1

techniques included designs to pre-vent termites, such as no soil-woodcontact, proper drainage, and con-struction standards for founda-tions. Before 1940, there were feweffective treatments once subter-ranean termites were established(Synder 1956).

By William Quarles

T ermites cause at least $2 bil-lion dollars of damage eachyear in the U.S. (Su 2003ab;

Su 2002). Most of this damage isdue to subterranean termites, anddiscovery of a structural infestationusually leads to some kind of treat-ment. None of the available treat-ments are perfect, and efficacy canvary with field conditions (Petersonet al. 2006).If your home is infested with sub-

terranean termites, commerciallyavailable treatments include termitebarriers, termite baits, and treat-ment of the wood. Liquid termiti-cides are often added to the soil toestablish a barrier between foragingtermites and your home. Chemicalbarriers comprise about 70% of thesubterranean termite treatmentmarket (Kard 2003; Curl 2004;Saran and Rust 2007).Termite baits have been commer-

cially available since 1994, and nowaccount for about 30% of the mar-ket. Baits have the advantage of lowenvironmental impact and the pos-sibility of longterm protection if abait maintenance contract is pur-chased. Baits have the disadvan-tage that they work slowly and arenot 100% reliable. Part of this arti-cle is to try to establish what kindof efficacy to expect, both with baitsand barriers (Quarles 2003ab).Another option is treated wood.

Treated wood may be combinedwith either chemical barriers or ter-mite baits. If you have crawlspaceconstruction, the wood can betreated with borates. Termites donot like to eat or tunnel over thetreated wood. Treatment protectsagainst termites, woodboring bee-

tles, and some wood damagingfungi. Complete protection is notpossible in a remedial applicationbecause there are inaccessibleareas. Borate treatments and boratetreated wood are now available innew construction (Quarles 1998;Kard 2003).

Prevention and EarlyTreatments

Early approaches to termite man-agement emphasized prevention.According to Synder (1948), “It ismuch cheaper to keep termites outof a building than to get rid of themand repair the damage once theyare inside.” Building construction

In This Issue

Termites 1EcoWise News 10ESA Report 11Calendar 12

Volume XXXII, Number 9/10, September/October 2010

Baits or Barriers? Field Efficacy ofSubterranean Termite Treatments

Ph

oto

courtesy

of

Dow

Agro

Treatments include baits or barriers. Baits such as Sentricon®, shownhere, have a low impact on the environment, eliminate termite colonies,and have efficacy comparable to termiticide barriers.

2

2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010

UpdateEfficacy testing of termite treat-

ments started in 1911 at the ForestProducts Laboratory and theFederal Bureau of Entomology andPlant Quarantine. Initially, onlyresistant wood or treated wood wastested. Wood blocks were simplyplaced on the soil in areas wheretermites were foraging. Wood wasperiodically inspected for damage.After treated wood, there were

experiments with soil termiticides,which were originally called soil poi-sons. One of the earliest was sodi-um arsenite, an extremely toxicmaterial. During World War II, DDTwas dissolved in diesel oil and usedas a soil treatment for termites(Synder 1948; 1956). This approachevolved into the chemical barrierconcept that has dominated theindustry for more than 50 years(Peterson et al. 2006).

Barrier TechnologyChemical barriers are prepared by

digging trenches around structuralperimeters and adding many gal-lons of liquid termiticides.Chemicals may also pumped intothe soil underneath concrete slabs(Peterson et al. 2006).Organochlorines such as DDT,

chlordane and other such persist-

ent chemicals were used at first.But their toxicity, and environmen-tal problems such as bioaccumula-tion caused them all to be bannedby 1987 (French 1994; Thoms et al.2009).Although the chemicals have

changed, the techniques have not.Organochlorines were replaced inthe 1990s by pyrethroids andorganophosphates. Organophos-phates have since been bannedfrom structural pest control.Pyrethroids are applied to form arepellent barrier. Unless the activeingredient is applied uniformly, ter-mites find untreated areas andattack the structure (Potter 1994;Kuriachan and Gold 1998).Repellent barriers of pyrethroids

have now been mostly replaced bytreatments with non-repellent ter-miticides. Non-repellent formula-tions containing imidacloprid(Premise®) or fipronil (Termidor®)have been the industry standard forseveral years. They have beenrecently challenged by newly regis-tered materials such as chlorfe-napyr (Phantom®), and chloran-thraniliprole (Altriset®). Indoxacarb(Arilon®) and thiomethoxam(Optigard®) are under development.Chemical soil treatments are

often applied in new construction.In these cases, it is also possible toinstall physical barriers of sand orstainless steel mesh as an alterna-tive. These approaches can be effec-tive in new construction, but it isdifficult to provide remedial protec-tion with a sand barrier or stainlesssteel (French 1994; Kard 2003;Ebeling and Pence 1957).

Efficacy of ChemicalBarriers

The USDA conducts efficacy testsof termiticide barriers at locationsin Arizona, Florida, Mississippi andSouth Carolina. Tests are of twokinds, wood block and concreteslab. In the wood block test, the soilis treated and a block of wood isdropped onto the surface. In theconcrete block test, the soil is treat-ed, then a concrete slab is poured.A hole in the middle of the slab isleft to add a test block. Failure ofthe termiticide occurs when ter-

The IPM Practitioner is published six timesper year by the Bio-Integral ResourceCenter (BIRC), a non-profit corporationundertaking research and education in inte-grated pest management.Managing Editor William QuarlesContributing Editors Sheila Daar

Tanya DrlikLaurie Swiadon

Editor-at-Large Joel GrossmanBusiness Manager Jennifer BatesArtist Diane Kuhn

For media kits or other advertising informa-tion, contact Bill Quarles at 510/524-2567,birc@igc.org.

Advisory BoardGeorge Bird, Michigan State Univ.; SterlingBunnell, M.D., Berkeley, CA ; Momei Chen,Jepson Herbarium, Univ. Calif., Berkeley;Sharon Collman, Coop Extn., Wash. StateUniv.; Sheila Daar, Daar & Associates,Berkeley, CA; Walter Ebeling, UCLA, Emer.;Steve Frantz, Global Environmental Options,Longmeadow, MA; Linda Gilkeson, CanadianMinistry of Envir., Victoria, BC; JosephHancock, Univ. Calif, Berkeley; HelgaOlkowski, William Olkowski, Birc Founders;George Poinar, Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR; Ramesh Chandra Saxena,ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya; Ruth Troetschler, PTFPress, Los Altos, CA; J.C. van Lenteren,Agricultural University Wageningen, TheNetherlands.ManuscriptsThe IPMP welcomes accounts of IPM for anypest situation. Write for details on format formanuscripts or email us, birc@igc.org.

CitationsThe material here is protected by copyright,and may not be reproduced in any form,either written, electronic or otherwise withoutwritten permission from BIRC. ContactWilliam Quarles at 510/524-2567 for properpublication credits and acknowledgement.

Subscriptions/MembershipsA subscription to the IPMP is one of the bene-fits of membership in BIRC. We also answerpest management questions for our membersand help them search for information.Memberships are $60/yr (institutions/libraries/businesses); $35/yr (individuals).Canadian subscribers add $15 postage. Allother foreign subscribers add $25 airmailpostage. A Dual membership, which includesa combined subscription to both the IPMPand the Common Sense Pest ControlQuarterly, costs $85/yr (institutions); $55/yr(individuals). Government purchase ordersaccepted. Donations to BIRC are tax-deductible.FEI# 94-2554036.

Change of AddressWhen writing to request a change of address,please send a copy of a recent address label.© 2011 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758.All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X

Ph

oto

courtesy

US

DA

Chemicals are added to a trenchto form a barrier against termites.

