Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/216350
Title:
An Update on Termiticide Degradation in Arizona Soil
Author:
Baker, Paul B.
Issue Date:
Sep-2001
Publisher:
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)
Journal:
Turfgrass, Landscape and Urban IPM Research Summary
Abstract:
Termiticide applications are the standard practice in the pest control industry to protect structures from the invasion of termites. However, information related to termiticide persistence is lacking. In 2 field trials, soil residues analysis were carried out to determine degradation among existing and candidate termiticides in 3 different chemical classes. Plots were established to simulate industry standards for the application of termiticides. Study 1 termiticides tested were Dragnet FT (permethrin, 0.5% and 0.25%;), Prevail FT (cypermethrin, 0.25%;), Biflex FT (bifenthrin, 0.06%;), Fury TC (zeta-cypermethrin, 0.125%;) Premise 75 (imidacloprid, 0.05%,), Dursban TC (chlorpyrifos, 1% and 0.75%) and the untreated check. In Study 2 termiticides tested were DeltaGard SC (deltamethrin 0.075%, 0.125% and 0.25%); Dragnet FT (permethrin 0.5%;)and the untreated checks. In study 1, in general, all termiticides showed more degradation in the exposed plots than those covered by the concrete slab. In the exposed plots, specifically in the 4th year, four of the eight treatments had no residues In comparison, the covered plots had only 1 treatment, with no residues. In general the pyrethroids of permethrin at 0.25% and 0.5% along with bifenthrin at 0.06% held up longer than the organophosphate chlorpyrifos or imidacloprid the chloronicotinyl compound. Study 2, after one year, the exposed plots showed a slightly greater degradation than the covered plots. However, due to plot-to-plot variation no conclusions can be drawn from the data, other than the permethrin plots showed less than 40% remaining in any plot.
Keywords:
Agriculture -- Arizona; Turfgrasses -- Arizona; Turf management -- Arizona; Plants, ornamental -- Arizona; Urban pests -- Arizona
Series/Report no.:
Series P-126; AZ1246

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.titleAn Update on Termiticide Degradation in Arizona Soilen_US
dc.contributor.authorBaker, Paul B.en_US
dc.date.issued2001-09-
dc.publisherCollege of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)en_US
dc.identifier.journalTurfgrass, Landscape and Urban IPM Research Summaryen_US
dc.description.abstractTermiticide applications are the standard practice in the pest control industry to protect structures from the invasion of termites. However, information related to termiticide persistence is lacking. In 2 field trials, soil residues analysis were carried out to determine degradation among existing and candidate termiticides in 3 different chemical classes. Plots were established to simulate industry standards for the application of termiticides. Study 1 termiticides tested were Dragnet FT (permethrin, 0.5% and 0.25%;), Prevail FT (cypermethrin, 0.25%;), Biflex FT (bifenthrin, 0.06%;), Fury TC (zeta-cypermethrin, 0.125%;) Premise 75 (imidacloprid, 0.05%,), Dursban TC (chlorpyrifos, 1% and 0.75%) and the untreated check. In Study 2 termiticides tested were DeltaGard SC (deltamethrin 0.075%, 0.125% and 0.25%); Dragnet FT (permethrin 0.5%;)and the untreated checks. In study 1, in general, all termiticides showed more degradation in the exposed plots than those covered by the concrete slab. In the exposed plots, specifically in the 4th year, four of the eight treatments had no residues In comparison, the covered plots had only 1 treatment, with no residues. In general the pyrethroids of permethrin at 0.25% and 0.5% along with bifenthrin at 0.06% held up longer than the organophosphate chlorpyrifos or imidacloprid the chloronicotinyl compound. Study 2, after one year, the exposed plots showed a slightly greater degradation than the covered plots. However, due to plot-to-plot variation no conclusions can be drawn from the data, other than the permethrin plots showed less than 40% remaining in any plot.en_US
dc.subjectAgriculture -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectTurfgrasses -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectTurf management -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectPlants, ornamental -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectUrban pests -- Arizonaen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/216350-
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSeries P-126en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAZ1246en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.