Termite Baits: A Status Report

No topic has generated more excitement — or confusion —than termite baits. The excitement comes at the prospect of having an effective, consumer-friendly alternative to traditional barrier treatments. The confusion stems from widely varying performance claims, heard in meetings and coffee shops throughout the country. Depending on who's doing the talking, the new termite baits have been referred to in many ways, ranging from a "comprehensive stand-alone treatment," to "just another tool in the arsenal," to a "complete waste of money."

In the race to bring their own baits to market, manufacturers are sending conflicting messages, some with precious little data to back up their claims. Uncertainty abounds among regulatory officials — "Just how reliable are these baits? Are they suitable as stand-alone treatments? Will the consumer be adequately protected?" Perhaps most unnerving is the degree of uncertainty voiced by the research community. Termite researchers are the first to admit that, at the present time, they just don't have all the answers. One thing they do know is that the nature of each termite infestation is unique, making it hard to predict the outcome of one's baiting efforts from one account to the next — not to mention in different regions of the country.

Smack in the middle of all the confusion is the pest control operator. Too busy to read every article, attend every meeting, or "pick the brain" of every researcher, many PCOs feel as if they've been listening to a radio show with too much static. The intent of this article is to end some of the confusion, and deliver a clearer signal to those with the most to gain — or lose — as the baiting game plays itself out.

BAITS IN PERSPECTIVE. For 50 years, the standard method of controlling subterranean termites has been by barrier treatment. The soil around and beneath the structure was saturated with fast-acting toxicants, intended to keep termites from entering. The difficulties in creating such a barrier are known to all who perform treatments. Termite baits are a whole different story. With this approach, minuscule amounts of material are deployed like edible "smart missiles" to knock out colonies or satellite groups of termites, foraging in and around structures. An aggressive baiting program then seeks to maintain a termite-free condition through ongoing monitoring and rebaiting as necessary.

For historical perspective, the discovery of termite baits actually pre-dates the use of chlordane as a barrier treatment. Researchers in the 1930s showed that termite colonies could be suppressed by injecting slow-acting arsenic dusts into the galleries. The toxic dust was spread throughout the termite population by social grooming. Mirex-laced wooden bait blocks buried in the soil also suppressed field populations of Reticulitermes spp., as did edible Mirex pastes applied directly into active feeding galleries within structures. Today's termite baits are being used in much the same manner.

The products being marketed, or under consideration, fall into three broad categories: (1) slow-acting metabolic inhibitors and neurotoxicants, such as hydra-methylnon, sulfluramid, and abamectin; (2) microbial pathogens, such as fungi or bacteria; and (3) insect growth regulators (IGRs), such as hexaflumuron and pyriproxyfen. Other slow-acting compounds may also be effective, provided they're formulated at the proper concentration and incorporated into a food source attractive to termites. By the end of the decade, there could be almost as many termite baits as conventional liquid formulations.

To be effective, the active ingredient in the bait must be nonrepellent and slow-acting. The formulation must also be palatable enough that termites will readily consume it, even in the presence of competing tree roots, stumps, woodpiles and structural wood. A palatable bait is also important so that foragers will recruit large numbers of other termites to the bait location. Researchers are continually looking for ways to improve the palatability and acceptance of termite baits. Products and procedures being utilized today will likely be somewhat different in the future.

The toxicant within the bait must be slow-acting, so that "intoxicated" termites die at random locations within their foraging territory. If the bait kills too quickly, sick or dead termites may accumulate in the vicinity of bait stations, increasing the likelihood of avoidance by other termites (17). Delayed-action also enhances transmission of the toxicant (presumably via trophallaxis and/or grooming) to other termites, including those that never fed on the bait. Theoretically, entire termite colonies could be eliminated in this manner (Figure 1). The extent to which this is possible is still being debated by termite experts (see sidebar, Colony Elimination or Suppression?).

PATTERN OF USE. Termite baits can be used in various strategies, alone or in combination with other forms of treatment. Formulations are now available for both exterior and interior baiting, and for use below and above ground.

Installation Below Ground. Baits are deployed below ground by luring termites to feed on wooden stakes, cardboard, or some other cellulose-based material. The toxicant-laced bait can either be installed initially, or substituted after termites have been detected in an untreated monitoring device. Termites cannot see or smell the baits underground; they encounter them by chance during their random foraging activities (18). To increase the odds of discovery, the stations are installed at fixed intervals around the perimeter of the structure, and/or in suspected areas of termite activity (e.g. around wood-piles, stumps, moist areas, and adjacent to damage). With persistence and a little luck, the termites eventually find and feed upon one or more of the bait stations.

