Commercially Available Biological Control Agents - Bio-Integral

By William Olkowski, EverettDietrick, Helga Olkowski andWilliam Quarles

As environmental effects ofchemical pesticides arebecoming better understood,

there is increasing pressure toreplace the more toxic materials. Insome cases, biological controls canhelp reduce, or sometimes replace,these toxic chemicals. Biocontrolsare especially useful for crop produc-tion in greenhouses, and are welladapted to the needs of organic agri-culture. Biocontrols can be releasedin parks and landscapes to relievepest pressures in municipal IPM pro-grams. Biocontrols also have a homein the backyard garden.

The beneficial insects and mitesproduced by the biological controlindustry can be divided into twogeneral groups: predators and para-sitoids. [Herbivorous weed biocon-trol agents that are collected andsold commercially, microbials, andbeneficial nematodes will be coveredin future articles.] Predators suchas the spined soldier bug, Podisusmaculiventris, minute pirate bug,Orius tristicolor, and the convergentlady beetle, Hippodamia convergens,directly attack and consume imma-ture and adult pest insects.

Parasitoids—usually tinywasps—are more indirect, as theylay their eggs on or inside the pest.When the eggs hatch, the pestinsect is eaten by the larval para-sitoids. Some parasitoids attackonly the adult stage of the pest,while others attack either the egg,larval, or pupal stage. Some adult

parasitoids also feed directly on thepest organism through woundsmade when they insert their eggs,and so have two modes of killingpests.

The most widely produced para-sitoids are various Trichogrammaspecies, which attack caterpillareggs. Whitefly parasitoids such asEncarsia species attack both thelate larval and pupal stages of thepest. Aphid parasitoids will lay eggsin adults, and fly parasitoids attackthe pupal stages.

Predators and parasitoids areoften further differentiated by theirfeeding habits. Many predatorsfeed on a broad spectrum of pests.For instance, lacewings eat caterpil-lars, aphids, and mites. Parasitoids

are more selective than predatorsand generally feed only on onegroup, and often on only one devel-opmental stage of the pest. Forexample, Trichogramma miniwaspsonly attack the eggs of moths andbutterflies. Because they have amore limited range of prey, andconcentrate on a target pest, para-sitoids can in some cases be moreeffective than predators.

Commercially Available Biological Control Agents

In This IssueCommercially Available Biological Control Agents 1

Conference Notes 10

Calendar 17

Volume XXV, Number 7/8, July/August 2003

Ph

oto

courtesy

of U

SD

A

A Trichogramma sp. wasp is ovipositing inside the egg of a caterpillar. Thedeveloping parasitoid will prevent the pest caterpillar from developing.

25th Year of

Publication

2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707IPM Practitioner, XXV(7/8) July/August 2003

UpdateThe IPM Practitioner is published ten 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 DaarTanya DrlikLaurie Swiadon

Editor-at-Large Joel Grossman

Business Manager Jennifer Bates

Artist Diane Kuhn

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

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, NY State Dept. Health; LindaGilkeson, Canadian Ministry of Envir.,Victoria, BC; Joseph Hancock, Univ. Calif,Berkeley; Helga Olkowski, Dietrick Inst.,Ventura, CA; William Olkowski, Dietrick Inst.,Ventura, CA; George Poinar, Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, OR; Ron Prokopy, Univ.Massachusetts; 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.

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 ben-efits 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.

© 2003 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758.All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X

Target PestsThe biocontrol industry produces

predators and parasitoids for sup-pressing aphids, mites, thrips, bee-tles, weevils, and caterpillars suchas cabbage looper, gypsy moth, dia-mondback moth, pink bollworm,Oriental fruit moth, and storedproduct moths. Parasitoids forcockroaches, leafminers, mealybugs,flies, scales, whiteflies, and otherpest species are also available.

A complete list of biocontrolorganisms and their suppliers canbe found in the publication,Directory of Least-Toxic Pest ControlProducts. This Directory is producedeach year by the Bio-IntegralResource Center (BIRC). [To ordercopies, contact BIRC, PO Box 7414,Berkeley, CA 94707; 510/524-2567, [email protected]].

Structure of the IndustryIn North America, beneficial

insects and mites are raised byabout 30 relatively small independ-ent companies and a division of thelarge corporation Syngenta. There isan industry group called theAssociation of Natural BiocontrolProducers (ANBP) that representsindustrial interests and organizesmeetings. In Europe, productionand distribution is dominated bytwo large corporations: Koppert andBiobest. These corporations havedistributors throughout the world(see the BIRC Directory).

How Beneficials are Reared

In North America, beneficialinsects and mites are generallyraised on live hosts. Thus, insec-taries first grow a culture of the tar-get pest or a suitable substitute,then use this host culture to feedbeneficials. In order to rear thehost, it is often necessary to growthe plant that the pest attacks. Forexample, potatoes are used to feed thecitrus mealybug, Pseudococcus citri,which in turn is used to feed predato-ry lady beetles, Cryptolaemus mon-trouzieri. Tobacco plants are used tofeed the whiteflies that are utilized byEncarsia formosa parasitoids.

Laboratory cultures of bothpests and natural enemies mustperiodically be renewed in order toavoid deterioration of the geneticstock. In addition, strict attentionmust be paid to sanitation to pre-vent contamination of the variousorganisms used in mass-rearingcultures. For example, if themealybug parasitoid, Pauridia spp.,contaminates the mealybug cultureused as food for predatory lady bee-tles, too few mealybugs will surviveto sustain the lady beetles.

Distribution of BeneficialsNatural enemies are generally

shipped directly from the insectaryfor overnight delivery to the cus-tomer or to a distributor who resellsthem to clients. Live beneficialinsects are often packaged with analternate food source to insure thebeneficials do not starve shouldthere be a delay in delivery orrelease. The packaging also usuallyincludes a cooling medium to pro-tect the beneficials against exces-sive heat and to retard their devel-opment until released.

Some kinds of parasitoids aresold as pupae glued on cards,which are hung on the foliage of thecrop. Other parasitoids are releasedas pupae mixed with sawdust thatis sprinkled into greenhouse pots.Still others are released as adults.

Mites are either released mixedwith bran, which is sprinkled intogreenhouse pots or the mites aredistributed on infested leaves thatare placed in the crop canopy. Mostlarger predators such as predatorybugs are sold and released as lar-vae or adults that are dispersed byhand over the crop canopy (vanDriesche et al. 2003). Lacewings areapplied as larvae or as eggs, and amechanical applicator has beendeveloped to apply lacewing eggs(see IPMP 22(4):1-5)

Trichogramma forCaterpillars

Tiny parasitic wasps in thegenus Trichogramma are the mostwidely studied biological controlagents in the world. These para-sitoids attack the eggs of caterpillar

3IPM Practitioner, XXV(7/8) July/August 2003 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707

Update

pests such as corn earworms, cornborers, spruce budworms, fruit-worms, hornworms, riceworms,armyworms, and many others.

On a worldwide basis, species inthe genus Trichogramma attackmore than 400 pest species in 203genera, 44 families and 7 orders(Bao and Chen 1989). The genusTrichogramma is only one of 75genera in the hymenopteran familyTrichogrammatidae with a total ofabout 500 species. Given theworldwide occurrence of this genusand its potential for development ofadditional commercial species, it issurprising how little research atten-tion it has received.

The most important work withTrichogramma has occurred in theUSSR and China, with Canada,Mexico, Europe, and the U.S. lag-ging behind. Taxonomic classifica-tion of the North American speciesis badly in need of revision. Thiseffort is now underway under thedirection of Dr. John Pinto at theUniversity of California at Riverside(Pinto 1998).

Three Common SpeciesThe three common species are T.

pretiosum, T. minutum, and T. plat-neri, and these are the major mass-produced species in North America.The latter two species may eventu-ally be redescribed as a singlespecies. According to Pinto, T. minutumand T. platneri are morphologicallyidentical, and mating crosses are notall fertile, thus reducing their effec-tiveness as biological control agents.This suggests that T. minutum should

not be released in areas where T. plat-neri occurs naturally, and vice-versa.

In general, Trichogramma designatedfor use in mass rearing systems shouldbe collected in the field from their ulti-mate hosts. In North America andEurope, parasitoids are reared on eggs ofthe Angoumois grain moth, Sitotrogacerealella. A single Trichogrammawasp emerges from each host egg.The moth itself is raised on wheatkernels. This mass production sys-tem using an “unnatural” (facti-tious) host was developed byFlanders in 1926 (Essig 1931).Improvements on this system arereviewed by Morrison and King(1977).

Today, ovipositing (egg-laying)Trichogramma females are placedinto a dimly-lit enclosure containinghost eggs for a short time, and thenremoved. Parasitized eggs are thencollected and distributed for releasein crops, orchards, gardens, andornamental landscapes. Some pro-ducers recommend that adultwasps be allowed to emerge in thecontainer and feed on a solution ofhoney water before they arereleased into a crop or garden.

Trichogramma in China In China, three other hosts are

used on a much larger scale to rearTrichogramma. The major hoststhere are the oak silkworm,Antheraea pernyi, and the eri silk-worm, Philosamia cynthia ricini.The rice moth, Corcyra cephalonica,is used to a lesser degree. Eggs ofthe oak and eri silkworms are

much larger than the grain motheggs used in North America andEurope.

Moth cocoons are collected fromfield sites, and adult moths areallowed to emerge after a period incold storage. Large sterile motheggs are taken from the unmatedfemales, dried, parasitized andplaced in cold storage for later use.These rearing systems are brieflyreviewed in Olkowski and Zhang(1990). The large moth eggs usedin China can produce 250 or moreparasitoids from a single egg, but60 to 80 Trichogramma per egg aremore typical. Trichogramma rearedin large eggs from which multipleparasitoids emerge are thought tobe more robust and to have greaterhost searching capabilities thanthose raised in the smaller grainmoth eggs that produce a singleparasitoid. However, there is notyet a definitive study to verify anydifferences. Chinese researchersreport high levels of parasitism byTrichogramma released in agricul-tural crops. For example, up to100% parasitization of first and sec-ond generation Oriental corn borerOstrinia furnacalis have been reported(Zhang et al. 1978).

Field ReleasesField evaluations of the effective-

ness of Trichogramma in the U.S.and Canada have centered on thefollowing species:

• T. minutum against the sprucebudworm, Choristoneura fumifer-ana, in the forests of Ontario,Canada;

• T. platneri against the avocadoleafroller, Amorbia cuneana, onavocado in California;

• T. pretiosum against the almondmoth, Cadra cautella, andIndian-meal moth, Plodia inter-punctella, in stored peanuts;

• T. pretiosum on Heliothis spp.and Helicoverpa zea in Arkansasand North Carolina,

• T. nubilale against the Europeancorn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, inDelaware.