3

mites penetrate the chemical barri-er and feed on the wood. Efficacytests consist of yearly inspectionsfor barrier failures (Wagner et al.2011).Each termiticide has an EPA reg-

istered label that specifies applica-tion rates. The minimum number ofyears of protection after applicationof registered rates is listed in Table1. As we see in the Table, the bestof the barriers tested is Termidor®.It protects a minimum of 8 years inthe slab test and 5 years in thewood block test. The worst in theslab test is Phantom® (1 yr), andthe worst in the wood block test isAltriset®(<1yr).The Table represents the worst

case performance, and that wasfound usually in Mississippi, whichhas abundant annual rains. All ter-miticides performed much better inArizona, where rainfall is limited.This fact is illustrated well withPremise®, which gave a minimumprotection of 15 years in Arizona,versus two years in Mississippi. Theactive ingredient of Premise, imida-cloprid, is water soluble, and thatmay have contributed to theresults.Except for Termidor, repellent

barriers (1.5 to 4 yrs; concrete slab)gave about the same worst caseprotection as non-repellent barriers(1 to 3 yrs; concrete slab) (Wagneret al. 2011).Worst case results are reported

here because remedial treatmentsof real structures with a variety ofconstruction styles, soil conditionsand complicating circumstancesmay be more challenging than these

USDA tests. These small test plots(less than 2ft by 2ft; 0.6m by 0.6m)also may make it easier to apply arepellent barrier uniformly.How long a chemical provides

protection in real situations canvary. In areas with high termitepressure and lots of rainfall, worstcase efficacy will probably prevail.In dry areas with low termite pres-sure, barriers could last for 10years or more. In most cases, barri-ers should protect for at least fiveyears (Hu et al 2001).A barrier treatment may not

always be successful in removingtermites from a structure (Ripa etal. 2007). An informal measure ofefficacy is the callback rate.Callbacks occur when the customercalls the company back becausetreatment was not 100% effective. APest Management Professional sur-vey in 2005 found callback rates ofabout 10%, but in recent years thepercentage may have dropped(Whitford 2011).

New MaterialsThe active ingredients of most liq-

uid termiticides, including non-repellent ones, are neurotoxins.Thus, fipronil (Termidor) interactswith GABA receptors and haseffects on chloride ion channels inneurons. It is more toxic to insectsthan mammals and has profoundeffects on ants and termites (Mao etal. 2011).Though the name is suggestive,

indoxacarb (Arilon) is not a carba-mate. It is an oxadiazine, and likepyrethroids and DDT, it acts onneuronal sodium ion channels. But

its effects are complicated, and it isnot cross resistant. Imidacloprid(Premise) attacks nicotinic recep-tors. Since there are more of thosein insects than mammals, imidaclo-prid is more toxic to insects thanmammals. Thiomethoxam(Optigard) is a neurotoxin with sim-ilar actions to imidacloprid. Effectsof imidacloprid, thiomethoxam,fipronil or indoxacarb on termitesare similar. Termites first becomeintoxicated, and disoriented. Theymay initially become more active,but then they slow down and die(Quarcoo et al. 2010).Chlorfenapyr (Phantom) is not a

neurotoxin, but interferes withoxidative metabolism. Poisoned ter-mites cannot generate energy, slowdown, and die. Chlorfenapyr has anumber of environmental problems,such as persistence, and extremeacute and chronic toxicity to birds.Registration as a termiticide wasprobably allowed because birdexposure is unlikely (EPA 2001).The newest termiticide is chloran-

thraniliprole (Altriset), which hasunique activity. It binds to ryan-odine receptors leading to calciumion depletion and muscular paraly-sis. It is thus a muscle toxicant, nota neurotoxin. It is practically non-toxic to mammals (LD50>5,000mg/kg). Low toxicity is partly due tolow absorption. Only 14% of a large

3IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Update

Soil adjacent to crawlspace foun-dations is treated with chemicals.

Courtesy

US

DA

4

4 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010

Updateoral dose is absorbed by rats. It isnot carcinogenic, and has no effectson rat reproduction in laboratorytests. The chronic No ObservedAdverse Effect Level (NOAEL) inmammals is an amazing 1000mg/kg/day. It has a generallybenign environmental profile, butnegative aspects include persist-ence, and a moderate tendency tomove in soil. When exposed, ter-mites stop eating, slow down, thendie of muscular paralysis (Cordovaet al. 2006).

Favor WithEnvironmentalists

Due to its low toxicity, and gener-ally benign environmental profile,Altriset may find favor with environ-mentalists. It also may give longerlasting protection than indoxacarb(Spomer and Kamble 2011). How-ever, the protection of Termidor iswell established, and any environ-mental problems are minimized bylow application rates of the activeingredient (0.06% and 0.125%).Termite baits are also considered

to have a low impact on the envi-ronment. Active ingredients are tar-geted to termites, contained withina bait station, and are nearly insol-uble in water. Small amounts ofactive ingredients are deployed, andthe likelihood of exposure to mam-mals is low (Quarles 2003b; MSDS2009).Termite baits commercially avail-

able contain either chitin synthesisinhibitors (CSIs), or toxicants suchas sulfluramid (Terminate®, FirstLine®) and hydramethylnon(Subterfuge®). The first termite baitregistered was the SentriconSystem with Recruit bait containingthe CSI hexaflumuron. Hexaflum-uron has since been replaced bythe CSI noviflumuron. Other CSIbaits include lufenuron anddiflubenzuron (Advance®,Exterra®). These baits and the bait-ing process are described in detailelsewhere (Quarles 2003ab).Research is being conducted onnew active ingredients such as theCSIs bistrifluron and chlorflu-azuron (Neoh et al. 2011; Osbrinket al. 2011).

Horizontal TransferWhen non-repellent barriers were

first introduced, increased protec-tion was expected due to horizontaltransfer. Horizontal transfer occurswhen one termite picks up the ter-miticide and passes it on to othersthat have not contacted the chemi-cal. The active ingredient is ingest-ed and transferred by trophallaxis(see IPMP Jan/Feb 2003) or isadsorbed to the outer cuticle of ter-mites tunneling through treated soiland transferred through groomingand contact. Potentially, non-repel-lent barriers could have areawideeffects on termite populations,killing termites at a distance fromthe treated zone (Potter and Hillery2002; Saran and Rust 2007).Ibrahim et al. (2003), Bagneres et

al. (2009) and others were able toshow that horizontal transmissiondoes occur. The problem is that it isextremely concentration dependent.Termites must pick up and transferenough active ingredient to killanother termite. This amount tendsto be so toxic that the donor termiteis unable to travel very far (Su2005).So, horizontal transfer can only

occur in areas close to the treatedzone. Saran and Rust (2007) foundthe maximum distance of termitemovement away from a fiproniltreated area was about 2 m (6.6 ft).In an extended foraging arena, Su(2005) found that dead termiteswere always found within 5 m (16.4ft) or less of fipronil treated sand.Ripa et al. (2007) found the east-

ern subterranean termite,Reticulitermes flavipes, was unaf-fected in monitoring stations >2m(6.6 ft) away from a fipronil soil

barrier. Osbrink et al. (2005) showedthat Formosan subterranean ter-mites, Coptotermes formosanus,foraging 1-3 m (3.3-9.8 ft) from imi-dacloprid (Premise) soil barrierswere unaffected by the treatment.

Termites Forage at WillOutside Barriers

New research techniques are cast-ing light on the foraging patternsand colony structure of subter-ranean termites (see below). In thecase of the eastern subterraneantermite, Reticulitermes flavipes, thegood news is the colonies aresmall—the bad news is that thereare a lot of them. When Parmanand Vargo (2010) tested the colonylevel effects of imidacloprid(Premise) at 11 infested structuresin North Carolina, they found thateach site had about 6 colonies, butonly one of them was infesting thestructure.When imidacloprid was applied as

a barrier treatment, it eliminatedtermites from the structures andreduced the numbers of termitesforaging within 0.5 m (1.6 ft) of thestructure for at least two years.About 75% of the colonies infestingthe structures contacted the imida-cloprid and disappeared totallywithin 90 days. About 25% of theinfesting colonies left the structureand continued to feed elsewhere.On the other hand, 75% of

untreated colonies more than 2 m(6.6 ft) from the imidacloprid barriercontinued to be detected. Untreatedcolonies continued to thrive, andduring the course of the two yearstudy, an average of five new addi-tional colonies appeared at eachsite. The structures remained pro-

Termiticide barriers have no effect on termites foraging away fromthe treated area.

Courtesy

Pro

fessor

Nan-Y

ao

Su

5

5IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Updatetected, but the number of foragingcolonies nearly doubled.So although a barrier can protect

a structure, termites usually forageat will outside the treated area.Horizontal transfer does not cover alarge area, and barriers do not haveareawide effects on termite popula-tions. In fact, some researchersbelieve that use of barrier technolo-gy has encouraged the spread ofFormosan subterranean termite (Su2003b).

