Argentine Ant Control Around Homes: Efficacy of Treatments and Urban Runoff
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Pest Management ISSN: 0967-0874 (Print) 1366-5863 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttpm20 Argentine ant control around homes: efficacy of treatments and urban runoff Les Greenberg, Michael K. Rust, SaraJean Wright & Dong-Hwan Choe To cite this article: Les Greenberg, Michael K. Rust, SaraJean Wright & Dong-Hwan Choe (2017): Argentine ant control around homes: efficacy of treatments and urban runoff, International Journal of Pest Management, DOI: 10.1080/09670874.2016.1278085 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2016.1278085 Published online: 17 Jan 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttpm20 Download by: [University of California, Riverside Libraries] Date: 17 January 2017, At: 12:31 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEST MANAGEMENT, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2016.1278085 Argentine ant control around homes: efficacy of treatments and urban runoff Les Greenberg , Michael K. Rust , SaraJean Wright and Dong-Hwan Choe Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Pest management professionals in California receive more customer complaints about Received 7 April 2016 Argentine ants than for any other urban ant pest. Fipronil, applied as a 30 £ 30 cm band Accepted 2 December 2016 around the house foundation, has become the preferred treatment used to control these ants. KEYWORDS fi Unfortunately, pronil is now showing up in urban waterways at levels that are toxic to aquatic Linepithema humile; urban invertebrates. Our recent studies are aimed at mitigating insecticide runoff while still pesticide runoff; fipronil; controlling the ant infestations. A high priority is preventing fipronil runoff from the driveway bifenthrin; indoxacarb; to the street, where it can flow into drains and from there to urban waterways. In this paper, thiamethoxam; ant bait two related studies address these issues. Not treating driveways with fipronil reduced by two to three orders of magnitude its runoff when compared with earlier studies. However, not treating the driveway can reduce efficacy of treatments. Granular bifenthrin, indoxacarb, botanicals, and a thiamethoxam ant bait were tested as supplemental treatments. The gel bait showed the best result as a supplement, but only after 8 weeks. We have reduced fipronil runoff while maintaining efficacy of the ant treatments. 1. Introduction interface and may make nests in driveway cracks. In the two related studies presented here, we seek to sat- In California, surveys indicate that Argentine ants are isfy mitigation and efficacy requirements by applying the most common pest ants encountered by pest man- ant control products where they are less likely to run agement professionals (PMPs) (Knight & Rust 1990), off (i.e. not on the driveway), while supplementing the and make up 85% of the ants collected at service standard treatments with additional products to main- accounts of the largest pest control firm in San Diego tain efficacy. We chose supplements that are less toxic (Field et al. 2007). It is not uncommon for ant visits to to aquatic invertebrates or are less likely to run off. For bait stations around homes to exceed 0.5 million dur- the current studies, we only report water runoff for the ing 24 h (Reierson et al. 1998). There are a couple of fipronil and its degradates since these are currently a important considerations in controlling Argentine high priority for the funding agency (California ants, Linepithema humile (Mayr), around homes. On Department of Pesticide Regulation) and the analysis the one hand, we wish to achieve the best possible out- procedures are well established. We have previously come in reducing ant numbers (Rust et al. 2003; Klotz also analyzed pyrethroid runoff (Greenberg et al. 2010, et al. 2007; Klotz et al. 2008; Silverman & Brightwell 2014). 2008; Klotz et al. 2009; Klotz et al. 2010). On the other A previous study showed that after outdoor house hand, regulatory agencies want PMPs to minimize the treatments for Argentine ants, significant amounts of runoff of insecticides into urban waterways. Pyreth- fipronil and pyrethroids could be collected in water roids and fipronil commonly found in ant control running down the driveway (Greenberg et al. 2010). products have been detected in these waterways at lev- One finding was that careful application of bifenthrin els that could be lethal to aquatic invertebrates which granules away from the driveway gave very little runoff are important in aquatic food chains (e.g. Gan et al. down the driveway, while spray applications of fipronil 2012; Jorgenson et al. 2012; Ensminger et al. 