Project summaries and cited lit-erature are reviewed in Olkowskiand Zhang (1990).

Tetrastichus galerucae attackseggs of the elm leaf beetle.

A Trichogramma wasp probes acaterpillar egg.


UpdateIn addition to Trichogramma,

about 19 other parasitoid speciesare commercially available for cater-pillar control, including Goniozuslegneri for management of the navelorangeworm (BIRC 2003) (see IPMP24(1):1-4).

Aphid Parasitoids Aphid parasitoids such as

Aphidius colemani, Aphidius erviand Aphelinus abdominalis are soldto control aphids in greenhouse cropssuch as tomatoes, peppers, andcucumbers. The usual targets are thegreen peach aphid, Myzus persicae;the potato aphid, Macrosyphumeuphorbiae; and the melon aphid,Aphis gossypii.

Aphidius parasitoids have alsobeen used to control grain aphidswith good success (Pike et al. 1997;1999). Aphidius spp. develop entire-ly inside host aphids, which eventu-ally become mummies when thelarvae pupate. When the adultemerges, it leaves a characteristicexit hole. The parasitoid is a goodsearcher, and can locate new aphidcolonies even when aphid popula-tions are low. The parasitoid isshipped either as aphid mummies(pupae) or as newly emerged adults.If adults are ordered, better resultsare obtained if some leaves areplaced in the wasp container forabout 30 minutes prior to introduc-tion. Adults should be releasedimmediately by walking along plantrows, allowing them to fly out of thecontainer (IPM 2003). Nine speciesof aphid parasitoids are currentlyavailable (BIRC 2003).

Filth Fly ParasitoidsParasitoids of garbage and

manure-breeding flies are commer-cially available. Many of these par-asitoids only attack flies in a specif-ic family or genus, so a variety ofparasitoids are often needed tosolve problems involving severalgroups of flies. The parasitoids aremass-reared on pupae of housefliesin plexiglass cages. Trays of 33,000pupae are exposed to egglaying par-asitoids, then removed from cagesand shipped for release. Directionsfor mass rearing house fly hosts aredescribed by Morgan (1981). Forrearing the parasitoids, consultMorgan (1980).

The mass-production andrelease of fly parasitoids in poultryhouses, dairy farms, cattle feedlots, and other livestock operationsfor control of the house fly, Muscadomestica, and related manure-breeding fly species, is an excellentexample of an IPM program incor-porating biological control tactics.Dietrick (1981) reviews this subject,as does Olkowski (1985a).

Patterson et al. (1981) describe anumber of biocontrol-oriented IPMprograms for flies. These programsare based primarily on research byDr. Fred Legner and associates atthe University of California atRiverside, who collected parasitoidsfrom various continents, colonizedmany species, developed mass-rear-ing systems, and field tested IPMprograms with cooperating farmers.There is also an excellent IPM pro-gram for the house fly and the bit-ing fly, Stomoxys calcitrans,described by Merritt et al. (1981).

These IPM programs are operat-ed by pest control advisors whoseservices include regular monitoringof fly numbers and populations ofbeneficials, injury level assess-ments, and treatment actions.Treatments emphasize habitat mod-ification to create conditions favor-able to indigenous natural enemies,mass trapping adult flies, occasion-al selective use of insecticides (par-ticularly in bait stations), andreleases of parasitoids.

Parasitoids used successfullyagainst pest houseflies have includ-

ed various species in the generaSpalangia, Muscidifurax, Pachycre-poideus, and Tachinaephagus.These are all pupal parasitoids,whose adult females lay eggs insidefly pupae or prepupae. The adultfemale parasitoids obtain nourish-ment from oviposition wounds,which also results in death of pestflies.

Scale ParasitoidsTwo major species of scale para-

sitoids in the family Aphelinidae arecommercially available at present:Metaphycus helvolus and Aphytismelinus. M. helvolus attacks theblack scale, Saissetia oleae; citricolascale, Coccus pseudomagnoliarum (=citricola); European fruit lecaniumscale, Lecanium tiliae; hemisphericalscale, S. coffeae; and nigra scale,Saissetia nigra. A. melinus attacksthe California red scale, Aonidiellaaurantii. Importation of these twoparasitoids into North America wasinitiated by researchers in Californiaworking on the black and red scalepests in citrus crops. These large,long term importation projects aresummarized by Clausen (1978 a,b).

Efforts to import natural ene-mies of the black scale started asearly as 1891, and continuedactively for over 75 years. A majorstep forward for control of blackscale occurred when M. helvoluswas imported from South Africaand established in California in1937. After successful colonization,M. helvolus was also found to attackthe citricola scale. Through the

Aphytis chrysomphali attacksred scale.

An aphid parasitoid attacks anaphid.


Updatecombined action of the nativeMetaphycus luteolus, and the introducedM. helvolus, the citricola scale has ceasedto reach pestiferous levels.

The red scale parasitoid, Aphytismelinus, was imported from Indiaand Pakistan, and has becomeestablished in Southern California.It is currently released on manythousands of acres of citrus there,and has substantially reduced pes-ticide use (Olkowski 1989). Detailsfor mass rearing the scale para-sitoids and their hosts can be foundboth in Rose (1990) and Morrisonand King (1977).

Whitefly ParasitoidsIn 1992, only one whitefly para-

sitoid was widely available commer-cially. That was Encarsia formosa,a highly effective host-feeding par-asitoid of late larval and pupalstages of the greenhouse whitefly,Trialeurodes vaporariorum, a majorpest in greenhouses. This whiteflyalso attacks a wide range of agri-cultural and horticultural plants.Additional species have becomeavailable to combat the pesticide-resistant sweetpotato whitefly,Bemisia tabaci, and the silverleafwhitefly, Bemisia argentifolii.Parasitoids available includeEretmocerus californicus orEretmocerous eremicus.

E. formosa was imported fromNorth America into England duringthe 1930s, where mass productionsystems were developed. However,the “pesticide era” prevented thetechnology from being used untilthe 1960s, when pesticide resist-ance built up in whiteflies. Thisresistance stimulated reevaluationof the biocontrol approach andimprovements in rearing technolo-gy. This history is reviewed up tothe 1980s by Hussey (1985a).Research groups in England led byHussey and Scopes (1985), and inthe Netherlands led by vanLenteren (1986) and colleagues,were responsible for this develop-ment.

Whiteflies (Trialeurodes spp.) areoften reared on tobacco plants.Encarsia miniwasps are introducedinto cages containing the whitefly-infested plants, where they lay eggs

in late larval and pupal-stage white-flies. Parasitized whiteflies turnblack and are highly visible. Someinsectaries ship the black para-sitized whitefly pupae directly on thetobacco leaves, while others deliverthe parasitoids on cardboard whichcan be hung directly on plantsinfested with whiteflies (Scopes andPickford 1985).

E. formosa is most effective when released before pest numbershave reached high levels. This parasitoid is now a key componentof advanced greenhouse manage-ment programs throughout theworld. Many examples of theireffectiveness are cited in Benuzziand Guidi, (1989); Bugiani (1988);Lupa (1987); Sell and Kuo-Sell(1989); Yano (1988); andZabudskaya (1989).

Other ParasitoidsA number of parasitoid species

are available for beetle control.Particularly useful is Pediobius fove-olatus for control of the Mexicanbean beetle, Epilachna varivestis.Like most parasitoids, it is extreme-ly specific, attacking only the pestbeetles and not beneficial ladybugs.It prefers to attack later larvalstages, reproduces every 2-3 weeks,and turns yellow bean beetle larvaeinto brown mummies. Releases ofjust 4000 wasps divided over 27sites in Florida killed most of theMexican bean beetles in an entirecounty!

The wasp can produce 10 gener-ations a year in warm areas of theSouth, and pest populations aresuppressed for up to two years.Late June releases in urban gar-

dens of Washington, D.C. resultedin nearly complete elimination ofbeetles on summer and fall beansthroughout the area. Only 50 waspscan do the job in an average garden(Quarles 2001).

The parasitoids Dacnusa sibiricaand Diglyphus isaea are useful forcontrolling leafminers and are avail-able from several producers. Severalspecies of mealybug parasitoids areavailable, mostly from Europeansuppliers (BIRC 2003).

Predatory Lady BeetlesThe mealybug destroyer, Crypto-

laemus montrouzieri, the whiteflypredators, Delphastus pusillus andD. catalinae, and the scale predator,Lindorus lophanthae, are three ladybeetles available from a number ofcommercial insectaries. Stethoruspunctillum is produced for mitecontrol. Lady beetles sold foraphids include Coleomegilla macu-lata, Harmonia axyridis, and Adaliabipunctata. A new introduction in2003 is Pseudoscymnus tsugae forcontrol of the wooly hemlock adel-gid, an aggressive pest in theEastern US (BIRC 2003).

However, the most widely market-ed lady beetle in North America is theconvergent lady beetle, Hippodamiaconvergens. This general predator isprimarily sold for control of aphids,although this species also attacksother soft-bodied insects such asscales and thrips, as well as pestmites. These beetles are most effec-tive when pest populations are fairlyhigh due to their habit of “knockingthe top off” the pest population, thenmoving on to seek other plants loadedwith host insects. It is best to release

Encarsia formosa

Convergent lady beetle,Hippodamia convergens

them during evening hours becausebright sunlight can encourage flight.

The practice of collecting, storingand distributing hibernating H. con-vergens goes back to at least 1908(Carnes 1912). In fact, Californiafarmers at one time were able toobtain free of charge up to 30,000lady beetles for every 10 acres ofcrops by simply writing to the super-intendent of the state insectary.

Collections fromHibernation

While some contemporary insec-taries sell lady beetles reared on thepremises, or collected from agricultur-al fields where they are actively feed-ing, the primary sources of convergentlady beetles are not insectaries. Mostcommercially available convergentlady beetles are marketed by entre-preneurs who collect them duringwinter while the beetles are still inhibernation in mountain areas. Aftercollection, hibernating beetles arestored in refrigerated trailers until theonset of the spring and summer pestseason, when they are sold throughads in garden catalogs, or throughretail nurseries.

Marketing beetles collected fromhibernation has caused controversybecause releases may be largely inef-fective. DeBach and Hagen (1964)reported that only 10% of lady bee-tles collected during hibernationremain at release sites, even thoughample food is present. This flight isattributed to the fact that beetlescollected during hibernation containstored body fat that must be flownoff before post-hibernation appetitescan develop. When hungry, the bee-tles are voracious predators.