What is a Termite Colony?Barriers are meant to repel or kill

termites and directly prevent themfrom attacking a structure. Baits donot repel termites, and unlike bar-riers, can have areawide effects ontermite populations (Ripa et al.2007). But effective use of baitsrequires some knowledge of termitecolony structure (see Box A).The definition of a termite colony

can be genetic or behavioral. Agenetic definition is that newcolonies are established by matedqueens after a swarm. Queens layeggs, and all individuals developingfrom the queen are by definitionmembers of the same colony.Extended colonies occur when thequeen produces other reproductivescalled neotenics that also lay eggs,producing new workers (see Box A).By this definition a termite colonyis a set of genetically related indi-viduals (Vargo and Husseneder2009; Snyder 1948; Pickens 1946).The behavioral definition is that

“a subterranean termite colony isdefined as a group of termites shar-ing interconnected foraging sites”(Su 2003a; Su and Scheffrahn1998). Colonies are identified bydrilling monitoring stations into thesoil and observing termites thatappear in the stations. To identify aforaging network, termites capturedat one station are marked with adye and then released. All stationswhere the marked termites appearare part of the same foraging net-work of the same termite colony.Termite foraging galleries and tun-nels of one colony can extend up to140 m (459 ft)(Su 2003a).The Sentricon baiting system uses

a network of monitoring stations

and active feeding stations to elimi-nate termites feeding within thisforaging network. This behavioraldefinition of a colony provides away to establish bait efficacy (seebelow). If marked termites feed onan active bait, then disappear fromall monitoring stations, by defini-tion the colony foraging in this net-work has been eliminated (Su2003a).

Even Large Colonies CanBe Produced By One

QueenNew molecular genetic techniques

have shown that the behavioral def-inition of a colony and the geneticone are consistent. A group of ter-mites foraging in the same networkare usually close relatives. In thecase of R. flavipes in NorthCarolina, foraging workers in thesame network are either directlyproduced by the same queen (70%),or by related neotenics of anextended family (27%). In a smallpercentage (3%) of the cases, ter-mites foraging in the same networkare part of two genetically differentcolonies that may have fused(DeHeer and Vargo 2004). InMassachusetts the R. flavipescolony distribution is 27% simplefamilies, 59% extended families,and 14% mixed families (Bulmer etal. 2001).Surprisingly, even large colonies

of Formosan subterranean termites,Coptotermes formosanus, in 100-185 m (328-607 ft) foraging net-works can be simple families head-ed by a pair of primary reproduc-tives. An analysis of three popula-tions in the U.S. found 48-82% ofthe huge colonies were simple fami-lies produced by a single queen.

Others were extended families pro-duced by genetically related neoten-ics (Vargo et al. 2006).Baiting efficacy may depend on

colony identification. Termites for-aging in the same network can becaptured and genetically analyzed.These results show that baits caneliminate a genetically distinctcolony. Later, another geneticallydistinct colony can invade the sameforaging network (Vargo andHusseneder 2009). Constant reinva-sion at some sites may mean thatbaits have to be maintained for longperiods of time (Messenger et al.2005).

Pest Subterranean TermiteSpecies

There are at least 45 different ter-mite species in the U.S., and about30 of them are pests (Su andScheffrahn 1990).There are at leastseven native pest species ofReticulitermes. In the East, theprevalent species is the easternsubterranean termite, R. flavipes. Inthe West, the western subterraneantermite, R. hesperus is most likely.In the southern U.S., native pestswill be usually R. flavipes, R.hageni, and R. virginicus.Throughout much of the South,and sometimes in SouthernCalifornia, the exotic invasiveFormosan subterranean termite, C.formosanus, may also be found(Vargo and Husseneder 2009).Reticulitermes spp. generally have

small colonies (<100,000), but insome areas colony density is high(62/ha; 25/acre). Foraging rangesare usually 1-15 m (3.2-49 ft),sometimes reaching 25 m (82 ft).Colonies tend to be larger in urbanareas than wildlands (Parman and

When a termite colony forages in tunnels connected to active baits,the entire colony can be eliminated.

Courtesy

of

Pro

fessor

Non-Y

ao

Su

Vargo 2010; Haverty et al. 2000;Haagsma and Rust 1995).Coptotermes formosanus has less

colony density, but colonies arevery large. There are often 1-1.5colonies/ha (1-1.5/2.47 acre) andforaging ranges often exceed 100m(328 ft). Each colony can have amillion or more foragers (Su andTamashiro 1987; Vargo andHusseneder 2009). Becausecolonies are so large, termiticidebarriers only treat part of an infes-tation, leaving swarmers to spreadthroughout an area (Su 2003a).In either case, for a baiting strate-

gy to work, the colony or coloniesinfesting a structure mustencounter the baits and eat them.These colonies are either totallyeliminated by the bait, or popula-tions are reduced so that the infest-ed structure is no longer part of theforaging network (Su 2003a; Vargoand Husseneder 2009).An added complication is that

Formosan subterranean termites

can form aerial nests. According toSu and Tamashiro (1987), about25% of the Formosan infestationsin Florida are aerial nests. Sincethey do not require contact with thesoil, they cannot be eliminated witha soil barrier. Aerial nests are treat-ed with the same techniques asdrywood termites (Quarles 1999;2001; Mashek and Quarles 2008;Lewis 2002).

How to Determine BaitingSuccess

As a practical matter, a termitetreatment is successful when ter-

mites are removed from a structure.The informal efficacy standard is nosigns of termites, including mudtubes, swarms, frass, and damagedwood. This is established by visualinspection by an experiencedinspector, and possibly by use ofinstruments such as moisturemeters, termite scanners, infraredcameras, termite dogs, or othermethods. A termite-free structuralinspection is an important part ofbaiting efficacy, and is part of regu-latory standards such as theFlorida Rule (see below)(Quarles2004; Thoms et al. 2009).Baiting meets the commercial

standard of efficacy by eliminatingthe colonies feeding on the struc-ture. Colony elimination is deter-mined by monitoring for termites.The standard baiting techniquestarts with installation of under-ground monitoring stations arounda building perimeter. When termitesstart feeding, active baits areinstalled. In some baiting systems,the monitors also include activebaits, but having independent mon-itors in addition to active baits isconsidered a better technique(Forschler and Ryder 1996).In research studies, foraging

activity, foraging ranges, and num-ber of foragers are measured withmonitoring and mark recapturetechniques before and after activebaiting (Grace et al. 1989; Grace1990; Su and Scheffrahn 1996ab).Companies usually do not have theresources to perform these tech-niques in commercial applications.But if termites start feeding on an

active bait, there is a good chanceof success. Termite companiesmeasure activity at bait stations,and the amount of bait consumed.Also, monitoring stations arechecked periodically for termites.Thorne and Forschler (2000) sug-gest a colony is eliminated whenswarms disappear, when termitesdisappear from pre-baiting andpost-baiting monitoring stations,and when feeding is vigorous on anactive bait, followed by termite inac-tivity.The manufacturer of Exterra ter-

mite baits uses the following criteri-on of success: “if all termite feeding

and activity in an area has beenabsent from the area for six consec-utive months and termites fed onthe bait for three months prior tothe cessation of feeding and activi-ty, we presume that colony elimina-tion has occurred” (Quarles 2003b).Again, as a practical matter, ter-mites should no longer be foraginginside the structure or constructingmud tubes.

The Florida RuleSince Sentricon baits were regis-

tered in 1994, the baiting techniquehas evolved and matured.Standards of efficacy have beendefined and formulated into lawssuch as the Florida Rule. The Ruleis meant to define standards of effi-cacy that new baits must meetbefore they can be registered inFlorida. The Rule requires installa-tion of independent monitoring sta-tions in addition to baiting stations.It requires a structural inspectionbefore baits are installed, after ter-mites are eliminated, and at leastone year later. It also sets stan-dards of protection in new con-struction—buildings not yet infest-ed by termites.For infested buildings, there must

be at least a 90% reduction in ter-mite activity at independent moni-tors at 90% of buildings within ayear after termites start feeding onthe baits. If buildings are infested,baits must eliminate termites in atleast 90% of buildings within a yearafter feeding starts. After termitesare eliminated, buildings must notshow signs of termites for at least ayear.If buildings are not infested, there

must be 100% reduction in feedingactivity in the independent monitorswithin a year. If buildings are notinfested, 98% of them must remainuninfested within a year after feed-ing stops in independent monitors(Thoms et al. 2009).

