Thermal Pest Eradication in Structures · pest control in California, and very roughly about 40 lbs...

By William Quarles

Heat as a commercial structur-al pest control method wasdeveloped by Dr. Walter

Ebeling and Dr. Charles Forbes, whoreported on their work in a number ofIPM Practitioner articles in the 1980sand 1990s. They joined forces withDr. Michael R. Linford and DavidHedman who then commercializedthe process and added significantpatents. Their joint venture wascalled TPE Associates. Structural heattreatment is now called ThermaPure®or ThermaPureHeat® and is stillgoing strong, with a larger number ofproviders and an expanded pestrange. For customers seeking alterna-tives to pesticides for termites, bedbugs, mold and other problems, heatcan be an effective solution.

For at least a century, entomolo-gists have used extreme tempera-tures to kill insects. Early field tri-als of heat disinfestation were con-ducted in the early 1900s in flourmills. Stored product beetles andmoths were killed at temperaturesof 120°F (49°C). Heat was consid-ered less dangerous than fumiga-tion and caused less disruption ofongoing operations. The heatprocess was called “superheating”(Ebeling 1997; Dean 1911; Pepperand Strand 1935), and in oneinstance in 1922, steam heat at135°F (57.2°C) for 24 hours wasused to kill termites infesting a hos-pital (O’Kane and Osgood 1922).

Heat has now been used to treatfor museum pests, cockroaches,termites, woodboring beetles, car-penter ants, fleas, bed bugs, mold,pathogens, “sick” buildings contain-

ing volatile organic compounds(VOC), and even rats. The techniqueis a licensed technology calledThermaPure® or ThermaPureHeat®(see Resources). Either whole struc-tures or parts of structures can betreated (Hedman 2006; Forbes andEbeling 1987; Ebeling et al. 1989;Ebeling 1994abc; Ebeling 1997;Rust and Reierson 1998; Zeichneret al. 1998).

Use of heat can result in theapplication of less pesticide. Byweight, chemical fumigants repre-sent about half of the total amountof pesticide applied in structuralpest control in California, and veryroughly about 40 lbs (18.2kg) offumigant are used for each fumiga-tion (Quarles 2002; Quarles 2001).Substitution of heat treatments orother alternate methods could lead

to a reduction in fumigant use.Though heat is not normally usedfor cockroach control, when it wasused as part of a cockroachcleanup by the U.S. Army, thetreatment led to “an 83% reductionin sprays, a 62% reduction in dustapplications, a 21% reduction inbait applications, and a 67% reduc-tion in labor hours” (Zeichner et al.1998).

The original method of super-heating is still being used in flourmills. Portable or permanent

In This IssueThermal Pest Eradication 1Book Reviews 9Conference Notes 11Calendar 16

Volume XXVIII, Number 5/6, May/June 2006

This is the prototype heater used by Forbes and Ebeling in their firststructural experiments. The small structure was tarped, and hot air wasblown underneath through the plastic heating duct. Convective heatingfrom the hot air raised wood temperatures to 120°F (48.8°C).

Thermal Pest Eradication in Structures

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Dr.

Walter

Ebelin

g

2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXVIII(5/6) May/June 2006

Updateheaters fueled by steam, gas, or oil,are used, and fans circulate the hotair. Chemical pesticides are notrequired, workers are better pro-tected, and there are no regulatoryor commercial barriers to its use(Heaps 1988; Heaps 1996). Heatcan be used to disinfest both build-ings and grain. Grain is blown intoa column of hot air and reachesdisinfestation temperatures of 138to 149°F (59 to 65°C) ( Dermott andEvans 1978; Mason and Strait1998).

There are some problems in dis-infesting large buildings. “Factorsthat can seriously reduce effective-ness of heat treatments in largestructures...include large tempera-ture gradients that develop fromstrong convection currents, inade-quate air circulation, pockets ofstatic air inside machinery, equip-ment, double walls, and the preva-lence of unsealed openings infloors, walls, and roofs” (Rust andReierson 1998). These problemshave been addressed by improve-ments in technology and good sitepreparation (see below).

Thermal LimitsSince insects, unlike mammals,

have no way to metabolically regu-late their temperatures, they arevulnerable to extremes. Eachspecies has an optimal tempera-ture, and a temperature above orbelow which they cannot survive.For instance, larvae of the rat flea,Xenopsylla cheopis, will die afterone hour at 103°F (39.4°C), but thebody louse, Pediculus humanus, ismore resistant, requiring 116°F

(46.6°C) for one hour (Mellanby1932; Ebeling 1994a). At 130°F(54.4°C), heat will kill male Germancockroaches, Blattella germanica, in7 min, a nymph of the western dry-wood termite, Incisitermes minor, in6 min; an adult flour beetle, Tribo-lium confusum, in 4 min; and anadult Argentine ant, Lithepithemahumile, in 1 minute (Forbes andEbeling 1987).

Though effects of heat are afunction of both temperature andtime, even brief exposures to hightemperatures can be lethal. Hightemperatures can cause separationof DNA strands, conformationalchanges in proteins, enzyme inacti-vation, cellular disruption, desicca-tion and other effects. If thermalchanges are slow, insects mayadapt through heat shock proteinsand other mechanisms. If the ther-mal changes are rapid, insects arenot able to adapt, and quickly die(Denlinger and Yocum 1998).

For many museum pests, thelethal temperature is 37-64°C (99-147°F), depending on length ofexposure. Shorter times are neededat higher temperatures. At theupper temperature limits, greatincreases in the speed of mortalitycan come from small increases intemperature (Rust and Reierson1998). For instance, Forbes andEbeling (1987) found “surprisinglylittle tolerance of four species ofinsects, including drywood termitepseudergates, to temperaturesabove the normal range in nature.”The greatest gain in insecticidal effi-cacy came from the increase from115 to 120°F (46.1 to 48.9°C), “par-ticularly for adults of the flour bee-tle, Tribolium confusum, and [west-ern] drywood termite pseudergates.For these insects, there was anapproximately eight-fold decrease inthe period required for 100% mor-tality as the temperature increasedfrom 115 to 120°F (46.1 to 48.9°C).”These laboratory experiments ledForbes and Ebeling (1987) to estab-lish 120°F (48.9°C) for 30 minutesas the minimum thermal standardfor drywood termite mortality.Commercial heat operators current-ly use exposures of 130°F (54.4°C)

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

Tanya DrlikLaurie Swiadon

Editor-at-Large Joel Grossman Business Manager Jennifer BatesArtist Diane Kuhn

For media kits or other advertising informa-tion, contact Bill Quarles at 510/524-2567,[email protected].

Advisory Board George 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,Cambridge, NY; 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, [email protected].

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.© 2006 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758.All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X

This photo shows the equipment inoperation. In the early experi-ments, the hot air was recycledthrough the heater.

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Dr.

Walter

Ebelin

g

for one hour as a practical stan-dard. Termite intestinal microbesthat are responsible for digestingcellulose die at lower temperatures.So even if a termite should initiallysurvive a heat treatment, it wouldprobably die of starvation (Man-nesman 1969;1970; ThermaPure2006).

Thermal ParametersUsing a heating cabinet operated

at 160°F (71.1°C) in the laboratory,Ebeling (1994a) studied the effectsof heat on wooden structural mate-rials. He found that the time neededto raise temperatures from roomtemperature to lethal temperaturesincreased with the density of thewood. Hardwoods such as oak tooklonger times than Douglas fir orredwood. Denser wood also tooklonger times to cool. The physicalsize of the wood members are also afactor, large beams take longer toheat and cool than small ones. As aresult of laboratory work, Ebelingconcluded that heat treatment of awooden structure could be donewithin a reasonable time.

Forbes and Ebeling (1987) thenbuilt a small wooden structure totest efficacy of heat treatmentunder simulated field conditions.They used this structure to calcu-late the size of the heaters andblowers that would be needed fortypical homes. The basic technologyof hot air heating was developedusing this mockup.

Initial Field TrialsSuccess with preliminary work

led to full-scale field trials. Accor-ding to Ebeling (1997), “my co-researcher Charles Forbes and Ibought a two-bedroom stucco housewith a concrete slab foundation inBuena Park, California in April,1988. We used this house to studywhole-structure heat treatmentunder field conditions. In addition,many “isolation treatments,” whereheat is confined to the infested sec-tion of the structure, were success-fully completed in Orange and LosAngeles Counties. We were greatlyaided by a fumigator, David Law-son, in the logistics and labor of

field tests. Most of the buildingswhich we disinfested with heat werethose in which chemical fumigationhad failed.

“Forbes and I also treated hous-es and other structures in Arizona,Texas and Florida. At BuffaloNational River in Arkansas, in coop-eration with the National ParkService, we treated three “historicbuildings” infested with powderpostbeetles. At this site, we collectedwood scraps infested with powder-post beetles (Lyctidae) from thecrawl space under one of the build-ings. We took the infested woodback to our laboratory at UCLA,where we found the same condi-tions that killed termites, core tem-peratures of 120°F (48.9°C) for 30minutes, likewise stopped all larvalactivity of powderpost beetles.Thus, we found that powder contin-ued to drop from untreated controlsand ceased where heat had beenapplied” (Ebeling et al. 1989;Ebeling 1997).

Original Heat Treatment Process

The original Thermal PestEradication process is detailed in(Forbes 1989; Ebeling 1994b;Forbes and Ebeling 1987; Ebeling1997). Heat is generated bypropane-fueled heaters located out-side an infested building. Apropane heater (400,000 BTU)draws in air and blows it past aring of flame at the other end,which heats it, producing what iscalled the “processed air.” Theheaters are equipped with wheels

and handles to facilitate movementand placement. When the propernumber of heaters are used and allare in the proper position for maxi-mum effect, they are suitable forpractically any type of heat job.