Fly FactorToday, convergent lady beetles

are the most commonly sold preda-tors in retail garden outlets. Un-fortunately, few of these beetles areeither insectary-reared or collectedpost-hibernation—and thus mostfly away when released. On thepositive side, people who releaselady beetles generally refrain fromusing pesticides. This restraint inturn, often permits survival of thenaturally occurring beneficials nec-essary to control the pests thatoriginally triggered the lady beetlerelease. Thus, even if the beetlesfly away from the release site, othernatural enemies often fill the niche.

On the negative side, purchaseand release of lady beetles is often aconsumer’s first contact with bio-logical control. When they observethe beetles flying away, they maydecide biocontrol does not work andbe discouraged from trying other,less mobile biocontrol organisms.Other questions concern levels ofdamage during collection, storageand sale, impacts of removing bee-tles from their natural habitats, andpossible introduction of lady beetlenatural enemies.

Predatory BugsIn addition to lady beetles, a

number of predatory bug (Hetero-ptera) species are available. A disad-vantage of predatory bugs is that

they tend to be expensive. Theadvantage is that they are mobileand effective in seeking pests.Genera available include Geocoris,Orius, Podisus, Deraeocoris,Xylocoris, Carcinops, and Atheta.They are released for pest aphids,beetles, mites, thrips, caterpillars,flies, and fungus gnats. Orius bugsespecially have been successful incontrolling western flower thrips,Frankliniella occidentalis, in green-house crops (Hsu and Quarles 1995).

LacewingsThe two most commonly avail-

able species of lacewings areChrysoperla carnea and C. rufilabris.It is the swift-walking larval stage ofthese insects that is predacious. Themass production of Chrysoperlacarnea (= Chrysopa californica; = C.plorabunda) was first developed byFinney (1948; 1950). Lacewing eggsfrom these cultures were field-testedwith promising results againstmealybugs, Pseudococcus maritimus,on pears in California (Doutt andHagen 1949). Two releases of 250lacewing eggs per tree during thefirst mealybug generation producedlacewing larvae that controlledmealybugs for two seasons (Douttand Hagen 1950). After releases,indigenous natural enemies, includ-ing lacewings, provided long-termsuppression.

This success stimulated world-wide research on C. carnea andrelated species, particularlybecause lacewings have a wide hostrange. Almost any soft bodiedinsect, particularly aphids, mealy-bugs, immature scales, caterpillars,and leafhoppers are attacked, asare pest mites. Lacewings will alsoconsume insect and mite eggs.Lacewings today are sold primarilyfor aphid control, and few peopleknow that they were originally pro-duced for control of a mealybug.

Mass ProductionMass production methods for

lacewings are reviewed by Morrisonand King (1977). The cannibalisticlarvae are raised within individualcells on pre-formed plastic or foam


Update

Larva of Hippodamia convergens

Minute pirate bug, Orius tristicolor


Updatecell packs. The larvae are fed eggsof the Angoumois grain moth,Sitotroga cerealella, which can befrozen and stockpiled for later use.In his early work, Finney used lar-vae of the potato tuber moth,Phthorimaea operculella, as the foodsource. Small experimental cul-tures can also be started by feedingmealybugs raised on sproutedpotatoes to the developing lacewinglarvae. After pupation, emerginglacewing adults are fed FoodWheast®, a combination of sugarand the yeast, Saccharomyces frag-ilis, which is cultured on a wheysubstrate produced as a by-productof the cheese industry (Hagen andTassan 1970).[Note: Wheast® is nolonger available, but similar prod-ucts, Biodiet or Good Bug are sold.See BIRC’s 2003 Directory of Least-Toxic Pest Control Products.]

Lacewing eggs laid on sheets ofpaper are removed from the oviposi-tion chamber after adult lacewingsare temporarily immobilized by carbon dioxide or vacuum suction. A ball of nylon net, or a bleachsolution, is used to separate eggsfrom the silken stalks on whichthey are laid. The single eggs arethen gathered together, measuredvolumetrically, and sold for distri-bution by hand on tape or card-board. Alternately, eggs are distrib-uted by mechanical devices such asblowers. In experimental studies,

Olkowski and Zeigler (unpublished)developed a mechanized rearingunit which eliminates the need toanesthetize adults in order toremove eggs. Stalked eggs passthrough a comb-like edge as thepaper on which they are laid ispulled from the rearing chamber.The edge prevents escape of adults.This rearing technique uses eggsand larvae of the flour beetleTribolium confusum, raised onwheat flour, as a food source forlacewing larvae.

Aphid Gall Midge Orange-colored larvae of the

aphid gall midge, Aphidoletesaphidimyza, were first produced inmass culture in Finland. Now 27companies produce or distributethis voracious aphid predator (BIRC2003). The adults are fragile lookingflies which hide beneath the leavesduring the day. They are active atnight, ovipositing their orange eggson leaf surfaces within aphidcolonies, or on the aphids them-selves. The larvae are capable ofconsuming aphids much largerthan themselves. They also para-lyze large numbers of aphids, leav-ing them to die uneaten. In a largepublic conservatory of plants, theaphid midge was found to be moreeffective than lacewings for aphidcontrol (Olkowski et al. 1983).

The predatory larvae are raisedon living aphids and jump from leaf

surfaces to pupate at ground level.Recent refinements in rearinginvolve use of potted plants in arack with a water collection systemfrom which the floating larvae andpupae can be removed. Afterremoval, the pupae are shipped bymail.

The Mite MidgeMidges for mite control are also

commercially available. Larvae ofthe mite midge, Feltiella acarisuga,prey on pest mites. The predatorcan consume 80 or more mites perday. It is a useful complementarypredator to Phytoseiulus persimilis(see below). P. persimilis has a lowdispersal rate, but the mite midge ishighly mobile and seeks areas withhigh mite densities. Eggs and larvalstages of pest mites are the pre-ferred food (Quarles 1997).

Predaceous and Parasitic Mites

There are 29 mite families con-taining one or more species knownto prey on various pest insects andmites (Gerson and Smiley 1990).Most of the commercially availablepredacious mites are in the familyPhytoseiidae. A discussion ofAmblyseius cucumeris, the predatorymite in the family Phytoseiidaewhich is being used for control ofthrips in greenhouses is found else-where (Hussey 1985b).

The two-spotted spider mite,Tetranychus urticae, and particular-ly other members of the familyTetranychidae, are important world-wide pests. Their major predatorsare other mites, especially membersof the family Phytoseiidae. Therehave been at least 500 papers writ-ten about this family. The largetext by Helle and Sabelis (1985) isan excellent starting point for infor-mation on phytoseiids and otherpredators of spider mites. Includedare numerous reviews showingeffectiveness in many differentcrops.

PhytoseiidsOver 1200 species of phytoseiids

have been described. There has been

A larval lacewing, Chrysopa sp.

Adult aphid midge, Aphidoletesaphidimyza

a great deal of confusion regarding thetaxonomy of this family, which hasmade learning about the species diffi-cult for the non-specialist. This con-fusion may have been largely resolvedby Chant (1985). He includes a list ofsynonyms which should help insearching through earlier literature,and a small key to the four genera ofimportance for biological control ofpest spider mite species: Phytoseiulus(contains 4 species), Amblyseius (800species), Typhlodromus (275 species)and Phytoseius (125 species). Theother six genera of phytoseiids whichChant recognizes have no known orpotential value in the control of pests.

Literature on one of the mostimportant phytoseiids, Typhlodromusoccidentalis, is particularly rife withconfusion because the species hasunfortunately also been widely pub-lished under the generic name ofMetaseiulus, and less frequently,Euseius and Neoseiulus (Chantplaces the latter two genera in otherfamilies). Thus, depending upon themite specialist, one will still see published literature on Amblyseius,Euseius, Neoseiulus, or Typhlodro-mus occidentalis and these names allrepresent the same mite.

Phytoseiulus persimilisMass rearing of Phytoseiulus per-

similis and Typhlodromus occiden-

talis is reviewed by Morrison and King(1977). Phytoseiulus persimilis is oneof the most popular biocontrol agents,and it is produced or distributed bymore than 100 companies (BIRC2003). Predatory mites are reared onflat pieces of waxed cardboard paintedblack for easy visibility. The card-board squares are placed on a styro-foam platform in a tray containingsoapy water used as a moat to pre-vent mites from leaving the cardboardrearing unit. The prey, generally two-spotted spider mites, Tetranychusurticae, are delivered to the cardboardon leaves, where they are consumedby the predatory mites. Predatorsreproduce on the cardboard. Thenthey are vacuumed up and placed incontainers (usually with wheat bran)for shipment.

One insectary in California pro-duces two-spotted spider mites asprey on bean leaves, which are alsothe means for delivery of predatorymites. Farmers simply pick uptheir bags of predator-rich beanleaves, and distribute the leavesamong their crops within an houror two after acquisition.

Reviews citing field evaluations ofthe impact of predatory mites in dif-ferent crops can be found in Hoy etal. (1983), Helle and Sabelis (1985),and Scopes (1985). Predatory mitesare used widely to control pestmites in commercial strawberry and

vegetable crops, fruit and nutorchards, and on ornamentalplants. Predatory mites are alsoincreasingly used in greenhouseswhere pesticide resistance hasdeveloped, and on indoor plants inmalls, hotels, and office buildingswhere pesticide use is unpopular.

ConclusionBiocontrol organisms produced

by North American insectaries arebeginning to move from a nicheindustry into the mainstream.Driving this change is the expan-sion of organic agriculture and theneed to find alternatives for themore toxic pesticides. Key to theexpansion of the industry is a bet-ter understanding by the public ofwhich organisms are available, andhow and when to use them.Hopefully, this article has shedsome light on this subject.

William Olkowski and HelgaOlkowski are BIRC Founders. Theycan be reached by writing BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707or by emailing [email protected]. EverettDietrick is the owner of Rincon-Vitova Insectaries, PO Box 1555,Ventura, CA 93002; 800/248-2847,email [email protected] Quarles, Ph.D. is ManagingEditor of the IPM Practitioner, andExecutive Director of BIRC.

References Bao, Jian-zhong and Chen, Xiu-hao. 1989.

Research and applications of Trichogrammain China. Academic Books and PeriodicalsPress, Beijing. 220 pp.

Benuzzi, M. and A. Guidi. 1989. Experiments inbiological and integrated control in protectedand field crops. (Esperienze applicative dilotta integrata e biologica nelle colture pro-tette e di pieno campo. Informatore-Agrario55(Suppl. 35):53-58.

BIRC. 2003. 2003 Directory of Least-Toxic PestControl Products. Bio-Integral ResourceCenter, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707;510/524-2567, [email protected].

