Review
Received: 11 May 2014
Revised: 27 August 2014
Accepted article published: 22 September 2014
Published online in Wiley Online Library:
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/ps.3913
Termite (order Blattodea, infraorder Isoptera)
baiting 20 years after commercial release
Theodore A Evansa* and Naeem Iqbala,b
Abstract
Termite baiting is now one of the two main management tools in developed countries after 20 years of commercial release. It
has two main goals: to use small amounts of active ingredient and ‘colony elimination’, i.e. death of all individuals in the colony.
We consider how well baiting has been evaluated from 100 studies in the scientific literature. Studies have included 15 active
ingredients, 23 termite species and 16 countries, yet most studies have focused on the chitin synthesis inhibitor hexaflumuron,
Reticulitermes and the United States. Baiting has mostly met its goals: typically about 0.5 g of active ingredient was used, and
colony elimination achieved, albeit with rates varying from 0 to 100%, and sometimes supplemented with liquid insecticide.
Baiting was most successful using chitin synthesis inhibitors against Reticulitermes and Coptotermes (Rhinotermitidae), in
temperate locations, although colony elimination was usually inferred indirectly – mostly by termite absence from baits – and
was often slow, from 25 to 450 days. Baiting has been less tested and less successful against higher termites in tropical locations,
where they are most diverse and abundant. Future research may have to consider greater termite species diversity and other
active ingredients to reduce control times in order to fulfil the potential of baiting.
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Keywords: colony elimination; Coptotermes; chitin synthesis inhibitor; chlorfluazuron; hexaflumuron; Reticulitermes
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Termites as pests
Termites are not a large insect group, comprising fewer than 3000
described species;1 however, they are among the most important by many ecological and economic measures. This is because
these insects have evolved the capacity to digest the most abundant biological molecules on the planet, cellulose and lignin, on
account of their own digestive enzymes2 and those of the symbiotic protozoa, bacteria and archea living in their guts.3 Thus, termites have become important pests of crops and plantations4 and
timber-in-service in the human-built environment.5 Their pestiferousness has led to many pest management methods over time,
from large quantities of natural plant extracts such as creosotes
and neem used in antiquity to modern neurotoxins.6 – 10
1.2 History of trap and treat
One form of pest management that requires very small quantities
of poisons is ‘trap and treat’. This method first lures termites into
a trap using a food as bait, then treats them with a type of poison.
Dusting with arsenic (usually Paris Green) was the first form of trap
and treat, especially common in tropical Asia and Australia, but
also found in Hawaii and other Pacific Islands and California, from
the nineteen and early twentieth century. 6,11 – 19
Dusting was largely replaced by chemical soil barriers in the
1940s. Chemical soil barrier treatments aimed to prevent termite
access into buildings, and thus they were perceived to be simpler, safer and more persistent. The first active ingredients were
organochloride insecticides from the 1940s (e.g. dieldrin and
chlordane), which were joined by organophosphate insecticides
(e.g. chlorpyrifos) and synthetic pyrethroids (e.g. deltamethrin
and bifenthrin). Chemical soil barriers were completely
dominant in termite pest management for over 50 years, yet
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
their use has declined since the 1990s. This was due to environmental concerns arising from the use of large quantities of
synthetic insecticides.20,21
1.3 Rise of baiting
The rise of environmental concerns created the conditions for
research into and development of baiting, the second form of trap
and treat. Baiting differs from dusting in that the poison is incorporated into a food in the trap, which occasionally had occurred previously with arsenic instead of dusting.14 Baiting research appeared
in the 1950s and 1960s in Indonesia,22 Canada,23 the United
States,24,25 and Australia,26,27 to reduce termite damage to trees
grown for timber where barrier treatments were not appropriate. Good control was reported from these early studies; however,
research stopped, perhaps because the active ingredient used was
mirex, which is an organochlorine insecticide, the uses of which
were discontinued either because of individual national regulation
or as part of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2004.
Research into termite baiting re-emerged at the end of the
1980s. Most research was laboratory based to identify the utility of
various active ingredients as baiting active ingredients.28 – 30
There was other research into the food matrix that would
∗
Correspondence to: Theodore A Evans, Department of Biological Science,
National University of Singapore, 117543, Singapore. E-mail: theo.evans@
nus.edu.sg
a Department of Biological Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore
b Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Bahauddin
Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
www.soci.org
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
contain the active ingredient, specifically a cellulose-based
bait that would interest only termites, and a bait station to house
this food matrix.31,32 In addition to environmental benefits, baiting
could aim for colony elimination, defined as the death of all members of the colony.33,34 Eventually, commercial baiting systems
emerged.35,36
Since that time, and after approximately 25 years of field
research, there are now multiple commercial baiting systems
(e.g. professional systems include, or have included, Sentricon®
by DowAgrosciences, FirstLine® by FMC, Exterra® by Ensystex,
Zyrox® by Syngenta, Nemesis® by PCT International, Subterfuge®
and Advance® by BASF, Xterm® by Sumitomo, plus many others,
including do-it-yourself systems). Therefore, it is timely to consider
the published information to determine whether baiting has
met its aims. This review aimed to consider the evidence for the
efficacy of baiting systems as published in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature. Specifically, the number of studies, the size
of each study, the active ingredient, the target pest species, the
location, the elimination success and the time to elimination were
recorded from each study to consider the scientific merits of the
published research, and to find patterns over time.
2
BAITING FIELD STUDIES
We considered only field studies in the peer-reviewed, scientific
literature because one of the aims of baiting was colony elimination, which is difficult to determine under realistic conditions in
laboratory studies. We found 100 studies published in 59 papers,
TA Evans, N Iqbal
with a study defined as one active ingredient used against one
termite species in one location. Locations were usually within a
country, except when locations in large countries were climatically
different enough to justify separate consideration. There were 69
studies that targeted termite colonies (some in urban areas, others in natural habitats) (see Table 1); the replicates in these studies were the colonies. Another 30 studies targeted built structures
(and did not attempt to determine colonies in the structures) (see
Table 2); the replicates in these studies were the built structures.
The studies that targeted termite colonies were treated separately
from those that targeted built structures.
Of the 100 studies, 29 included untreated controls (i.e. colonies
or structures received baits without an insecticidal active ingredient), 70 studies did not include untreated controls and one
study was unclear (stated that controls were used, but data were
not presented). The average replication rate for studies targeting
colonies was (mean ± standard error) 5.4 ± 1.2 replicates, which
was lower than studies targeting built structures (7.9 ± 1.4 replicates). There were 21 studies with just one replicate (17 for colony
as replicate, four for structure as replicate), 49 studies with 2–5
replicates (37 for colonies and 12 for structures), 22 studies with
6–15 replicates (11 for colonies and 11 for structures) and just
eight with more than 16 replicates (three for colonies and five for
structures) (Tables 3 and 4).