Flexible, collapsible, Mylar®ducts conduct the hot, processedair into the building and underthermal barriers (tarps) suspendedfrom the eaves. Tarps are requiredbecause heat must penetrate theouter wall from both sides. Fieldexperience has shown that the roofneed not always be covered. It mayhave composition shingles or roof-ing paper, as under tile, whichwould not allow hot air to escape.Wood shingles allow for passage ofair, but not so rapidly as to preventadequate heating of infested woodmembers in the attic.

There must be a powerful heat-resistant fan in every room to rapid-ly mix process and ambient air andprevent stratification of hot air. Thefan is used to blow hot air downagainst the floor, the air movesacross the floor in all directions,then up the walls and across theceilings.

Heat BubblesIn 1990, Linford patented poly-

ethylene tubes that could be inflat-ed to cover cement floors or fill airspace to reduce treatment times innon-infested portions of structures(Chaudoin and Linford 1991). Thepolyethylene “bubbles” were rapidlyinflated in a room with the blowerfrom a heater before the burner wasactivated. According to Ebeling(1997), “the inflated bubble cantake up most of the space in aroom, leaving little air space toheat, thereby decreasing treatmenttime by as much as 70%. Anotherbenefit from the bubble is that itcovers most of the floor area. Espe-cially in the case of concrete floors,as in a garage or basement, theinflated bubble can eliminate theadverse influence of a substantialheat sink.” Heat bubbles are notwidely used in current applications,but are part of the developmentalhistory of structural heat.

3IPM Practitioner, XXVIII(5/6) May/June 2006 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Update

Early commercial treatments usedthese mobile 400,000 BTU propane-powered heaters. Hot air is blownby the electric fan through theMylar® heating duct.

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Dr.

Walter

Ebelin

g


Update

Isolation TreatmentHeat has the important advan-

tage over fumigation in that eitherthe whole building or part of it canbe treated. In the case of fumiga-tion, the entire building is alwaystreated. Most often, part of a build-ing is heated in an “isolation” orlocal treatment. Isolation treatmentcan only be used when inspectionshows a limited number of drywoodtermite or other woodboring insectcolonies whose location is known.Isolation or local treatments dependon reliable inspections. A number ofnovel technologies, including ter-mite sniffing dogs, acoustic, micro-wave, and thermal detectors areavailable to help with inspection(Ebeling 1997; Quarles 2004).

Isolation treatment is of particu-lar interest to occupants of condosand other multiple-family dwellings.Occupants of fumigated dwellingshave to find some other place tolive, and wait until the fumigantconcentration drops to below 5 ppm(in the case of Vikane) to allow safereentry. Fumigation with Vikane isa 3-day process, and methyl bro-mide takes even longer. Even then,some fumigant remains in wallvoids mattresses, cushions, andother items and is slowly releasedover a period of weeks (Quarles2001).

New TechnologyThe heat technology for insects

orginally developed by Forbes andEbeling and commercialized by

Linford and Hedman involvedpropane heaters that used blowersto direct hot air into structures.Heating was monitored with ther-mocouples placed into large beamsand other areas that are more diffi-cult to heat. The temperaturesinside the largest beams were usedto decide when the heat had“cooked” all the termites in thestructure.

Heat treatment for insects islicensed by TPE Associates, whichis owned and operated by Hedmanand Linford. A new company calledE-Therm licenses and trains com-panies in the use of Therma-PureHeat for microbial and chemi-cal remediation (see below). Thisnew company is owned by DavidHedman, who was issued a patentfor treating microbials and chemi-cals with heat. Hedman is “deeplypassionate about IPM” and viewsheat as a “cornerstone technologyfor IPM.” He also sees ThermaPureas a tool to reduce the use of bio-cides and other chemicals in envi-ronmental remediation (Hedman1999; 2002; 2006).

The patent base for ThermaPureand ThermaPureHeat has beenexpanded to include 13 patents orpatents pending, 27 Trademarks,and volumes of copyrighted andtrade secret materials. Researchand development by Hedman and

Linford has resulted in majorchanges in the area of heat genera-tion. Now, heat is produced at acentral source such as a trailer.Water is heated to a high tempera-ture, then pumped through insulat-ed hoses to heat exchangers located

near or inside a structure. Thistechnology makes it possible to pro-duce air temperatures of 150°F(65.6°C) without exposing struc-tures to flames or heater exhausts.Heat can be transmitted throughfairly long distances through thehoses, and the easy deployment ofhot water hoses makes treatmentsof high rises and large industrialplants possible.

Another big change is the incor-poration of computer technology.The heat distribution is monitoredby infrared cameras and digitalthermal probes connected to a lap-top computer. Cold spots can bequickly identified by thermal imag-ing, while digital probes monitortemperatures inside wood. Feed-back controls allow fans to changethe heat distribution to insure thatcold spots are treated. The comput-er monitoring also produces a papertrail of the heat process that allowsclients to be presented with a writ-ten report (Hedman 2006).

Heat as a SynergistHeat can be used as a stand-

alone treatment or can be employedto effectively enhance other insecti-cides. For instance, a 2-hour expo-sure to 110°F (43.3°C) will not killthe confused flour beetle, Triboliumconfusum. Boric acid by itself isalso ineffective. However, if beetlesare confined to a thin film of boricacid and heated in this manner,they will all die (Ebeling 1990).

In January of 1990, ColumbiaPest Control, a company operatedby Mike Linford, treated a 90,000ft3, free standing restaurant inIrvine, CA. The treatment processbegan at midnight and continueduntil about 5 AM. Voids of thestructure had been previously dust-ed with boric acid. Since wall voidtemperatures only reached 115°F(46.1°C), the crew believed that thetreatment had not obtained lethaltemperatures long enough to kill allthe roaches (Quarles 1995; Linford2006).

A week later a health inspectorcalled. She had planned to shutdown the restaurant as a healthhazard, instead her monitoringtraps showed no roaches after two

Heat resistant fans like this oneare used to insure even heatingfrom top to bottom.

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Dr.

Walter

Ebelin

g

Shown here is an isolation treat-ment. The area underneath thetarp is being treated with heat.

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Dr.

Walter

Ebelin

g


Updatedays, and only one roach in 20monitoring traps two weeks later.Linford later concluded that non-lethal heat had synergized with theslow-acting boric acid, and thecombination had eradicated theroaches. Linford applied for andreceived a patent on heat synergismin September of 1990 (Linford2006; Chaudoin and Linford 1990).

Heat and SilicaHeating and desiccation with

amorphous silica also show syner-gistic insecticidal effects (Ebeling1971; 1994c; 1997). According toEbeling (1997), “the cuticle of theAmerican cockroach, Periplanetaamericana, [is] highly susceptible tothermal breakdown, beginning todisintegrate somewhere between 35and 40°C (95-104°F) and continu-ing to progressively break downwith increasing temperature andduration of exposure. This break-down leads to a lethal rate of waterloss, a process that is acceleratedby contact of the cuticle with dustdesiccants” (Machin and Lampert1987; 1989).

Synergism of this sort is usedduring heat disinfestation of storedproduct facilities. Heat is combinedwith the amorphous silica, diatoma-ceous earth (DE). Insects that arehard to kill with either heat or DEare killed by a combination of thetwo (Dowdy and Fields 2002; Fieldsand White 2002; Quarles and Winn2006).

Heat and HumidityInsects exposed for short times

to heat and humid air die fasterthan they do exposed to heat anddry air, possibly because the humidair slows evaporative cooling. Forlonger exposures, dry air and heatleads to quicker mortality, probablybecause of added desiccation effects(Forbes and Ebeling 1987; Rust andReierson 1998).

Pest control operators (PCOs) inhumid areas sometimes worryabout the effect of humidity on effi-cacy of heat treatment against dry-wood termites. Scheffrahn et al.(1997) found that the amount ofwater vapor in the air had no effect

on heat tolerance ofthe powderpost ter-mite, Cryptotermesbrevis, within expo-sure times of 25, 35,and 45 minutes at45°C (113°F). Theyalso noted that grad-ual acclimation of C.brevis pseudergatesat 35°C (95°F) over aperiod of ten dayshad no significanteffect on their toler-ance to heat. TheFlorida entomologistsfound the easterndrywood termite,Incisitermes snyderi to be moreresistant to heat mortality than C.brevis (Scheffran et al. 1997).

Heat Tolerance andAvoidance

Sometimes during a hot sum-mer, the wood in some parts of anattic can reach the lethal tempera-ture for termites. How can a dry-wood colony survive under thesenatural conditions? They may beable to walk away from slow heatincreases. Cabrera and Rust (2000)conducted heat experiments withthe western drywood termite,Incisitermes minor, in the laborato-ry. They found that these termiteswill move away from a hot area at1.41 cm/sec (0.5 in/sec) until thetemperature drops below 40°C(104°F). Termites preferred temper-atures about 29-32°C (84.2-89.6°F),but could establish galleries atabout 42-44°C (107.6-111.2°F).Though they might move away fromnatural hot spots in an attic, a heattreatment occurs too quickly fortermites to move, and there is nocool area to move to.

Drywood termites are generallymore heat resistant than subter-ranean species (Woodrow and Grace1998ab). Among subterraneans, theFormosan subterranean termite,Coptotermes formosanus, can toler-ate higher temperatures than theeastern subterranean termite,Reticulitermes flavipes (Sponslerand Appel 1991; Hu and Appel2004). Though heat is not used to

treat termite colonies in the ground,occasionally C. formosanus willestablish an aboveground colonywithin a structure. To make surethat all species of termites that arestructural pests are killed, commer-cial heat operators heat all wood to130°F (54.4°C) for one hour(ThermaPure 2006).

Dr. Ken Grace of the Universityof Hawaii conducted field studieswith Linford in 1994 to determinethe efficacy of treating detachedaerial Formosan colonies. Gracefound that ThermaPureHeat wasefficacious in this type of applica-tion (Linford 2006; Woodrow andGrace 1997).