Bugiani, A. 1988. Integrated control in thegreenhouse (in Italian). Colture-Protette17(8):67-71.

Carnes, E.K. 1912. Collecting ladybirds(Coccinellidae) by the ton. Calif. State Hort.Comm. Monthly Bull. 1:71-81.

Chant, D.A. 1985. Systematics and taxonomy.In: Helle and Sabilis, pp. 17-29.

Clausen, C.P., ed. 1978a. Introduced Parasites


Update

Phytoseiulus persimilis predatory mite


Updateand Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds:a World Review. Agriculture Handbook No.480. United States Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Research Service,Washington, D.C. 545 pp.

Clausen, C.P. 1978b. Biological control of citrusinsects. In: Reuther et al., pp. 276-320.

DeBach, P. and K.S. Hagen. 1964. Manipulationof entomophagous species. In: DeBach andSchlinger, pp. 429-458.

DeBach, P. and E.I. Schlinger. 1964. BiologicalControl of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapmanand Hall Ltd., London. 844 pp.

Dietrick, E.J. 1981. Commercial production anduse of predators and parasites for fly controlprograms. In: Patterson et al., pp. 192-200.

Doutt, R.L. and K.S. Hagen. 1949. Periodic colo-nization of Chrysopa californica as a possiblecontrol of mealybugs. J. Econ. Entomol.42:560.

Doutt, R.L. and K.S. Hagen. 1950. Biologicalcontrol measures applied againstPseudococcus maritimus on pears. J. Econ.Entomol. 43:94-96.

Essig, E.O. 1931. A History of Entomology. TheMacmillan Company, New York. 1029 pp.

Finney, G.L. 1948. Culturing Chrysopa californi-ca and obtaining eggs for field distribution.J. Econ. Entomol. 41:719-721.

Finney, G.L. 1950. Mass-culturing Chrysopa cali-fornica to obtain eggs for field distribution.J. Econ. Entomol. 43:97-100.

Gerson, U. and R.L. Smiley. 1990. AcarineBiocontrol Agents, an Illustrated Key andManual. Chapman and Hall, London. 174pp.

Hagen, K.S. and R.L. Tassan. 1970. The influ-ence of Food Wheast® and relatedSaccharomyces fragilis yeast product on thefecundity of Chrysopa carnea. Can. Entomol.102:806-811.

Helle, W. and M.W. Sabelis. 1985. Spider Mitestheir Biology, Natural Enemies and Control.Vol. 1B. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 458 pp.

Hoy, M.A. et al. 1983. Biological Control of Pestsby Mites. Publication No. 3304. Division ofAgriculture and Natural Resources,University of California, Berkeley.

Hsu, C. and W. Quarles. 1995. Greenhouse IPMfor western flower thrips. IPM Practitioner17(4):1-11.

Hussey, N.W. 1985a. Whitefly control by para-sites. In: Hussey and Scopes, pp. 104-115.

Hussey, N.W. 1985b. Thrips and their naturalenemies. In: Hussey and Scopes, pp. 53-57.

Hussey, N.W. and N. Scopes. 1985. BiologicalPest Control, the Glasshouse Experience.Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.240 pp.

IPM. 2003. IPM of Alaska, Rocco Moschetti, POBox 875006, Wasilla, AK 99687; www.ipmo-falaska.com

Lupa, W. 1987. Possibilities of biological controlof the greenhouse whitefly (Trialeurodesvaporariorum Westw.) on gerbera freesia andother ornamentals grown in greenhouses (inPolish). Materialy Sesji Instytutu OchronyRoslin. 27(2):33-37.

Merritt, R.W., E.F. Gersabeck and M.K. Kennedy.1981. The contribution of Spalangia endiusand Muscidifurax raptor to a stable fly man-agement program on Mackinac Island,

Michigan: a question of effort. In: Pattersonet al., pp. 44-51.

Morgan, P.B. 1980. Mass culturing threespecies of microhymenopteran pupal para-sites, Spalangia endius Walker, Muscidifuraxraptor Girault and Sanders, andPachycrepoideus vindemiae (Rondani)(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). VIII. RenunionNacional de Control Biologico. Tecomon,Colima, Mexico. April 22-25, 1980.

Morgan, P.B. 1981. Mass production of Muscadomestica. In: Patterson et al., pp. 189-191.

Morrison, R.K. and E.G. King. 1977. Mass pro-duction of natural enemies. In: Ridgway andVinson, pp. 183-217.

Olkowski, W., S. Daar, and H. Olkowski. 1983.IPM for a conservatory and greenhouses.IPM Practitioner 5(8):4-6.

Olkowski, W. 1985a. IPM programs for filth flies.IPM Practitioner 7(6/7):1-8.

Olkowski, W. 1989. Biological control of pestssucceeds in large-scale agriculture. IPMPractitioner 11(3):1-8.

Olkowski, W. and A. Zhang. 1990. Trichogramma—a modern day frontier in biological control.IPM Practitioner 12(5/6):1-15.

Patterson, R.S., P.G. Koehler, P.B. Morgan andR.L. Harris. 1981. Status of Biological Controlof Filth Flies. Proceedings of a workshop,February 4-5, 1981, University of Florida,Gainesville. USDA, Insects Affecting Manand Animals Research Laboratory, P.O. Box14565, Gainesville, Fl. 32604. 212 pp.

Pike, K.S., P. Stary, T. Miller, D. Allison, L.Boydston and G. Graf. 1999. Host range andhabitats of the aphid-parasitoid Diaeretiellarapae (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) inWashington State. Environ. Entomol. 28:61-71.

Pike, K.S., P. Stary, T. Miller, D. Allison, L.Boydston, G. Graf and R. Gillespie. 1997.Small grain aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera:Aphelinidae and Aphidiidae) of Washington:distribution, relative abundance, and sea-sonal occurrence; and key to known NorthAmerican species. Environ. Entomol. 26:1299-1311.

Pinto, J.D. 1998. The role of taxonomy ininundative release programs utilizingTrichogramma. In: Hoddle,M.S., ed. Innovation inBiological Control Research,Proceedings of the 1stCalifornia Conference onBiological Control, June 10-11, 1998, Berkeley,CA.pp.45-49.

Quarles, W. 1997. Biocontrol ofmites with midges. IPMPractitioner 19(4):8-9.

Quarles, W. 2001. Beating theMexican bean beetle. KitchenGardener 32(5/6):46.

Reuther, W., E.C. Calavan andG.E. Carman. 1978. TheCitrus Industry. Vol. IV.University of California,Berkeley. 362 pp.

Ridgway, R.L. and S.B. Vinson.1977. Biological Control byAugmentation of NaturalEnemies, Insect and Mite

Control with Parasites and Predators. PlenumPress, New York. 480 pp.

Rose, M. 1990. Rearing and mass rearing. In:Rosen, pp. 357-366.

Rosen, D. ed. 1990. Armoured Scale Insects, theirBiology, Natural Enemies and Control. Vol. A.Elsevier, Amsterdam. 383 pp.

Scopes, N.E.A. 1985. Red spider mite and thepredator Phytoseiulus persimilis. In: Husseyand Scopes, pp. 43-52.

Scopes, N.E.A. and R. Pickford. 1985. Mass pro-duction of natural enemies. In: Hussey andScopes, pp. 197-209.

Sell, P. and H.L. Kuo-Sell. 1989. Well-tried andnew beneficial organisms. Practical knowl-edge obtained in biological pest control inornamental cultivation under glass and pos-sibilities for its development (in German).Deutscher-Gartenbau. 43(42):2548-2553.

van Lenteren, J.C. 1986. Parasitoids in thegreenhouse: successes with seasonal inocu-lative releases. In: Waage and Greathead,pp. 341-376.

Van Driesche, R.G., M. Hoddle, S. Lyon, T.Smith and P. Lopes. 2003. Greenhouse proj-ect: natural enemies for suppression ofgreenhouse pests. III. Buying and using nat-ural enemies in greenhouse floral crops.www.umass.edu/umext/ipm/

Van Driesche, R.G. and T.S. Bellows, Jr. 1996.Biological Control. Chapman and Hall, NewYork. 539 pp.

Waage, J. and D. Greathead. 1986. InsectParasitoids. Academic Press, New York. 389pp.

Yano, E. 1988. The population dynamics of thegreenhouse whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporario-rum Westwood) and the parasitoid Encarsiaformosa Gahan. Bulletin of the NationalResearch Institute of Vegetables,Ornamental Plants and Tea. Part A, No. 2,143-200.

Zabudskaya, I.A. 1989. Biological control of thegreenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporario-rum (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae). Acta-Entomologica-Fennica. 53:73-76.

Zhang, Zhili et al. 1978. Preliminary study on useof Trichogramma ostriniae to control corn borer.J. of Entomology 16(5):251-255 (in Chinese).

The parasitoid, Aphidius sp.


Conference Notes

By Joel Grossman

These highlights from theEntomological Society of America's(ESA) annual meeting Nov. 17-20,2002, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,were selected from among over 1,800presentations. ESA's next annualmeeting is October 26-30, 2003, inCincinnati, Ohio. For more informationcontact program chair Bob Wright(University of Nebraska, SouthCentral Res. & Ext. Center, P.O. Box66, Clay Center, NE 68933; phone402/762-4439; [email protected]) or the ESA (9301 Annapolis Rd.,Lanham, MD 20702; 301/731-4535;http://www.entsoc

Heat treatment is an alternativeto fumigation with toxic gases suchas methyl bromide and sulfuryl flu-oride (Vikane). A whole structurecan be treated for drywood termitesin a few hours, whereas toxic gasestake a day or more, said Brian J.Cabrera (Univ of Florida, 3205College Ave, Ft. Lauderdale, FL). Aheat treatment can be applied afternormal business hours or on non-business days, and businesses canavoid closing down and losing cus-tomers. Heat can be used to spottreat inaccessible areas and targetspecific parts of buildings andmultiunit dwellings. In addition todrywood termites, heat also killsdust mites, bedbugs, cockroaches,borers, fungi and viruses. Heat,however, does not leave a residualto prevent reinfestation.

The heat feels like a dry sauna,and no breathing apparatus is nec-essary for pest control operators(PCOs). Short exposures are okay,but workers are advised not to staytoo long in the heat. On the down-side, there is sometimes heat dam-age to thin plastics, refrigeratormagnets, items with glue, and heatsensitive equipment. The heat out-put is about 150,000 BTU, and

pianos and collections are wrappedin tarps for protection. In SouthernCalifornia heat fumigation has beenadapted to large buildings, and isconsidered a good choice for thosewith chemical sensitivities.

