JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 144.122.
A comparative field study was conducted to evaluate the ability of subterranean termites to damage a set of four different plastic materials (cable sheathings) exposed below- and above-ground. Eight pest species from six countries were included, viz., Coptotermes formosanus (Shiraki) in China, Japan, and the United States; Coptotermes gestroi (Wasmann) in Thailand and Malaysia; Coptotermes curvignathus (Holmgren) and Coptotermes kalshoveni (Kemner) in Malaysia; Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt) with two forms of the species complex and Mastotermes darwiniensis (Froggatt) in Australia; and Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar) in the United States. Termite species were separated into four tiers relative to decreasing ability to damage plastics. The first tier, most damaging, included C. acinaciformis, mound-building form, and M. darwiniensis, both from tropical Australia. The second tier included C. acinaciformis, tree-nesting form, from temperate Australia and C. kalshoveni from Southeast Asia. The third tier included C. curcignathus and C. gestroi from Southeast Asia and C. formosanus from China, Japan, and the United States, whereas the fourth tier included only R. flavipes, which caused no damage. A consequence of these results is that plastics considered resistant to termite damage in some locations will not be so in others because of differences in the termite fauna, for example, resistant plastics from the United States and Japan will require further testing in Southeast Asia and Australia. However, plastics considered resistant in Australia will be resistant in all other locations.
Coptotermes Wasmann is one of the most important genera of wood-destroying insect pests, both in its native and introduced countries. Pyrethroids are among the most widely used insecticides in wood preservation around the world. Consequently, they have often been evaluated against different species of Coptotermes. However, because various test methods have been used between countries, comparing results is problematic. These field trials, using a single aboveground method of exposure, assessed a range of retentions of two pyrethroids (bifenthrin and permethrin) in Pinus radiata D. Don sapwood against two species of Coptotermes in three countries to provide directly comparable results. Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt) in Australia consumed the most nontreated wood, followed by Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki in China, then C. formosanus in the United States, although these data were not significantly different. Both termite species demonstrated a dose-response to wood treated with the two pyrethroids; less wood was consumed as retention increased. Overall, C. acinaciformis consumed relatively little of the treated wood. In comparison, C. formosanus consumed 20-90% of the wood treated at the lowest retentions of the pyrethroids evaluated. Results indicated that C. acinaciformis was more sensitive to pyrethroid toxicity/repellency compared with C. formosanus. Factors that may have influenced the results are discussed. However, using a single aboveground method of exposure across three countries, that suited both species of Coptotermes, made it possible to determine unambiguously the actual differences between the species in their tolerances to the two pyrethroid insecticides.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.