2.1 Active ingredients
A total of 15 active ingredients belonging to three classes of
insecticide with three modes of action were tested: neurotoxins
Table 1. The active ingredients, species and locations of termite baiting studies that targeted termite colonies
Active ingredient
CAS numbera
Neurotoxin
Mirex
Deltamethrin
Abamectin
Number of
studiesb Σ/UTC
NA
52918-63-5
65195-56-4
65195-55-3
Avermectin
71751-41-2
65195-55-3
65195-56-4
Fipronil
120068-37-3
Metabolic inhibitor
NA
A9248d
Sulfluramid
4151-50-2
Hydramethylnon 67485-29-4
Zinc borate
NA
Chitin synthesis inhibitor
Hexaflumuron
86479-06-3
Noviflumuron
121451-02-3
8/1
Chlorfluazuron
Lufenuron
Bistrifluron
71422-67-8
103055-07-8
201593-84-2
6/2
1/1
2/2
Speciesc
Country
4/3
1/1
3/1
Mas. darwiniensis, R. flavipes
C. formosanus
C. formosanus, R. flavipes, R. virginicus
Australia, Canada, United States
United States
United States
1/1
C. formosanus
United States
3/3
O. formosanus, R. hageni, R. flavipes
United States, China
1/1
2/1
2/0
1/0
C. formosanus
C. formosanus
C. formosanus, R. speratus
R. flavipes, R. virginicus
United States
United States
Japan
United States
30/6
C. acinaciformis, C. curvignathus, C. formosanus,
C. gestroi, C. travians, Heterotermes sp.,
N. exitiosus, R. flavipes, R. lucifugus, R. speratus,
R. sp., R. virginicus
C. formosanus, H. aureus, R. flavipes, R. hageni,
R. hesperus, R. virginicus
C. acinaciformis, Mac. gilvus, G. sulphureus
R. hesperus
G. sulphureus, C. acinaciformis
Australia, Cayman Islands, Italy, Japan,
Malaysia, Puerto Rico, United States
United States
Australia, Philippines, Thailand
United States
Australia, Malaysia
a CAS number not included for experimental compounds.
b For the number of studies, Σ is the total number and UTC represents the studies with untreated controls.
c For species: C. = Coptotermes, G. = Globitermes, H. = Heterotermes, Mac. = Macrotermes, Mas. = Mastotermes, N. = Nasutitermes, O = Odontotermes,
R = Reticulitermes; sp. = species unknown.
d A9248 is a type of diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
Termite baiting
www.soci.org
Table 2. The active ingredients, species and locations of termite baiting studies that targeted built structures
Chemical
CAS number
Number of
studies Σ/UTC
Neurotoxin
Mirex
NA
Ivermectin
70288-86-7
Metabolic inhibitor
Sulfluramid
4151-50-2
Chitin synthesis inhibitor
Hexaflumuron
86479-06-3
Noviflumuron
Chlorfluazuron
2/0
3/2
a
121451-02-3
71422-67-8
Speciesa
Country
2/1
2/0
R. sp.
C. formosanus, O. formosanus
United States
China
3/1
R. flavipes
Chile, United States
14/1
C. formosanus, C. travians, H. aureus, H. sp.,
R. flavipes, R. grassei, R. lucifugus, R. separatus,
R. sp.
C. gestroi, C. formosanus
C. curvignathus, C. vastator, Mic. losbanosensis
Chile, Italy, United Kingdom, Malaysia,
Taiwan, United States, US Virgin
Islands
Malaysia, United States
Indonesia, Philippines
Abbreviations as in Table 1, plus Mic. = Microcerotermes.
Table 3. The baiting outcomes for baiting studies that targeted termite coloniesa
Active ingredient
Number of
colonies baited
[mean (range)]
Percentage of
colonies eliminated
[mean (range)]
Neurotoxin
Mirex
4 (2–6)
Deltamethrin
2(–)
Abamectin
2.7 (1–7)
Avermectin
3(–)
Fipronil
2.3 (2–3)
Metabolic inhibitor
A9248
3(–)
Sulfluramid
6 (3–9)
Hydramethylnon
1(–)
Zinc borate
2 (1–3)
Chitin synthesis inhibitor
Hexaflumuron
3.8 (1–35)
0(–)
38.9 (0–78)
50 (0–100)
0(–)
Noviflumuron
Chlorfluazuron
Lufenuron
Bistrifluron
a
18 (4–72)
5.3 (2–13)
5(–)
9 (6–12)
Elimination
time (days)
[mean (range)]
100 ( – )
0(–)
0(–)
0(–)
55.6 (50–67)
24 (7–73)
Active
ingredient (mg)
[mean (range)]
Reference
1900 ( – )
250 ( – )
>1 (>1–1)
334 (1–500)
2 (>1–5)
26, 114
114
87, 114
114
53, 67
101 (49–153)
268 ( – )
180 (59–308)
858 (5–3980)
66 (45–87)
?
129
39, 114
114, 121
87
90.3 (0–100)
173 (25–450)
558 (4–3400)
100 ( – )
97.4 (85–100)
100 ( – )
91.7 (83–100)
144 (20–342)
106 (56–126)
65 (37–93)
88 (56–120)
399 (1–1470)
1142 (182–5000)
12 (3–24)
248 (65–1226)
33, 35, 36, 40–42, 64, 69–72, 77,
78, 82, 91, 114, 102, 121,124,
126, 128, 129, 135, 136
58, 69, 79
73–76
60, 119
34, 123
92 (71–150)
Means and ranges are across species and locations; — = insufficient data available; ? = no data available.
that prevent transmission of nerve signals; metabolic inhibitors
that block the electron transport chain in the mitochondria; chitin
synthesis inhibitors that block chitin production during moulting.
There were six neurotoxins trialled in 14 studies, four metabolic
inhibitors trialled in ten studies and five chitin synthesis inhibitors
trialled in 75 studies (Tables 1 and 2).
2.2 Termite species
There were a total of 23 species used in baiting studies. These
included: one species in the Mastotermitidae, Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt; 17 species in the Rhinotermitidae, with eight
species in Reticulitermes Holmgren; two species in Heterotermes
Froggatt; seven species in Coptotermes Wasmann; five species in
the Termitidae, with one species each in Macrotermes Holmgren,
Odontotermes Holmgren, Globitermes Holmgren, Microcerotermes
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
Silvestri and Nasutitermes Dudley. There was only a single study
against termites belonging to Mastotermitidae. There were a total
of 90 studies in Rhinotermitidae with 45 studies in Reticulitermes, 41 studies in Coptotermes and four studies in Heterotermes. There were nine studies in Termitidae with three studies
against Macrotermes, two studies against each of Odontotermes
and Globitermes and one study each against Microcerotermes and
Nasutitermes (Tables 1 and 2).
2.3 Study locations
The baiting studies were performed in 16 countries and territories.