South Florida, with its manycondos and other compartmental-ized buildings, is especially suitedfor heat treatment, as treatmentcan be limited to one unit. For attictreatments, mylar can be used toseal the ducts and leave the rest ofthe house usable. Heat treatment iscompatible with current technolo-gies. In fact, it is hard for most peo-ple to distinguish Terminex truckscarrying propane cylinders, tarpsand burners for heat fumigationfrom traditional chemical fumiga-tion trucks. Besides heavy equip-ment, heat fumigation requireslabor to monitor temperatures. Alsoresidents must be evacuated forseveral hours.

Cabrera found that 60 minutesat 115°F (46°C) killed 95-100% of ofthe drywood termite, Cryptotermesbrevis; 4 minutes at 120°F (49°C)killed them all. In contrast, Ebelingfound that 120°F (49°C) for 33 min-utes was needed for 100% mortalityof the western drywood termite,Incisitermes minor. Terminex pro-vides a margin of error, heating for60 minutes at 130°F (54°C).

Termite Natural EnemiesAccording to Guy Mercadier

(ECBL, USDA-ARS, CS 90013

Montferrier sur Lez, St Gely duFesc, France), “the Formosan sub-terranean termite, Coptotermes for-mosanus, is native to southernChina, and is believed to havearrived in the United States on mili-tary ships returning from thePacific theater after World War II.”The first colonies were found inNew Orleans and later LakeCharles, LA; Galveston andHouston, TX; and Charleston, SC.Its range in the United States isexpanding every year, and it hasbeen detected in San Diego, CA.Control and building repair costsare over $1 billion per year. In NewOrleans, where 30% of trees areinfested, homeowners may spendseveral thousand dollars per year.

As lead agency in the NationalFormosan Subterranean TermiteManagement Program, the USDA-ARS European Biological ControlLab is searching worldwide for nat-ural enemies. About 65,000 ter-mites were collected from 250 local-ities in China, Malaysia, Australia,and South Africa in 2001. “By sam-pling as many populations as possi-ble, the chances of finding effectivenatural enemies are corresponding-ly high,” said Mercadier. Termiteshave the ability to detect disease insick or dead individuals. Collectingpathogens from termites themselvesmight increase the probability offinding an agent that has the abilityto evade the detection barrier.

The most virulent fungalpathogens, mainly Beauveria,Metarhizium and Paecilomyces, arebeing produced and tested. Thebest will be selected for use in theU.S. Five nematode isolates andparasitic flies attacking termites inChina are also being evaluated.

Microbial Termite ControlTermites inhabit a dark, damp

habitat favorable to fungi such asMetarhizium anisopliae, said Brian

ESA 2002 Annual Meeting Highlights—Part 3

A winged termite


Conference NotesForschler (Univ of Georgia, Athens,GA), who tested M. anisopliae (Bio-Blast™) against Reticulitermesflavipes and R. virginicus. ThoughM. anisopliae had an impact on ter-mite populations, it did not affectreproductives. Termites stayed awayfrom areas treated with M. anisopli-ae for a few days or a week and didnot recolonize the area. Results ofmonthly termite monitoring withTermatrol™ bait traps were consis-tent with lab studies. Termitesstayed out of areas treated with M.anisopliae for a month. Though liq-uid formulations of M. anisopliae didnot have a major population impact,Forschler said that it “may be usefulif you want to chase termites awayfrom a spot for awhile.”

Entomogenous nematodes suchas Steinernema carpocapsae andHeterorhabditis indica can tunnelthrough soil searching for hosts,making them of interest for termiteIPM. Mark Mankowski (Univ ofHawaii at Manoa, 3050 Maile Wayroom 310, Honolulu, HI) comparedthe nematode susceptibility of work-ers and soldiers of Coptotermes for-mosanus and C. vastator, a speciesnew to Hawaii. S. carpocapsae, pro-duced higher termite mortality inthe laboratory than H. indica. Inmortality experiments (0-320 nema-todes/termite), more nematodeswere needed to kill workers thansoldiers.

When nematodes were confinedwith C. formosanus for four days,there was significantly higher sol-

dier mor-talitywhen sol-diers werealone,comparedto whensoldierswere withworkers.Exudatescoveringtermitesoldierswill beinvestigat-ed to see ifthey playa role in

nematode attachment. Though hedid not observe grooming behavior,Mankowski believes that soldierscannot groom themselves and thatworkers groom soldiers to removenematodes.

Fungi and TermitesIn laboratory studies the fungus

Metarhizium anisopliae kills 100%of healthy termites, but field resultsare less successful. One possibilityis disease-fighting social behaviorswithin termite colonies. For exam-ple, Zootermopsis augusticollisinfected with fungus bangs itshead, producing vibrations that actas an alarm.

Susan Whitney (Univ ofDelaware, Townsend Hall room 254,Newark, DE) videotaped variousgroups of Reticulitermes flavipestreated either with M. anisopliae(Bio-Blast™) or plain talc, or leftuntreated. Each 10-minute segmentof videotape had 1,200 frames,which meant analyzing tens ofthousands of frames with 2-5 ter-mites per frame. Imaging softwarecreated by Wayne Rasband of theNational Institutes of Health han-dled the problem of tracking indi-vidual termites in the group andtabulating the behavior on eachvideotape frame.

The analysis showed that ter-mites interact more when the fun-gus is present. The overall interac-tion rate increases uniformly whena termite in the group is infected,but the number of interactions withthe infected termite does notchange. Termites can also recognizethe difference between a termiteexposed to fungus and one exposedto talc.

Termite WarsXing Hu (Auburn Univ, Auburn,

AL) talked about interactionsbetween termite species. Workersand soldiers of Formosan subter-ranean termite, Coptotermes for-mosanus, and eastern subterraneantermite, Reticulitermes flavipes, col-lected in Alabama “demonstratedferocious agonistic behavior” whenplaced together. Both soldiers andworkers of C. formosanus were

much more aggressive than those ofR. flavipes in all bioassays. Indeed,R. flavipes workers and soldierssuffered more injury and highermortality than C. formosanus work-ers and soldiers.

When C. formosanus workerswere tested against R. flavipes sol-diers, both had a similar degree ofinjury and mortality. When soldierswere tested without workers, therewas 100% R. flavipes injury in 144seconds. When no soldiers werepresent, workers of both speciesfought and suffered high injury andmortality rates.

Margaret Schwinghammer (Univof Missouri, 1-87 Ag Bldg, Columbia,MO) is studying Reticulitermes nestevacuation behavior. Typically, whena nest or food source is disturbed,part of the colony abandons the site.This movement could have strongimplications on the efficiency of ter-mite baiting systems. The length oftime the site remains unoccupied,the factors determining which alter-native areas are preferred, and thefrequency of return to a disturbedsite are unclear.

Colonies with 1% soldiersreturned to the disturbed site with-in 12 hours. Colonies with 3% soldiers returned within two days.Those with a 5% soldier populationdid not relocate when disturbed.Temperature is also a factor, with aslower response at 16°C (61°F) thanat 21 or 27°C (70 or 81°F).

Western Subterranean TermiteAccording to K. Haagsma (Univ

of California, Riverside, CA), 57% oftermite service calls in San Diego,CA involve the western subter-ranean termite, Reticulitermes hes-perus, a mainly coastal speciesfound from Baja California toBritish Columbia, Canada. In barri-er trials, imidacloprid (Premise)placed between the soil and struc-tures provided greater than expect-ed R. hesperus mortality, suggestingan areawide effect. For example,500 ppm of imidacloprid provided100% mortality after 14 days, ver-sus an expected 40%; 100 ppm pro-

Soldier ofCoptotermes formosanus


Conference Notesvided 82% mortality, not theexpected 5%; 50 ppm caused 38%mortality, instead of no effect.

Haagsma investigated whetherR. hesperus could pick up imidaclo-prid from the barrier and transfer itfrom termite to termite by contact,trophallaxis or other means. Usingradioactive imidacloprid to monitortransfer from termite to termite,Haagsma found that 10% of thematerial picked up was transferredto other termites. Sealing termitemouthparts with superglue had lit-tle effect, indicating that trophallax-is was not a major means ofspreading imidacloprid, and thus itdoes not work like a bait. Most like-ly, imidacloprid is spread amongtermites by contact. Imidaclopriddepresses termite movement;exposed termites are not veryambulatory; and there is probablyan attrition effect over time thatnullifies the excess mortality obser-vation.

Areawide Baiting in ChileAccording to James Smith

(Controles Integrados S.A,Venezuela 0675, Recoleta, Santiago,Chile), an areawide baitingapproach to management of subter-ranean termite, Reticulitermes san-tonenesis or R. flavipes, is beingsuccessfully implemented in a sixblock area of Santiago, Chile. Somehomes in the area have wood incontact with soil, but are very dryand did not have termite problemsuntil recently. Some residents aretoo poor to afford termite controland have resorted to extreme tac-tics such as blow torches to stoptermites from eating the cardboardor sheetrock parts of their homes.

Government funding is beingused to survey for termites withwooden stakes, and within 30 days22.6% of the stakes were attacked.“It was very difficult to pull wood outof the ground and not find termites,”said Smith. Sentricon® baiting andmeasurement of wood consumptionare part of the IPM program. Someareas had such heavy termite levelsthat even after 1.5 years of baitingwith 500 bait tubes in an 0.5 haarea, there are still termites.However, baiting has lowered the

number of termites in thewhole area, making it harderto find termites and reduc-ing wood consumption.

Areawide IPM in U.S.Areawide termite control

is being used in some partsof Mississippi. According toM. Guadalupoe Rojas(USDA-ARS, FSTRU, 1100Robert E. Lee Blvd, NewOrleans, LA), “house byhouse treatment of subter-ranean termites is not anefficient control method.”The experimental areas inPicayne and Poplarville consisted ofblocks of homes where sticky trapshad found swarming Formosansubterranean termites during 2000-2001 seasons. Following the area-wide concept, 150 Exterra under-ground stations were installed 15 ft(4.6 m) apart from each other.

Formosan and Reticulitermespopulations in the test area wereexposed to four active ingredients:diflubenzuron; diflubenzuron andthe fungus Bio-Blast™; Bio-Blastalone; and the IGR chlorfluazuron.All the tested treatments suppressedthe termites. Chlorfluazuronrequired less active ingredient andtook half the time of other actives.

According to Dennis Ring(Louisiana State Univ, PO Box25100, Baton Rogue, LA),Formosan termites cause $300 million damage each year in NewOrleans and $500 million inLouisiana, including collapse anddemolition of structures and loandefaults. Even creosote-treatedwood and live trees are attacked.An areawide control program beganin 1998 in the French Quarter ofNew Orleans. Fifteen blocks treatedwith termiticides or baits bylicensed PCOs are being comparedto untreated blocks as part of theNational Formosan SubterraneanTermite Management Program.