Efficacy of BaitsIf termites feed on the baits,

colonies can be eliminated andstructures can be protected.Companies that make the baits cancite numerous studies showing

6

IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 947076

Update

Termites share the active ingre-dient of a bait by trophallaxis.

their efficacy. Su (2003a) cites 33studies involving 159 baited termitecolonies, and 152 of them wereeliminated. If colony elimination isthe standard of efficacy, that is anefficacy rate of 96%. At a total of13,691 commercial sites, baitingwas successful in 98.5% of thecases. Failure was defined as ter-mite activity in structures morethan 6 months after bait installa-tion, little or no feeding on baits,and lack of activity in monitoringstations. Most the commercial suc-cesses reported by Su (2003a) werein Florida and Louisiana.In Kentucky, when 23 structures

were baited with hexaflumuron, ter-mites were eliminated at 21 ofthem. This is a success rate ofabout 91% (Potter et al. 2001).Forschler and Ryder (1996) usedSentricon with hexaflumuron onReticulitermes spp. in Georgia.About 93% of baited colonies wereeliminated within a year. If thecolonies ate the bait, 100% of themwere eliminated.Glenn et al (2008) report an aver-

age efficacy of 84% at 75 commer-cial baiting sites in Texas involvingR. flavipes. Sentricon (88%),Terminate (84%), and First Line(80%) baits were tested. Terminateand First Line had to be supple-mented with liquid termiticides. At20 structures infested withFormosans, sulfluramid (Terminate,First Line) baits functioned poorly.Sentricon baits at 10 Formosan

sites had an average efficacy of80%. But at 5 of these sites wherebaiting was aggressive, success ratewas 100%.Robert Davis of ABC Pest and

Lawn Service in Austin, TX reporteda 94% success rate with hexaflu-muron. Of 335 sites treated, only20 (6%) still had termites one yearlater (Grossman 2000).Thoms et al. (2009) installed

Sentricon baits containing 0.5%noviflumuron at 24 buildings in 5Southern States. There were a totalof 62 colonies of Reticulitermes spp.and Coptotermes formosanus, andhalf of the buildings were infestedwith termites. Termite colonies wereidentified by mark recapture tech-niques and genetic analysis.All termites (100% success) were

eliminated from buildings in anaverage of 151 days (62-266 days).Structural inspections a year ormore later showed the buildingswere free of termites. At unifestedbuildings, termites were eliminatedfrom independent monitors in 29-275 days.

Less Success in the WestResearch studies clearly show

that hexaflumuron can be effectivefor the western subterranean ter-mite (Haagsma and Bean 1998;Kistner and Sbragia 2001; Getty etal. 2000; 2007). But Haagsma andRust (2005) report that hexaflu-muron was less successful in early

7

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 7

Update

BoratesNISUS Corp., 100 Nisus Drive,

Rockford, TN 37853; 800/264-0870, 865/577-6119, Fax865/577-5825;www.nisuscorp.com

Non-Repellent BarriersAltriset® (0.05% chloranthranilipro-

le)—Dupont Professional Products,,Wilmington, DE 19898; www.pro-products.dupont.com

Arilon® (0.05% and 0.10% indox-acarb, spot treatment)—Dupont,see above

Optigard® (0.05 and 0.10%thiomethoxam, spot treatment)—Syngenta, PO Box 18300,Greensborough, NC 27419-8300;800/334-9481, 336/632-6000,Fax 336/632-2653; www.syngen-ta.com

Phantom® (0.125 and 0.25% chlorfe-napyr)—BASF, see below

Premise® (0.05% and 0.10% imidaclo-prid)—Bayer ES (EnvironmentalScience), 2 TW Alexander Drive,Research Triangle Park, NC27709; 800/331-2867; www.bay-eres.com

Termidor® (0.06% and 0.125%fipronil)—BASF Professional PestControl, 26 Davies Drive, PO Box13528, Research Triangle Park,NC 27709; 800/327-4645,919/547-2000; www.basf.com

BaitsAdvance® (0.25% diflubenzuron)—

BASF, see aboveExterra® (0.25% diflubenzuron)—

Ensystex, 2709 BreezewoodAvenue; PO Box 2587, Fayetteville,NC 28302; 888/398-3772, Fax888/368-4749; www.ensystex.com

First Line® (.01% sulfluramid)—FMCCorporation (wholesale)), 1735Market St., Philadelphia, PA19103; 800/321-1362, 215/299-6000; www.fmcprosolutions.com

Hex-Pro® (0.5% hexaflumuron)—Dow,see below

Subterfuge® (0.3% hydramethyl-non)—BASF

Sentricon® (0.5% noviflumuron)—Dow AgroSciences, 9330 ZionsvilleRoad, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054; 800/255-3726; 800/745-7476, 317/337-4385, Fax800/905-7326; www.dowagro.com

Terminate® (0.01% sulfluramid)—United Industries,, 2520Northwinds Parkway, Alpharetta,GA 30004; 800/336-1372;www.spectrumproducts.com7

Resources

rate of feeding but not significantlyso (Cornelius et al. 2009). Since termite foraging is seasonal

and increases with temperature andmoisture, colonies can be eliminat-ed faster if baits are installed whentermites are actively foraging in thespring and summer (Getty et al.2000; Haagsma and Rust 1995; Suet al. 1984; Cornelius and Osbrink2011).

Ongoing Protection ofBaits

According to Grace and Su(2001), “use of the Sentricon systemand hexaflumuron baits to elimi-nate all detectable subterraneantermite activity has been demon-strated numerous times ...to thepoint where citations to the pub-lished literature are superfluous.” Though there are numerous pub-

lished accounts of remedial suc-

has been reduced through use ofdigital technology and introductionof long-lasting noviflumuron(Recruit HD) baits that are inspect-ed only once a year (MSDS 2009;Thoms et al. 2009).Problems with termite discovery

of bait stations and sporadic feed-ing have been addressed with theuse of targeted placements, auxil-iary stations and enhanced baits(Jones 2003; Paysen et al. 2004;Cornelius et al. 2009). Targetedplacement near areas of moisture orsigns of termites can double thenumber of hits on bait stationsfrom about 10 to 20% (Jones 2003).Placing auxillary stations aroundactive ones improved persistence atfeeding stations by 36% and overallconsumption of bait by 41%(Paysen et al. 2004). Adding asports drinks to bait stationsincreases bait discovery rate, and

commercial operations. They reportthat of 48 commercial field testsites in Southern California in1996-1998, only 29 (60%) met stan-dards of efficacy defined by Su(2003).This low efficacy rate in California

was thought to be due to sporadicfeeding at bait stations, low foragingactivity, and low bait fidelity. Inaddition, donor termites might haveeliminated hexaflumuron fasterthan it could be transferred(Haagsma and Rust 2005).

Improved Baits andPlacement

Since those early experiments,hexaflumuron has since beenreplaced by noviflumuron, whichhas a slower elimination rate. Italso works to eliminate coloniestwice as fast as hexaflumuron (Karret al. 2004). The labor of baiting

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

8

IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707_8

Update

Termites can be traced back 50 mil-lion years. Like cockroaches, termitespractice incomplete metamorphosis,with eggs hatching into larvae resem-bling adults. Unlike cockroaches, theseearly larvae molt into a number of dif-ferent castes. Eggs hatch into larvae, molt once,

then differentiate into two castes, eithersterile workers or reproductives callednymphs. Most of the adults are work-ers. Workers can either continue tomolt and grow into larger workers, orthey can molt into sterile soldiers orrarely into wingless reproductives.Nymphs form two kinds of reproduc-

tives, primary reproductives that havefunctional wings (alates) and neotenicsthat do not (brachyapterous). All repro-ductive forms are either male or female.So there are three kinds of reproduc-tives: large wings or small wings fromnymphs, and those with no wings thatdevelop from workers. Large winged ter-mites are the primary reproductives.Reproductives with small wings or nowings are called neotenic forms (Synder1948; Thorne et al. 1999).The most common reproductive strat-

egy involves mating flights. King andqueen alates are released by the colony.They fly away from the colony, mate,lose their wings and pairwise startforming new colonies by burrowing into

the ground. Most new colonies are ofthis type. Primary reproductives ofReticulitermes live an average of 7-10years, and a maximum of 18 (Laine andWright 2003).

These primary families either die outor continue to grow. As colonies growlarger, or if one of the primary repro-ductives is killed, some of the supple-mentary reproductives (neotenics) may

start to reproduce. This may result ininbreeding as the original king or queenmay mate with these forms. If bothcolony founders are killed, reproductionbecomes entirely the responsibility ofthe neotenics. To make things more complicated,

nymphs can regressively molt intoworker forms called pseudergates. Thisregression makes for a very flexiblefamily structure. If needed, pseuder-gates can develop into alates, neotenics,or soldiers. Pseudergates are found inlow numbers, and in some species notat all (Laine and Wright 2003).The ratios of the different castes vary

according to species. Reticulitermesspp. have smaller numbers of soldiers(1-3%) than Formosans (10%). Typicallaboratory colonies of R. flavipes haveabout 86.9% workers, 9.6% larvae,2.1% soldiers, and 2.3% eggs. About17% of R. flavipes laboratory coloniescontain neotenics (Long et al. 2003).Both workers and nymphs molt at

least 5 times as they grow. Once theyreach maturity, workers continue molt-ing even though they remain about thesame size. Since termite colonies can-not grow or develop reproductive formswithout molting, they are very vulnera-ble to chitin synthesis inhibitors thatstop the molting process (Su 2003a;Laine and Wright 2003).