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in below-ground baiting is getting termites to find the baits in the first place. Bait discovery will vary from account to account, depending on such factors as foraging intensity, time of year, moisture, and food availability. On one infested home in Kentucky, nearly half (14) of the monitoring devices were "hit" (attacked by termites) within two weeks of installation; on another home in the same neighborhood, no below-ground stations were attacked during a full year of intensive monitoring despite two concurrent swarming events. Similar variances in bait detection by termites have been reported elsewhere in the country.

In temperate climates, bait discovery usually will be greatest during peak foraging periods in the spring and summer. Baiting during late-fall and winter is less fruitful, although we've occasionally found termites in below-ground stations when air temperatures were in the 30 degree Fahrenheit range. In some parts of the country (notably in the desert Southwest and California), pest control operators have had a hard time getting termites to find and feed consistently on below-ground baits regardless of the time of year or prevailing conditions. Relief may come with recent improvements in the palatability of baits and monitoring devices (10).

In recent meetings and workshops, some manufacturers have noted that it may not be necessary to install baits or monitors around the entire perimeter of a structure — advocating instead the "directed placement of baits in areas where termites are likely to frequent." In a recent Louisiana study, termite monitors were indeed attacked more often when installed near stumps, wood piles, moisture sources, and other conducive conditions (see related story, page 56). But in our baiting studies with 22 test houses in the Midwest, there has been no apparent "rhyme or reason" to where the below-ground hits occur. Thus far we've observed no greater likelihood of termites encountering baits installed in areas of abundant moisture, mulch, heavy vegetation, or sun versus shade — nor even when stations are installed in the vicinity of termite damage (4). Once a desirable food source such as a decaying tree stump or sill plate is located, foraging termites may concentrate their efforts on these sites, ignoring other resources in the area. Dr. Barbara Thorne at the University of Maryland describes such behavior as being in a "highway mode," since the foraging pattern is a bit like traffic moving along a road with no exit ramps. This behavior may help to explain why it's often difficult getting hits, even when baits or monitors are installed in areas where termites are foraging.

The more baits you put out, the better your chances of locating termites. Installing more stations increases the odds of detecting multiple colonies, or weakly associated "satellite groups" of the same colony — any of which could be of imminent risk to the structure. Planning, patience and persistence are requisites for successfully using below-ground baits. Regardless of which product is used, client expectations must be tempered to accept the possibility of a lengthy baiting process.

One additional consideration with below-ground baiting involves ants, which occasionally invade stations and prey upon the termites. In such cases, termites often abandon the station, thus negating its potential. Where ants are a continual problem, it may be necessary to control them using ant baits or other methods.

Above-ground installation. Termite baits are also being installed above ground, in confirmed areas of termite activity. Typically, the stations are installed directly in the path of active tunnels after the mud tubes have been broken. Effects tend to be more rapid with above-ground baiting, since the procedure does not depend upon "chance" encounters with the stations.

It's too soon to know whether structural infestations can routinely be "eliminated" with these baits alone. Manufacturers generally maintain that they are to be used in conjunction with other forms of treatment, such as in-ground baiting systems or conventional termiticides. Nonetheless, above-ground baits provide an excellent opportunity for introducing slow-acting toxicants directly into structural infestations. They are especially useful where pavement or other obstructions limit opportunities for below-ground installation. Above-ground baits have great potential in callback situations, and give the PCO something substantially different to try on retreats. There's much to be said for having another treatment option that buys you a little more time with an angry customer.

THE PRODUCTS. Several companies are developing termite baits. A small number are already being marketed, and many more are in various stages of development. All three categories of slow-acting agents (IGRs, metabolic inhibitors and microbial pathogens) are represented. As with other types of pesticides, some baits will perform better than others. The disparity in performance may prove to be greater than with other product categories, such as conventional liquid termiticides, or baits used in cockroach control.