To monitor for flying reproduc-tives, sticky traps were hung onlight poles within 2 m (6.6 ft) oflamps. Termites were counted everytwo weeks during May and June.In-ground stations were also

installed to measure foraging activi-ty. Data from both methods “showthat areawide management reducedtermite activity in the 15-blockarea.” In 2002, the treated area wasexpanded to another 15 city blocks.

Subterranean Termite Baits

Since termites avoid areas con-taining dead termites, effective baitshave to be slow acting and non-repellent (see IPMP 25(1/2):1-12).But the effective dose can varywidely among termite species, saidErin Monteagudo (Univ of Florida,Ft. Lauderdale Res & Educ Center,3205 College Ave, Ft. Lauderdale,FL). Increasing concentrations ofthe IGR halofenozide can reducetermite consumption of treatedwood; over 60% mortality can beachieved in 4-6 weeks.

At 600 ppm, halofenozide startsto become repellent to eastern sub-terranean termite, Reticulitermesflavipes. However, western subter-ranean termite tolerates 10,000 ppm before there is a great effect.Though not effective against forag-ing termites, halofenozide showsgood potential against Formosanand subterranean termite adultreproductives.

Labyrinth™, a bait matriximpregnated with the chitin synthe-sis inhibitor, diflubenzuron, is beingused in single-family homes anddate palm orchards in the UnitedArab Emirates (UAE) against sandtermite, Psammotermes hypostoma(Rhinotermitidae), and harvester

A termite soldier and worker

New Bait MatrixThe idea behind the M-714 bait

matrix, marketed as Summon™ isthat subterranean termite specieswill find the bait and producepheromones to recruit more termites,said James Ballard (FMC Corp,Specialty Products Business, 1735Market St, Philadelphia, PA). Inpaired comparison laboratory studiesin petri dishes, Reticulitermes flavipesand Coptotermes formosanus weregiven the choice between wet poly-ester fabric with Summon™ and sev-eral wood species commonly used formonitoring. Significantly more ter-mites aggregated on the fabric lacedwith Summon™, and there was littleinterest in the wood.

New Jersey Experiment Stationfield trials in 2001 and 2002 usedvaried doses of Summon in bait sta-tions against R. flavipes and R.hagenii. Each four-chambered baitstation (Defender™) holds eitherfour FirstLine® GT Plus TermiteBait Stations or wooden monitors.In an October 2001 trial, Defenderunits with Summon were infestedmuch faster than units without. Ina June trial where traps with 5 g(0.18 oz) of Summon dust werechecked every 2-3 weeks, signifi-cantly more termites were capturedin traps with Summon. Within amonth, traps with Summon cap-tured 400% to 800% more termitesthan those with wood attractants.

In September 2002, field trials ofSummon were started aroundhomes in seven states. Preliminaryresults after 2 weeks showed 300%to 700% more termite hits in moni-toring stations with Summon.

Borate AvoidanceAt certain disodium octaborate

tetrahydrate (DOT; Timbor®) woodtreatment concentrations, termitewood feeding ceases quickly andwood suffers only minor surfacedamage, said Cory Campora and J.Kenneth Grace (University ofHawaii, 3050 Maile Way, GilmoreHall Rm 310, Honolulu, HI).Plexiglas™ arenas with damp sandfloors and wood wafer foraging siteswere established to study the fac-tors causing termites to avoid DOT-


Conference Notestermite, Anacanthotermesorchraceus (Hodotermitidae), saidWalid Kaakeh (United ArabEmirates Univ, PO Box 17555, Al-Ain, UAE). Eight termite bait sta-tions were placed around each sin-gle-family home; and stations wereinstalled 2 m (6.6 ft) from trees inorchards. The stations wereinspected monthly for termites, and100 g (3.5 oz) of Labyrinth™ baitwas added when termite activitywas detected.

Complete bait consumption wasnoticed in most stations one monthafter placement. The elimination ofthe termite population at all sitesgave complete protection of all sin-gle-family houses, as well as datepalm trees.

Joe DeMark (Dow AgroSci, 876Buckeye Lane W., Jacksonville, FL)compared Sentricon® stations bait-ed with either hexaflumuron or nov-iflumuron for protection of single-family Florida homes and barns.Structures were attacked mostly byReticulitermes flavipes, but some R.virginicus, subterranean termitecolonies. Pre-baiting foraging terri-tories ranged from 2 to 40 bait sta-tions. An exceptionally large R.flavipes colony occupied a formerorange orchard containing well-irri-gated pines and pine stumps.Noviflumuron (0.25-0.5%) eliminat-ed termite colonies significantlyfaster than hexaflumuron (0.5%),113 days versus 191 days. Lessthan one gram (0.04 oz) of noviflu-muron killed an entire colony.

“Pest management professionalsin the southeastern United Statesare most likely to encounter R.flavipes and R. virginicus whenusing termite baiting systems,” said Idham Harahap (ClemsonUniv, Clemson, SC). In the labora-tory both native species of termitesconsume more cellulose at warmertemperatures. However, in the field,native subterranean termites likelyavoid soil or monitoring stationsthat are too hot. Indeed, subter-ranean termites in South Carolinafeed more at monitoring stations in the spring and fall, and survivor-ship is higher at 18°C (61°F) thanat 28°C (82°F).

treated wood. Untreated and boratepressure-treated Douglas fir waferswere placed in varying arrange-ments in the arenas. Daily digitalimaging quantified termite tunnel-ing in the arenas, and ArcView soft-ware visually mapped the data inthree dimensions.

Termites usually moved out fromthe center to forage, and within 10days populations were randomlydistributed. But in arenas with achoice of DOT-treated and untreat-ed wood wafers, termites left theDOT-treated wood and started mov-ing to the untreated wood within 7-9 days.

By day 14, termites had aban-doned the DOT-treated wood sec-tion of the arena and clustered onthe untreated wood. When DOT-treated wood was later replacedwith untreated wood, the termitedistribution did not change. Futureresearch will help understandwhether termites have a learnedavoidance of DOT-treated wood.

IPM Takes Sting Out of Schools

“Stinging insects are among themost frequent and persistent pestproblems at schools, parks, andsimilar locations,” said JodyGangloff-Kaufmann (Cornell Univ,1425 Old Country Rd., Bldg. J,Plainview, NY). Jody is part of ateam bringing IPM alternatives toschools and other sensitive sitesthroughout New York State. Waspstings often cause mild reactions,but severe allergic reactions to yel-lowjacket stings kill 40 people inthe U.S. every year. Hence, “sting-ing insects are considered amongthe most serious of pests in theschool environment,” and necessi-

Yellowjacket, Vespula sp.


Conference Notestate a high percentage of outdoorpesticide applications.

Semimonthly inspections weresufficient for maintaining control ofpaper wasps, Polistes dominulus,and locating nests of yellowjackets.Yellowjacket nests, particularly inwall voids and in the ground, wereharder to locate and remove thanpaper wasp nests. Often nests werelarge, and had many adults flyingin and out before they were noticed.If a colony had only a single queen,control was obtained without insec-ticides by knocking down the nestwith a pole. Larger nests had ahigher likelihood of being rebuilt ifnot sprayed to kill foragers.

Larger paper wasp colonies ornests in hard to reach places weresprayed with low-toxicity insecti-cides (particularly dusts) containingmint oil or eugenol, and thenremoved. When nest destructionwas consistently performed early inthe season, construction of newnests at managed sites had dimin-ished by mid-summer. During twoyears, 78 nests at two locationswere eliminated with water spray.An attempt to rebuild the nest wasmade in only 11 (14%) locations.Physically knocking down nests andwater sprays worked particularlywell against mud daubers.

Several methods were investigat-ed, including vacuuming workersfrom a void and digging nests out ofthe ground. Yellowjackets were vac-uumed with the hose end at theopening of the nest, capturingworkers as they entered and exitedthe nest. Vacuuming took about anhour. Yellowjacket numbersremained lower, but there was aslow increase over time as workersemerged from pupation. Vacuumingor bagging aerial nests in shrubsand removing nests also workedwith baldfaced hornets. Groundremoval of nests was less practical,and required workers to wear pro-tective clothing while digging.

Exclusion, Traps, and Sanitation

Exclusion was used extensivelyto reduce the number of nest siteson the managed properties. The

materials used included expandinginsulating foam, caulk, steel wool,and insect screening. Exclusionsites consisted of playground equip-ment, tennis courts, light posts,doorways, signs, and cracks andgaps on the outside of buildings,especially in the eaves. Exclusionwas particularly effective in reduc-ing paper wasp activity inside fencepipes and other hollow metal orconcrete structures. Exclusionmethods were only implementedafter IPM techniques or the onset ofcold weather killed active nests.

“Food-based attractants in jartraps were used to draw waspsaway from sensitive areas,” saidGangloff-Kaufmann. Glueboardtraps on garbage container lids(underside), over doorways and onplayground equipment mainly cap-tured flies, earwigs and otherinsects; and this line of researchwas stopped. Pineapple juice, applejuice, fruit punch and beer evapo-rated rapidly from traps on warmsummer days. So new liquid toattract wasps was added and trapswere cleaned weekly. At two schoolsites, 98% of the almost 10,000insects trapped were yellowjackets,mainly Vespula species.

At a prison site, 20 traps along-side six dumpsters by a fencetrapped over 1,000 wasps in amonth without visibly reducingwasp numbers. In summer, garbagedumpster stench overpowered theattractant in baited traps. In allcases where food wastes attractedwasps, recommendations weremade to regularly wash garbagecontainers, keep them covered, andto place waste into plastic bags,which were then sealed and putinto receptacles. Sanitation extend-ed to recycling pails and honeydew-producing aphids on plants. Butsanitation alone was not the solu-tion at every school, farm andrestaurant site, indicating the needfor an IPM approach with multiplecontrol techniques.

A peripheral trap experiment ina hay/grass field involved placingtraps 8 ft (2.4 m) high atop metalpoles every 20 ft (6.1 m) along plotperimeters, with a trap in the plotcenter. Yellowjacket container traps

were baited every 2-3 days for 2weeks. The traps were a strongenough attractant that they weredeemed “more appropriate in areasthat would normally attract yellow-jackets, such as garbage disposalareas, or in remote areas away fromhuman activity.” In other words,baited traps should not be used inschool playgrounds that do not nor-mally have food sources attractingwasps. Information from this ongo-ing trapping experiment “is neededto help optimize wasp trap place-ment in areas such as playgrounds,parks and yards.”

