[Termite Control] Can IPM Take Out Termites?

For the past decade, Dr. Brian Forschler has been leading a research program with students of the University of Georgia to develop an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for managing subterranean termites. His findings are bearing out what many pest management professionals have optimistically theorized: that there are efficient, effective, environmentally friendly measures PMPs can take to manage these destructive pests.

“Before the proliferation of chemicals in the 1950s and ’60s, termite management was essentially relegated to the practices of IPM: removing food sources, keeping wood off the ground and such,” says Forschler, who spoke at NPMA PestWorld 2010. “It’s time for us to revisit those practices and realize their value in subterranean termite management.”

That’s a tough leap for many pest management professionals to make, because the availability and effectiveness of pesticides encouraged many in the industry to adopt a single-treatment, lifetime-guarantee model. In fact, many state regulations are still based on this model. But Forschler’s research makes a strong case for going back to the basics — using common-sense practices to control termites while limiting negative effects to people and property.

“When you’re using IPM, it’s easy to differentiate yourself from the competition, because everyone is not doing the same thing,” Forschler adds. “By design, every account you go to is different; every treatment is different.”

KNOW YOUR ADVERSARY.
Every good IPM program begins with a solid understanding of the life history of the pest. These programs are built around the biology of the creature, with interventions aimed at attacking biological weaknesses.

Forschler highlights the notable characteristics of the subterranean termite:

• They follow structural guidelines when searching for food. Cracks, crevices, roots, foundations, rocks — they follow the path of least resistance, making their entry points easier to identify.
• Their colonies are mobile; they are constantly moving through the soil. They do not establish territories, and they’d rather share their space than fight for it. So you might find more than one colony at a single site.
• They are extremely opportunistic. Where there is food, they will multiply.
• They need moisture.
• Neotenic reproductives are found much more frequently than royal pairs, and they can theoretically perpetuate a colony forever. That is, if the king and queen die, some of the workers or nymphs become neotenics, serving as reproductive replacements. In fact, contrary to existing literature, neotenics can emerge not only in the absence of a royal pair but in addition to them. In a lab setting, Forschler put alates and deilates into boxes; within two years, those boxes contained not only kings and queens but also neotenics. The bottom line is that neotenics are present in any infestation.
• Although there is typically a single queen in a colony, she often has multiple mates. This practice boosts the success rate of the colony.
• The typical colony size is 50,000 but a colony can be much higher. In fact, the UGA team found a colony of 700,000 on a log. Again, the number is contingent upon the size of the food source.
• Termite kings and queens can live to be 20 years old.

DEVELOP THE PROGRAM.
Forschler defines IPM as a process — a philosophy or mindset in which communication and accountability play an integral role. “IPM is counterintuitive to the business model we’ve used since the ’50s,” he says. “At one time, we would treat once and offer a lifetime guarantee. IPM is built around ongoing management and communication. The term ‘re-treat’ needs to be eliminated from our vocabulary.”

Forschler’s research team has been tracking the university’s 130-plus buildings throughout the past 10 years. Their IPM program is a circular process including the following steps:

Thoroughly inspect the infestation site. The research team typically receives reports in the morning, around swarm time, and goes out to inspect the site, attempting to determine the pests’ entry point. Over the years, they have used a variety of inspection tools: moisture meters, an infrared camera to read temperature differences, a microwave motion detector, a resistograph to drill into substrates, an acoustic submission device and the traditional flashlight and probe, which they use 99 percent of the time. Forschler’s favorite? The motion detector, which he says is particularly useful in helping to determine if interventions have been successful.

For your IPM program, identify site conditions, construction practices and any characteristics that might be attracting termites. Look for areas where two pieces of construction come together, or where there are structural guidelines that would serve as an easy point of entry. (In the UGA study, 85 percent of infestations entered through an expansion joint; 11 percent followed gaps in a stone foundation.) Write a detailed report including photographs for reference.

Identify the species. Ninety percent of the infestations managed by the University of Georgia team have been Reticulitermes flavipes, the Eastern subterranean termite. Reticulitermes malletei is sometimes found in some of the Athens buildings. Forschler applies the same program to both and says it should be quite effective with Formosan termites (Coptotermes formosanus) as well.

Develop and implement an action plan. Over the past decade, 47 university buildings have reported infestations for which 66 action plans have been developed (sometimes after several years, termites returned to different parts of the buildings). The research team’s action plans have varied, being dictated by local conditions. Typically they include a variety of interventions: targeted applications of insecticide formulations, landscape and construction alterations, and the use of baits when appropriate.

Often, adjusting landscape and moisture elements has been enough to quash an infestation. When it’s not, ground spot treatments are typically limited to an area extending 3 feet on either side of the entryway, and wood injection or foaming into elements of construction might be employed. Forschler reports a 99 percent reduction in insecticide use. Time savings is a benefit as well, with treatment time reduced by as much as two-thirds, he said.

Monitor to determine if your interventions have been successful. Definitions of monitoring vary greatly. Essentially, it can be anything from simply getting feedback from the customer to more aggressively following the progress of your program through some of the inspection tools mentioned above.

Re-evaluate and re-inspect. Measuring the success of an IPM program depends on your perspective. The academic community tends to use the methodological approach, a measurable, biologically relevant yardstick based on counting the bodies and noting reductions in number. Meanwhile practitioners lean toward a more ideological approach: Is the customer calling back to report another infestation? In either case, success is typically based on the answer to this question: Are the termites coming back to the same site?

WILL IPM BE MAINSTREAM?
The UGA research program shows promise for the future of IPM subterranean termite programs. However, some state regulators have been slow to move away from standards that continue to mandate whole-house treatments. “I’d like to see pest management professionals take elements of what we’ve done and incorporate them into their business models within the guidelines of their state regulations,” Forschler said. “I’m confident that, one day, IPM programs will be the common practice for managing termites.”

Donna DeFranco is a freelance writer based in Cleveland, Ohio.