Sentricon^™ System. On March 2, 1994, DowElanco (Indianapolis, Ind.) received EPA registration for hexaflumuron, the active ingredient in Recruit^™ Termite Bait. Hexaflumuron is a slow-acting insect growth regulator which disrupts the molting process in termites (11). Termites, much like other insects, need to form a new outer body covering (exoskeleton) each time they molt. A key component of the exoskeleton is a material called chitin. When ingested, hexaflu-muron disrupts the normal formation of chitin, causing the termite to die while attempting to molt. (Thus, hexaflumuron is often cal-led a "chitin synthesis inhibitor.") Unlike most insects, termites continue to molt throughout their lives. Due to the time interval between molts, death occurs about one to two months after hexaflumuron bait is ingested (15). Since the effects of hexaflumuron are significantly delayed, the rest of the termite population does not learn to avoid the bait (Figure 2).

The technology developed for commercial use of hexaflumuron is called the Sentricon Colony Elimination System. Termite control with the Sentricon system is a three-step process involving (1) initial monitoring/detection of termite activity, (2) delivery of the bait-toxicant, and (3) subsequent monitoring to provide ongoing protection.

1) Monitoring. Termites are detected by installing plastic monitoring stations around the perimeter of the building. The station housing is a hollow green plastic cylinder, about 10 inches long by 2 inches wide, with slits along the sides for termites to enter. Initially, each station is provisioned with two untreated pieces of wood, intended as monitoring devices for the presence of termites in the area.

The station is inserted into an augured hole in the ground, with the cover flush with the soil surface. Monitoring stations are installed around the outside perimeter of the building, at about 10- to 20-foot intervals alongside the foundation. Narrower intervals, while more effort to install and inspect, increase the odds that termites will encounter them during random foraging. Stations are typically installed about 12 to 18 inches from the foundation, to avoid soil which may have received an earlier barrier treatment with a liquid termiticide. Patios, driveways, and other paved areas are not a serious problem unless soil access is prevented around the majority of the structure. Oftentimes, stations can be installed farther out from the foundation, or in adjoining planter boxes. In extreme situations, concrete cutters have been used to install stations directly beneath pavement (3).

As a supplement to perimeter installations, stations may be installed in suspected termite foraging areas, such as adjacent to pre-existing damage, stumps, woodpiles or moist areas on the customer's property. Periodically thereafter (monthly, bimonthly, etc.) the wood monitoring devices within each Sentricon station are inspected for termite presence.

DowElanco has made recent improvements to their wood monitoring device. The new wood pieces are more palatable to termites, resulting in more hits, greater recruitment of nestmates, and less abandonment of stations ("hit and runs") between inspections (10).

2) Bait Delivery. When termites are found in a monitoring device, the untreated wood is replaced with a perforated plastic tube containing the bait-toxicant. To hasten the overall process, termites feeding on the wood pieces are carefully dislodged and placed in the top of the Baitube. Eventually, these termites tunnel through and out of the perforated tube, reuniting with their nestmates in the soil. In doing so, they leave behind colony-specific odors (pheromones) that promote recruitment of other nestmates to the bait. Research studies indicated a two-fold increase in bait consumption when this "self-recruiting" procedure was used (13). In order to promote additional "hits," a pair of auxiliary monitoring sta-tions (provisioned with wood pieces) are installed adjacent to stations receiving Baitubes.

Recent enhancements have likewise been made to the Baitube. The original bait formula contained "wood flour" impregnated with 0.1% hexaflumuron (Recruit). Baitubes are now filled with white "paper toweling" containing 0.5% hexaflumuron. This new, more concentrated formulation (Recruit II) has proven far more palatable to termites. Entire tubes may be emptied within a few weeks, resulting in more rapid dissemination of hexaflumuron within the colony.

Inspection of all Sentricon stations — with and without substituted bait tubes — continues until no more activity is noted. Empty, moldy or degraded baits are replaced, and additional auxiliary stations added as deemed necessary.

3) Continued Monitoring. After termites are no longer found in installed Baitubes, the tubes are once again replaced with untreated wood pieces and monitoring continues. Even if a colony has been eliminated, termites from neighboring colonies can reinvade a baited area. Reinfestation can also occur if only part of the original colony (or colonies) was eliminated. Consequently, structures protected with termite baits will need to be continually monitored by qualified service personnel to guard against re-invasion from new colonies or previously suppressed ones (13,19) (Figure 3).

Periodic inspections have always been necessary with conventional treatments.

With baits, ongoing monitoring is even more critical because no residual pesticide is left in place when baiting is discontinued. Depending upon conditions, DowElanco recommends subsequent monitoring at three- to four-month intervals after the termite population is deemed to have been eliminated. A portable computer and bar code scanner (Prolinx^™ Information System) are used to input data at the job site and track overall treatment performance.