The majority of locations and studies were in the United States,
across 13 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas
and Virginia. There was one location in Canada, three locations in
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
www.soci.org
TA Evans, N Iqbal
Table 4. The baiting outcomes for baiting studies that targeted built structuresa
Active ingredient
Number of
structures/plots baited
[mean (range)]
Neurotoxin
Mirex
9 (6–12)
Ivermectin
4.5 (3–6)
Metabolic inhibitor
Sulfluramid
17.3 (2–25)
Chitin synthesis inhibitor
Hexaflumuron
9.5 (1–29)
Noviflumuron
5(–)
Chlorfluazuron
5 (4–6)
a
Percentage of
infestations
eliminated
[mean (range)]
Elimination
time (days)
[mean (range)]
Active
ingredient (mg)
[mean (range)]
Reference
0
100 ( – )
0
126 (37–302)
109 (2–220)
?
24, 25
115, 122
54.7 (0–84)
110 (27–196)
?
68, 108
96.8 (80–100)
100 ( – )
100 ( – )
205 (27–1170)
340 (34–905)
100 (42–231)
744 (64–3098)
1131 (100–3037)
168 (42–282)
68, 70, 108, 117, 118, 125, 127, 130–134
63, 66
75, 110
Means and ranges are across species and locations; — = insufficient data available; ? = no data available.
the Caribbean Sea (Cayman Islands, US Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico) and one in South America in Chile. There were two locations
in Europe: in the United Kingdom and Italy. There were three locations in Australia (Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern
Territory) and one in New Zealand. Finally, there were eight locations in Asia: in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Taiwan,
China (two provinces: Wuhan and Zhejiang) and Japan (Tables 1
and 2). There were 69 studies on termites in their natural, native
range and 31 studies on invasive termites37 outside their natural
range.
2.4 Quantity of active ingredient
Of the 100 studies, 60 included data on the amount of active ingredient removed from bait stations, 46 from studies on colonies
and 14 from studies on structures. The overall mean across all
studies was 545 mg active ingredient per replicate colony or structure. The lowest amounts were for neurotoxins, and the highest were for chitin synthesis inhibitors: 239 mg for neurotoxins,
500 mg for metabolic inhibitors and 587 mg for chitin synthesis
inhibitors. Reflecting on these averages, the minimum amount of
bait active ingredient of any kind removed by any one colony was
0.01 mg (for abamectin against Reticulitermes flavipes in Georgia,
United States), and the maximum was 5000 mg (for chlorfluazuron
against Coptotermes acinaciformis in Queensland, Australia). Nevertheless, there were no obvious patterns between types of active
ingredient, because of the variation in study types and scale. For
example, in the United States, native Reticulitermes colonies in
natural landscapes are smaller than those of invasive Coptotermes colonies in urban landscapes, and thus are likely to require
smaller amounts of active ingredient. Perhaps the only comparison that might be considered is between hexaflumuron and
noviflumuron owing to the number of studies and similarity of
baiting system (both from Dow AgroSciences). Less noviflumuron
was required to eliminate colonies than hexaflumuron, in less time
(Table 3 and 4).
2.5 Colony elimination
Most of the published studies considered ‘colony elimination’
to be the absence of termites in the bait and monitoring stations, and not the actual effect on the colony by examining
the nest for termites (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below). Colony
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
elimination, i.e. lack of foraging termites in bait stations, was
determined to have occurred in 86% of all cases: in 4.7 ± 1.2
colonies or 6.8 ± 1.5 structures per study. Among the neurotoxins, two (mirex and fipronil) eliminated between 56 and 100%
of exposed colonies, whereas three (abamectin, avermectin and
deltamethrin) did not eliminate any colonies. Two metabolic
inhibitors (sulfluramid and hydramethylnon) caused around 50%
colony elimination, whereas another two (A9248 and zinc borate)
caused none. All five chitin synthesis inhibitors eliminated from 90
to 100% of exposed colonies, depending upon the termite species
involved (Tables 3 and 4).
The mean minimum time to elimination was similar for studies using colonies and structures as replicates: 111 ± 14 days for
colonies and 105 ± 20 days for structures per study. The mean maximum time to elimination was considerably lower for studies using
colonies compared with those using structures: 190 ± 16 days
for colonies and 272 ± 54 days for structures per study (Tables 3
and 4). Among the active ingredients that eliminated colonies,
neurotoxins were the fastest, metabolic inhibitors the slowest and
chitin synthesis inhibitors in the middle. The average time to elimination for neurotoxins was less than 4 weeks for mirex and over
13 weeks for fipronil. Colony elimination times for the metabolic
inhibitors were over 14 weeks for sulfuramid and over 38 weeks
for hydramethylnon. For the chitin synthesis inhibitors, lufenuron
was fastest at around 9 weeks, then 12 weeks for bistriflumuron,
15 weeks for chlorfluazuron and over 20 for noviflumuron, and the
slowest was over 24 weeks for hexaflumuron (Table 3). There was
considerable variation in elimination time for each active ingredient, depending on the species and location and the size of the
study – larger studies reported longer control times. Some studies
of sulfluramid and hexaflumuron used additional spot treatments
in buildings to help control infestations; the relative value of these
spot treatments is unknown, yet they are reported to be used often
in actual use conditions.
Effects other than colony elimination have been considered,
including reduction in population size. Population sizes have been
estimated using various mark–recapture methods with histological fat stains as markers.33,38 – 42 However, they are not considered here as the method is deeply flawed owing to the violation
of all essential assumptions.40,43 – 49 Mark–recapture is no longer
used for estimating population size,50 – 54 but is used for territory
demarcation.55 – 60
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
Termite baiting
www.soci.org
Chitin synthesis inhibitors
Bistrifluron
25
Leufenuron
Chlorfluazuron
Number of studies
20
Noviflumuron
Hexaflumuron
Metabolic inhibitors
Zinc Borate
15
Hydramethylnon
Sulfuramid
10
Neurotoxins
A9248
5
Fipronil
Iver-, Aver-, Abamectin
Deltamethrin
10-12
07-09
04-06
01-03
98-00
95-97
92-94
89-91
86-88
83-85
80-82
77-79
74-76
71-73
Mirex
68-70
0
Time (triennia)
Figure 1. The number of termite baiting studies over time. Note that time has been separated into 3 year periods (triennia). Chitin synthesis inhibitors are
depicted with stripes, metabolic inhibitors with solid colours and neurotoxins with spots.
3
STUDIES OVER TIME
3.1 Active ingredients
The earliest of the modern studies used the organochloride mirex
(1960–1980), which was replaced by a variety of neurotoxins and
metabolic inhibitors (1986–2003). The chitin synthesis inhibitors,
especially hexaflumuron, received the most attention starting in
1989, with the bulk of studies during an 8 year period (1992–2006),
and a steep decrease in the number of studies from 2007 onwards
(Fig. 1).
3.2 Termite species
The majority of studies have been on Reticulitermes species, followed by Coptotermes species. The pattern mimics that for active
ingredients, with the bulk of studies occurring during the same 8
year period as hexaflumuron (1992–2006). Species in the ‘higher’
termite family Termitidae were considered from 2001 onwards,
coincident with a decline in the study of the Rhinotermitidae
(Fig. 2).