Efficacy for TermitesAn important standard of effica-

cy in structural pest control is thecallback. If there are problems withthe treatment, the operator is calledback to mitigate it. For structuralfumigation for termites, callbackrates have been estimated at 5-15%(Ebeling 1997). According to heattreatment operators surveyed bythe author, heat is this good or bet-ter (Quarles 1998). Pest controloperators that do heat treatmentsare usually happy with the flexibili-ty that heat provides and the lowfrequency of callbacks (Quarles1994ab; Quarles and Bucks 1995).

Lewis and Haverty (1996) com-pared heat with structural fumiga-tion and other alternate termitetreatments such as electrogun andmicrowaves in a small (400 ft2;37.2 m2) structure built for this

New heating technology uses hot water to trans-fer heat to heat exchangers, producing hot air forthermal eradication.

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Th

ermaPure


Updatepurpose. Boards infested withnymphs of the western drywood ter-mite were placed in the attic, dry-walls and subarea of the test build-ing (Lewis 2003). Boards artificiallyinfested were used in Trial 1, andnaturally infested boards were usedin Trial 2. In both heat tests, thestructure was heated until monitor-ing thermacouples embedded in thewood showed 120°F (48.9°C) for 30minutes. Commercial heat treat-ment operators now use 130°F(54.4°C) for an hour as the treat-ment protocol. Table 1 shows theresults of the tests.

As can be seen from the Table,none of the techniques were 100%effective in all tests. Liquid N2caused 100% mortality in bothTrials when relatively largeamounts were used. Standard fumi-gation with Vikane killed all the ter-mites in Trial 1, but not Trial 2.Heat led to 100% termite mortalityin Trial 2, but was somewhat lesseffective in Trial 1.

Why was heat less effective inTrial 1? Since heat rises, it is moredifficult to kill termite colonies thatare in subareas or near heat sinkssuch as concrete foundations.According to Ebeling (1997), “Inheat Trial 1, the heat treatmentoperator made no provision for cir-culation of the heated air to thesubarea of the structure. Adequatecirculation of hot air is required forefficient transfer of heat from air tosolid surfaces. As a result, a fewtermites survived in the subarea. Inthe second treatment (Trial 2), a fanthat fit into the subarea’s accesshole was provided. All termites in

the subarea as well as in the atticand drywall were killed.”

Heat and Bed BugsThe pest control industry was

founded on treatments for bed bugsand rats. These pests can be so dif-ficult to eliminate that professionalhelp is often needed. Bed bugshave shown a resurgence in the lastfew years, especially in commerciallodgings. According to Linford andCurrie (2006), “Special difficultiesthat hotels, motels, and multipleunits face with respect to bed bugsare significant. If a client is exposedto pesticidal residue and gets sick,the person may sue. If the inhabi-tant is bitten several times, theresult may be the same...”

Even when standard pesticidesprays and dusts are used, bed bugsmay not be eliminated. Bed bugs hidein books, clothes, cracks, crevicesand other areas. Heat can reachlethal levels inside mattresses, pil-lows, wall voids, books and all con-tents within a given habitation.According to Linford and Currie(2006), “Because bed bugs typicallymigrate upward, rooms on severalfloors can be treated simultaneouslywithin 4 to 8 hours depending on thenumber of heaters and the size of thetreatment. What that means is thatrooms can be rented out by 6 PM iftreatment commences in the morninghours. The loss of revenue is mini-mized, or eliminated altogether...”

Bed Bug ProtocolTo be successful for bed bugs,

heat should be used as part of an

IPM protocol. The presence of bed-bugs are first confirmed by inspec-tion. Then a treatment plan is pre-pared. The client is given instruc-tions to prepare for heat treatmentby removing clutter, washing cloth-ing and bedding, and caulkingcracks and crevices. Heat probesare inserted into the most difficultplaces to heat, and into knownattractive harborages. Heat treat-ment is concluded after probesshow temperatures of 140°F (60°C)for two hours (Linford 2006).

Even RatsThough heat technology was

developed for elimination of ter-mites and woodboring beetles fromstructures, the heat process canalso kill other insects inside astructure and has been used totreat bed bugs, fleas, and otherinsects.

Heat technology caneven be used for rodentcontrol. Rat nests canbe identified with ther-mal imaging, and heatcan be used in con-junction with exclu-sion. The rats have toleave during heating.And the hot air whichblows out of the struc-ture allows identifica-tion of rat holes andentry points. These canthen be sealed(Hedman 2006).

Infrared cameras are used to findhot and cold spots. The hot studsin the wall can be detected by thecamera. Fans can direct heattoward cool spots.

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Th

ermaPure

Table 1. Mean Percent Mortalities from Six Different Termite Treatments(adapted from Lewis and Haverty 1996)

Treatment *Mean Percent Mortality **Mean Percent ***Mean PercentTrial 1 Mortality Trial 2 Mortality Controls(artificial infestation) (natural infestation)

Liquid Nitrogen (381.8 kg/m3) 100 100 18.4

Liquid Nitrogen (122.7 kg/m3) 98.2 99.8 18.4

Vikane® 100 99.9 22.0

MeBr/CO2 100 99.8 32.8

Electrogun 98.5 95.1 8.3

Heat 97.5 100 33.5

Microwave 92 98.7 23.3

*Mean % mortality measured at 4 weeks posttreatment, artificial infestation**Mean % mortality measured at 4 weeks posttreatment, natural infestation***Mean % mortality measured at 4 weeks, untreated artificial infestations

Mold and MicrobialsThe major extension of the tech-

nology has been for heat remediationof microbials. Many microbials canbe killed by heating to pasteurizationtemperatures of 150-160°F (65.5-71.1°C) for at least 30 minutes.Some viruses, such as hantavirus,are inactivated at these tempera-tures. According to Hedman, at least50 structures in U.S. parks havebeen treated to inactivate han-tavirus. The odors and particulatesassociated with rodent urine are alsoremoved by the hot air and filters(Hedman 2006).

Incorporation of air filters duringthe heating process has allowedThermaPure to do a better job andto extend the pest range. Heat des-iccates dust inside a structure, andthe blowers agitate air currents sothat dust becomes airborne. Filtersthen remove dust mite allergens,microbials and other components ofhouse dust. According to Hedman(2006), this means that mold fungiand other airborne particulates thatare “deleterious to respiratoryhealth” are removed from the air.

When heat is used in moldremediation, standard mold remedi-ation techniques are used first. Sodamaged materials are removed ina containment area. The heat treat-ment is used to further purify theair and the structure by thermallyinactivating remaining mold, andremoving microbials and allergensfrom the air by filtration(ThermaPure 2006).

Thermal Cure of “Sick Buildings”

Many volatile organic com-pounds (VOCs), such as carpetadhesives, paints, and formalde-hyde from particle board, are builtinto a building at the time of con-struction or in remodeling. Othersare maintenance products such ascleansers, polishes, disinfectants,deodorizers, and pesticides.Pesticides and VOCs found insidecause an estimated 3,000 cases ofcancer each year (Wright et al.1991; Jantunen et al. 1997; Ottand Roberts 1998).

Air sampling has found morethan 300 different VOCs in struc-tures, causing symptoms rangingfrom unpleasant odors to head-aches, nausea, eye, nose and throatirritation, and coughs. Other symp-toms are central nervous systemdepression, vertigo, fatigue, irrita-blity, memory loss, and decreasedreaction time. In various mixturesand concentrations, and perhapscombined with microbials, VOCscan cause the “sick building syn-drome” (Jantunen et al. 1997).

Air in many buildings is morecontaminated than outside air.According to a World HealthOrganization estimate, nearly 30%of the buildings in the UnitedStates have indoor-air-quality prob-lems. The recirculation of indoorair, contaminants and all, resultedin a rise in employee complaintsabout headaches, watery eyes, andfatigue (Jantunen et al. 1997; Ottand Roberts 1998).

Heat can be used for thermalremoval of VOCs. According toEbeling (1997), the house that heand Forbes bought for heat experi-ments “had, at the time of pur-chase, a strong odor of paint, ciga-rette smoke, and other odors ofunknown origin. All odors werecompletely eliminated by our firstheat treatment, using temperaturesup to 150°F (65.5°C)....Rapid circu-lation of a high volume of hot air,along with continued egress of con-taminated air, appears to be an effi-cient and highly effective way of rid-ding a building of contamination byunhealthful VOCs, including pesti-

cides.” VOCs have also beenremoved by a slow bakeout at 90°F(32.2°C) over the period of severaldays (Girman 1989).

SafetyFor chemically sensitive individu-

als, heat or some other alternatemethod may be the only techniquepossible. Heat treatment meansfreedom from toxic technology.Thousands of heat treatments havebeen performed on structures inCalifornia and elsewhere since1987. Generally, any damage hasbeen minor. Care must be taken toremove heat sensitive items from atreatment area, or protect them witha thermal blanket. Special caremust be given to vinyl windows.Over the course of more than100,000 ThermaPureHeat treat-ments, there has been only one fireassociated with a treatment. Thismay have started as a brush fire(Hedman 2006). Even with thisblemish, heat has a better recordthan structural fumigations, whereexplosions have occurred when nat-ural gas has built up underneaththe fumigation tent (Smith 2003),and where deaths have been record-ed when the security of the fumiga-tion tent is breached, or when occu-pants enter too soon (Derrick et al.1990; Pest Control 1987).

AcknowledgementThe author wishes to thank Dr.

Michael Linford and Dave Hedmanfor constructive comments on themanuscript and information on thecommercial aspects of heat treat-ment. He also wishes to thank Dr.Walter Ebeling for his IPM Practi-tioner articles, as the informationthere was used extensively as asource for this article.

ResourcesTo find a licensed ThermaPure

company, or to obtain a license,check the website at www.therma-pure.com. Or contact ThermaPure,180 Canada Larga Rd., Ventura, CA93001; 888/heat-mold; Fax805/649-1314.


Update

The gridlike object in the fore-ground is a portable air filter. Theheated air is filtered to removedust and microbials.