Does Sentricon Really Work? Several independent research studies have now confirmed the effectiveness of Sentricon against subterranean termites. In field tests in southern Florida, six different infestations of eastern and Formosan subterranean termites (0.17 to 2.8 million foraging termites per colony) were eliminated (12,13). All but one of these trials involved structural infestations. Two additional R. flavipes and C. formosanus colonies (1.0 to 3.9 million termites) were also eliminated in Tampa, Fla., using the Sentricon System (19). In the above-mentioned trials, presumed colony elimination required two to nine months after the first Baitubes were installed.

Similar success with Sentricon was noted by researchers in Georgia (7,9). Four different Reticulitermes colonies (averaging 43,000 termites per colony) showed no further signs of activity after baiting. Three of the colonies, baited in June and July, became inactive within three months. The fourth colony, initially baited in September, remained active until the following April.

In Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina, six different colonies (four — R. flavipes, one — R. virginicus, one — C. formosanus) were baited and eliminated with hexaflumuron (5). Time required for elimination ranged from two months to one year. As was the case in Georgia, colonies baited late in the year continued to be active through the following spring. Presumably, the delayed effect was due to reduced feeding and metabolic activity by termites during the fall and winter months (7).

The Sentricon System has also provided effective control of Formosan termite populations around buildings in Hawaii (8). At three different field sites (a condominium, single-family home and commercial building) termite populations estimated at 0.33, 0.94 and 5.4 million termites, respectively, were eliminated from the vicinity of each structure. No subsequent termite activity has been detected at the locations for 10 to 24 months.

In all of the aforementioned research studies, mark-release-recapture methods were used to estimate the population size and foraging territories of baited colonies. Elimination of the termite population from the vicinity of the structure was (in-directly) confirmed by determining the amount of wood consumed by termites feeding at unbaited monitoring sites before, during and after treatment. Such unbaited sites serve as undisturbed "windows" into the below-ground workings of the colony, and are essential for demonstrating a "sphere of influence" from one's baiting efforts. In a number of in-stances, the re-searchers also reported an absence of post-treatment termite swarms, some involving structures with chronic retreatment histories.

All investigators, nonetheless, emphasized the importance of continued monitoring after termite populations were deemed to be eliminated. In some cases, suppressed populations rebounded and needed to be rebaited; in others, new colonies invaded from an adjacent area. Despite the occasional resurgences, the majority of research sites baited with hexaflumuron have remained termite-free for a period of years.

Encouraging results are also being reported by pest control firms that began using Sentricon a few years ago on a trial basis. During the spring/summer of 1995, 11 companies installed Sentricon on 22 chronically-infested houses in Kentucky. Eighteen of the 22 houses (82%) had no swarms or other evidence of structural infestation the following year (1996). Four of the houses continued to have swarms in 1996, despite being baited with as many as six Baitubes early the previous year (4). While the majority of homes had no subsequent year swarm, 15 (68%) continued to have termites feeding in outside monitors — reinforcing the importance of subsequent monitoring to guard against reinfestation. According to DowElanco, PCOs in Florida are also having positive experiences with Sentricon (20). Time will tell how these structures will fare in the future.

DowElanco has also applied for registration of an above-ground hexaflumuron-containing bait (Recruit AG). The stations are designed to be installed inside infested structures directly over active mud tubes. The company intends for Recruit AG to be used as a complement to below-ground baiting, and anticipates registration by mid-1997.

The Availability Issue. DowElanco has a great deal at stake with Sentricon. The technology is a radical departure from how termite control has been performed for generations. By being first on the market, all eyes are upon them as they navigate uncharted territory. To minimize problems and help ensure a successful launch, the company has opted for a "managed introduction" of Sentricon to the industry. The incremental roll-out includes extensive hands-on training of operators, and adherence to rigid quality assurance standards and authorization agreements. The result — a slow, selective product introduction — has alienated many pest control operators in the industry. Many companies that have not yet been chosen to participate feel annoyed and frustrated; some who are participating, are displeased with the marketing agreements they were required to sign to become authorized Sentricon operators. Given the current situation, it should come as no surprise that PCOs are anxious to have other baits to choose from.