3.3 Study locations
The majority of studies have been in in United States; in fact, almost
all studies were in the United States and Canada from 1968 until
1995; the one exception was in Australia. Since 1995 the number of
studies in Asia has increased, and now dominate, albeit at a lower
(and declining) level (Fig. 3). There has been just one study in South
America (Chile), and there have been no studies at all in Africa.
4
BAITING SUCCESS AND ISSUES
4.1 Baiting successes
Baiting appears to have achieved its aims, with small quantities of active ingredients used to eliminate or suppress termite
colonies. This result was not uniform for all active ingredients, termite species or locations, but was consistent for most common
active ingredient, termite genus and location. Of the 100 studies,
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
51 studies used the chitin synthesis inhibitor hexaflumuron, 45
studies were against the genus Reticulitermes and 56 studies
were performed in the United States. A total of 23 studies, just
under one-quarter, were on the exact combination of hexaflumuron + Reticulitermes + USA. The outcomes across these studies
were uniformly positive, with small quantities of active ingredient
used, and a high average percentage of colonies or infestations in
structures eliminated. However, the length of time to control could
be long, with an average of 24 weeks and a maximum of 1.5 years.
These results are similar for Coptotermes, which is a close relative of
Reticulitermes; both genera are in the family Rhinotermitidae. This
success for termites in the Rhinotermitidae in temperate locations
came with caveats in some studies, as they used additional liquid
insecticide spot treatments in structures,61 – 63 which continue to
be used in real-world situations.
4.2 Issues in interpretation of study results
Even though most studies reported positive results from baiting, there were issues with the study methods. The first method
issue is of greater concern: most studies lack untreated controls,
which are essential in any standard scientific study. The lack of controls affects the interpretation of results; specifically, the effect of
the treatment cannot be separated from the effect of time. Many
studies occurred in termite-infested buildings, and it is understandable that the owners of any such building would want the
infestation controlled as quickly as possible, and not want their
building to serve as an untreated control. In lieu of controls, these
studies considered termite activity in ‘monitoring stations’, which
were bait stations that did not receive poisonous bait.35,36,40,42,64 – 70
These are a useful and welcome addition; however, monitoring stations do not control for confounding effects of time, especially if
monitoring is conducted for no more than one season. Another
useful measurement was acoustic emissions in the wood of built
structures, which are caused by chewing termites.67 – 71
The second method issue concerns claims of effects on the
colony, especially colony elimination. Just ten of the 100 studies
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
www.soci.org
TA Evans, N Iqbal
Termitidae
Nasutitermitinae
1 Nasutitermes
25
Termitinae
1 Microcerotermes
Number of studies
20
1 Globitermes
Macrotermitinae
1 Odontotermes
15
1 Macrotermes
10
Rhinotermitidae
7 Coptotermes
2 Heterotermes
5
8 Reticulitermes
Mastotermitidae
10-12
07-09
04-06
01-03
98-00
95-97
92-94
89-91
86-88
83-85
80-82
77-79
71-73
68-70
74-76
1 Mastotermes
0
Time (triennia)
Figure 2. The species trialled in termite baiting studies over time. The Termitidae (subfamilies Nasutitermitinae, Termitinae and Macrotermitinae) are
depicted with stripes, the Rhinotermitidae with solid colours and the Mastotermitidae with spots. The number of species precedes each genus name.
Pacific
25
Japan
China &
Taiwan
Number of studies
20
SE Asia
Australia &
New Zealand
15
Europe
10
Central &
South
Americas
USA &
Canada
10-12
07-09
04-06
01-03
98-00
95-97
92-94
89-91
86-88
83-85
80-82
77-79
74-76
71-73
0
68-70
5
Time (triennia)
Figure 3. The location of termite baiting studies over time. Asia-Pacific is depicted in stripes, Australasia with spots and Europe and the Americas in solid
colours. Pacific = Hawaii plus other US territories in the Pacific Ocean; SE Asia = Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines; Europe = Italy and the
United Kingdom; Central and South America include the Caribbean Islands.
measured the effect on the colony directly, by dissecting the
nest to observe reproductives and dependent castes, and only
two of these studies reported 100% colony elimination.26,34,72 – 75
DNA fingerprinting was used in a further ten studies to determine the genetic identify of the termites before and after baiting, which does not measure effects on the reproductives in
the nest, but does show whether foragers from baited colonies
return or not.58,76 – 78 There remain 80 studies that relied on the
presence or absence of termites in bait stations as their only
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
measure, and many of these studies reported 100% colony elimination, especially those testing hexaflumuron. It is difficult, usually
impossible, to examine the nest of a cryptic underground nesting
species, such as those in Reticulitermes; this was noted as early as
1876,79 and noted for baiting studies from 1996.40 Furthermore,
the nests of some species may be diffuse with eggs and larvae in
multiple locations.80 Although it is possible, even probable, that a
long absence of termites from bait stations is due to the elimination of the colony, it is not the only interpretation. For example,
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
Termite baiting
www.soci.org
termites are known to abandon bait stations that are inspected
too frequently, as they avoid disturbance, or even for no apparent
reason.40,53,58,62,81,82
4.3 Formal assessment criteria
The difficulties of measuring colony level effects in (difficult to
locate) subterranean nests has resulted in studies that consider
more accessible assessment criteria;53,54,83,84 these rules have been
formalised in the state of Florida in the United States (Rule
5E-2.0311).59 Criteria include: monitoring of termite activity preand post-treatment using monitoring stations and other ‘natural
monitors’ (such as mud tubes or the actual infestation in the building); removal of poisonous bait (usually inferred as ‘consumption’,
but removed bait is not always consumed85,86 ); and change in alate
numbers. The change in alate numbers is especially indicative of
a colony level effect of baiting; however, even this criterion can
be influenced by seasonal fluctuations, and records of alate flights
pretreatment are needed. All such criteria are enhanced by colony
identification with DNA fingerprinting. These issues may be dismissed as quibbles over scientific method and accuracy by those
who consider the success of termite baiting in the marketplace as
a more important indicator,87 yet such dismissal ignores scientific
rigour.
4.4 Future directions
Baiting faces one serious challenge within the marketplace: that
the time to achieve control is slow, especially compared with
chemical soil barriers.88,89 This is often a consequence of a low contact rate to bait stations.61,63,81,90 – 93 Not surprisingly, considerable
effort has been invested in methods to attract termites to bait stations, including amino acids, sugars, even sports drinks,92,94 – 102
carbon dioxide103,104 and bait station placement, including auxiliary stations,58,68,90,92,105 – 108 although results have been inconsistent. There is notably little published research on aspects of bait
station design, such as size,82 and varying inspection frequency,
from 2 weeks to 3 months, and even to 1 year.58,59,107,109
The need to improve termite baiting goes well beyond increasing success for the well-studied pest species in the Rhinotermitidae in the United States and similar temperate regions of the
northern hemisphere. Of the total of 371 known pest termite
species, 105 belong to the Rhinotermitidae, one to the Mastotermitidae, ten to the Termopsidae, 49 to the Kalotermitdae and
206 (56%) to the Termitidae.1 The species in the Termitidae are
overwhelmingly found in the tropical regions of the world,110 and
have received very limited attention: four species with eight studies in total (Tables 1 and 2). Termitid species do not appear to
respond well to chitin synthesis inhibitors, especially compared
with species in the family Rhinotermitidae, perhaps for two reasons. The first is that the chitin synthesis inhibitors developed for
the Rhinotermitidae may not disrupt the chitin synthesis enzymes
in the Termitidae, as they are too distantly related. The second reason is that most species in the Termitidae moult fewer times than
species in the Rhinotermitidae,111 thus decreasing their vulnerability to this mode of action.