Ph

otocou

rtesyof

Th

ermaPure


Update

William Quarles, Ph.D., is an IPMSpecialist, Managing Editor of theIPM Practitioner, and ExecutiveDirector of the Bio-Integral ResourceCenter. He can be reached by [email protected].

ReferencesCabrera, B.J. and M.K. Rust. 2000. Behavioral

responses to heat in artificial galleries by thewestern drywood termite (Isoptera:Kalotermitidae). J. Agric. Urban Entomol.17(3):157-71.

Chaudoin, J.J. and M.R. Linford. 1990. Insecteradication. US Patent No. 4,958,456.

Chaudoin, J.J. and M.R. Linford. 1991.Fumigation method. US Patent No. 4,989,364.

Dean, D.A. 1911. Heat as a means of controllingmill insects. J. Econ. Entomol. 4:142-61.

Denlinger, D.L. and G.D. Yocum. 1998.Physiology of heat sensitivity. In: Hallman andDenlinger, pp. 7-53 of 311 pp.

Derrick, M.R., H.D. Burgess, M.T. Baker andN.E. Binnie. 1990. Sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane):a review of its use as a fumigant. J. Am. Inst.Conservation 29(1):77-90.

Dermott, T. and D.E. Evans. 1978. An evalua-tion of fluidized bed heating as a means ofdisinfesting wheat. J. Stored Products Res.14:1-12.

Dowdy, A.K. and P.G. Fields. 2002. Heat com-bined with diatomaceous earth to control theconfused flour beetle in a flour mill. J. StoredProd. Res. 38(1):11-22.

Ebeling, W. 1971. Sorptive dusts for pest con-trol. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 16:123-158.

Ebeling, W., C.F. Forbes and S.C. Ebeling. 1989.Heat treatment for powderpost beetles. IPMPractitioner 11(9):1-4.

Ebeling, W. 1990. Heat and boric acid: an exam-ple of synergism. Pest Control Technol.18(4):44, 46.

Ebeling, W. 1994a. Heat penetration of structur-al timbers. IPM Practitioner 16(2):9-10.

Ebeling, W. 1994b. The thermal pest eradicationsystem for structural pest control. IPMPractitioner 16(2):1-7.

Ebeling, W. 1994c. Heat and silica aerogel aresynergistic. IPM Practitioner 16(2):11-12.

Ebeling, W. 1997. Expanded use of Thermal PestEradication (TPE). IPM Practitioner 19(8):1-8.

Fields, P.G. and N.D.G. White. 2002. Alternativesto methyl bromide treatments for stored prod-uct and quarantine insects. Ann. Rev.Entomol. 47:331-359.

Forbes, C.F. and W. Ebeling. 1987. Update: useof heat for elimination of structural pests. IPMPractitioner 9(8):1-5.

Forbes, C.F. 1989. Extermination of insects byheat. US Patent No. 4,817,329.

Girman, J.R. 1989. Volatile organic compoundsand building bake-out. Occupational Med.4(4):695-712.

Hallman, G.J and D.L. Denlinger, eds. 1998.Temperature Sensitivity in Insects andApplication in Integrated Pest Management.Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 311 pp.

Hedman, D. 1999. Method of killing organisms

and removal of toxins in enclosures. USPatent No. 6,327,812.

Hedman, D. 2002. System and method forremoving harmful biological and organic sub-stances from an enclosure. US Patent No.6,892,491.

Hedman, D. 2006. Pers. Comm. D. Hedman, E-Therm, 180 Canada Larga Rd., Ventura, CA93001.

Heaps, J. 1988. Turn on the heat to controlinsects. Dairy and Food Sanitation 8:416-418.

Heaps, J. 1996. Heat for stored product insects.IPM Practitioner 18(5/6):18-19.

Hu, X.P. and A.G. Appel. 2004. Seasonal varia-tion of critical thermal limits and temperaturetolerance in Formosan and eastern subter-ranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae).Environ. Entomol. 33(2):197-205.

Jantunen, M., J.J.K. Jaakkola and M.Krzyzanowski. 1997. Assessment of Exposureto Indoor Air Pollutants. WHO Pub. No. 78,Copenhagen, Denmark. 139 pp.

Lewis, V.R. 2003. IPM for drywood termites. J.Entomol. Sci. 38(2):181-199.

Lewis, V.R. and M.I. Haverty. 1996. Evaluationof six techniques for control of the Westerndrywood termite (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) instructures. J. Econ. Entomol. 89(4):922-934.

Linford, M. 2006. Pers. Comm. Mike Linford,Thermapure, 180 Canada Larga Rd., Ventura,CA 93001; 888/heat-mold; Fax 805/649-1314.

Linford, M.R. and W. Currie. 2006. Bedbugs putthe bite on hotel business. AAHOA LodgingBusiness, April 2006. www.thermapure.com

Machin, J. and G.J. Lampert. 1987. Animproved water content model for Periplanetacuticle: effects of epidermis removal and cuti-cal damage. J. Insect Physiol. 33:647-655.

Machin, J. and G.J. Lampert. 1989. Energeticsof water diffusion through the cuticular waterbarrier of Periplaneta: the effect of tempera-ture revisited. J. Insect Physiol. 35:437-445.

Mannesmann, R. 1969. [Comparative investiga-tions on the influence of temperature on theintestinal symbionts of termites and on themechanisms that regulate that symbiosis.Zeit. Angewandte Zool. 56(4):385-440. [CABAbstracts]

Mannesmann, R. 1970. [Comparative investiga-tions on the influence of temperature on theintestinal symbionts of termites and on themechanisms that regulate that symbiosis.Zeit. Angewandte Zool. 57(1):1-67. [CABAbstracts]

Mason, L.J. and C.A. Strait. 1998. Stored prod-uct integrated pest management with extremetemperatures. In: Hallman and Denlinger, pp.141-177 of 311 pp.

Mellanby, K. 1932. The influence of atmospherichumidity in the thermal death point of anumber of insects. J. Exp. Biol. 9:222-231.

O’Kane, W.C. and W.A. Osgood. 1922. Studies intermite control. Bull. New Hampshire Agric.Exp. Sta. (April) 204:20. [CAB Abstracts]

Ott, W.R. and J.W. Roberts. 1998. Everydayexposure to toxic pollutants. Sci. American248(2):86-91.

Pepper, J.H. and A.L. Strand. 1935.Superheating as a control for cereal millinsects. Bull. Montana State Col. Agric. Exp.

Sta. 297.

Pest Control. 1987. Fumigation gets blamed for

two Virginia deaths. Pest Control 55(2):20.

Quarles, W. 1994a. Pest control operators and

heat treatment. IPM Practitioner 16(2):8.

Quarles, W. 1994b. Is it me or is it getting hot

in here? Pest Control Technol. 22(6):88,90,

91,129.

Quarles, W. 1995. Heat and boric acid in struc-

tural IPM. IPM Practitioner 17(5/6): 10-11.

Quarles, W. and C. Bucks. 1995. Non-toxic ter-

mite treatments. Organic Gardening

December:44-50.

Quarles, W. 1998. Non-toxic control of drywood

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. 2002. Pesticides and water quality.

IPM Practitioner 24(5/6):10-11.

Quarles, W. 2004. Where are they? New methods

for finding termites in structures. IPM

Practitioner 26(1/2):1-9.

Quarles, W. and P.S. Winn. 2006. Diatomaceous

earth alternative to stored product fumigants.

IPM Practitioner 28(1/2):1-10.

Rust, M.K. and D.A. Reierson. 1998. Use of

extreme temperatures in urban insect pest

management. In: Hallman and Denlinger, pp.

179-200 of 311 pp.

Scheffrahn, R.H., G.S. Wheeler and N.-Y. Su.

1997. Heat tolerance of structure-infesting

drywood termites (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) of

Florida. Sociobiol. 29(3):237-245.

Smith, C. 2003. Turning the heat up under

infested homes. Popular alternative to fumiga-

tion attacks termites, mold and fungus. San

Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, August 30,

2003. www.sfgate.com.

Sponsler, R.C. and A.G. Appel. 1991.

Temperature tolerances of the Formosan and

Eastern subterranean termite (Isoptera:

Rhinotermitidae). J. Thermal Biol. 16(1):41-44.

ThermaPure. 2006. Website information,

www.thermapure.com

Woodrow, R.J. and J.K. Grace. 1997. Cooking

termites in the aloha state: the state of ther-

mal pest eradication in Hawaii. Pest Control

65(2):57, 61-62.

Woodrow, R.J. and J.K. Grace. 1998a. Thermal

tolerances of four termite species (Isoptera:

Rhinotermitidae, Kalotermitidae). Sociobiol.

32(1):17-25.

Woodrow, R.J. and J.K. Grace. 1998b. Field

studies on the use of high temperatures to

control Cryptotermes brevis (Isoptera:

Kalotermitidae). Sociobiol. 32(1):27-49.

Wright, C.G., R.B. Leidy and H.E. Dupree, Jr.

1981. Insecticides in the ambient air of rooms

following their application for control of pests.

Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26:548-553.

Zeichner, B.C., A.L. Hoch and D.F. Wood, Jr.

1998. Heat and IPM for cockroach control.

IPM Practitioner 20(2):1-6.


Book ReviewsComplete Guide to PestControl—With and WithoutChemicals, 4th ed. George W.Ware. 2005. Meister ProInformation Sources. www.meister-pro.com. Paperback. 433 pp.

Any book that goes through sev-eral editions has to be doing some-thing right. This book has a lot ofgood information, especially aboutthe basics of pesticides. Thisincludes chemical classes of activeingredients, kinds of chemical for-mulations, pesticide laws, hazardsof pesticides, how to read pesticidelabels, and how to handle and storepesticides.