FirstLine.^™ On April 18, 1996, FMC Corp. (Princeton, N.J.) received federal registration for their FirstLine^™ Termite Bait Station, intended for above-ground baiting of active termite tubes. The ready-to-use station consists of a semi-transparent plastic housing (4x4x1 inches) with open slots at the base. Contained within is corrugated cardboard treated with 100 ppm sulfluramid. Sulfluramid is a slow-acting, stomach poison that interferes with the insects' ability to derive energy from food. When ingested by termites, mortality occurs in about one to three weeks, depending on concentration and amount eaten.

Installation is accomplished by (1) removing the station from the protective bag; (2) moistening the bait by lightly misting with water; and (3) installing the station at the leading edge of a previously broken, active termite tube. Continuous mud tubes, such as those extending from floor to ceiling, can be broken at any convenient location, and the station installed to form a "bridge" between the two broken ends. FirstLine stations must be installed on flat surfaces, so that the base of the station meets the tube. Installation is completed by attaching the plastic housing to the surface (wood, masonry, etc.) using tamper-resistant screws. When the station is installed correctly, the termites will rebuild the tube into the station and feed on the sulfluramid-treated cardboard.

The label specifies that stations be inspected every two to four weeks until the bait is consumed or activity ceases. New stations may need to be substituted as baits are depleted, or adjustments made in positioning of previously installed stations. FirstLine bait stations may be installed on both the interior and exterior of structures. One station should be installed for each active mud tube, not to exceed four stations per single-family structure or apartment unit.

Does FirstLine Work? FirstLine has produced high termite mortality in laboratory tests. Researchers in Louisiana also obtained excellent results when sulfluramid-treated cardboard was installed in telecommunications manholes infested with Formosan termites in New Orleans (6). Termites feeding on the bait die within a few weeks, but cessation of activity may take one to four months depending upon site-specific conditions.

According to the manufacturer, First-Line Bait Stations are "an additional tool to help PCOs control difficult infestations, and (are) designed to be used in conjunction with a traditional termiticide." The label states that stations "are used to control local infestations of termites in and around structures." No claims are made of colony elimination or suppression of termite populations in the soil.

It is too soon to predict how useful this product will be in protecting structures from termites. In order to use FirstLine, there must be active termite tunnels accessible for baiting. Thus installation will not always be possible or convenient. Very lit-tle research has been published confirming efficacy under a variety of field conditions. Lacking such data, pest control operators will need to assess the performance of FirstLine themselves. Companies should keep careful, long-term records and share their experiences. Above-ground baits such as FirstLine certainly have great potential; we'll know a lot more about the capabilities and limitations of this product after the coming swarm season.

FirstLine GT. FMC Corporation also recently received registration for a sulfluramid-containing below-ground bait station, FirstLine GT. Emphasis will be on directed placement of baits in areas where termite activity is known or suspected. Label instructions specify that no more than 14 bait stations per site be installed in residential areas. There is no specific mention of whether FirstLine GT can be used as a stand-alone treatment, in lieu of conventional termiticides.

Despite the imminent availability of this product, there is still much to learn about its performance. The FirstLine GT label states that stations "must be placed in close proximity to actively foraging termites so that the bait may be located by termites and ingested." As noted earlier (see Pattern of Use section, Installation Below-ground), there is little evidence to suggest that the technician in the field will be able to pinpoint where termites are foraging below ground. Moreover, installing only three to 14 bait stations per structure, as currently specified on the label, limits the chance of termites encountering the baits even more. (The same would be true of a low number of cockroach bait placements, installed with the intent of intercepting foraging cockroaches.) Unless more baits or unbaited monitors are installed, it will be hard to determine if other "satellite" groups of termites are in the vicinity of the structure. If the installer is lucky enough to insert his or her handful of baits into the ground precisely where termites are gaining entry, perhaps they will be successful in affording structural protection. At this point in time, there have been no published studies with FirstLine GT (or other baits) suggesting this is possible.

At press time, FMC Corporation announced they have developed a monitoring station containing untreated pieces of slotted wood, to be used in conjunction with FirstLine GT. Supplemental labeling recommends that at least two bait stations be installed within six inches of each infested monitor (23).

One advantage FirstLine baits can claim is availability. No lengthy training program or authorization agreements are required; if a PCO wants to try FirstLine, all it takes is a phone call to their distributor.