Commercializing Polymer Film BarriersIn building his own house in

Florida, Nan-Yao Su (Univ of Florida- Ft. Lauderdale Res & Educ Cent,3205 College Ave, Ft. Lauderdale, FL)rejected the conventional solution oftreating the soil with large quantitiesof liquid termiticides in favor of apolymer film barrier containing muchless insecticide. The termite speciesinvolved were the Formosan subter-ranean termite, Coptotermes for-mosanus, and eastern subterraneantermite, Reticulitermes flavipes.

In 1996, a polycarbonate poly-mer film barrier impregnated with2% lamda-cyhalothrin was buriedin a sand plot, covered with a redclay indicator layer, and toppedwith concrete. Every year Su drilledsample cores of soil and polymerbarrier and analyzed for lamda-cyhalothrin leaching. The first twoyears termites barely got in, touch-ing the polymer film barrier andthen stopping. In subsequent years,termites started penetrating deeper.But even after five years there wasstill 60%-70% active ingredient inthe polymer film barrier, enough toprevent termite penetration.

Steady state soil concentrationwas a function of the release ratefrom the polymer and the degrada-tion rate in the soil. Over time, therewas less chemical leaching, moredegradation, lower soil concentra-tions and more termite penetration.The commercial product registeredwith EPA, Impasse™ (Syngenta),


Conference Notesuses a stronger yet porous con-struction-grade plastic that sand-wiches lamda-cyhalothrin betweentwo protective polymer layers.

The first Impasse™ product forsale blocks termite entry via utilitypipes. Test plots now in their thirdyear should yield a commercialpolyethylene film barrier productthat can be installed prior to pour-ing a building’s concrete slab.

Soil TreatmentsFaith Oi (Univ of Florida, Bldg

970, Natural Area Dr, PO Box110620, Gainesville, FL) talkedabout non-repellent termiticides.These are supposed to last for atleast five years. However, applica-tions are highly imperfect, leavingthe actual concentration appliedand barrier thickness variable. Itcommon to have gaps in treatmentsor treatment depths as thin as 1mm (0.04 in). When soil was treat-ed to a depth of 1 mm, termitespenetrated all concentrations ofchlorfenapyr (Phanthom; BASF),fipronil (Termidor; BASF) and imi-dacloprid (Premise; Bayer).Treatment with 100 ppm at 1 mmdepth gave 99% termite mortalitywith fipronil; 81% with chlorfe-napyr; 79% with thiamethoxam;and 28.5% with imidacloprid.

When soil is compacted to differ-ent soil densities, the termite tun-nel network changes, said CynthiaLinton Tucker (Univ of Florida, Bldg970, Natural Area Dr, Gainesville,FL). Tucker examined R. flavipestunneling in moistened buildingsand that was low, moderately, orhighly compacted. Subterraneantermites do not follow pheromonetrails or wood volatiles, but theymay follow moisture gradients andbe sensitive to soil pore space dis-turbances. In the first 24 hoursthere is more tunneling and ahigher number of secondary tun-nels in soils with low compaction.

Black Pepper for Urban IPM

“Black pepper, Piper nigrum, isgrown in large quantities in tropi-cal regions of the globe and is oneof the most common spice plants

traded,” said Ian Scott (Univ ofOttawa, 150 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa,ON, Canada). According to Scott,black pepper is worth consideringas a botanical pesticide, as it has along record of safe use and lowhealth risks.

Several wild insect species werebioassayed on plant leaves with a20% extract of ground peppercorns.In repellent trials, leaves were treat-ed with 100 ml of 0.5% black pep-per extract alone or in combinationwith recommended doses of neemoil, garlic, or lemon grass oilextracts. In field trials, Yukon Goldpotato plants with Colorado potatobeetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata,were treated with 0.5% black pep-per extract.

The most practical use of P.nigrum extracts may be for controlof mosquito larvae in temporarypools, as very low concentrationsare needed. Less than 0.1% P.nigrum controlled eastern tent cater-pillar, Malacosoma americanum,European pine sawfly, Neodiprionsertifer, and spindle erminemoth,Yponomeuta cagnagellus.Between 0.1% and 0.2% P. nigrumcontrolled adult striped cucumberbeetles, Acalymma vittatum; and lar-val lily leaf beetles, Lilioceris lili; andviburnum leaf beetles, Pyrrhaltaviburni. Black pepper is also repel-lent, as 1% P. nigrum extractreduced L. lili feeding.

“P. nigrum extracts can knock-down lepidopterans and hymenop-

terans at below 0.1% (1,000 ppm),and control adult Colorado potatobeetles at 0.5%,” said Scott.European chafer, Rhizotrogusmajalis, 3rd instar larvae were con-trolled with a concentration of 3%applied to the soil. The downside isthat users are advised to wearmasks and safety glasses, as pep-per extracts are irritants.

Herbal Repellents“Plants and plant compounds

have been used as pest insect repel-lents for much of human history,”said William Irby (Georgia SouthernUniv, POB 8042, Statesboro, GA).Pliny (23-79 A.D.) and Dioscorides(60 A.D.) reported that wormwoodjuice, Artemisia absinthium; wouldrepel gnats and flies. Many cultureshave traditionally relied upon plant-based preparations for mosquitorepellency. Preparations of turmer-ic, Curcuma longa, in vegetable oilare used topically in India. In someregions of Mexico, annato, Bixa orel-lana, is applied in vegetable oil oranimal fat for protection againstmosquito biting during outdooractivities. However, after the discov-ery of DEET in 1954, pyrethrumfrom chrysanthemum flowers wasthe only major botanical mosquitorepellent in use around the worlduntil recently.

Today’s main plant-based arearepellents are citronella candles andmosquito coils impregnated with

Adult female mosquito, Culex tarsalis


pyrethrins. “Unfortunately, effective-ness of these products appears tobe limited to areas within thesmoke plume produced duringburning,” said Irby. Most recently,the repellency of certain potted liveplants such as basil, Ocimum ameri-canum, or Lantana camara or Lippiauckambensis against Anophelesgambiae was demonstrated inexperimental hut trials.

Irby tested a granular flyinginsect repellent and soil additive,Mosquito and Gnat Scat (Dr. T’sNature Products, Pelham, GA),which has attapulgite hormite clay(98.4%) as an inert carrier for lemongrass (1.12%), peppermint (0.08%)and garlic (0.40%) oils.

Dr. T’s was applied evenly byhand several hours before dusk atthe label rate. CDC light traps bait-ed with live yeast cultures moni-tored adult mosquitoes at night for3 weeks. After the initial Dr. T’streatment, mosquito populationswere lower for 5 days.

Skin Chemistry &Mosquito IPM

Ulrich Bernier (USDA-ARS,CMAVE, 1600 SW 23rd Drive, POBox 14565, Gainesville, FL) isrenowned for discovering bettermosquito attractants. More recently,Bernier discovered from humanskin “attractant-antagonists that inblends mask the presence of humanodor.” By way of loose analogy thismeans making human appendagesinvisible to mosquitoes, a kind ofstealth protection.

In 1997 a blend of three chemi-cals from human skin, L-lactic acid,acetone, and dimethyl disulfide,were patented as attractants for yel-low fever mosquitoes, Aedesaegypti. Glass bead work led to thepatent. Approximately 300 differentcompounds from human skin weredeposited on 2.9 mm (0.1 in) glassbeads by human handling. A sol-ventless method, thermal desorp-tion, allowed gas chromatogra-phy/mass spectrometry identifica-tion of the human skin compounds.

The patented three compoundblend proved more attractive to

mosquitoes than emanations fromhuman skin, making it a good can-didate for traps. Not all humanskin compounds are attractive tomosquitoes. Acetone and acetalde-hyde are the most attractive indi-vidual compounds. Some attractantcompounds are repellent at highdoses, but this was not the casewith acetone. Synergism was notedwith binary blends such as methyl-ene chloride and lactic acid, whichwere more attractive than a realhuman hand, which also emits car-bon dioxide, heat and moisture.However, there is much individualvariation among humans, and thebest blends are more attractivethan some, but not all humanhands.

Some blends wiped out mosqui-to attraction. One inhibitory com-pound from human skin whenadded to the patented three com-pound attractant blend reducedattractancy from 93% to 13%. Intheory, if a human hand with a100% inhibitory compound wasplaced in a cage full of mosquitoes,all the mosquitoes would be in theback of the cage and not know thehand was there. With DEET, mos-quitoes know the hand is there, asthey orient around the hand but donot land and feed. In contrast, thebest inhibitory compounds fromhuman skin “masked the hand.”

Improving CO2 TrapsAccording to William Meade (IPM

Tech, 4134 N. Vancouver Ave, Suite105, Portland, OR), the need for dryice or compressed gas cylinders haslimited the use of carbon dioxide(CO2) traps for tick and mosquitoIPM. So, IPM Tech has developed aGasHouse™ that periodically metersenvironmentally-benign chemicalsinto a reaction to achieve controlledrelease of CO2 for periods of timethat are under control of the user.

This system can be added toexisting mosquito traps, such asCDC mini-traps or Faye-Princetraps or placed on the ground overa sticky surface to trap terrestrialarthropods such as ticks. In fieldtrials and lab tests GasHouse™“markedly” increased capture of

female Asian tiger mosquitoes,Aedes albopictus, a species thatdoes not strongly respond to CO2.Culex mosquitoes were not captureduntil CO2 gas generation wasturned on.

Better TrapsCO2 for trapping mosquitoes

dates back to 1922. Using CO2from dry ice to capture bitingmidges, Culicoides spp., dates to1965, said Daniel Kline (USDA-ARS,CMAVE, 1600 SW 23rd Drive, POBox 14565, Gainesville, FL).Culicoides furens, a biting midge,shows little response to octenol (1-octen-3-ol) alone, but there is a“huge synergistic effect” —up to100-fold more C. furens caught—when octenol is added to CO2 trapsin the Everglades (see the Spring2003 Common Sense Pest ControlQuarterly). The results vary amongbiting midge species, and are notthe same for C. melleus. C. impunc-tatus in Scotland are highly attract-ed to octenol and acetone.

Adding heat via a heating pad tothe semiochemical trapping systemtripled the number of C. furenscaught. In addition to octenol, poten-tial biting midge attractants includebutanone, mixed phenol compounds,honey extract and lactic acid. A mix-ture of octenol and phenols attractedlarge numbers of C. furens, but lac-

Conference Notes

CDC mosquito trap


Conference Notestic acid gave mixed results.

A “4:1:8 mixture of octenol:3-n-propylphenol:4-methylphenol aloneor in combination with CO2”showed good potential for backyardIPM traps, capturing C. mississippi-ensis, C. barbosai, C. melleus andC. furens in northwest Florida.There is sometimes geographic vari-ation in the Culicoides speciestrapped, so experimentation withdifferent blends is needed.