There are many other goodthings about this book. Forinstance, the author points outearly on that there are choices inpest control, and that biological,cultural, physical, and approachesother than chemical pesticidesexist. Another good thing about thebook are the capsule summaries ofpest biology. Knowledge of a pest’sweakness is the key to pest man-agement within an IPM context.Another strong point is the pest-by-pest organization and the capsulesummaries of non-chemical con-trols. In the Appendices there arepesticide lists with acute toxicitytables, brandnames, and generaluse patterns can be a helpful start-ing point for evaluation of a partic-ular material.

Since this book was first writtenin 1980, great changes have takenplace in public awareness and inmethods of pest control. One bigchange is the exponential increasein organic agriculture. Another ispassage of the Food QualityProtection Act, which mandatesthat pesticide risks from all sourcesof exposure have to be evaluated,including residues both from foodand from structural pest control.Another big change has been devel-opment of biorational pesticidessuch as insect growth regulators,spinosad, neem and bait formula-tions that are recognized asreduced risk. These more targetedmaterials have less of an impact onbiological controls and allow a moreseamless integration of chemical

methods into an overall pest man-agement plan.

The author alludes to all thesechanges, but the chemical controlshe recommends for many of the pestproblems he describes are still“hard” pesticides from the 1980ssuch as carbaryl, malathion, ethion,disulfoton, dicofol, and propoxur.

This general bias toward “hard”pesticides can be detected in sever-al places. For instance, in referenceto the persistent chlorinated hydro-carbons chlordane and dieldrin, “itwould be elementary to say thatthese insecticides are the mosteffective, long-lasting, economicaland safest termite control agentsknown.” If they have suchstrengths, Ware should also explainwhy they were banned.

Or, “one of the old standbys isdiazinon, which appeared first in1952. With the exception of DDT,more diazinon has been used inand around homes than any otherinsecticide. It is no longer registeredfor use.” Again, he should explainthe problems with diazinon that ledto its demise.

Finally, Ware makes too much ofthe word “safe.” There are severalinstances where he declares thatpesticides are safe. FIFRA and otherpesticide laws do not allow a pesti-cide to be marketed as safe. All pes-ticides have risks, and they are onlyregistered if benefits exceed risk.They are not inherently “safe.” Forinstance, he says that pyrethroidsare “quite safe to use around petsand humans...” Actually, cats areextremely sensitive to the toxiceffects of pyrethroids.

Overall, the intent of the authorhas been met. That is to “presenthow-to-do-it information for thelayperson in a simple, understand-able way, that provides an appreci-ation for the very important chemi-cal and non-chemical tools and aknowledge of the biology and ecolo-gy of the pests they are intended tocontrol...” —Bill Quarles

West Coast Gardening:Natural Insect, Weed andDisease Control. Linda A.Gilkeson, Ph.D. 2006. TraffordPublishing, Suite 6E, 2333

Government St., Victoria, BC V8T4P4, Canada; 250/383-6864;www.trafford.com. Paperback. 152pp.

Linda Gilkeson is a Ph.D. ento-mologist who specializes in pestmanagement and organic garden-ing. Though this book was writtenfor West Coast gardeners, many ofthe pests are common throughoutNorth America, and exclusion, pre-vention, trapping, and least-toxicchemical controls can be used any-where.

Linda emphasizes prevention,since “preventative methods aresafe, usually cheap and do a goodjob of avoiding damaging infesta-tions.” This approach includesresistant plants, floating row cov-ers, mulch, proper care, and put-ting the “right plant in the rightplace.” Prevention is so effectivethat Linda says, “although I listleast-toxic pesticides as controls inthis book, in 20 years of gardeningon the West Coast, I have had toresort to such products only ahandful of times.” The short list ofleast-toxic products includesBacillus thuringiensis (BT), oils,insecticidal soap, diatomaceousearth, pyrethrins, acetic acid, corngluten meal, sulfur, lime sulfur, andferric phosphate. Also mentionedare garlic, hot pepper, and herbs.

The book is broadly organizedinto general pest management prin-ciples, and problems with insects,diseases and disorders, and weeds.Information is arranged pest-by-pest and includes a description ofthe pest, life cycle, damage, preven-tion, and control. Insect pests arearranged according to chewers, sapsuckers, and root feeders.

There is a good section contain-ing capsule summaries of damagealong with diagnosis. There are over130 photos and illustrations thatmake it easy to identify insectpests, beneficial insects and plantdiseases. I especially like the rulerthat is included with each photothat allows an estimate of actualsize. Quite often, concepts of sizeare omitted from gardening books,or dimensions are given without avisual cue.

We are given lists, photos, and


Updatedescriptions of beneficial insects.“There are literally thousands ofspecies of predatory and parasiticinsects native to the coast,” andLinda tells us how to attract andencourage them. To attract them,make sure there is a source ofdrinking water and insectary plantssuch as kale, parsley, dill, cilantro,sweet alyssum, calendula, can-dytuft, thyme, lovage, yarrow,daisies and goldenrod.

Methods of diagnosis, descrip-tions, photos, and methods of pre-vention and control are given forthe most common garden diseases.For instance, to prevent dampingoff, plant fresh seed in well-drainedsoil; do not overwater; ensure goodventilation; incorporate compost, oruse teas of horsetail or compost.

As a bonus, there is a section onmaintaining healthy lawns withoutusing herbicides. Emphasis is onprevention, cultural methods, andhand weeding. A good tip is to useboiling water to control weeds grow-ing through cracks in hard surfacessuch as driveways or patios.

For organic gardener’s and oth-ers looking for effective solutions topest problems without turning toharsh chemicals, this book is highlyrecommended.—Bill Quarles

Wildlife Pest Control aroundGardens and Homes, 2nd ed.Terrell P. Salmon, Desley A. Whissonand Rex E. Marsh. 2006. Pub. No.21385, University of California,Agriculture and Natural Resources,Oakland, CA, 510/642-2431;http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu.Paperback. 122 pp.

Many of us in urban areas withmodest backyards have learned tolive with and enjoy creatures suchas squirrels, birds, raccoons anddeer. The Humane Society and theNational Wildlife Federation encour-age this approach. Sometimes, how-ever, numbers can increase to thepoint that our visitors can becomepests. If our dwellings are reason-ably sound, and pests are excluded,much of the friction occurs in gar-den situations. They want to eat it,and maybe we do not want toshare.

This book by wildlife experts atthe University of California, Davis isin its second edition. One of thereasons this book has been suc-cessful is the use of IPM methods.According to the authors, “IPM isan ecological approach..and usuallyinvolves the use of two or moremanagement methods...encompass-ing exclusion, sanitation, modifica-tion of habitats, trapping, chemicalrepellents, frightening devices, andthe selective use of appropriatetoxic pesticides...”

The authors give good descrip-tions of how to use netting to pre-vent damage from birds, squirrelsand other wildlife pests. Invertedstrawberry baskets can protectyoung seedlings, shiny reflectivetape stretched over garden rows isrepellent. And what better use ofold CDs than to stretch them on astring over garden plants to frightenbirds?

Control of wildlife has some legalaspects to it that the authors helpclarify. For instance, the use ofsteel jawed leghold traps is not per-mitted in California. Only Europeanstarlings, house sparrows andpigeons may be controlled without apermit in California, however, otherspecies can be frightened away orexcluded from the house or garden.Most repellents are not registeredfor food crops.

Though rat baits may be some-times necessary, the authors rec-ommendation of poison baits forgophers in a home and garden situ-ation seems unnecessary. Exclusionand trapping methods are effectivecontrols. Poisons that kill mammalsare inherently dangerous, and sec-ondary poisonings are also welldocumented. If used at all, they cer-tainly should be used with greatcare.—Bill QuarlesS

UB

AD


Conference Notes

By Joel Grossman

This is Part 3 of ConferenceHighlights from the hurricane-delayed annual meeting of the

Entomological Society of America(ESA), Dec. 15-18, 2005, in FortLauderdale, Florida. ESA’s nextannual meeting is December 10-14,2006, in Indianapolis, Indiana. Formore information contact the ESA(10001 Derekwood Lane, Suite 100,Lanham, MD 20706; 301/731-4535;http://www.entsoc.org).

Improved Trécé Dome Trap

According to Michael Mullen(Trécé, Inc, Adair, OK 74330;[email protected]), “theStorgard® Dome trap system hasbecome the most effective monitor-ing system for stored-product bee-tles including the red flour beetle,Tribolium castaneum, and the con-fused flour beetle, T. confusum.” Thesystem uses a combination of anaggregation pheromone, a kairo-mone, and unique trap design. Thepitfall trap and dome cover make itescape proof and dust resistant.However, manufacture of the traprequires that the ramp leading tothe pitfall be hand sanded to preci-sion tolerances.

Trécé has improved the trapwith a precision molded surface, animproved locking mechanism andlure holder, and a synergizedkairomone. Tribolium sp. are notgood climbers and a surface that

will allow them to grip and climbwas essential. Mullen tested severalmolded surfaces and found one thatwas both easy for the insects toclimb, and easy to produce in amold. “When compared to thehand-sanded trap, the new moldedsurface of the trap increased cap-ture of red flour beetles by 17%.”

The new molded traps can be eas-ily stacked, and the lure holder canhold up to three lures. “The functionof an effective kairomone in this sys-tem is that it is attractive to the tar-get pest, maintains its effectivenessas a killing agent and is stable overtime,” said Mullen. Adding a synergistto the kairomone produced a newblend “27% more effective for attract-ing Tribolium sp. than the originalkairomone alone.” The improvedblend lasted several months and “sig-nificantly improved the effectivenessof the Dome system for monitoringTribolium sp.” However, the kairo-mone blend did not improve captureof saw-toothed grain beetles,Oryzaephilus surinamensis.

