevent oviposition damage is much more effective.

However, if insecticides are used to protect young trees, always read the label, follow directions, and abide by safety precautions. Applications should be made before observing egg-laying activity, and the length of residual activity should be noted on the label to guide the timing of reapplications. Properly timed reapplications must be made until egg laying activity ceases. To avoid non-target effects to pollinators, do not make direct applications to blooming trees and plants or allow insecticide spray to drift onto them.

Resources

• Cicada Mania
  (cicadamania.com)
• University of Connecticut, Periodical Cicada Information Pages
  (cicadas.uconn.edu/about-this-site)
• Cicada Safari, Mapping the emergence of Brood XIV in 2025
  (cicadasafari.org)

References

Alexander, R. D., & Moore, T. E. (1962). The evolutionary relationships of 17-year and 13-year cicadas, and three new species (Homoptera, Cicadidae, Magicicada). Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.
deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/56365/MP121.pdf

Brumfield, K. D., Raupp, M. J., Haji, D., Simon, C., Graf, J., Cooley, J. R., Janton, S. T., Meister, R. D., Huq, A., Colwell, R. R., & Hasan, N. A. (2022). Gut microbiome insights from 16S rRNA analysis of 17-year periodical cicadas (Hemiptera: Magicicada spp.) Broods II, VI, and X. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 16967.
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20527-7

Cicada Mania. (2014). Brood XXII, the Baton Rouge brood, will arrive in 2027. 
cicadamania.com/cicadas/brood-xxii-the-baton-rouge-brood-will-arrive-in-2014

Cicada Mania. (2016). Common cicadas of Ohio. 
cicadamania.com/cicadas/common-cicadas-of-ohio

Clay, K., Shelton, A. L., & Winkle, C. (2009). Effects of oviposition by periodical cicadas on tree growth. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39(9), 1688–1697.
doi.org/10.1139/X09-090

Cook, W. M., & Holt, R. D. (2002). Periodical cicada (Magicicada cassini) oviposition damage: visually impressive yet dynamically irrelevant. The American Midland Naturalist, 147(2), 214–224.
doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2002)147[0214:PCMCOD]2.0.CO;2

Cooley, J. R., Marshall, D. C., & Hill, K. B. (2018). A specialized fungal parasite (Massospora cicadina) hijacks the sexual signals of periodical cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae: Magicicada). Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1432.
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19813-0

Duke, L., Steinkraus, D. C., English, J. E., & Smith, K. G. (2002). Infectivity of resting spores of Massospora cicadina (Entomophthorales: Entomophthoraceae), an entomopathogenic fungus of periodical cicadas (Magicicada spp.)(Homoptera: Cicadidae). Journal of invertebrate pathology, 80(1), 1–6.
doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2011(02)00040-X

Flory, S. L., & Mattingly, W. B. (2008). Response of host plants to periodical cicada oviposition damage. Oecologia, 156, 649–656.
doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-1016-z

Heath, J. E. (1968). Thermal synchronization of emergence in periodical" 17-year" cicadas (Homoptera, Cicadidae, Magicicada). American Midland Naturalist, 440-448.
doi.org/10.2307/2423537

Hepler, J. R., Cooper, W. R., Cullum, J. P., Dardick, C., Dardick, L., Nixon, L. J., Pouchnik, J., Raupp, M. J., Shrewsbury, P. & Leskey, T. C. (2023). Do adult Magicicada (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) feed? Historical perspectives and evidence from molecular gut content analysis. Journal of Insect Science, 23(5), 13.
doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iead082

Karban, R. (1984). Opposite density effects of nymphal and adult mortality for periodical cicadas. Ecology, 65(5), 1656–1661.
doi.org/10.2307/1939144

Koenig, W. D. & Liebhold, A. M. (2005). Effects of periodical cicada emergences on abundance and synchrony of avian populations. Ecology, 86(7), 1873–1882.
doi.org/10.1890/04-1175

Koenig, W. D., & Liebhold, A. M. (2013). Avian predation pressure as a potential driver of periodical cicada cycle length. The American Naturalist, 181(1), 145–149.
journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/668596

Kritsky, G., Troutman, R., Mozgai, D., Simon, C., Chiswell, S. M., Kakishima, S., Sota, T., Yoshimura, J., & Cooley, J. R. (2017). Evolution and geographic extent of a surprising Northern disjunct population of 13-year Cicada Brood XXII (Hemiptera: Cicadidae, Magicicada). American Entomologist, 63(4), E15–E20.
doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmx066

Miller, F., & Crowley, W. (1998). Effects of periodical cicada ovipositional injury on woody plants. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF), 24(5), 248–253.
joa.isa-arbor.com/article_detail.asp?JournalID=1&VolumeID=24&IssueID=5&ArticleID=2813

Nahirney, P. C., Forbes, J. G., Douglas Morris, H., Chock, S. C., & Wang, K. (2006). What the buzz was all about: superfast song muscles rattle the tymbals of male periodical cicadas. The FASEB Journal, 20(12), 2017–2026.
doi.org/10.1096/fj.06-5991com

Speare, A. T. (1919). The fungus parasite of the periodical cicada. Science, 50(1283), 116–117.
DOI: 10.1126/science.50.1283.11

Storm, J. L., & Whitaker Jr, J. O. (2007). Food habits of mammals during an emergence of 17-year cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae: Magicicada spp.). In Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science (Vol. 116, No. 2, pp. 196–199).
journals.indianapolis.iu.edu/index.php/ias/article/view/8751

Williams, K. S., & Simon, C. (1995). The ecology, behavior, and evolution of periodical cicadas. Annual Review of Entomology, 40(1), 269–295.
entomoresin.com/1pdf/cicada_evolution.pdf

Williams, K. S., Smith, K. G., & Stephen, F. M. (1993). Emergence of 13‐yr periodical cicadas (Cicadidae: Magicicada): Phenology, mortality, and predators satiation. Ecology, 74(4), 1143–1152.
doi.org/10.2307/1940484

White, J. (1981). Flagging: hosts defenses versus oviposition strategies in periodical cicadas (Magicicada spp., Cicadidae, Homoptera). The Canadian Entomologist, 113(8), 727–738.
doi.org/10.4039/Ent113727-8

Yang, L. H. (2004). Periodical Cicadas as Resource Pulses in North American Forests. Science, 306(5701), 1565–1567.
science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103114

Yang, L. H., & Karban, R. (2019). The effects of pulsed fertilization and chronic herbivory by periodical cicadas on tree growth. Ecology, 100(6), e02705.
doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2705

This fact sheet is a revision of ENT-58 originally written Apr 1, 2015, by David J. Shetlar, Professor, Entomology, The Ohio State University; and Jennifer E. Andon, Research Technician, Entomology, The Ohio State University.