Clearly, more research is needed on termite baiting, especially
the Kalotermitidae and the Termitidae, and in the tropics. The
‘drywood termites’ in the Kalotermitidae are often treated with
fumigation; yet there has been research into baiting with hydramethylnon in a gel.112 If results for chitin synthesis inhibitors continue to be disappointing for the Termitidae, then new bait active
ingredients will be sought, perhaps neurotoxins. Neurotoxins were
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
once considered to be too fast acting for baiting; however, several
baiting studies found some success if they were used at very low
doses.65,113,114 Future developments in termite baiting may come
from Asia, as suggested by the increasing number of Asian baiting
studies (Fig. 3), driven by growing environmental awareness and
increasing wealth, combined with the difficulty in managing more
diverse pest assemblages.115,116
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
NI was funded by the Pakistani Higher Education Commission
International Research Support Initiative Programme.
REFERENCES
1 Krishna K, Engel MS, Grimaldi DA and Krishna V, Treatise on the
Isoptera of the world, Vol. 1. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 377:1–200 (2013).
2 Watanabe H, Noda H, Tokuda G and Lo N, A cellulase gene of termite
origin. Nature 394:330–331 (1998).
3 Ohkuma M and Brune A, Diversity, structure, and evolution of the
termite gut microbial community, in Biology of Termites: a Modern
Synthesis, ed. by Bignell DE, Roisin Y and Lo N. Springer, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, pp. 413–438 (2011).
4 Rouland-Lefèvre C, Termites as pests of agriculture, in Biology of
Termites: a Modern Synthesis, ed. by Bignell DE, Roisin Y and Lo N.
Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 499–517 (2011).
5 Su NY and Scheffrahn RH, Termites as pests of buildings, in Termites:
Evolution, Sociality, Symbioses, Ecology, ed. by Abe T, Bignell DE and
Higashi M. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 437–453 (2000).
6 Kofoid CA, Light SF, Horner AC, Randall M, Herms WB and Bowe EE,
Termites and Termite Control. University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA (1934).
7 Snyder TE, Our Enemy the Termite, 2nd edition. Comstock Publishing,
Ithaca, NY (1948).
8 Harris WV, Termites: their Recognition and Control. Longman, London,
UK (1961).
9 Edwards R and Mill AE, Termites in Buildings, their Biology and Control.
Rentokil Library, London, UK (1986).
10 Pearce MJ, Termites: Biology and Pest Management. CAB International,
London, UK (1997).
11 Cleghorn HFC, The Forests and Gardens of South India. WH Allen Co.,
London, UK (1861).
12 Froggatt WW, Economic entomology. White ants (Termitidae) with
suggestions for dealing with them in houses and orchards. Agric
Gaz NSW 16:632–656, 753–774 (1905).
13 Fullaway DT, Termites, or white ants, in Hawaii. Hawaiian For Agric
17:294–301 (1920).
14 Keuchenius PE and Corporaal JB, Dierlijke vijanden van Hevea
brasiliensis (Animal enemies of Hevea brasiliensis), in Handboek
voor de Rubber Cultuur in Nederlandsch-Indie (Handbook for Rubber
Culture in Netherlands-India), ed. by Swart NL and Rutgers AAL. JH
de Bussy, Amsterdam, pp. 216–229 (1922).
15 Jepson FP, The control of tea termites. Trop Agric 75:191–195 (1930)
16 Kelsey JM, A termite damaging coconut palms on Suwarro Island:
Calotermes (Neotermes) rainbowi Hill. NZ J Sci Technol 27B:69–75
(1945).
17 Hickin NE, Termites: a World Problem. Hutchinson and Co. Ltd, London,
UK (1971).
18 Roonwal ML, Termite Life and Termite Control in Tropical South Asia.
Scientific Publishers, Bombay, India (1979).
19 Watson JAL, Termites in the Canberra Region, 2nd edition. CSIRO
Publishing, Canberra, Australia (1988).
20 Carson R, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA (1962).
21 Cropper ML, Evans WN, Berardi SJ, Ducla-Soares MM and Portney PR,
The determinants of pesticide regulation: a statistical analysis of
EPA decision making. J Polit Econ 100:175–197 (1992).
22 Kalshoven LGE, The ability of Coptotermes to locate exposed timber.
Idea 10:43–49 (1955).
23 Esenther GR and Gray DE, Subterranean termite studies in southern
Ontario. Can Entomol 100:827–834 (1968).
24 Esenther GR and Beal RH, Attractant-mirex bait suppresses activity of
Reticulitermes spp. J Econ Entomol 67:85–88 (1974).
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
www.soci.org
25 Esenther GR and Beal RH, Insecticidal baits on field plot perimeters
suppress Reticulitermes. J Econ Entomol 71:604–607 (1978).
26 Paton R and Miller LR, Control of Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt (Isoptera: Mastrotermitidae) with mirex baits. Aust For Res
10:249–258 (1980).
27 Lenz M and Evans TA, Termite bait technology: perspectives from
Australia, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Urban
Pests, ed. by Jones SC, Zhai J and Robertson WH. Charleston, SC, pp.
27–36 (2002).
28 Prestwich GD, Mauldin JK, Engstrom JB, Carvalho JF and Cupo DY,
Comparative toxicity of fluorinated lipids and their evaluation as
bait-block toxicants for the control of Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 76:690–695 (1983).
29 Jones SC, Evaluation of two insect growth regulators for the bait-block
method of subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) control. J Econ Entomol 77:1086–1091 (1984).
30 Su N-Y, Tamashiro M and Haverty MI, Characterization of slow-acting
insecticides for the remedial control of the Formosan subterranean
termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 80:1–4 (1987).
31 Su N-Y, Tamashiro M and Haverty MI, Effects of three insect growth
regulators, feeding substrates, and colony origin on survival and
presoldier production of the Formosan subterranean termite
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 78:1259–1263 (1985).
32 Su N-Y and Scheffrahn RH, A method to access, trap, and monitor field populations of the Formosan subterranean termite
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in the urban environment. Sociobiology
12:299–304 (1986).
33 Su NY, Field evaluation of hexaflumuron bait from population suppression of subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae).
J Econ Entomol 87:389–397 (1994).
34 Evans TA, Rapid elimination of field colonies of subterranean termites
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) using bistrifluron solid bait pellets.
J Econ Entomol 103:423–432 (2010).