Short-Range Pheromone MicroDots“The use of pheromone-baited

traps is the best way to monitor forinsect infestations,” said DonnaLingren (Trécé Inc, 3177 ManchesterCt, Palo Alto, CA; [email protected]). “The sex pheromoneZETA [(Z,E)-9,12- tetradecadien-1-olacetate] is one of the most powerfulpheromones for stored-product moths.Most traps baited with the pheromoneare adequate to detect the presence ofthe Indianmeal moth, Plodia inter-punctella, and other pyralid moths.The difficulty in locating infestations isexacerbated by the power of thepheromone.” The pheromone is sogood at attracting moths from longdistances that it is hard to pinpointthe source of infestations.

“Pinpointing infestations canreduce the need for generalized con-

trol treatments and will result inlower treatment costs,” saidLingren. Several methods are avail-able to pinpoint local infestations.Traps can be concentrated in thearea of the suspected infestation orstatistical methods such as spatialmapping can be used. But thesemethods require “intensive labor”and “an extended trapping period.”A shorter monitoring period neces-sitates a pheromone trapping sys-tem where moths are attracted fromshorter distances.

“Using a standard lure, maleswere found to land in the vicinity ofthe trapping surface and to walktowards the lure, a process thattook about 8 seconds from landingto capture,” said Lingren. “A lureloaded with a reduced amount ofpheromone would decrease theamount of time from landing to cap-ture and permit a mini-trap to beused. Several load rates were testeduntil one was found that reducedthe time from landing to capture toapproximately 2.5 seconds.”

MicroDot® lures with reducedpheromone loads attracted fewermoths (1/4 as many as standardlures) over shorter distances (3-4m; 10-13 ft), allowing infestationsources to be pinpointed and elimi-nated more quickly. In IPM pro-grams, mini-traps with MicroDot®lures allow swift precision targetingof pest control efforts after standardlures indicate infestations.

Female Lures“IPM has taken on greater

prominence as the need for pesti-cide-free organic foods increasesand also as insects develop resist-ance to conventional fumigants andinsecticides,” said Charles Kone-mann (Oklahoma State Univ, 127Noble Res Center, Stillwater, OK74078; [email protected]).“The major drawback to usingpheromone-based methods such as

ESA 2005 Annual MeetingHighlights– Part 3

Confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum


Conference Notesused infrared still photography tostudy each cabbage looper moth for120 hours. According to Haynes,“The periodicity of calling behaviormay adapt to extrinsic factors suchas environmental temperature, thecharacter of predators, or otherspecies that share the communica-tion channel.”

Parasitoid PheromonesNancy Epsky (USDA-ARS-SHRS,

13601 Old Cutler Rd, Miami, FL;[email protected]) talkedabout pheromone attractants forparasitoids. Sex pheromones aloneor in combination with host fruitvolatiles may provide an effectivetrapping system for the braconidparasitoid Diachasmimorpha longi-caudata, which is mass producedfor Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrephasuspensa. Male D. longicaudataproduce a long range chemicalattractant for females. Females mayalso produce small amounts of ashort range pheromone. This pat-tern of males producing largerquantities of pheromones for long-range attraction of females andfemales producing smaller quanti-ties of pheromones for short-rangeattraction of males may be commonamong parasitic wasps.

The male pheromone has twocomponents that are being identi-fied for formulation into commercialpheromone lures. Pheromone moni-toring traps for parasitic waspsshould aid biological control by pro-viding a reliable method to monitorparasitoid populations. Geometry,trap color, and host volatiles canincrease the attraction. Accordingto Epsky, “Messing and Yang (1992)reported that capture of femaleswas highest on yellow or greenunbaited sticky spheres traps, andthat the addition of fruit fly hostvolatiles increased capture of D.longicaudata.”

In the field, D. longicaudatamales aggregate in leks and “per-form bouts of wing fanning bothwhen alone or in the presence ofother conspecifics,” said Epsky.Wing fanning produces acoustic sig-nals. Males approaching othermales or females produce an“approach song,” and a “pre-copula-

tory song” is produced during mat-ing. When the recorded songs arebroadcast, females become activeand males become quiescent.

“Sounds directed towards femaleswere found to have shorter buzzesand longer intervals between boutsthan those directed towards othermales, thus indicating a sexualfunction,” said Epsky. Wing fanningcould also be used to dispersepheromones from the male or toincrease air flow over the male,improving orientation toward femaleodors.

Saltcedar BeetlePheromones

“Saltcedar, Tamarix sp., was orig-inally imported from Eurasia as anornamental and for erosion controlon streambanks and river channels,”said Allard A. Cossé (USDA/ARS/NCAUR, 1815 N. University Street,Peoria, IL 61604; [email protected]). These fast growing shrubsor small trees can become weedscausing economic and ecologicaldamage. A saltcedar biological controlagent, the leaf beetle Diorhabda elon-gata, was released in the U.S and isestablished in Lovelock, Nevada, andnorth of the 38th parallel.

To monitor D. elongata and studyits biology and dispersal, “a male-produced aggregation pheromonewas demonstrated, identified andsynthesized,” said Cossé. “Twopheromone components (2E,4Z-hep-tadienal and 2E,4Z-heptadien-1-ol)and several six-carbon general greenleaf volatiles are highly attractive tothe beetles in the field.”

Early in the season, traps baitedwith either pheromone or leafvolatile lures captured equal num-bers of male and female beetles. Acombination of pheromone and leafvolatiles was synergistic. Fieldexperiments with lures will evaluaterelease rates and ratios of leafvolatiles to pheromone blend com-ponents.

Pheromones forLoosestrife Biocontrol“Purple loosestrife, Lythrum sali-

caria, is an invasive weed that hashad a serious impact on North

mass trapping and mating disrup-tion is that they target only males.Untrapped males or males unaffect-ed by mating disruption can matemultiple times, thus maintaining asubstantial moth population.”

One female Indianmeal moth canlay 300 eggs in a lifetime, so trapswith female attractants are a goodIPM tool. At a close range, variousfoods and oils stimulate mothegglaying and could potentially lureand trap females.

“We now have an attractiveextract that is a mixture of natural-ly occurring food volatiles...,” saidKonemann. A patent applicationhas been filed and the product iscalled Moth Suppression® (InsectsLimited Inc). In laboratory studiesand field trials in a pet food ware-house, traps baited with MothSuppression successfully capturedfemale moths despite competingodor sources.

Looper Pheromone“The periodicity of pheromone

release (calling) and male responsive-ness adds another potential dimen-sion to reproductive isolation amongspecies,” said Kenneth Haynes (Univof Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506;[email protected]). In some cases,species with similar, or even identi-cal, pheromone blends may be repro-ductively isolated from other speciesby distinctive daily calling periods forfemales and temporally coordinatedresponses by males.

Haynes used “parent-offspringanalysis” to investigate “heritablevariation in the calling behavior” ofcabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni.“The resemblance of mothers andtheir daughters in temporal aspectsof their calling behaviors indicatesthat these characters would evolveunder selection,” said Haynes, who

Adult Indianmeal moth, Plodia interpunctella


Conference NotesAmerican wetlands,” said RobertBartelt (USDA/ARS/NCAUR, 1815N. University Street, Peoria, IL61604; [email protected]). Asbiocontrol agents, the leaf-eatingbeetles Galerucella calmariensis andG. pusilla “have been very effectivein some, but not all, instances.”Identifying the long-range beetlepheromones would be useful formonitoring and increasing the effec-tiveness of biocontrol releases.

Volatiles from feeding male andfemale beetles were vacuum collect-ed for gas chromatography analysis.

“G. calmarien-sis and G.pusilla malesproduce thesame com-pound” as apheromone,said Bartelt. Asynthetic ver-sion of thepheromoneattractedmales andfemales ofboth beetlespecies. This

raises the very important questionof how these species stay separatein nature and also raises the practi-cal question of how the sharedpheromone may affect biocontrolefforts.

Cactoblastis PheromonesThe South American cactus

moth, Cactoblastis cactorum, isused worldwide as a biological weedcontrol for prickly pear, Opuntiaspp. Accidentally introduced intoFlorida in 1989, C. cactorum is rap-idly spreading across the Atlanticand Gulf Coasts. C. cactorum is apotential threat to the U.S. south-west and Mexico, where nativeOpuntia cactus are important todesert ecosystem stability and bio-diversity, as well as to economicallyimportant vegetable, fruit and for-age industries.

Pheromones, cultural control(sanitation) and sterile male insectreleases (SIT) are combined in anIPM approach designed to protectnative Opuntia species by stoppingC. cactorum before it reaches the

southwestern U.S. and Mexico. TheC. cactorum sex pheromone is use-ful for monitoring C. cactorummovement into new areas and eval-uating sterile male insect releases.

One way of obtaining C. cacto-rum pheromone is cutting openfemale moth abdominal glands, saidRobert Heath (USDA, 13601 OldCutler Rd, Miami, FL, 33158;[email protected]). However,pheromone chemicals obtained inthis way do not reflect actualrelease ratios, or the true phero-mone components released in thewild. Natural pheromone blends areobtained by collecting volatile chemicalsfrom calling female moths. Adding alive virgin female moth to glandextracts boosts male landing ratesto 90%.

A little piece of Opuntia cactusin a modified film cannister with alive virgin female C. cactorum mothcan serve as a pheromone trap lure.White Pherocon 1-C traps workwell; wing traps are better thandelta and bucket traps. The femalemoth’s mate calling success can bemeasured in terms of variablessuch as the number of malesattracted, duration of calling, howlong it takes for males to arrive,and mating success.

However, caged virgin femalemoths in field traps are not the pre-ferred IPM monitoring option. Todetect low C. cactorum populationlevels over wider areas, “a completepheromone system” with conven-tional lures is being sought. Con-ventional pheromone lures willallow trapping to extend beyond theleading edge of the C. cactoruminfestation. Pheromone lures willenable monitoring of uninfestedstates from Alabama to Californiaand into Mexico, where the threatto native Opuntia is high.