2013; and bifenthrin that included the driveway at the garage Weston et al. 2013; Weston & Lydy 2014). Mitigation door gave much greater runoff. In another study of pesticide runoff while maintaining control of ants is (Greenberg et al. 2014), it was shown that applying a challenging problem. Current labels for fipronil use fipronil in the expansion joint at the garage door sig- recommend a 30 £ 30 cm band spray going up the nificantly reduced its runoff when compared to a nar- wall and out from the wall of the house, including at row band application on the concrete at the same the garage door and driveway. Driveway applications location. In this manuscript, we describe two related are usually done for ant control because ants fre- studies, one done in 2011 and the other in 2013, where quently walk along edges at the garage door/driveway CONTACT Les Greenberg [email protected] © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 L. GREENBERG ET AL. we did not apply fipronil on the driveway so as to observations that may vary greatly with time of day. reduce its runoff. To compensate for the reduced use We chose homes in which there was an average of at of fipronil, we supplemented the treatment with other least 6 ml taken per vial (»20,000 ant visits per vial). products to enhance effectiveness of the treatment. In one study, we used bifenthrin granules as a supple- ment, and in the other we supplemented with three 2.2. Spray treatments other insecticides. Our goal was to compare the effi- cacy of the new treatment protocols and to measure The fipronil sprays were applied using a 15-liter back- the fipronil runoff. pack sprayer (Birchmeier Co., Switzerland). The sprays were applied as a pin stream (5.1 cm wide) at the inter- face of the structure and the ground. No spray was 2. Methods and materials applied on the driveway at the garage door and a 30.5 cm (1 ft) buffer was left between the driveway and 2.1. Sugar water ant monitoring the rest of the building. Efficacy of ant treatments was calculated from a reduc- tion in ant foraging, based on adjusted weight loss from monitoring vials of sugar water before and after 2.3. Granular treatments treatment, rather than based on numbers of ants counted or trapped. Ten 15-ml polypropylene tubes Weighed samples of bifenthrin granules were put into (FalconÒ screwcap vials) filled with about 13 ml of plastic bags and then manually dispensed at the prod- 50% (wt/vol) sucrose were placed around each struc- uct’s label rate. None of the granules were allowed to ture for about 24 hours. To prevent spills, the open touch the driveway. The granules were applied around end of the vial was placed on a wooden Lincoln Log bushes, trees, and lawns where ants were seen in the (K-NEX, Hatfield, PA), 41 mm long £ 18 mm thick, front and back of each house. The granules did not which has a convenient notch in the middle that ele- overlap with the spray treatments at the base of the vates the vial and reduces side-to-side rolling. All foundation. houses are different, but we placed two monitors on each of the shorter house dimensions, and three moni- tors on each of the longer dimensions. Monitors were 2.4. Study completed in 2011 placed in the same location every week. In 2011, another 10 vials were placed around the backyard Fipronil treatments were done using 1.8 L of a solu- perimeter about every 7 m. All vials were covered with tion of 0.06% TermidorÒ SC (BASF Corporation, an inverted plastic 15.24-cm flower pot to prevent Research Triangle Park, NC) around the house foun- sprinklers from diluting the sugar water and animals dation. Granular bifenthrin treatments were done from disturbing them. After 24 hours, the vials were around lawns and bushes in the front and back of the sealed and returned to the laboratory and weighed. We house using TalstarÒ PL and TalstarÒ EZ with Verge selected houses with large Argentine ant infestations, (FMC Corporation, Agricultural Products Group, Phil- and in those situations, we rarely find other ant species adelphia, PA). Since bifenthrin is also acutely toxic to going to the vials (although such instances are noted). aquatic invertebrates, we chose a granular formulation It is also rare to find other insects in the vials. The because a previous study had shown it had much lower homes were monitored 1 week before and 1, 2, 4, and runoff than bifenthrin sprays (Greenberg et al. 2010). 8 weeks after the treatment. The PL formulation uses a sand grain matrix, while the Loss of liquid (i.e. weight) from the tubes was cor- Verge matrix consists of tiny clay balls. The application rected for evaporation of the liquid. The adjusted rate was 1.04 kg per 92.9 square meters (2.3 lbs per weight loss value made it possible to estimate the num- 1000 ft2).