4.2 Article

Evaluation of different woods against fungus-growing termite Odontotermes obesus (Rambur) (Blattodea: Termitidae: Macrotermitinae) for use in bait stations

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASIA-PACIFIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 485-489

Publisher

KOREAN SOC APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aspen.2018.02.012

Keywords

Baiting; Wood preference; Wood density; Termite

Categories

Funding

  1. Higher Education Commission [21-631]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fungus-growing termites are important pests in buildings and agriculture in Pakistan and are difficult to control with existing bait systems. Development of bait systems requires the knowledge of foraging behavior of termite species. Behavior of foraging workers depends upon the quality and quantity of the food placed in the bait stations. In the current study, we tested 16 different woods (of varying density) for their susceptibility to an important fungus-growing termite, Odontotermes obesus (Rambur). The aim was to find a highly susceptible wood for use in bait stations. The woods were evaluated in no-choice and choice feeding experiments in the field by mass loss and visual ratings to the termites. Statistically significant differences were recorded (P < .001). Woods having low density were preferred to high density woods. Highest mass losses (%) were recorded from Ficus religiosa (86.49-87.8%), Bombax malabaricum (86.53-88.43%) and Populus euramericana (75.62-76.31%) in both no-choice and choice tests under very heavy attack (almost collapsed) to completely consumed visual rating category. The woods having least mass losses were Albizia lebbeck heartwood (7.03-9.91%), Syzygium cumuli (14.25-19.89%) and Dalbergia sissoo heartwood (14.35-24.88%) and had slightly to superficial attack with minimum rating values. Ficus religiosa, B. malabaricurn and P. euramericana appear suitable woods for use in bait stations for fungus-growing termites.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available