Insect Benefits Worth $60 Billion

“Beneficial insects are under anever-increasing threat from a com-bination of forces, including habitatdestruction, invasion of foreignspecies, and overuse of toxic chemi-cals,” said John Losey (CornellUniv, 2119 Comstock Hall, Ithaca,

NY 14853; [email protected]). Mostinsects that provide essential serv-ices are not, at least at the presenttime, rare or endangered. “The opti-mal strategies for conserving thesestill-common but declining benefi-cial insects are almost certainlyvery different from those that aremost effective at conserving rareand endangered insects.”

Insect economic benefits rangefrom $50 billion for recreation to $3billion for crop pollination, $380million for dung burial and $4.5 bil-lion for biological control. Naturalcontrol of native pests is valued at$21 billion, but only a third of thatfigure is attributed to insects. Partof the recreational value of insectsis as a food source for fish, game,and birds. The value for recreation-al fishermen is $28 billion, and birdwatchers get $20 billion in insectbenefits. “It is imperative that somefederal and local funding and effortbe directed toward the study ofthese vital services,” said Losey.

Insect AttitudesInsect mythology can give impor-

tant insights into a culture. TheNavajo culture is one of the few thatviews flies (Diptera) as positive, saidCarol Anelli (Washington StateUniv, P.O. Box 646382, Pullman,WA 99164; [email protected]).Among Navajos, Big Fly is a positiveinsect that mediates betweenhumans and deities, riding alongthe shoulder of youth and providinghelpful answers. Dragonflies(Odonata) symbolize pure water.

According to Navajo creationlegends, humans began as insectpeople. The dragonfly and red andblack ants and beetles were amongthe 12 types of insects; the cicadagave entry to the Fifth World, wherehumans are today. Butterflies(Lepidoptera) are found on prehis-toric Navajo and Hopi pottery. TheHopi consider butterfly flightincomprehensible magic, and havethe myth and ritual of the butterflyclan, butterfly kachinas and thebutterfly dance.

Flies (Diptera) have mostly neg-ative roles in world cultures, possi-bly because carrion-feeding mag-

Purple looses-trife, Lythrumsalicaria


Conference Notesgots are associated with death andevil spirits, said Ron Cherry (Univ ofFlorida, 3200 E. Palm Beach Rd,Belle Glade FL. 33420), co-authorof the book Insect Mythology. Also,biting flies and mosquitoes canseem like punishment. About 9% offly myths and 37% of butterflymyths concern metamorphosis. Incontrast to the negativity associatedwith flies, butterflies are mostlyassociated with the beauty ofnature, the soul, freedom, feminini-ty, foolishness, creation and cre-ativity. Though in Serbia andWestphalia, butterflies are associat-ed with witches. In his book Cherryexplores whether our attitudestowards various insects are theresult of inherent archetypes in thehuman mind or the evolution ofparallel myths in different cultures.

Earwig Traps“The European earwig, Forficula

auricularia, plays a significant rolein many orchard systems in thePacific Northwest, both as pest andbeneficial insect, depending oncrop,” said Jesse Benbow (OregonState Univ, 569 Hanley Road,Medford, OR; [email protected]). Beating tray sampling iscommonly used to monitor arborealinsect populations, but the noctur-nal nature of earwigs makes thismethod inadequate for monitoringeffects of pesticides or culturalpractices on earwig populations.

“Earwigs are nocturnal foragersthat typically seek a small, securecrevice in which to hide during theday,” said Benbow. “We determinedthat the small shelters created by arolled tube of corrugated materialwould provide an attractive spacefor earwigs seeking shelter duringdaylight hours.” Corrugated card-board tube traps 10 cm (4 in) wideand 4 cm (1.6 in) in diameterattached to the trunks or majorscaffold limbs of organic pear treestrapped more earwigs than similarlyshaped plastic traps. The traps alsocaught larvae and pupae of thecodling moth, Cydia pomonella, spi-ders and other insects.

Rolled, corrugated cardboardtubes can be used as inexpensive,yet efficient trapping device to mon-

itor earwig populations in the field.The traps are simple to constructand easy to place and retrieve.Shorter length traps caught fewerearwigs total, but more earwigs perunit area than longer traps. Traps25 cm (10 in) long monitored ear-wigs all season long in orchardstreated selectively for codling moth.

Fly Light TrapsMatthew Aubuchon (Univ of

Florida, Bldg 970, Natural Area Dr,Gainesville, FL 32611; [email protected]) talked about light traps. Hebelieves that light trap experimentsshould compensate for the highbackground illumination found inurban areas. This background canrange from 27 to 91 lumens of lightper m2 (10.8 ft2). House flies, Muscadomestica, are sensitive to ultraviolet(UV) light and the 480-510 nanome-ter (nm) blue-green light of coolwhite fluorescent and other bulbscommonly used in buildings. Thebackground light from these bulbsin buildings reduces blacklight trapcatches of house flies, compared to adark background.

When competing UV and 480-510 nm light bulb sources are elim-inated in stores, restaurants andelsewhere, house fly catches in UVlight traps are higher. UV bulbs arebetter than other daylight bulbs forcatching house flies in urban areas,though competing light sources stillreduce trap catches.

Aubuchon tested house flieswith four qualitatively different fluo-rescent light sources and four dif-ferent intensity levels and measuredresponses to UV light traps. Alltreatments were compared to darkcontrols with no competing lightsources. As the intensity of compet-ing light sources increased, thecatch efficacy of insect light trapsdecreased. Even with a dark back-ground, it required four hours tocatch 92% of the flies. Thus, lighttraps alone without other IPM tech-niques do not provide complete100% fly control.

Horn Fly TrapsKelly Loftin and Bobby Hall (Univ

of Arkansas Extension, 2301 S.

University Ave, Little Rock, AR72204; [email protected]) have beenworking on an alternative controlmethod for horn fly, Haematobia irri-tans. “The project used a mechani-cal horn fly trap initially designedby USDA entomologist Willis Brucein the 1930s” (Hall and Doisy,1989). The trap was placed so thatcattle must pass through it in orderto gain access to water. Horn fliesbrushed off an animal’s back withcanvas strips are captured in trap-ping elements located on the sidesof the trap. (see IPMP 19(9):1-4)

Once the cattle are acclimated tothe trap, minimal attention is need-ed and insecticide use is minimized.“The method resulted in a 57% hornfly population reduction in compari-son to the untreated control,” saidLoftin and Hall. Average horn fliesper animal never exceeded 100,which was well below the economicinjury level of 200.

Trapping is particularly usefulwhen combined with other IPMtechniques to control insecticideresistant horn flies (Steelman et al.,2003). “The estimated cost per ani-mal for trap use was calculated at$1.30 based on a 20 year lifespan,$500 for initial construction materi-als and $300 in repairs over the 20year period,” said Loftin and Hall.“For comparison, the cost associat-ed with using a back rubber andinsecticide impregnated ear tag wasabout $0.41 and $1.85 per head,respectively.”

Fly-Fighting Fungi“Use of Beauveria bassiana (strain

GHA) and Metarhizium anisopliae(strain ESCI) in dust bags or backrubbers for treatment of horn flies oncattle in the field needs to be evaluat-ed,” said Kimberly Lohmeyer (USDA-ARS, 2700 Fredericksburg Rd,Kerrville, TX 78028; [email protected]). When 0.5 g(0.02 oz) of conidia or blastospores ofB. bassiana, Paecilomycesfumosoroseus (strain ARSEF 3581) orM. anisopliae dusted on faux cattlefur were tested against adult hornflies for 2 hours inside clear plastictubes covered with aluminum, B.bassiana “caused the highest mortal-ity and had the shortest LT50 in


Conference Notesadult horn flies when compared tothe untreated control.” M. anisopliaealso caused significantly more mor-tality than the untreated control.

At 4 days post exposure, fliestreated with B. bassiana had anaverage of 98.4% mortality com-pared to 43.5% from treatment withM. anisopliae and 13.0% from treat-ment with P. fumosoroseus. At 7days post exposure, flies treatedwith B. bassiana had an average of100.0% mortality compared to73.0% from treatment with M.anisopliae and 33.3% from treat-ment with P. fumosoroseus. TheLT50 was 2.70 days for B. bas-siana, 4.98 days for M. anisopliae,7.97 days for P. fumosoroseus and9.42 days for the control.

Essential Oil Lures“Early in the last century, cit-

ronella oil was discovered by acci-dent to be attractive to maleBactrocera fruit flies in India,” saidDavid Robacker (USDA ARS, 2413E. Highway 83, Weslaco, TX 78596;[email protected]).“This oil was attractive because itcontained a small amount of methyleugenol, which to this day is themost powerful attractant for malesof any species of fruit fly.”

Most essential oils decreasedthe attractiveness of AFF lures forMexican fruit flies, Anastrephaludens. But grapefruit, rose, andlemongrass oil enhanced the attrac-tiveness of AFF lures by 20-30% toboth males and females. The workwill now begin to identify the attrac-tive principals in grapefruit, roseand lemongrass oils that enhancethe attractiveness of the AFF lure.

Neem Safety for Medfly IPM

“Azadirachtin is probably themost well known bioactive second-ary metabolite produced by theneem tree, Azadirachta indica,” saidMassimo Cristofaro (ENEA, Rome,Italy; [email protected]). This compound showshigh toxicity for phytophagousinsects, acting as a feeding deter-rent and sterilant, interfering withinsect growth regulation, neurose-

cretory glandactivity, andchitin synthe-sis.

Cristofaroinvestigatedthe effect ofneem onPsyttalia con-color, a bra-conid waspreleased forbiological control of medfly,Ceratitis capitata; olive fruit fly,Bactrocera oleae; and other fruit flypests in Hawaii, Central Americaand the Mediterranean Basin.

