[International Pest Control] International Conference Update

The International Conference on Urban Pests, held in July, provided pest management professionals from around the world with a glimpse at the research that is changing the way they work.

The International Conference on Urban Pests (ICUP) was held in Charleston, S.C., July 7-10, 2002. This is the fourth in this series of conferences that began in Cambridge, United Kingdom, (1993), followed by Edinburgh, Scotland, (1996) and Prague, Czech Republic (1999).

The organizing committee, which was chaired by George Rambo, consisted of Robert Corrigan, Richard Cooper, Susan Jones, Jing Zhai and Patricia Zungoli. They are to be commended for their yeoman’s work in organizing the conference and working tirelessly to ensure its success.

The conference focused on research related to pests in urban environments and brought together scientists, pest management professionals and others interested in furthering the science of urban pest management. The conference offered a rare opportunity to hear about research being conducted in countries, such as Malaysia, Germany, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Japan, Iran, India and Egypt, countries that, not surprisingly, have similar pest problems. The research presentations and posters focused on three urban pests: termites, cockroaches and ants, with a smattering of other pests.

The following is a brief commentary on some of the presented papers and posters at the 4th ICUP conference. To obtain a copy of the proceedings of the conference contact the publisher: Pocahontas Press Inc., Blacksburg, Va., 800/446-0467. The 5th ICUP conference will be held in 2005 in Singapore.


GENERAL. David J. Shetlar, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Pest management professionals need to pay more attention to the major source of structural pests, i.e., the exterior landscape and address those issues that contribute to their proliferation. Of particular concern is the use of water in the landscape (e.g., irrigation and water features), abundant harborages (e.g., stone walls, landscape timbers and rocks), light and food sources, (e.g., honey dew).

Kyle K. Jordan and Susan C. Jones, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Their studies of the invertebrate fauna of mulched soils documented what has always been a pest management assumption, i.e., mulched areas provide an environment in which many arthropods can proliferate. This fertile breeding ground is the source of many of the occasional invaders encountered in structures during deteriorating exterior environmental conditions, e.g., temperature, moisture and light. The type of mulch, moisture retention, amount of organic content and surface temperature were all factors that affected the type and numbers of arthropods present. Mulch is an undeniable fact of life in the urban landscape and pest management professionals need to address this issue or face the incursion of pests that frequent this habitat. Preventive exclusion and, under most circumstances, treatment of this habitat, are justified.

John McPherson, et al., Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Baton Rouge, La. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three IPM strategies to be used in a school setting: (1) exclusion, trapping and sanitation with no chemical inputs; (2) exclusion, trapping, sanitation with rodent and/or insecticide baits; (3) use of options 1 and 2 with the addition of contact and residual insecticides labeled for public schools. The IPM strategy using action thresholds as a trigger for the three options was evaluated in 18 schools. The repeated failure of options 1 and 2 (action thresholds exceeded) ultimately resulted in the use of option 3 in all schools. The authors concluded the study by stating, "Undue limitations on the use of pesticides within public schools places the children, staff and structures at risk from pest problems." If you are looking for action thresholds to be used in your IPM programs this article is an excellent resource.


ANTS. Richard J. Harris, et al., Landcare Research, Nelson, New Zealand. Protein baiting with fipronil was effective in reducing large populations of Argentine ants. Protein bait was formulated with 0.01% fipronil and applied in three urban industrial sites and in two coastal scrub vegetation areas at rates 2.5 to 3.0 kg/ha and 6.0 kg/ha, respectively. At all treatment sites ants were reduced to very low levels (less than 1% of pretreatment levels) and remained this low for the following nine months. The effectiveness of this treatment method is encouraging, considering how difficult this introduced species is to eradicate.

Michael K. Rust, et al., University of California, Riverside, Calif. In contrast to the study conducted in New Zealand, their work has focused on the use of sucrose-based liquid solutions for the control of Argentine ants. Baits containing imidacloprid (0.0005 to 0.005%) were non-repellent, exhibited delayed toxicity and provided good reductions of foraging ants. Boric acid solutions were less effective because they only provided delayed toxicity at 0.5 to 1.0% and loss of efficacy was most likely attributable to evaporation of water from the bait. A commercially available 1.0% bait was statistically effective but didn’t provide acceptable levels of control. This begs the question: Why do many of the formulators of boric acid ant baits ignore these studies and continue to use high concentrations of boric acid, e.g., 5.0 to 6.0%? When it comes to ant baits, it appears more is not better.


COCKROACHES. Virginie Durier and Colette Rivault, Universite de Rennes, France. Their studies indicated that German cockroaches are able to "learn" visual cues and use these cues to forage for food. When a new food was placed in a new site, it attracted more cockroaches than an old food type placed in an established site. Conversely, when a new food was placed in a previously baited site and an old food placed in a new site, the cockroaches oriented toward the old food. Based on this research, it seems that the effectiveness of baits might be maximized by: applying new baits to new locations and not the site of previous bait applications; and when reapplying previously used bait it is better to place it in sites not previously baited with the same product.

Abdullahi Ameen, et al. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. Noviflumuron, a chitin synthesis inhibitor, also under investigation as a possible replacement for hexaflumuron (the active ingredient in Dow AgroSciences’ Sentricon®), may be the new kid on the cockroach management block. It was tested in the laboratory and in the field as a dust, gel and suspension concentrate (SC). In the lab, population reductions of 99.9% and 97.7% were achieved for the dust and gel respectively. A two-year study in apartments using the dust and gel formulations produced German cockroach population reductions comparable to those obtained using Bayer Environmental Science’s Maxforce gel bait and Whitmire Micro-Gen’s Avert 310 dust bait. At this point, the poor performance of the SC formulation in laboratory arena tests does not appear worth further consideration.


Editor’s note: This story reviewed just a few presentations at the ICUP conference. Watch for further information in future issues of PCT magazine.

The author is technical director of American Pest Management, Takoma Park, Md. He can be reached at 301/891-2600 or rkramer@pctonline.com.

November 2002
Explore the November 2002 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.