Federal and state surveillanceand control programs can use bait-ed traps, particularly where pesti-cide use and physical control meas-ures are not practicable. BackyardIPM programs might use a perime-ter of baited traps. Piping CO2 fromtanks to a “barrier” of poisonedtargets protected a condo complexwhere pesticide treatments had pre-viously been ineffective. Traps needto be 20 ft (6 m) apart for C. furens,versus 60 ft (18 m) for mosquitoes.Whenever the CO2 flow into thetraps was turned on or off, the bit-ing midge attractant effects weredramatically demonstrated.

A perimeter barrier was alsoeffective around a school in BoytonBeach, FL, where CO2 was pipedthrough a mangrove swamp. Mineraloil substituted for pesticide on thetraps/targets at the school, and the IPM system enabled the kids to finally play safely outside. Theschool IPM trapping system workedwell until a hurricane blew in a new

batch of biting midges, at whichtime the program was repeated.Backyard experiments are under-way using compressed CO2 tanksand the Dragonfly trap, which hasan electrocuting grid.

Mosquito TrapComparisons

“The number of companies man-ufacturing mosquito traps hasincreased dramatically in the last 2-3 years,” said John Smith (JAMSCenter, Florida A&M University),who compared seven commercialtraps and one model under develop-ment in terms of numbers andspecies caught (next year mosquitocontrol will be evaluated) on anorthwest Florida peninsula sur-rounded by a salt marsh. TheMosquito Megacatch and theMosquito Magnet Liberty captured2.5X to almost 3X more mosquitoesthan the next best trap, the LentekMosquito Trap, and 4X to 6X morethan the Mosquito Deleto, MosquitoDeleto Prototype, MosquitoPowerTrap and the Dragonfly. TheSonicWeb collected considerablyfewer mosquitoes than any of theother traps. The Mosquito MagnetLiberty sampled the greatest speciesdiversity with 16 collected. TheMosquito Megacatch and MosquitoPowerTrap tied with 12 species.

Mosquito MonitorBenedict Pagac (US Army, Bldg

4411 Llewellyn Ave, Fort George G.Meade, MD) talked about monitor-ing mosquitoes. The U.S. Dept. ofDefense monitors mosquitoes usingCDC-type black plastic ovipositioncups containing aged water andred velour egg deposition strips at45 mostly Army installations in thenortheast and Washington D.C.This surveillance method hasproven to be a simple and economi-cal tool in documenting the spreadof non-native, container breedingmosquito species over a large geo-graphic area. Cups were checkedweekly, and the red valour stripswere examined microscopically (6X-30X) for eggs. Strips with eggs wereplaced into individual mosquitobreeders, and adults were identi-

September 9-12, 2003. 4th European VertebratePest Management Conference. Contact: L. Nieder,Parma, Italy. [email protected]

September 12-17, 2003. 14th Intl. Meeting VirusDiseases of Grapevine. Contact: D. Boscia, Bari,Italy. email [email protected];www.agr.uniba.it

September 18-19, 2003. 17th Annual Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Conference. Iowa City, IA. Contact: Native Roadside VegetationCenter, U. Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614.

September 23, 2003. Benefit for Organic FarmingResearch Foundation. Larkspur, CA. Contact:www.ofrf.org

September 26-28, 2003. Renewable Energy andOrganic Agriculture. Fredericksburg, TX.Contact:K. Houser, 512/326-3391; 877-roundup;www.txses.org

October 4, 2003. Hoes Down Festival at Full BellyFarm. Contact: 800/791-2110; www.hoesdown.org

October 17-18, 2003. Xeriscape Conference. Albuquerque, NM. www.xeriscape.com

October 17-19, 2003. Annual Bioneers Conference. San Rafael, CA. Contact: Bioneers Conf., 901 W. San Mateo Rd., Suite L, Santa Fe, NM 87505; 505/986-0366; www.bioneers.org

October 20-23, 2003. Nonpoint Source PollutionConference. Chicago, IL. Contact: Bob Kirschner, Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Rd., Glencoe, IL 60022; email [email protected]

October 22-23, 2003. Soil and Soul SustainableAgriculture. Contact: Bioneers Conf., 901 W. SanMateo Rd., Suite L, Santa Fe, NM 87505; 505/986-0366; www.bioneers.org

November 1, 2003. Deadline for RegistrationCourse in Organic Farming. Contact: UC SantaCruz, 831/459-4140; www.ucsc.edu/casfs/training

November 2-6, 2003. Organic AgricultureConference. Denver, CO. Contact: Jane Sooby,[email protected]; www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/anmeet/

November 3-6, 2003. 10th Annual Methyl BromideAlternatives Outreach Conference. San Diego, CA.Contact:MBAO, PMB #345, 7084 N. Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA 93720; www.mbao.org

November 5-7, 2003. California Nonpoint SourcePollution Conf. Ventura, CA. Contact: S. Ziegler,EPA Reg. 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA94105; 415/972-3399. email [email protected]

November 10-12, 2003. Crop Science andTechnology. British Crop Protection Council.Glasgow, Scotland. Contact: www.bcpc.org

November 18-21, 2003. British Crop ProtectionConf. Brighton, UK. Contact: www.bcpc.org

Calendar

Mosquito Magnet Liberty trap


fied and counted. This monitoringsystem documented the northwardand eastward spread of the Asiantiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, from Houston, TX, in 1984. Similarly,the southward and westward spreadof Ochlerotatus japonicus from OceanCounty, NJ, and Suffolk County, NY, in 1998 was documented.

Light TrapsIn late summer, particularly

in restaurants, the $407 billion,878,000 unit U.S. food industry facesproblems with nuisance flies, and “as the food industry grows, increas-ing numbers of flies are produced,”said Matthew Aubuchon (Univ ofFlorida, Bldg 970 Natural Area Drive,Gainesville, FL). Electrocution trapsare considered unsanitary, as theinsects explode. But traps emittingultraviolet (UV) light and catchingflies on glue boards are acceptable.House flies show sensitivity peaks to340-350 nm (UV) and 480-510 nm(green-blue) light. Face flies showsensitivity peaks to 360 nm (UV) and490 nm (blue-green) light. The 330nm wavelength produces a startleresponse in flies. Brighter UV lightcatches more flies than dim UV light.

Eight hour fly-catching assaysconducted in enclosed structureswith 7-10 day old flies (younger fliesare also being assayed) comparedcool white, warm white and UVlight bulbs with a control. UsingB&G matrix traps (B&G EquipmentCo, 135 Region South Dr, JacksonGA) with glue boards behind the

trap, Aubuchon compared fourdifferent bulbs at a time in onetrapping device; 1-way ANOVAshowed that light provided themain trapping effect. UV light(high UV, low blue-green)attracted more flies (131,695)and a higher percentage ofmales than cool and warmwhite fluorescents (high blue-green, low UV). Overall, femaleflies were more attracted to lightthan males. But for restaurantsthe bottom line is the total flycatch. Control was not 100%,because not all the flies flew tothe light.

Traps With a HeartBeat

Jerome Hogsette, USDA-ARS, POBox 14565, Gainesville, FL) talkedabout fly traps. Visual traps havebeen used in west Florida to trapstable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans,since at least the 1930s. Even on remote ranges, the economicthreshold for cattle is 5 flies/leg,and some kind of fly control isneeded. Stable flies are attracted to high contrast traps. Box trapresearch in the 1960s and 1980srevealed this tendency when trapswere tested on a beach with lots ofsunlight and shadows. However, thesame box traps were less effectiveagainst stable flies further inland.The original white fiberglass orWilliams trap that evolved from this research has been used com-mercially for two decades. OlsonProducts (Medina, OH) makes cylin-drical, removable Stiky Sleeves thatgo around the fiberglass and catchhouse flies as well as biting flies.

Traps using sound are beingtried in bakeries and grocery stores,but their efficacy is unknown, saidHogsette. The BugJammer trap,emulates a heart beat. A computerchip can be programmed to producethe heartbeat sound of a dog orhuman. The trap housing vibratesto recorded dog heart beat sounds;the vibrations can be felt, but onlyheard very close to the trap.

BugJammer traps can be inte-grated with heat-producing units,carbon dioxide, or light to increase

fly and mosquito catches. Whenmosquitoes are released into a roomand the BugJammer sound buttonis turned on, mosquitoes are readilycollected on the trap surface.

Sound must be carefully inte-grated with other components, suchas visual stimuli. For example,heart beat sounds with white plas-tic traps capture horse flies.However, no horse flies are trappedif black plastic is used. Factorssuch as the amount of glue on thesticky part of the trap also needconsideration. Indeed, a gooeyBugJammer trap caught 281 stableflies, versus 39 for an Olson trapwith less glue, although customersfind it more convenient to use theless gooey trap.

In an indoor test in a USDA sta-ble fly colony room with 50 maleand 50 female house flies released,traps with the sound caught themost house flies.However, in a com-mercial test, flies buzzed aroundthe trap and few were caught;whereas a light trap did very well.

In a horse paddock experimentwith stable flies and a prototypeouter sticky glue board, Trap 1 (lowfly density) was set in the open andTrap 2 (high fly density) was 100 m(328 ft) away near a feed areawhere there was large numbers offlies. Sound activation was rotatedbetween the traps, only one trap ata time had sound. BugJammertraps caught three fly species:house flies, horn flies and stableflies. With just the high density trapactivated, the catch was 41% houseflies. With only the low density trapactivated, the catch was 16-24%house flies. The stable fly catch washighest (443) with the low densitytrap activated. With just the highdensity trap emitting, the stable flycatch was halved. With horn flies,there was little difference with thesound on or off.

BugJammer traps are available inthe SkyMall catalogs found on mostairlines; most people do not like tosee insect bodies, so a shroud isneeded on commercial traps for thegeneral public. Hogsette is toyingwith the idea of a trap that can becustomized for different fly and mos-quito hosts with a dial for differentheart beats.

Conference Notes

A treehole mosquito, Aedes sp.



Natural Controlsfor

Noxious Weeds

An IPM Training Video For Organizations,Public Agencies,

IPM Professionals,Concerned Citizens

Learn About

• Better Mechanical Controls• Goat Grazing

• Revegetation Methods• Permaculture Principles

• Biocontrol Agents• Least-Toxic Herbicides

Contact: CRMPI, PO Box 631 Basalt, CO 81621; 970/927-4158

email [email protected]$15.95 plus shipping




Printed with vegetable-based inksOn Processed Chlorine-free paper100% post-Consumer Waste content

Documents

Commercially Available Biological Control Agents - Bio-Integral