35 Su NY, Thoms EM, Ban PM and Scheffrahn RH, Monitoring/baiting station to detect and eliminate foraging populations of subterranean
termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae ) near structures. J Econ Entomol
88:932–936 (1995).
36 Su NY, Ban PM and Scheffrahn RH, Control of subterranean termites
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) using commercial prototype above
ground stations and hexaflumuron baits. Sociobiology 37:111–120
(2001).
37 Evans TA, Forschler BT and Grace JK, Biology of invasive termites: a
worldwide review. Annu Rev Entomol 58:455–474 (2013).
38 Jones SC, Colony size of the desert subterranean termite Heterotermes
aureus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). SW Nat 35:285–291 (1990).
39 Su NY, Scheffrahn RH and Ban PM, Effects of sulfluramid-treated bait
blocks on field colonies of the Formosan subterranean termite
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 88:1343–1348 (1995).
40 Grace JK, Tome CHM, Shelton TG, Oshiro RJ and Yates JR, Baiting
studies and considerations with Coptotermes formosanus (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae) in Hawaii. Sociobiology 28:511–520 (1996).
41 Su NY, Ban PM and Scheffrahn RH, Remedial baiting with hexaflumuron in above-ground stations to control structure-infesting
population of Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 90:809–817 (1997).
42 Tsunoda K, Matsuoka H and Yoshimura T, Colony elimination of Reticulitermes speratus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) by bait application
and the effect on foraging territory. J Econ Entomol 91:1383–1386
(1998).
43 Forschler BT and Townsend ML, Mark–recapture estimates of Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) colony foraging populations from Georgia, USA. Environ Entomol 25:952–962 (1996).
44 Thorne BL, Russek-Cohen E, Forschler BT, Breisch NL and Traniello
JFA, Evaluation of mark recapture methods for estimating forager
population size of subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) colonies. Environ Entomol 25:938–951 (1996).
45 Evans TA, Lenz M and Gleeson PV, Testing assumptions of
mark–recapture protocols for estimating population size using
Australian, mound-building, subterranean termites (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae and Termitidae). Ecol Entomol 23:139–159 (1998).
46 Evans TA, Lenz M and Gleeson PV, Estimating population size and
forager movement in a tropical subterranean termite (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae). Environ Entomol 28:823–830 (1999).
47 Evans TA, Estimating relative decline in populations of subterranean
termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) due to baiting. J Econ Entomol
94:1602–1609 (2001).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
TA Evans, N Iqbal
48 Evans TA, Tunnel specificity and forager movements in subterranean
termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae and Termitidae). Bull Entomol
Res 92:193–201 (2002).
49 Evans TA, Comparing mark–recapture and constant removal protocols for estimating population size of the subterranean termite
Coptotermes lacteus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Bull Entomol Res
94:1–9 (2004).
50 Jones DT, Verkerk RHJ and Eggleton P, Methods for sampling termites,
in Insect Sampling in Forest Ecosystems, ed. by Leather SR. Blackwell,
Oxford, UK, pp. 221–253 (2005).
51 Hu J, Zhong J-H and Guo M-F, Foraging territories of the black-winged
subterranean termite Odontotermes formosanus (Isoptera: Termitidae) in Southern China. Sociobiology 48:1–12 (2006).
52 Long CE and Thorne BL, Resource fidelity, brood distribution and
foraging dynamics in complete laboratory colonies of Reticulitermes flavipes (Isoptera Rhinotermitidae). Ethol Ecol Evol 18:113–125
(2006).
53 Forschler BT and Jenkins TM, Subterranean termites in the urban
landscape: understanding their social structure is the key to
successfully implementing population management using bait
technology. Urban Ecosyst 4:231–251 (2000).
54 Thorne BL and Forschler BT, Criteria for assessing efficacy
of stand-alone bait treatments at structures. Sociobiology
36:245–255 (2000).
55 Atkinson TH, Use of dyed matrix in bait stations for determining foraging territories of subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae:
Reticulitermes spp. and Termitidae: Amitermes wheeleri). Sociobiology 36:149–167 (2000).
56 Crosland MWJ and Su NY, Mark–recapture without estimating population sizes: a tool to evaluate termite baits. Bull Entomol Res
96:99–103 (2006).
57 Nobre T, Nunes L and Bignell DE, Estimation of foraging territories of
Reticulitermes grassei through mark–release–recapture. Entomol
Exp Applic 123:119–128 (2007).
58 Eger JE, Lees MD, Neese PA, Atkinson TH, Thoms EM, Messenger
MT et al., Elimination of subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) colonies using a refined cellulose bait matrix containing
noviflumuron when monitored and replenished quarterly. J Econ
Entomol 105:533–539 (2012).
59 Thoms EM, Eger JE, Messenger MT, Vargo E, Cabrera B, Riegel C et al.,
Bugs, baits, and bureaucracy: completing the first termite bait
efficacy trials (quarterly replenishment of noviflumuron) initiated
after adoption of Florida Rule, Chapter 5E-2.0311. Am Entomol
55:29–39 (2009).
60 Bowen CJ and Kard B, Termite aerial colony elimination using
lufenuron bait (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc
85:273–284 (2012).
61 Pawson BM and Gold RE, Evaluation of baits for termites (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae) in Texas. Sociobiology 28:485–510 (1996).
62 Haagsma KA and Rust MK, Effect of hexaflumuron on mortality of the
Western subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) during
and following exposure and movement of hexaflumuron in termite
groups. Pest Manag Sci 61:517–531 (2005).
63 Austin JW, Glenn GJ and Gold RE, Protecting urban infrastructure from
Formosan termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) attack: a case study
for United States Railroads. Sociobiology 51:231–247 (2008).
64 Sajap AS, Lee LC, Ouimette D and Jaafar AM, Field evaluation of noviflumuron for controlling asian subterranean termite, Coptotermes
gestroi (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), in Proc 5th Int Conf on Urban
Pests, ed. by Lee CY and Robinson WH. Perniagaan, Malaysia,
pp. 239–241 (2005).
65 Huang QY, Lei CL and Xue D, Field evaluation of a fipronil bait
against subterranean termite Odontotermes formosanus (Isoptera:
Termitidae). J Econ Entomol 99:455–461 (2006).
66 Ripa R, Luppichini P, Su NY and Rust MK, Field evaluation of potential control strategies against the invasive eastern subterranean
termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in Chile. J Econ Entomol
100:1391–1399 (2007).
67 Cabrera BJ and Thoms EM, Versatility of baits containing noviflumuron for control of structural infestations of Formosan subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Fla Entomol 89:20–31
(2006).
68 Potter MF, Eliason EA, Davis K and Bessin RT, Managing subterranean
termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in the Midwest with a hexaflumuron bait and placement considerations around structures.
Sociobiology 38:565–584 (2001).
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
Termite baiting
www.soci.org
69 Su NY, Ban PM and Scheffarhn RH, Control of subterranean termite
populations at San Cristóbal and El Morro, San Juan National
Historic Site. J Cult Herit 3:217–225 (2002).