Subterfuge^™ System. Another termite bait that will be marketed in 1997 contains hydramethylnon, the same active ingredient in Siege and Maxforce. The effects are similar to sulfluramid — termites succumb within a few weeks after ingesting a lethal dose. American Cyanamid (Princeton, N.J.) has combined their slow-acting toxicant with a food source that is reportedly "preferred by termites" (2). Laboratory and field experiments suggest that the proprietary formulation is more readily consumed by Reticulitermes spp. than are pine wood stakes and other cellulose materials. Increased consumption occurs only after the bait has been found by termites during their random foraging activities, i.e. termites do not "sense" the bait from remote locations in the soil.

According to Subterfuge use directions, the bait can be used alone or in combination with other forms of treatment to control subterranean termite infestations. It can also be used preventively, to monitor for presence of termite activity. Subterfuge termite baits are installed in the soil initially, in effect, by-passing the unbaited monitoring step employed with Sentricon. And unlike the other below-ground baits, Subterfuge bait is poured into its perforated bait cartridge after the SubStation^™ has been installed below ground. (The bait is dispensed from a bulk plastic container.)

Does Subterfuge Work? On three homes in New England, researchers obtained long-term suppression of termite activity with experimental hydramethylnon baits, installed below and above ground (1, 21). The ability to control structural infestations with the current Subterfuge Bait System still needs to be confirmed over a range of conditions. Similar to the FirstLine baits, there is very little published research data indicating that Subterfuge termite bait will perform as advertised.

When judging performance of any termite bait, it's important to remember that bait consumption is no guarantee of control — just because termites find it and eat it, doesn't mean the structural infestation has been eliminated (Figure 4). As the growing tide of termite baits hit the market, PCOs should ask to see performance data; preferably data generated and compiled by independent sources. Yet, considering the crisis situation with termite control in this country, PCOs cannot afford to wait for researchers to provide all the answers. By keeping careful records of successes and failures, companies will learn much from their own experiences.

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. Termite baits can be used in many ways by pest management professionals. Products such as Sentricon are being aggressively marketed as comprehensive, stand-alone treatments for control of existing infestations. Such baits can also be sold as an "insurance policy" against the continual threat of termites for millions of home-owners not currently covered by conventional barrier treatment warranties. Other bait formulations (e.g. First-Line) are more suited for spot-treatment of active tunnels, feeding galleries, and localized areas in the soil. These products will typically be used in combination with barrier treatments and other management methods.

Supplemental barrier treatment will also be needed whenever rapid results are desired, such as when responding to swarmer complaints or real estate transactions. Many property owners with an existing termite problem will not want to wait three to six months (sometimes longer) for baits to suppress or eliminate infestations. Where comprehensive baiting programs are used, liquid or foam applications may be made as spot treatments to infested areas, rather than to entire structures. The decision to perform a spot treatment in conjunction with baiting often varies from account to account, depending on the circumstances.

Baits can be a "life-saver" in chronic retreatment situations, where other methods have been unsuccessful. Difficult construction features — wells, cisterns, plenums, sub-slab heating ducts, drainage systems, inaccessible crawl spaces, rigid board insulation, stucco below grade, rubble foundations — can all be treated with baits. With baits, gaining access for treatment is seldom a problem since foraging termites are as likely to encounter below-ground installations around the foundation exterior as beneath the structure. There will be fewer dirty crawl suits when using termite baits, although thorough inspections will perhaps be even more important than they are now. In respect to contamination, baits are of negligible risk and can be used in the most sensitive situations.

Chemically-concerned customers will find them especially attractive, and so will clients who do not want their carpeting pulled back, floors drilled, stored items moved, and other disruptions inherent in conventional termite treatments.

As versatile as baits can be, they will not work by simply hammering a few into the ground and walking away. Success will require a thoughtful approach, diligent monitoring, and ongoing surveillance by a service professional in the field.

As noted earlier, the first hurdle in using below ground baits is getting the termites to find them in the first place. Bait installers should be prepared to add, move, or modify baits and monitoring devices as needed. This will be especially important in areas where foraging activity is less intense. In general, termite bait crews will need to know less of how buildings are constructed but much more about termite biology and foraging behavior. (In other words, they'll have to spend more time "thinking" like a termite — just as they have learned, over the years, to "think" like a cockroach.) Manipulating termites without crushing them (e.g. for self-recruitment with Sentricon), baiting broken ends of mud tubes, and recording data on a hand-held computer are foreign concepts to workers with years of experience applying barrier treatments.