Box A. Termite Life Cycle

Most of the eggs are laid byqueens, foraging workers arethe most numerous caste.

Fro

m T

horn

e et al. 1

999

9

tems for management of subterranean ter-mites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in Texas.Sociobiol. 51(2):333-362.

Grace, J.K., A. Abdallay and K.R. Farr. 1989.Eastern subterranean termite (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) foraging territories andpopulations in Toronto. Can. Ent. 121:551-556.

Grace, J.K. 1990. Mark-recapture studies withReticulitermes flavipes (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiol. 16(3):297-303.

Grace, J.K. and N-Y Su. 2001. Evidence sup-porting the use of termite baiting systemsfor longterm structural protection. Sociobiol.37(2):301-310.

Grossman, J. 2000. ESA Conference Notes. IPMPractitioner 22(5/6):15.

Haagsma, K.A. and M.K. Rust. 1995. Colony sizeestimates, foraging trends, and physiologicalcharacteristics of the western subterraneantermite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Environ.Entomol. 24:1520-1528.

Haagsma, K.A. and J. Bean. 1998. Evaluation ofhexaflumuron-based bait to control subter-ranean termites in Southern California(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiol.31(3):363-369.

Haagsma, K.A. and M.K. Rust. 2005. Effect ofhexaflumuron on mortality of the westernsubterranean termite (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) during and following expo-sure and movement of hexaflumuron in ter-mite groups. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:517-531.

Haverty, M.I., G.M. Getty, K.A. Copren and V.R.Lewis. 2000. Size and dispersion of coloniesof Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) in a wildland and a resi-dential area in Northern California. Environ.Entomol. 29(2):241-249.

Hu, X.P., A.G. Appel, F.M. Oi and T.G. Shelton.2001. IPM tactics for subterranean termitecontrol. Pub No. ANR-1022, AlabamaCooperative Extension. 7 pp.

Ibrahim, S.A., G. Henderson and H. Fei. 2003.Toxicity, repellency, and horizontal trans-mission of fipronil in the Formosan subter-ranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae).J. Econ. Entomol. 96(2):461-467.

Jones, S.C. 2003. Targeted versus standard baitplacement affects subterranean termite(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) infestation rates.J. Econ. Entomol. 96(5):1520-1525.

Kard, B.M. 2003. Integrated pest management ofsubterranean termites (Isoptera). J.Entomol. Sci. 38(2):200-224.

Karr, L.L., J.L. Sheets, J.E. King and J.E.Dripps. 2004. Laboratory performance andpharmacokinetics of the benzoylphenylureanoviflumuron in eastern subterranean ter-mites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ.Entomol. 97(2):593-600.

Kistner, D.H. and R.J. Sbragia. 2001. The use ofthe Sentricon Termite Colony EliminationSystem for controlling termites in difficultcontrol sites in Northern California.Sociobiol. 37:265-280.

Kuriachan, I. and R.E. Gold. 1998. Evaluation ofthe ability of Reticulitermes flavipes to dif-ferentiate between termiticide treated anduntreated soils in laboratory tests. Sociobiol.15:285-297.

Lewis, V.R. 2002. Pest Notes: Drywood Termites.UC ANR Pub. No. 7440, University ofCalifornia Statewide IPM Program, Davis,CA. 8 pp.

Laine, L.V. and D.J. Wright. 2003. The life cycleof Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) what do we know? Bull.

William Quarles, Ph.D. is an IPMSpecialist, Managing Editor of theIPM Practitioner, and ExecutiveDirector of the Bio-IntegralResource Center (BIRC). He can bereached by email at birc@igc.org.

ReferencesBagneres, A.G., A. Pichon, J. Hope et al. 2009.

Contact versus feeding intoxication byfipronil in Reticulitermes termites (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae): laboratory evaluation oftoxicity, uptake, clearance, and transferamong individuals. J. Econ. Entomol.102(1):347-356.

Bulmer, M.S., E.S. Adams and J.F.A. Traniello.2001. Variations in colony structure in thesubterranean termite Reticulitermesflavipes. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49:236-243.

Cordova, D., E.A. Benner, M.D. Sacher et al.2006. Anthranilic diamides: a new class ofinsecticides with a novel mode of action,ryanodine receptor activation. PesticideBiochem. Physiol. 84:196-214.

Cornelius, M.L., M. Lynn, K.S. Williams et al.2009. Efficacy of bait supplements forimproving the rate of discovery of bait sta-tions in the field by Formosan subterraneantermites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 102(3):1175-1181.

Cornelius, M.L. and W.L.A. Osbrink. 2011. Effectof seasonal changes in soil temperature andmoisture on wood consumption and foragingactivity of Formosan subterranean termite(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ.Entomol. 104(3):1024-1030.

Curl, G. 2004. Pumped up termite market. PestControl Technol. 32:26, 28, 33.

DeHeer, C.J. and E.L. Vargo. 2004. Colonygenetic organization and colony fusion in thetermite Reticulitermes flavipes as revealedby foraging patterns over time and space.Molec. Ecol. 13:431-441.

Ebeling, W. and R.J. Pence. 1957. Relation ofparticle size to the penetration of subter-ranean termites through barriers of sand orcinders. J. Econ. Entomol. 50(5):690-692.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001.EPA Factsheet: Chlorfenapyr. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC.

Forschler, B.T. and J.C. Ryder, Jr. 1996.Subterranean termite, Reticulitermes spp.(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), colony responseto baiting with hexaflumuron using a proto-type commercial termite baiting system. J.Entomol. Sci. 31(1):143-151.

French, J.R.J. 1994. Combining physical barri-ers, bait and dust toxicants in future strate-gies for subterranean termite control.Sociobiol. 24(1):77-91.

Getty, G.M., M.I. Haverty, K.A. Copren and V.R.Lewis. 2000. Response of Reticulitermesspp. in Northern California to baiting withhexaflumuron with Sentricon termite colonyelimination system. J. Econ. Entomol.93(5):1498-1507.

Getty, G.M., C.W. Solek, R.J. Sbragia et al.2007. Large scale suppression of a subter-ranean termite community using theSentricon termite colony elimination system:a case study in Chatsworth, California, USA.Sociobiol. 50(3):1041-1050.

Glenn, G.J., J.W. Austin and R.E. Gold. 2008.Efficacy of commercial termite baiting sys-

cess, there are fewer publishedpapers about ongoing protectionand the likelihood of reinvasion.The cumulative experience of Graceand Su (2001) is that ongoing moni-toring over 8 years shows that oncetermites are eliminated, they maynot show up again even after 7years. But where the termite pressure is

intensive, reinvasion is more or lessexpected (Messenger et al. 2005).Sometimes new colonies invadeduring the original baiting process.When Thoms et al. (2009) baited 62colonies of Recticulitermes spp. andCoptotermes formosanus with 0.5%noviflumuron, all colonies weredestroyed. But monitoring stationsshowed more than half of the treat-ed properties had new coloniesreinvade within 3 months. The newcolonies were also eliminated bybaits.Baiting technology is generally

effective in eliminating coloniesattacking houses. In most cases,there will be a respectable timebefore reinvasion is seen (Getty etal. 2000). With Formosan termitesin Florida, rebaiting is sometimesneeded every 3-4 years. The newcolonies tend to use the old foragingnetworks, so repeated colony elimi-nation is relatively easy (Grace andSu 2001).

ConclusionNothing is certain. But both baits

and barriers can be effective.Barriers should be initially effectivein at least 90% of the cases. Inareas of average termite pressureand moderate rainfall, they shouldlast at least 5 years. Drawbacks of baits are that they

may take three months to eliminatetermites, and are not 100% reliable.Commercial experience andresearch studies show successrates of about 85-98% in mostcases. Effectiveness was originallyless than this in California, butmay have improved with new tech-niques. Where termite pressure isintense, an ongoing monitoring con-tract may be needed, with occasion-al redeployment of active baits.

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 9

Update

10

pleting the first termite bait efficacy trials(quarterly replenishment of noviflumuron)initiated after adoption of the Florida rule,Chapter 5E-2.0311. Amer. Entomol.55(1):29-40.

Thorne, B.L., J.F.A. Traniello, E.S. Adams andM. Bulmer. 1999. Reproductive dynamicsand colony structure of subterranean ter-mites of the genus Reticulitermes(Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae): a review of theevidence from behavioral, ecological, andgenetic studies. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 11(2):149-169.