70 Su NY, Freytag E, Bordes ES and Dycus R, Control of Formosan
subterranean termite infestations using baits containing an insect
growth regulator. Stud Conserv 45:30–38 (2000).
71 Ferrari R and Marini M, Subterranean termite Reticulitermes spp.
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) baiting and control in historical public
buildings in Italy, in Proc 3rd Int Conf on Urban Pests, ed. by Robinson WH. Czech University of Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic,
pp. 357–365 (1999).
72 Peters BC and Fitzgerald CJ, Field evaluation of the bait toxicant
chlorfluazuron in eliminating Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt)
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) J Econ Entomol 96:1828–1831 (2003).
73 Peters BC and Broadbent S, Evaluating the Exterra™ termite interception and baiting system in Australia, Thailand and the Philippines,
in Proc 5th Int Conf on Urban Pests, ed. by Lee CY and Robinson WH.
Perniagaan, Malaysia, pp. 229–232 (2005).
74 Garcia CM, Giron MY and Broadbent SG, Termite baiting system: a
new dimension of termite control in the Philippines. International
Research Group on Wood Protection (Stockholm) 38th Annual Meeting, Moran, WY, Document No. IRG/WP 07-10608 (2007).
75 Dhang P, A preliminary study on elimination of colonies of the mound
building termite Macrotermes gilvus (Hagen) using a chlorfluazuron
termite bait in the Philippines. Insects 2:486–490 (2011).
76 Vargo EL, Genetic structure of Reticulitermes flavipes and R. virginicus
(isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) colonies in an urban habitat and tracking of colonies following treatment with hexaflumuron bait. Environ Entomol 32:1271–1282 (2003).
77 Messenger MT, Su NY, Husseneder C and Grace JK, Elimination
and reinvasion studies with Coptotermes formosanus (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae) in Louisiana. J Econ Entomol 98:916–929 (2005).
78 Husseneder C, Simms DM and Riegel C, Evaluation of treatment success and patterns of reinfestation of the Formosan subterranean
termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 100:1370–1380
(2007).
79 Hagen HA, The probable danger from white ants. Am Nat 10:401–410
(1876).
80 Lenz M, Kard B, Evans TA, Mauldin JK, Etheridge JL and Abbey
HM, Differential use of identical food resources by Reticulitermes
flavipes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in two types of habitats. Environ
Entomol 38:35–42 (2009).
81 Forschler BT and Ryder JC, Subterranean termite, Reticulitermes spp.
(lsoptera: Rhinotermitidae), colony response to baiting with hexaflumuron using a prototype commercial termite baiting system.
J Entomol Sci 31:143–151 (1996).
82 Evans TA and Gleeson PV, The effect of bait size, composition, presentation and inspection frequency on bait consumption in termites
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Bull Entomol Res 96:85–90 (2006).
83 Traniello JFA and Thorne BL, Termite baits in theory and practice, in
Proc Natl Conf on Urban Entomology, ed. by Robinson WH. Atlanta,
GA, pp. 28–40 (1994).
84 Forschler B, Sustainable termite management using an integrated
pest management approach, in Urban Pest Management: an Environmental Perspective, ed by Dhang P. CABI, London, UK, pp.
133–144 (2011).
85 Duncan FD, Behavioural responses to poison baits by the termite
Hodotermes mosambicus (Hagen). Insect Sci Applic 17:221–225
(1997).
86 Forschler BT, Baiting Reticulitermes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) field
colonies with abamectin and zinc borate-treated cellulose in Georgia. Sociobiology 28:459–484 (1996).
87 Lax AR and Osbrink WLA, United States Department of
Agriculture–Agriculture Research Service research on targeted
management of the Formosan subterranean termite Coptotermes
formosanus Shiraki (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Pest Manag Sci
59:788–800 (2003).
88 Potter M, The changing face of termite control. PCT Mag 27:32–42
(1999).
89 Are you smarter than a termite researcher? PCT Mag 36:36–43 (2008).
90 Getty GM, Haverty MI, Coperen KA and Lewis VR, Response of Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in Northern California to
baiting with hexaflumuron with Sentricon termite colony elimination system. J Econ Entomol 93:1498–1507 (2000).
91 Foster BT, Cognato AI and Gold RE, Characterization of subterreanean
termite populations as part of bait evalution, in Proc 4th Int Conf
Pest Manag Sci (2014)
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
of Urban Pests, ed. by Robinson WH. Charleston, SC, pp. 335–340
(2002).
Getty GM, Solek CW, Sbragia RJ, Haverty MI and Lewis VR, Large-scale
suppression of a subterranean termite community using the
Sentricon® termite colony elimination system: a case study in
Chatsworth, California, USA. Sociobiology 50:1041–1050 (2007).
Riegel C, Gilberg M, Freytag E, Su NY and Bordes ES, Long-term
protection of Madame John’s legacy house from subterranean
termites using hexaflumuron. Stud Conserv 50:267–274 (2005).
Chen J and Henderson G, Determination of feeding preference of
Formosan subterranean termite (Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki)
for some amino acid additives. J Chem Ecol 22:2359–2369 (1996).
Waller DA and Curtis AD, Effects of sugar-treated foods on preference
and nitrogen fixation in Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar) and Reticulitermes virginicus (Banks) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 96:81–85 (2003).
Swoboda LE, Miller DM, Fell RJ and Mullins DE, The effect of nutrient compounds (sugars and amino-acids) on bait consumption
by Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology
44:547–563 (2004).
Cornelius ML, Effect of bait supplements on the feeding and tunneling behavior of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae), in Proc 5th Int Conf on Urban Pests, ed. by Lee C-Y
and Robinson WH. Perniagaan, Malaysia, pp. 159–163 (2005).
Haifig I, Costa-Leonardo AM and Marchetti FF, Effects of nutrients on
feeding activities of the pest termite Heterotermes tenuis (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae). J Appl Entomol 132:497–501 (2008).
Saran RK and Rust MK, Phagostimulatory sugars enhance uptake and
horizontal transfer of hexaflumuron in the Western Subterranean
Termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 101:873–879
(2008).
Cornelius ML, Lyn M, Williams KS, Lovisa MP, De Lucca AJ and Lax AR,
Efficacy of bait supplements for improving the rate of discovery
of bait stations in the field by Formosan subterranean termites
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J Econ Entomol 102:1175–1181 (2009).
Wallace BA and Judd TM, A test of seasonal responses to sugars in four
populations of the termite Reticulitermes flavipes. J Econ Entomol
103:2126–2131 (2010).
Castillo VP, Sajap AS and Sahri MH, Feeding response of subterranean
termites Coptotermes curvignathus and Coptotermes gestroi (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) to baits supplemented with sugars, amino
acids, and cassava. J Econ Entomol 106:1794–1801 (2013).
Bernklau EJ, Fromm EZ, Judd TM and Bjostad LB, Attraction of subterranean termites (Isoptera) to carbon dioxide. J Econ Entomol
98:476–484 (2005).