Finally, personnel must be trained to answer a multitude of challenging questions from homeowners, realtors, and regulators. Despite an expanding knowledge base, many of these questions are still without answers.

Dr. Michael Potter is an urban extension entomologist at the University of Kentucky.

1. Anonymous. 1995. Shots heard `round the world: a revolutionary termite treatment. Pest Control Technology. 23(8):54-55,58,

91-92.

2. Anonymous. 1996. Subterfuge^TM

Termite Bait System. American Cyanamid Company. Parsippany, N.J. 16 pp.

3. Benson, E.P., J.K. Mauldin, and E.S. Bordes. 1996. Evaluation of subterranean termite baiting stratergies in urban locations with minimal soil access. Ann. meeting Entomol. Soc. Am. Louisville, Ky.

4. Davis, K.D., and M.F. Potter. 1996. Foraging dynamics and bait detection in subterranean termites, Reticulitermes spp.: A midwest

perspective. Ann. meeting Entomol. Soc. Am. Louisville, Ky.

5. DeMark, J.J., E.P. Benson, P.A. Zungoli, and B.M. Kard. 1995. Down To Earth, 50(1):20-26.

6. Felix, J., and G. Henderson. 1995. Debugging New Orleans' phone lines. Pest Control

Technology. 23(10):76,78,151.

7. Forschler, B.T., and J.C. Ryder, Jr. 1996.

Subterranean termite, Reticulitermes spp., (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) colony response to baiting with hexaflumuron using a prototype commercial baiting system. J. Entomol. Science. 341(2):143-151.

8. Grace, J.K., C.H.M. Tome, T.G. Shelton, R.J. Oshiro, and J.R. Yates III. 1996. Baiting studies and considerations with Coptotermes formosanus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in Hawaii.

Sociobiology 28 (3) 10 pp.

9. Kletch, S. 1996. Georgia termite research

program blazes new trails. Pest Control. 64(5):64- 66.

10. Robertson, A.S., and J.J. DeMark. 1996. Field evluation of alternative monitoring devices and a new termite bait formulation for the Sentricon Colony Elimination System. Ann. meeting Entomol. Soc. Am. Louisville, Ky.

11. Robertson, S.S., and N.-Y. Su. 1995. Discovery of an effective slow-acting insect growth regulator for controlling subterranean termites. Down To Earth. 50(1), pp. 1-7.

12. Su, N.-Y. 1993. Baits. Pest Control Technology. 21(7):7,73,76,78,80,114.

13. __________. 1994. Field evaluation of a hexaflumuron bait for population suppression of subterranean termites. (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 87:389-97.

14. Su, N.-Y. and R.H. Scheffrahn. 1991. Laboratory evaluation of two slow-acting toxicants against Formosan and eastern subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 84:170-175.

15. ___________________ 1993. Laboratory

evaluation of two chitin synthesis inhibitors, hexaflumuron and diflubenzuron, as bait toxi cants against the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 86: 1453-1457.

16. Su, N.-Y., R.H. Scheffrahn, and P.M. Ban. 1995. Effects of sulfluramid-treated bait blocks on field colonies of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 88: 1343-1348.

17. Su, N.-Y., M. Tamashiro, J.R. Yates, and M.I. Haverty. 1982. Effects of be havior on the

evaluation of insecticides for prevention of or remedial control of the Formosan subterranean termite. J. Econ. Entomol. 75:188-193.

18. ___________. 1984. Foraging behavior of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae). Environ. Entomol. 13:1466-1470.

19. Su, N.-Y., E.M. Thoms, P.M. Ban, and R.H. Scheffrahn. 1995. Monitoring/bait station to detect and eliminate foraging populations of subterranean termites (Isoptera:Rhinotermitidae) near structures. J.Econ. Entomol. 88(4):932-936.

20. Thoms, E.S. 1996. Results of commercial field trials of the Sentricon Colony Elimination

System in Florida. Ann. meeting Entomol. Soc. Am. Louisville, Ky.

21. Thorne, B.L., and J.F.A. Traniello. 1994.

Termites: Detection and control through baiting. Pest Management. 13(9):10-13,16-18.

22. Traniello, J.F.A., and B.L. Thorne. 1994. Termite baits in theory and practice. Proc. of the Natl' Conf. on Urban Entomology. (W.H. Robinson ed.), Atlanta, Ga., pp. 28-40.

23. Tech Update (FMC Corp. 1996). Monitoring properties for termite population management. 2 pp.