Thorne, B.L. and B.T. Forschler. 2000. Criteriafor assessing efficacy of standalone termitebait treatments at structures. Sociobiol.36:245-255.

Vargo, E.L., C. Husseneder, D. Woodson, M.G.Waldvogel and J.K. Grace. 2006. Geneticanalysis and population structure of threeintroduced populations of the Formosansubterranean termite(Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) in the continentalUnited States. Environ. Entomol. 35(1):151-166.

Vargo, E.L. and C. Husseneder. 2009. Biology ofsubterranean termites: insights from molec-ular studies of Reticulitermes andCoptotermes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 54:379-403.

Wagner, T., C. Peterson and T. Shelton. 2011.Termiticide efficacy results 2010. PestManagement Professional Feb:28-34.

Whitford, M. 2011. 2011 Termite Survey. PestManagement Professional Feb:19, 22-25.

termites. IPM Practitioner 21(8):1-9.Quarles, W. 2001. Is Vikane fumigation of struc-

tures safe? IPM Practitioner 23(5/6):1-5.Quarles, W. 2003a. IPM for termites, termite

baits. IPM Practitioner 25(1/2):1-9.Quarles, W. 2003b. Termite bait update. IPM

Practitioner 25(1/2):10-18.Quarles, W. 2004. Where are they? New methods

for finding termites in structures. IPMPractitioner 26(1/2):1-9.

Ripa, R., P. Luppichini, N-Y Su and R.K. Rust.2007. Field evaluation of potential controlstrategies against the eastern subterraneantermite in Chile. J. Econ. Entomol.100(4):1391-1399.

Saran, R.K. and M.K. Rust. 2007. Toxicity,uptake, and transfer efficiency of fipronil inWestern subterranean termite (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ. Entomol.100(2):495-508.

Snyder, T.E. 1948. Our Enemy the Termite, rev.ed., Comstock Publishing Co. Inc., Ithaca,NY. 257 pp.

Snyder, T.E. 1956. Annotated, Subject HeadingBibliography of Termites 1350 BC to AD1954. Smithsonian, Washington, DC. 305pp.

Spomer, N.A. and S.T. Kamble. 2011. Temporalchanges in chloranthraniliprole and indox-acarb in four Midwestern soils and bioeffica-cy against the Eastern subterranean termite(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ.Entomol. 104(3):990-1001.

Su, N.-Y., M. Tamashiro, J.R. Yates and M.I.Haverty. 1984. Foraging behavior of theFormosan subterranean termite (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae). Environ. Entomol.13:1466-1470.

Su, N-Y and M. Tamashiro. 1987. An overview ofthe Formosan subterranean termite in theworld. In: Tamashiro, M. and N-Y Su, eds.Biology and Control of the FormosanSubterranean Termite. No. 83 ResearchExtension Series, University of Hawaii,Honolulu, HI. 58 pp.

Su, N-Y and R.H. Scheffrhan. 1990.Economically important termites in the U.S.and their control. Sociobiol. 17(1):77-94.

Su, N.-Y. and R.H. Scheffrahn. 1996a. Fate ofsubterranean termite colonies (Isoptera)after bait applications—an update andreview. Sociobiol. 27(3):253-275.

Su, N.-Y. and R.H. Scheffrahn. 1996b. A reviewof the evaluation criteria for bait toxicantefficacy against field colonies of subter-ranean termites (Isoptera). Sociobiol.28(3):521-534.

Su, N.-Y. and R.H. Scheffrahn. 1998. A review ofsubterranean termite control practices andprospects for integrated pest managementprograms. Integrated Pest ManagementReviews 3:1-13.

Su, N-Y, 2002. Novel technologies for subter-ranean termite control. Sociobiol. 40:95-101.

Su, N-Y. 2003a. Baits as a tool for populationcontrol of the Formosan subterranean ter-mite. Sociobiol. 41(1):177-192.

Su, N-Y. 2003b. Overview of the global distribu-tion and control of the Formosan subter-ranean termite. Sociobiol. 41(1):7-15.

Su, N-Y. 2005. Response of the Formosan sub-terranean termites (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) to baits or nonrepellenttermiticides in extended foraging arenas. J.Econ. Entomol. 98(6):2143-2152.

Thoms, E.M., J.E. Eger, M.T. Messenger et al.2009. Bugs, baits, and bureaucracy: com-

Entomol. Res. 93:267-378.Long, C.E., B.L.Thorne and N.L. Breisch. 2003.

Termite colony ontogeny: a long-termassessment of reproductive lifespan, casteratios and colony size in Reticulitermesflavipes. Bull. Entomol. Res. 93:439-445.

MSDS. 2009. Recruit HD Bait Device. DowAgroSciences. 8pp.

Mao, L., G. Henderson and C.W. Scherer. 2011.Toxicity of seven termiticides on theFormosan and Eastern subterranean ter-mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 104(3):1002-1008.

Mashek, B. and W. Quarles. 2008. Orange oil fordrywood termites: magic or marketing mad-ness? IPM Practitioner 30(1/2):1-9.

Messenger, M.T., N-Y Su, C. Husseneder andJ.K. Grace. 2005. Elimination and reinva-sion studies with Coptotermes formosanus(Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) in Louisiana. J.Econ. Entomol. 98(3):916-929.

Neoh, K.B., N.A. Jalaludin and C.Y. Lee. 2011.Elimination of field colonies of a mound-building termite Globitermes sulphureus(Isoptera: Termitidae) by bistrifluron bait. J.Econ. Entomol. 104(2):607-613,

Osbrink, W.L., M.L. Cornelius and A.R. Lax.2005. Effect of imidacloprid soil treatmentson occurrence of Formosan subterraneantermites in independent monitors. J. Econ.Entomol. 98(6):2160-2168.

Osbrink, W.L., M.L. Cornelius and A.R. Lax.2011. Areawide field study on effect of threechitin synthesis inhibitor baits on popula-tions of Coptotermes formosanus andReticulitermes flavipes. J. Econ. Entomol.104(3):1009-1017.

Parman, V. and E.L. Vargo. 2010. Colony leveleffects of imidacloprid in subterranean ter-mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 103(3):791-798.

Paysen, E.S., P.A. Zungoli, E.P. Benson and J.J.Demark. 2004. Impact of auxillary stationsin a baiting program for subterranean ter-mites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Fla.Entomol. 87(4):623-624.

Peterson, C., T.L. Wagner, J.E. Mulrooney andT.G. Shelton. 2006. Subterranean Termites:Their Prevention and Control in Buildings.USDA Forest Service, Starkville, MS. 38 pp.

Pickens, A.L. 1946. The biology and economicsignificance of the western subterranean ter-mite, Reticulitermes hesperus. In: C.A.Kofoid, ed. Termites and Termite Control,University of California, Berkeley, pp.157-186 of 795 pp.

Potter, M.F. 1994. The coming technology: a wildride. Pest Control Technol. 22(10):35-45.

Potter, M.F., E.A. Eliason, K. Davis and R.T.Bessin. 2001. Managing subterranean ter-mites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in theMidwest with a hexaflumuron bait andplacement considerations around structures.Sociobiol. 38(3B):565-584.

Potter, M.F. and A.E Hillery. 2002. Exterior tar-geted liquid termiticides: an alternativeapproach to managing subterranean ter-mites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in build-ings. Sociobiol. 39:373-405.

Quarcoo, F.Y., A.G. Appel and X.P. Hu. 2010.Descriptive study of non-repellent insecticideinduced behaviors in Reticulitermes flavipes(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiol.55(1B):217-227.

Quarles, W. 1995. New technologies for termitecontrol. IPM Practitioner 17(5/6):1-9.

Quarles, W. 1998. Borates for wood protection.IPM Practitioner 20(3):1-12.