Broadbent S, Farr M, Bernklau EJ, Siderhurst MS, James DM
and Bjostad LB, Field attraction of termites to a carbon
dioxide-generating bait in Australia (Isoptera). Sociobiology 48:
771–779 (2006).
Jones SC, Targeted versus standard bait station placement affects
subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) infestation rates.
J Econ Entomol 96:1520–1525 (2003).
Paysen ES, Zungoli PA, Benson EP and Demark JJ, Impact of auxiliary
stations in a baiting program for subterranean termites (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae). Fla Entomol 87:623–624 (2004).
Glenn GJ, Austin JW and Gold RE, Efficacy of commercial termite baiting systems for management of subterranean termites (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae) in Texas. Sociobiology 51:333–362 (2008).
Smith J, Su NY and Ascobar NR, An areawide population management
project for the invasive eastern subterranean termite (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae) in a low-income community in Santiago, Chile.
Am Entomol 52:253–260 (2006).
Sukartana P, Sumarni G and Broadbent S, Evaluation of chlorfluazuron
in controlling the subterranean termite Coptotermes curvignathus
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in Indonesia. J Trop For Sci 21:13–18
(2009).
Eggleton P, Williams PH and Gaston KJ, Explaining global termite
diversity: productivity or history? Biodivers Conserv 3:318–330
(1994).
Grassé PP, Termitologia, Tome 1: Anatomie, Physiologie, Reproduction
des Termites. Masson, Paris, France (1982).
Indrayani Y, Yoshimura T and Imamura Y, A novel control strategy for
dry-wood termite Incisitermes minor infestation using a bait system.
Wood Sci 54:220–224 (2008).
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
www.soci.org
113 Henderson G and Forschler BT, Termite bait screening using
naturally-infested trees, in Proc 2nd Int Conf on Urban Pests,
ed. by Wildey KB. Edinburgh, UK, pp. 449–460 (1996).
114 Wang Z, Guo J, Gong Y, Lu W, Lei A, Sun W et al., Control of dam
termites with a monitor-controlling device. Sociobiology 50:1–9
(2007).
115 Lenz M and Evans TA, Termite bait technology: perspectives from
Australia, in Proc 4th Int Conf on Urban Pests, ed. by Jones SC, Zhai J
and Robertson WH. Charleston, SC, pp. 27–36 (2002).
116 Lee C-Y, Vongkaluang C and Lenz M, Challenges to subterranean
termite management of multi-genera faunas in Southeast Asia and
Australia. Sociobiology 50:213–221 (2007).
117 Atkinson TH, Smith MS and Williams RE, Control of structural infestations of Heterotermes aureus in Arizona with the Sentricon system.
Down to Earth 53:18–26 (1998).
118 Gambetta A, Zaffagnini V and De Capua E, Use of hexaflumuron
baits against subterranean termites for protection of historical and
artistic structures: experiment carried out in selected test areas
at the church of Santa Maria della Sanità in Naples. J Cult Herit
1:207–216 (2000).
119 Haverty MI, Tabuchi RL, Vargo EL, Cox DL, Nelson LJ and Lewis
VR, Response of Reticulitermes hesperus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae)
colonies to baiting with lufenuron in Northern California. J Econ
Entomol 103:770–780 (2010).
120 Lee CY, Control of foraging colonies of subterranean termites, Coptotermes travians (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), in Malaysia using
hexaflumuron baits. Sociobiology 39:411–416 (2002).
121 Matsuoka H, Tsunoda K, Yoshimura T and Takahashi M, Elimination of
colonies of Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) and Reticulitermes speratus (Kolbe) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae)
by bait system. Wood Res 85:84–86 (1998).
122 Mo J, Wang Z, Song X, Guo J, Gong Y, Lu W et al., Combination of
ivermectin and a monitoring device for the control of Coptotermes
formosanus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in the field. Sociobiology
48:1–10 (2006).
123 Neoh KB, Jalaludin NA and Lee CY, Elimination of field colonies of a
mound-building termite Globitermes sulphureus (Isoptera: Termitidae) by bistrifluron bait. J Econ Entomol 104:607–613 (2011).
124 Sajap AS, Amit S and Welker J, Evaluation of hexaflumuron for controlling the subterranean termite Coptotermes curvignathus (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae) in Malaysia. J Econ Entomol 93:429–433 (2000).
125 Sajap AS, Jaafar MA and Ouimette D, Above ground baiting for controlling the subterranean termites, Coptotermes travians (Isoptera:
Rhinitermitidae), in Selangor Peninsular, Malaysia. Sociobiology
39:345–352 (2002).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
TA Evans, N Iqbal
126 Stansly PA, Su NY and Conner JM, Management of subterranean
termites, Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), in a citrus
orchard with hexaflumuron bait. Crop Prot 20:199–206 (2001).
127 Su NY and Hsu EL, Managing subterranean termite populations
for protection of the historic Tzu-Su Temple of San-Shia, Taiwan
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 41:529–545 (2003).
128 Su NY, Ban PM and Scheffrahn RH, Control of Coptotermes havilandi
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) with hexaflumuron baits and a sensor
incorporated into a monitoring and baiting program. J Econ Entomol 93:415–421 (2000).
129 Su NY, Ban PM and Scheffrahn RH, Supression of foraging population
of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae)
by field application of slow-acting toxicant bait. J Econ Entomol
84:1525–1531 (1991).
130 Su NY, Hillis-Starr Z, Ban PM and Scheffrahn RH, Protecting historic
properties from subterranean termites: a case study with Fort
Christiansvaern, Christiansted National Historic Site, United States,
Virgin Islands. Am Entomol 49:20–32 (2003).
131 Su NY, Thomas JD and Scheffrahn RH, Elimination of subterranean termite populations from the Statue of Liberty national monument
using a bait matrix containing an insect growth regulator, hexaflumuron. J Am Inst Cult Stud 37:282–292 (1998).
132 Verkerk RHJ and Bravery AF, A case study from the UK of possible successful eradication of Reticulitermes grassei. Final Workshop
COST Action E22 on Environmental Optimisation of Wood Protection,
Lisbon, Portugal (2004).
133 Weissling TJ and Thoms EM, Use of an acoustic emission detector
for locating Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidaef ) feeding activity when installing and inspecting aboveground termite bait stations containing hexaflumuron. Fla Entomol
82:60–71 (1999).
134 Yates JR and Grace JK, Effective use of above ground hexaflumuron
bait stations for Formosan subterranean termite control (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 35:333–356 (2000).
135 Lenz M, Gleeson PV, Miller LR and Abbey HM, How predictive are
laboratory experiments for assessing the effects of chitin synthesis
inhibitors (CSI) on field colonies of termites? A comparison of
laboratory and field data from Australian mound-building species
of termite. International Research Group on Wood Preservation,
Doc. IRG/WP 96-10143 (1996).
136 Ross MG, Responding to incursions of Australian subterranean termites in New Zealand. Proc 5th Int Conf on Urban Pests, ed. by
Lee CY and Robinson WH. Perniagaan, Malaysia, pp. 233–238
(2005).
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Pest Manag Sci (2014)