“Although neem-based productsare widely used in least-toxic, sus-tainable integrated pest control prac-tices, the effects of azadirachtin onbeneficial insects, such as parasitoidsand predators, are still unclear, andsubject of controversial opinions inthe scientific community,” saidCristofaro. “This work showed thatazadirachtin treatment of the hostaffects only partially the parasitoid,allowing it to complete its lifecycle...the field applications ofazadirachtin-based pest controlstrategies appear to be safe for benefi-cial insects.” (see IPMP 27(5/6):1-14)

Grubs in OklahomaAccording to Joseph Doskocil

(Oklahoma State Univ, Stillwater,OK 74078; [email protected]),“There are more than 150 knownspecies of white grubs, Phyllophagaspp. in North America; however,only 25 species are known to feedon turfgrasses.” In many regions ofthe U.S., the species of Phyllophagathat are important to the turfindustry have not been identified,despite the fact that they are impor-tant turf pests. May and June bee-tle grubs feeding on grass rootslimit turf development and quality,resulting in “damaged turf that liftseasily like carpet.”

“Species that are economicallyimportant pests of turfgrasses inOklahoma are not documented,”said Doskocil, in part becausePhyllophaga adult and larvae aredifficult and time-consuming toidentify. Doskocil collected 2,700adult Phyllophaga from seven golf

courses using a 1.2 m (4 ft) highblacklight trap. Of the 12 Phy-llophaga species captured, the mostcommon were P. crassissima, P.glabricula, P. crinita, P. praeter-missa, and P. congrua. Flight timesand adult emergence varied for thedifferent Phyllophaga species duringthe April to July survey period.

Giant Salvinia Biocontrol“Giant salvinia, Salvinia molesta,

is a free-floating aquatic fern that isone of the world’s most serioustropical and subtropical aquaticweeds,” said Leeda Wood (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 22675 N. MoorefieldRd. #S-6414, Edinburg, TX 78541;[email protected]).Originating in southeastern Brazil,it was first found outside of cultiva-tion in 1995 in South Carolina andwas quickly eradicated. In 1989 itwas detected in Texas and hassince been recorded in numerousdrainages in 13 states, includingHawaii and Puerto Rico.

Giant salvinia reproduces vege-tatively and aggressively colonizesslow-moving and quiet open waters.Its potential U.S. distribution isexpected to be similar to that ofanother aquatic weed, waterhyacinth... Biological control ofgiant salvinia using the salviniaweevil, Cyrtobagous salviniae, hasbeen a successful strategy in atleast 12 countries throughout theworld. In all cases, the giantsalvinia populations were rapidlycontrolled and reduced to less than1% of their original infestationswithout non-target impacts.

According to Daniel Flores(USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 22675 N.Moorefield Rd. #S-6414, Edinburg,TX 78541; [email protected]),salvinia weevils are reared in green-houses and outdoor field cages forrelease in Louisiana and Texas. Atotal of 651,136 larvae, pupae andadult forms of the weevil werereleased in late 2001 at five sites inEast Texas. The weevil becamequickly established and “populationsof the federal noxious weed werereduced to less than 10% of the orig-inal infestation at all of the releasesites” and dissolved oxygen signifi-cantly increased in pond waters.

Medfly, Ceratitis capitata

Poison HemlockBiocontrol

“Poison hemlock, Conium macula-tum, a Eurasian weed naturalized inNorth America, contains high con-centrations of piperidine alkaloids”and in the U.S. “was largely freefrom herbivory until approximately30 years ago,” said Eva Castells(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 320MH 505 S GoodwinAve, Urbana, IL 61801; [email protected]). Poison hemlock’s ten-dency to invade fields of alfalfa andother forage crops has led to live-stock death through contaminationof green-chopped hay. Rank odorand profuse growth also make poi-son hemlock an eradication target.

Biological control is limited by thefact that very few insects feed on poi-son hemlock. An aphid, Hyadaphisfoeniculi, accidentally introducedfrom Europe is among the few abun-dant insects attacking poison hem-lock in California. A European leaf-rolling caterpillar, Agonopterix alstroe-meriana, sometimes causes completedefoliation of poison hemlock in thePacific Northwest. A. alstroemeriana“has demonstrated potential for sys-tematic use as a biocontrol agent,”said Johnson, and in the westernU.S. “has quickly become establishednaturally in infested locations andhas established itself when it hasbeen intentionally released.”

In experiments, the caterpillarlaid more eggs and caused moredamage to poison hemlock plantspossessing lower levels of defensivemonoterpene and alkaloid com-pounds. Thus, prolonged reassocia-tion of the caterpillar and weed mayexert selective pressure for poisonhemlock plants containing higherlevels of the coniine and piperidinealkaloids noxious to humans andlivestock.


Conference NotesSynergistic

Waterhyacinth Biocontrol“Waterhyacinth, Eichhornia cras-

sipes, is an important invasivefloating aquatic weed in the south-ern U.S.,” said Patrick Moran(USDA-ARS, 2413 E Hwy 83,Weslaco, TX 78596; [email protected]). In the 1970s twocongeneric curculionid weevils,Neochetina bruchi and N. eichhorni-ae, were released, and these weevilshave reduced waterhyacinth popu-lations. However, millions of dollarsare still spent annually for mechan-ical and chemical control of water-hyacinth in the U.S.

Inoculating waterhyacinth weevilswith the plant pathogenic fungi,Cercospora piaropi and Acremoniumzonatum, “prior to augmentativereleases could lead to additive orsynergistic biological control” of float-ing waterhyacinth, said Moran. Theconcept of vectoring, or carrying ofplant pathogen inoculum by leaf-feeding beetles is well-established incrops but has not been widelyapplied to biological control of weeds.

Weevils remained capable ofinfecting 80-90% of the weeds withplant pathogens for two weeks afterexposure to fungal suspensions.Releasing weevils inoculated withplant pathogens caused as muchwaterhyacinth damage as “simulta-neous infestation with non-inocu-lated weevils and foliar applicationof the fungus” as a bioherbicide.

“Additional work is needed tomaximize the potential for waterhy-acinth weevil vectoring to improvebiological control,” said Moran. Theseasonal timing of weevil releasemay be important. Plants may bemost vulnerable when their growthor size is lowest, such as duringcooler periods in areas where wee-vils are active year-round, or earlyin spring in areas where dormancyoccurs. Formulation technologycould improve the utility of plantpathogenic fungi as vectored bio-control agents by improving theadherence, survival and dispersal offungal inoculum.

CalendarJuly 18-21, 2006. Tree Seed Symposium. Fredericton, NewBrunswick, Canada. Contact: www.tss2006.org

July 26-27, 2006. 5th Annual California BiocontrolConference. Mission Inn, Riverside, CA. Contact: LynnLeBeck, Academic Coordinator, Center for BiologicalControl, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720; 559/360-7111;Fax 559/646-6593; www.cnr.berkeley, edu/biocon/

July 29-August 2, 2006. Annual Meeting AmericanPhytopathological Society. Quebec City, QC, Canada.Contact: APS, 3340 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, MN 55121;Fax 612/454-0766; www.apsnet.org

July 29-August 3, 2006. Annual Meeting CanadianPhytopathological Society. Quebec City, Canada. Contact:R. Belanger, FSAA Phytologie Dept., Pav Comtois, Univ.Laval, Quebec, QC, GlK 7P4;[email protected]

August 10-13, 2006. 27th Annual Conference, AmericanCommunity Gardening Association. Los Angeles, CA.Contact: Betsey Johnson, ACGA, c/o Franklin ParkConservatory, 1777 East Broad St., Columbus, OH 43203,[email protected]

August 15-17, 2006. National SARE Conference, NorthCentral Region. Contact: www.sare.org/ncrsare/2006

August 21-23, 2006. Introduction to Soil Foodweb withElaine Ingham. Sustainable Studies Inst., Corvallis, OR.Contact: Joe Whaley, 541-752-5066; www.sustainablestud-ies.org

August 24, 2006. Compost Seminar with Elaine Ingham.Sustainable Studies Inst., Corvallis, OR. Contact: JoeWhaley, 541-752-5066; www.sustainablestudies.org

August 25, 2006. Compost Tea Seminar with ElaineIngham. Sustainable Studies Inst., Corvallis, OR. Contact:Joe Whaley, 541-752-5066; www.sustainablestudies.org

August 26, 2006. Microscope Class with Elaine Ingham.Sustainable Studies Inst., Corvallis, OR. Contact: JoeWhaley, 541-752-5066; www.sustainablestudies.org

September 10-15, 2006. 7th Intl. Symp. Fruit Flies.Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Contact: www.fruitfly.com.br

September 22-24, 2006. Renewable Energy Roundup.Fredericksburg, TX. Contact:Renewable Energy Roundup,PO Box 9507, Austin, TX 78766; www.the roundup.org

September 23, 2006. Annual Meeting AmericanHorticultural Society. Alexandria, VA. Contact: AHS,800/777-7931; www.ahs.org

September 24-28, 2006. 15th Australasian WeedsConference. Managing Weeds in a Changing Climate.Adelaide, SA, Australia. Contact: [email protected];www.plevin.com.au/15awc2006/

September 29-30. Annual Meeting, Hawaii Pest ControlAssociation, Honolulu, HI. Call 808/533-6404.

October 7-11, 2006. Annual Conference Community FoodSecurity. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Contact: www.foodsecu-rity.org

October 20-22, 2006. 17th Annual Conference Bioneers.Marin Center, San Rafael, CA. Contact: www.bioneers.org

November 10-12, 2006. The Future of Farming.Washington Tilth, Vancouver, WA. Contact: TilthProducers, PO Box 85056, Seattle, WA 98145; 206/442-7620.

November 26-29, 2006. Northeastern Mosquito ControlAssociation. Saratoga Springs, NY Contact: www.nmca.org

December 10-14, 2006. Annual Meeting EntomologicalSociety of America. Indianapolis, IN. Contact: ESA, 9301Annapolis Rd., Lanham, MD 20706; Fax 301/731-4538;www.entsoc.org Waterhyacinth,

Eichhornia crassipes

Thermal Pest Eradication in Structures · pest control in California, and very roughly about 40 lbs...

Documents

Transcript of Thermal Pest Eradication in Structures · pest control in California, and very roughly about 40 lbs...