Quarles, W. 1999. Non-toxic control of drywood

IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 9470710

Update

EcoWise NewsIn October 2011, the California

Academy of the Sciences in SanFrancisco became a U.S. GreenBuilding Council’s Double PlatinumLEED-Certified Building for sustain-ability. This high level certificationhas been achieved by only five build-ings in the world. Factors consideredare low environmental pollution, ener-gy and water use, recycling, and pestmanagement. Part of the high ratingis due to the use of EcoWise Certifiedpest management professionals.The California Academy of Sciences

is leading the way, but managers ofother buildings can also get LEEDpoints by choosing an EcoWiseCertified Company. EcoWise certifica-tion is now available through BIRC’snew EcoWise Online IPM CertificationProgram (see July/Aug IPMP). PestManagement Professionals fromWestern Exterminators and AppliedPest Management have alreadyenrolled in the Program.The convenience and low cost of

online training and certification willhelp pest management companiesstay competitive as more businessesand government agencies adopt greenbuilding standards and ask forEcoWise Certified professionals.

ria that can deform and kill trees,moves between residential backyardsand orchards, said Joseph Patt(USDA-ARS, 2413 East Hwy 83,Weslaco, TX 78596; joseph.patt@ars.usda.gov). In Texas’ Rio GrandeValley, the psyllid is found on Meyerlemons, orange jasmine, and Rio Redgrapefruit. It can be monitored andsuppressed by scent-based traps as itmoves from tree to tree. Pest move-ment is likely motivated by the needto reproduce on flush new growth.(See IPMP July/Aug 2010)Sulfur-containing volatiles from

guava are among the repellents. Awaxy epoxy of SPLAT™ (ISCA,Riverside, CA) with pheromones issprayed on foliage for mating disrup-tion. Yellow-green color, odor, edges,light, growing shoot characteristics,and female sex pheromone are amongthe attractants. Plant volatiles attract-ing D.citri include terpenes such as E-beta-ocimene, caryophyllene, andlinalool.In lab crawling tests, the pest was

very attracted to yellow dispensers; itperceived but was not attracted togray. With scent added, trap colorbecame a neutral factor. In backyardfungal pathogen transmission tests,D. citri transmitted more spores fromyellow dispensers with pleated ridgesfor crawling and probing.Photonic Fence technology

(Intellectual Ventures Lab) utilizes alow-energy laser light source whichmeasures the wing beats of insectsflying by and can distinguish malesfrom females and mosquitoes frompsyllids, said Patt. High-energy laserscan kill, but removing the killing ener-gies can turn the laser into a devicefor measuring psyllid movements.

BABA Induces CitrusPsyllid Resistance

“Beta-aminobutyric acid (BABA) isknown to broadly induce resistanceagainst several microbial pathogens,nematodes and insects in plants,” saidSiddharth Tiwari (Citrus Res & EducCenter, 700 Experiment Station Rd,Lake Alfred, FL 33850; stiwari@ufl.edu).BABA induces plant resistance toplant pathogens such as downymildew, Bremia lactucae on lettuceand late blight, Phytophthora infes-

tans on tomato. BABA also inducesplant resistance to insects.A non-protein amino acid, BABA

was applied as a root-drench in green-house experiments. BABA “inducedresistance in citrus plants” and sup-pressed the development of Asian cit-rus psyllid, Diaphorina citri. Leaf-dipbioassays showed that BABA is nottoxic to Asian citrus psyllid; confirm-ing that BABA root drenches inducedresistance in citrus plants.“Current experiments are being

conducted to determine how BABA-induced resistance compares with useof standard systemic insecticides,”said Tiwari. “Also, we are investigatingthe effect of BABA-induced resistanceon other pests of citrus, such as cit-rus leafminer, Phyllocnistis citrella.Induced resistance may be a possiblesupplement or alternative to the cur-rent heavy use of insecticides inFlorida pest management.”

Lemon Grass ArrestsWhitefly

“During the last decades, a world-wide spread of the sweetpotato white-fly, Bemisia tabaci, resistant to pesti-cides has led to local devastation offood and fiber crops, specifically veg-etables and ornamentals, resulting inlarge economic losses,” said FrancoiseDjibode-Favi (Virginia State Univ,Agric Res Stn, 1 Hayden, Petersburg,VA 23803; Ffavi@vsu.edu). “Whitefliesalso transmit more than 100 differentvirus species, of which the majoritybelong to the genus Begomovirus.

By Joel Grossman

T hese Conference Highlightsare from the Dec. 12-15,2010, Entomological Society

of America (ESA) annual meeting inSan Diego, California. ESA’s nextannual meeting is November 13-16,2011, in Reno, Nevada. For moreinformation contact the ESA (10001Derekwood Lane, Suite 100, Lanham,MD 20706; 301/731-4535;http://www.entsoc.org

Attract-and-kill perimeter trap treesutilizing aggregation pheromones andattractive plant volatiles can reducepesticide use 90% against plum cur-culio, Conotrachelus nenuphar, a keycherry pest in Michigan that alsoattacks apples in the Northeast andblueberries in New Jersey, said TracyLeskey (USDA-ARS, 2217 WiltshireRd, Kearneysville, WV 25430;Tracy.Leskey@ars.usda.gov). Attract-and-kill perimeter trap trees onorchard borders can be baited afterpetal-fall, when fruits naturally pro-duce attractive benzaldehyde scentsand male plum curculios producegrandisoic acid aggregationpheromone.Plum curculios are most active in

trees when relative humidity is highand wind flow is low. Leskey increasedlab relative humidity to 75%, andfound that virgin male plum curculiosincreased grandisoic acid production.Electroantennograms (EAG) con-

firmed the activity of grandisoic acidand synthetic versions of plantvolatiles such as trans-2-hexenal,ethyl acetate, ethyl butanoate, andR(+)-limonene. Trans-2-hexenal, pro-duced by Stanley plums and attractiveto plum curculios at low concentra-tions, is the standard for comparison.The combination of grandisoic acidaggregation pheromone and attractiveplant volatiles can concentrate plumcurculios on trap trees. By just spray-ing perimeter trap trees and a fewtrees near field borders, pesticide usecan be reduced to only 10% of themore costly and ecologically disruptivewhole orchard spray regimens.

Psyllid Traps & PhotonicsAsian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina

citri, a vector of citrus greening bacte-

11

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 11

Conference Notes

ESA 2010 Annual Meeting Highlights

A BIRC ArchiveBIRC founders Bill and Helga

Olkowski have established a web-site, www.WHO1615.com, describ-ing the early years of BIRC. Alongwith Olkowski personal informa-tion, the website also profiles corre-spondence and project reports.According to Bill Olkowski, “wethought the whole experience ofbuilding this non-profit was worthpreserving. People who have pic-tures and documents from thoseearly years should contact me.”—olkowskiw@yahoo.com

12

12 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010

Virus infection ranges from mildsymptoms such as leaf discolorations,to overall yield reduction, severe fruitnecrosis, flower and fruit abortions,and plant death.”“Intercropping tomato with corian-

der, Coriandrum sativum, reduces theincidence and severity of damagecaused by B. tabaci,” said Djibode-Favi. “Coriander constitutive volatileshave an odor-masking effect on toma-to volatiles, thus interfering in thehost plant selection of B. tabaci (Pedroet al. 2010).”Visual and olfactory cues guide

whiteflies to host plants. Odor proba-bly initiates host plant targeting, whilevision increases landing accuracy.Lemongrass, Cymbopogon citratus,volatiles repelled adult sweetpotatowhitefly and can be lethal. Thesevolatiles produced by an edible plantare apparently harmless and could beused to confer repellency to plantsthat were otherwise attractive towhitefly.There are differences between

volatiles from fresh plants and olddried plants. Fresh leaf provided99.5% whitefly mortality in 24 hours,versus 28% for week-old dried groundleaf. Volatiles from dried lemon grassleaves were 30% myrcene and 60%citral. High quality lemon grass essen-tial oil is over 75% citral. Citral hastwo bioactive isomers, neral and gera-nial. Citral is lethal to whiteflies.

Isopropanol Lures GreenJune Beetle

“Green June beetle, Cotinis nitida,is native to the southeastern region ofthe United States from Kansas toConnecticut and south to Texas andnorthern Florida,” attacking turfgrass, lawns, figs, grapes, apples,peaches, and other crops, said BrianCowell (Missouri State Univ, 9740 RedSpring Rd, Mountain Grove, MO65711: Cowell007@MissouriState.edu).About 13,100 ha (32,370 acres)

suffer yield losses, and chemical con-trol costs can be $260/ha($105/acre). Pest flights and damageare often near harvest, when alterna-tive control methods are neededbecause insecticides cannot be used. An alternative is a modified Baker

trap (Oliver et al. 2004; Reut et al.2010) made from 710 ml (24 oz)transparent polyethylene terephtha-late (PET) soda bottles with squareopenings. PET bottles are available at

recycling centers. The lure or bait is awicked dispenser releasing 50% iso-propanol. Isopropanol, also known asrubbing alcohol, is available cheaplyin pharmacy and grocery stores.White, blue, or orange strips near thetop of the trap increase the GJB catchmore than transparency or other col-ors; though yellow can also be used.“Improved bottle traps made of 2

liter (68 oz) PET bottles and baitedwith 50% isopropanol hung at 1.5 or2 meters (5 to 6.5 ft) caught about300 GJB per day (73-326). “This trapshould fit into the budget of everygrower, professional or amateur alike,”said Cowell, as the cost is about $5.50per trap per season.

