Upload
osborn-gordon
View
221
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research Priorities in California
Western Region IPM Ant Workshop
Urban Pest Ants of California*
Argentine ant 25.9% Southern fire ant 19.3% Odorous house ant 11.1% Carpenter ants 9.5% Other species 34.2%
*Knight, R.L., and M.K. Rust. 1990. The urban ants of California with distribution notes of imported species. Southwestern Entomologist 15: 167-178.
Urban Pest Ants of San Diego*
Argentine ants 84.5% Harvester ants 5.2% Crazy ants 1.8% Little black ants 1.6% Southern fire ants 1.3% Velvety tree ants 1.0% Other species 4.6%
*Field, H.C., W.E. Evans, R. Hartley, L.D. Hansen, and J.H. Klotz. 2007. A survey of structural ant pests in the southwestern USA. Sociobiology 49: 151-164.
Lloyd Pest Control of San Diego
≈ 35,000 general pest accounts– Major portion of this business is Argentine ant control
Mountain Communities
San Bernardino Mts.– No Argentine ants– Other ant pests
Velvety Tree Ants
Liometopum luctuosum
Red Imported Fire Ants
Argentine Ants
Major priority in CA– Structural Pest Control– Homeowners
Major research focus– UCR urban program*
*Vega, S.J., and M.K. Rust. 2001. The Argentine ant – a significant invasive*Vega, S.J., and M.K. Rust. 2001. The Argentine ant – a significant invasivespecies in agricultural, urban and natural environments. Sociobiology 37: 3-25.species in agricultural, urban and natural environments. Sociobiology 37: 3-25.
Turning Point for PMP’s
Approval in CA– December 10, 2002
Impact on Structural Pest Control
Lloyd Pest Control– Callbacks
2002: 60,000 2003: 55,000 2004: 39,000
– 16,000 fewer– Estimated savings =
$500,000.00
Fipronil*
Slow-acting Non-repellent Horizontal transfer
*Soeprono, A.M., and M.K. Rust. 2004. Effect of horizontal transfer of barrier insecticidesto control Argentine ants. J. Econ. Entomol. 97: 1675-1681.
*Soeprono, A.M., and M.K. Rust. 2004. Effect of delayed toxicity of chemical barriersto control Argentine ants. J. Econ. Entomol. 97: 2021-2028.
Revolutionized Ant Control
Most effective treatment to date in CA
– Use pattern (AI) 2003: 13,516 lbs. 2005: 66,678 lbs.
Appearance in water runoff from urban areas
Research Priority
Preservation of insecticides– Developing control strategies that mitigate runoff
without sacrificing efficacy
Evaluating Control Strategies for Argentine Ants Around Homes
Methods developed by Mike Rust, whose Laboratory team coordinates the summer ant control program at UCR
Estimating Population Levels of Ants
Sugar water consumption over 24 hours– 10 vials near house– 10 vials in yard
Reierson et al. 1998* 0.3 mg per visit to
calculate average number of ant visits/vial near and away from the house over 24 hours
*Monitoring with sugar water to determine the efficacy of treatments to control Argentine ants, Linepithema humile (Mayr): 78-82. Proc. Natl. Conf. Urban Entomol. 1998, San Diego, CA.
Monitoring
Before and after treatments applied Treatments replicated at 5 homes
Standard Treatment with Termidor
Backpack sprayer– 3-4 gallons spray
0.06% fipronil
– Around perimeter 1 ft. x 1 ft.
– Along edges Driveway Sidewalks Other areas
Termidor Spray
Weeks After Treatment
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Mean #
of A
nt V
isi ts
NearAway
LOCATION
Termidor Perimeter Spray
Time
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Av e
r ag
e n
o.
of A
nt
Vis
it s/V
ial
NearAway
LOCATION
20072006
93% 97%81%
65%
77%
35%
Spot Treatment
One gallon of Termidor – Only active ant trails
Capitalize on horizontal transfer of fipronil
Termidor Spot Treatment
Weeks After Treatment
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Mean #
of A
nt V
isi ts
NearAway
LOCATION
Termidor Spot Spray
Time
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Av e
r ag
e n
o.
of A
nt
Vi s
i ts/V
ial
NearAway
LOCATION
2006 2007
90%
40%
46%
28%
Talstar Spray (0.06% Bifenthrin)Talstar Perimeter Spray
Time
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000A
v era
ge n
o. of A
nt Vis
it s/V
i al
NearAway
LOCATION81%71%
24%
3-4 gal. spray around perimeter of house + edges of sidewalks, driveway,and other areas ants tend to trail
2007
Research Priority
Liquid bait development Field trials
– 2006: Gourmet (1% borate)
– 2007: Vitis (0.001% imidacloprid)
Liquid Baits
Weeks After Treatment
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Mean #
of A
nt V
isi ts
NearAway
LOCATION
Vitis Bait
Time
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Av e
r ag
e n
o.
of A
nt
Vi s
i ts/V
i al
NearAway
LOCATION
Gourmet Vitis
73% 83%
Vitis
Further evaluations by Lloyd Pest Control– Cost analysis: baits vs. sprays– Potential use by PMP’s
Survey of Homeowners
95% rated the treatments as “very effective”
Excellent products and strategies
– To ensure future use Use judiciously
2008Refinements of Spray Applications
More target-specific Less likely to runoff
– Testing Pin-stream vs. fan
spray No spray zones
– Within 15 ft. of street– Within 5 ft. of
driveway or sidewalks Evaluated for efficacy
and runoff
Film production by Cheryl Wilen and Ray Lucas
2009Long-Term Control Programs
With Termidor and Talstar– Two spot applications
May and August
– Monitor efficacy and runoff
Combination Spot-Spray + Baits
Virtual Baiting by Choe and Rust
Bait as an attractant– To lure ants over a
fipronil-treated surface
Environmentally-friendly, targeted ant control
Goals
Preserve the use of fipronil and other compounds in ant control
Provide new control strategies with little environmental impact
Evaluate Homeowner Products?
Determine how to use most effectively
– Home Defense– Liquid borate baits– Cedar mulch– Caulking
Homeowners contribute to runoff
– Require guidelines for safe and effective use of these products
New Research Initiative
Biology and control of velvety tree ants– Liometopum occidentale– Liometopum luctuosum
Misidentified as carpenter ants– Excavate wood and insulation– Polymorphic– Mesosoma with smooth even profile– Significance as structural pests unknown
Survey
Document status as WDO’s Pest control companies in foothill and
mountain communities– Cooperator in San Bernardino Mts.– Laurel Hansen in PNW– Need other cooperators
Survey
Samples of ants Location of infestations Damage Treatment strategies
– Velveties– Carpenter ants– Odorous house ants– Other species causing problems
Comparative Study
Colony dynamics– Colony size? Reported to be large
Mark-recapture studies Colony extraction
– Aggression tests Define territory Number of satellite nests
– Colony multiplication and queen numbers? Budding, mating swarms, or both? If mating flights, when? Mono- or polygyne?
Comparative Study
Ecology– Habitat differences
L. occidentale: sea level – 4,800 ft.– Deciduous trees
L. luctuosum: higher elevation up to 8,000 ft.– Conifers
– Areas of overlap Competitive displacement?
Comparative Study
– Foraging behavior Foraging rhythms? Diet
– Tend hemipterans– Predators– Scavengers
Control
Bait development– Granular– Liquids
Use choice tests
– For control– For monitoring efficacy
of treatments Current control
methods– Barrier sprays
Conclusion
Research priorities– Overall pest status in CA
Argentine ants
– Urban population in mts. Different set of ants