4.2 Article

Use of an acoustic emissions detector and intragallery injection of spinosad by pest control operators for remedial control of drywood termites (Isoptera : Kalotermitidae)

Journal

FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST
Volume 83, Issue 1, Pages 64-74

Publisher

FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.2307/3496230

Keywords

Incisitermes snyderi; Cryptotermes brevis; treatment time

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During 1997, four pest control companies in Florida (FL) participated in experimental use permit field trials to evaluate spinosad (NAF-85) for control of drywood termites (DWT). Forty-four DWT infestations of Incisitermes snyderi (Light) and Cryptotermes brevis (Walker) in 37 structures in FL were delineated using an acoustic emissions detector (AED). These infestations were injected with a 0.5% spinosad suspension concentrate formulation using a hand-held injector. The majority of these infestations were interior (68%) and were completely accessible (86%). The visible signs most frequently associated with DWT infestations were pellets (93% of infestations). A mean of 10 holes were drilled and 4.3 holes were injected with a total mean of 60.7 mi spinosad per infestation. At a mean of 44 days post-treatment, the overall reduction in acoustic emission (AE) counts/30 sec was 94%. AE activity was reduced by greater than or equal to 90% at 89% (n = 40) of the infestations and was completely eliminated at 61% (n = 27) of the infestations. The mean time to monitor a DWT infestation using the AED was 23.4 min for the 1(st) visit and 6.3 min for the 2(nd) visit. The mean time to drill, inject NAF-85, and plug drill holes was 13.7 min per infestation. The mean total time per trial site was 58.6 min for the 1(st) visit and 13.1 min for the 2(nd) visit. Results demonstrated the combination of the AED, spinosad and injector provided efficient and effective control of localized, accessible DWT infestations.

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