Lygus Trap Crops ProtectStrawberries

“Alfalfa trap crops are used toreduce Lygus hesperus damage tostrawberries on the California CentralCoast,” said Sean Swezey (Univ ofCalifornia, 1156 High St, Santa Cruz,CA 95064; findit@ucsc.edu). “Todetermine the movement patterns ofL. hesperus from trap crops ontostrawberries or other alfalfa trapcrops, a protein mark-capture tech-nique was utilized. The movements ofgeneralist predators were also trackedusing this technique.”L. hesperus adults and generalist

predators marked with milk or eggwhite protein sprays “were later cap-tured in alfalfa trap crops, adjacentstrawberry rows, and borderingweeds,” said Swezey. “On a percent-age basis, two weeks after marking(using the egg-white protein), only2.7% of captured marked L. hesperusadults were found in strawberries,while the remaining 97.3% were col-lected from alfalfa trap crops. Butlarger proportions of predaceous natu-ral enemies moved into neighboringstrawberries from the trap crop.

Organic SoybeanBuckwheat Strips

Biological control needs to be boost-ed to help stop soybean aphid, Aphisglycines, in organic soybeans, saidThelma Heidel (Univ of Minnesota,1980 Folwell Ave, St. Paul, MN 55108;heide067@umn.edu). Buckwheat,Fagopyrum esculentum, which can beused a cover crop to slow soil erosionor turned under as a green manure toincrease soil biomass, is also a flower-ing sugar source for beneficial insects;

Conference NotesCalendarSeptember 11-16, 2011. IOBC Meeting. 13th Intl.Conf. Biocontrol of Weeds, Honululu, HI.Contact: Dr. Tracy Johnson, email tracyjohn-son@fs.fed.us

September 23-24, 2011. PCOC Board ofDirectors Meeting. Lake Tahoe, CA. Contact:www.pcoc.org

October 19-22,2011. Pestworld, Annual MeetingNational Pest Management Association (NPMA),New Orleans, LA. Contact: NPMA, 10460 NorthSt., Fairfax, VA 22031; 800/678-6722; 703/352-6762www.npmapestworld.org

October 27, 2011. Beyond Pesticides 30thAnniversary Meeting. Washington, DC. Contact:Beyond Pesticides, 701 E Street, SE, Washington,DC 20003; 202-543-5450; www.beyondpesti-cides.org

November 5-8, 2011. 15th Annual Conf.Community Food Security, Oakland, CA.Contact: www.comunityfoodconference.com

November 13-16, 2011. ESA Annual Meeting,Reno, NV. For more information contact the ESA(10001 Derekwood Lane, Suite 100, Lanham,MD 20706; 301/731-4535; http://www.entsoc.org

January 3-6, 2012. Advanced Landscape IPMShort Course. U Maryland, College Park.Contact: A. Koieman, U. Maryland, 301-405-3913; akoeiman@umd.edu

February 1-4, 2012. 32th Annual EcofarmConference. Asilomar, CA. Contact: EcologicalFarming Association, 406 Main St., Suite 313,Watsonville, CA 95076; 831/763-2111; www.eco-farm.org

February 5-7, 2012. Annual Meeting AssociationApplied IPM Ecologists. Embassy Suites,Oxnard, CA. Contact: www.aaie.net

February 6-12, 2012. Annual Meeting WeedScience Society of America. Big Island, HI.Contact: www.wssa.net

February 23-25, 2012. 23rd Annual MosesOrganic Farm Conference. La Crosse, WI.Contact: Moses, PO Box 339, Spring Valley, WI54767; 715/778-5775; www.mosesorganic.org

March 4-6, 2012. California Small FarmConference. Valencia, CA. Contact: www.califor-niafarmconference.com

March 27-29, 2012. 7th Intl. IPM Symposium.Memphis, TN. Contact: E. Wolff, Univ. IL,Urbana. 217/233-2880; emailipmsymposium@ad.uiuc.edu

June 21-23, 2012. 69th Annual Convention, PestControl Operators of CA. Catamaran Resort, SanDiego, CA. Contact: www.pcoc.org

November 11-14, 2012. ESA Annual MeetingKnoxville, TN. For more information contact theESA (10001 Derekwood Lane, Suite 100,Lanham, MD 20706; 301/731-4535;http://www.entsoc.org

13IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

13

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Asian longhorn beetles, Anoplophoraglabripennis; emerald ash borer, A.planipennis and many other wood-boring beetle species in theBuprestidae, Cerambycidae and otherfamilies. “Collections of emerald ashborer were significantly increased bymanuka and phoebe oils (Crook et al.2008),” said Nadeer Youssef(Tennessee State Univ, McMinnville,TN 37209; nyoussef@blomand.net).Manuka is the natural oil distillates ofNew Zealand tea trees, Leptospermumscoparium. Phoebe oil is fromBrazilian walnut, Phoebe porosa.“These oils contain high concentra-

tions of several compounds found inheadspace volatile collections fromash bark, which are antennally activeon emerald ash borer,” said Youssef.Other compounds in these oils arelikely attractive to other wood-boringbeetle species, which prompted purplesticky trapping experiments in smallTennessee mixed deciduous woodlotswith manuka and phoebe oil baits(AgBio Inc, Westminster, CO).Sticky traps were made from purple-

colored chloroplast corrugated plastic(Champion Box Co, Cedaredge, CO)covered with Pestick™ insect glue saidYoussef. All trap treatments were sta-tistically equally effective at capturingBuprestidae and Cerambycidae wood-boring beetles.

Poplar BiocontrolCaterpillars of the moth Gluphisia

septentrionis defoliated thousands ofacres of hybrid poplars in the PacificNorthwest in June 2009. “Normallythere are two generations of this pesteach year,” said Alejandro Del Pozo(Washington State Univ, Pullman, WA99163; alejodelpozo@hotmail.com).“However, 25% of the larvae of thefirst generation were parasitized byEulophus orgyiae and 85% of the eggsof the second generation were para-sitized by Trichogramma spp.” Thisbiocontrol by parasitoids prevented anexpected second defoliation.The parasitoids use speckled green

fruitworm, Orthosia hibisci, as anintermediate host to increase in Maybefore the first Gluphisia generationin June; after increasing on the Junegeneration, the parasitoids attack thesecond Gluphisia generation inAugust. Tachinidae fly parasitoids andPentatomidae predators are also partof the natural enemy complex control-ling Gluphisia on poplars.

and growers have observed fewer soy-bean aphids in the proximity of buck-wheat.At Minnesota’s Lamberton Research

Center, 5-ft (1.5-m) wide buckwheatborder strips were planted aroundsoybeans. At Bob Henneman’s organicfarm in Evansville, MN, a buckwheatstrip was planted down the middle ofthe soybean field. No trends in naturalenemy numbers were noted, but therewas a trend towards fewer aphidsnearer the buckwheat in a year whensoybean aphid numbers were low.Thus, buckwheat may boost aphidbiocontrol. Buckwheat strips still needto be tested in a year with high soy-bean aphid populations.

Microbial Combo ControlsColorado Potato Beetle“Our previous studies demonstrated

synergistic and highly complementaryinteractions between the fast-actingbacterial pathogen Bacillusthuringiensis serovar tenebrionis (Bt)and the slow-acting fungus Beauveriabassiana strain GHA (Bb),” saidStephen Wraight, (USDA-ARS, TowerRd, Ithaca, NY 14853; Steve.Wraight@ars.usda.gov). “These findings stimu-lated development of an experimentalColorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsadecemlineata, control program basedon three strategically timed applica-tions of these microbial biocontrolagents.”Potato yields after microbial sprays

were 67% higher, compared to thecontrols. Applying the same amount ofmicrobes as two sprays instead ofthree is equally effective. Defoliationon day 26 was 14%, versus 46% inthe controls. Summer CPB adult pop-ulations were reduced 90%. Mid- andlate-season CPB larvae populationswere reduced over 70%.“This study confirms our previous

findings that mid-late instar CPB lar-vae are highly susceptible to Bb butgenerally succumb to infection onlyafter entering the soil to pupate,” saidWraight. “High efficacy of this pro-gram in reducing summer adult (andthus overwintering populations) ofCPB suggest it would be an effectivelong-term control method for area-wide CPB management.”

Purple Sticky TrapBotanical Beetle LuresPurple sticky traps baited with

botanical oil lures effectively capture

Conference Notes

14

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 9470714

15

Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXXII(9/10) September/October 2010 15

16

Classified AdsPRODUCTS PRODUCTS