Impact of Sulfuryl Fluoride Fumigation

on Pest Populations in Rice Mills

James F. Campbell USDA ARS
Introduction

 Red flour beetle

(Tribolium castaneum)
is a major pest of both
wheat and rice mills
 Exploit bulk stored
and packaged
product, but also food
that accumulates in
equipment and
structure
Introduction
 Pest management has
relied on periodic
structural fumigations
with methyl bromide
 Data on pest population
levels and impact of
structural fumigations,
methyl bromide and
alternatives such as
sulfuryl fluoride, in
commercial facilities is
still limited
Challenges to Evaluating Field Efficacy

 Cryptic habitats exploited by pests makes

monitoring populations imprecise
 Measured efficacy influenced by two factors
whose relative impact is difficult to determine
 Survival within treatment area
 Recolonization from untreated areas
 Replication is difficult due to variation in
building structure, environmental conditions,
pest population density and distribution,
management tactics, etc.
Research Program
 Evaluate impact of structural treatments on pest
population trends using pheromone traps placed
inside and outside food facilities
 Reduction immediately after treatment
 Rebound over time after treatment
 What factors impact these responses
 Develop management thresholds
 Recently completed core analysis of 23
fumigations (mostly methyl bromide), which
provides a framework for adding additional
facilities and treatment types (Campbell et al.,
submitted manuscripts)
Wheat Mill #1 Mean Trap Capture

Mean number captured:

4.5 ± 0.7 beetles/
Change in Mill Management
trap/monitoring period

Change in mean number

captured:
45 ± 9% increase Proportion Traps with Captures
Percent of traps with
captures: 49 ± 3 %
of traps with one or more
beetles captured

Change in percent of
traps with captures:
18 ± 5% increase
Percent Reduction in Mean Beetle Capture:
Two Wheat Flour Mills and 23 Fumigations
88±5% 71±5%
 Fumigation Efficacy – Rebound in Beetle
Captures
 Rebound after fumigation was highly variable: no single linear or
exponential function worked for all and r2 values typically low
 Developed new thresholds to help evaluate data: 2.5 beetles/trap/2
week period and 50% of traps having captures of one or more beetles

Mean Trap Capture Probability of Capture

Fumigation Efficacy – Rebound in Trap
Captures (21 post-fumigation periods)

174±33 days
(n=21, 8 did not reach)

120±21 days
(n=21, 4 did not
reach)
Risk Thresholds – Mean Trap Capture
 Exponential growth: as
population increases,
rate of increase
increases
 Difficult to detect in food
facilities – multiple
subpopulations and
increased interventions
 Above thresholds, if trap
captures increased than
increase was greater
than below threshold
Rice Mills – Species Composition
Rice Mill #2 Rice Mill #4

Rice Mill #1 Rice Mill #3

Rice Mill Monitoring Projects
 Rice Mill #1 (<1 year monitoring)
 Two sulfuryl fluoride fumigations
 39 hr/606 oz-h
 Rice Mill #2 (>3 years monitoring)
 Three sulfuryl fluoride fumigations
 32 hr/673 oz-h
 Rice Mill #3 (>3 years monitoring)
 Three sulfuryl fluoride fumigations
 26 hr/581 oz-h
 Rice Mill #4 (>2 years monitoring)
 One sulfuryl fluoride fumigation
 Rice Mill #1
 Mean Trap
Capture
 100% Reduction
 94% Reduction
 Probability of
Capture
 100% Reduction
 89% Reduction
 Rice Mill #2
 Mean Trap
Capture
 80% Reduction
 93% Reduction
 85% Reduction
 Probability of
Capture
 77% Reduction
 65% Reduction
 44% Reduction
 Rice Mill #3
 Mean Trap
Capture
 93% Reduction
 62% Reduction
 64% Reduction

 Probability of
Capture
 61% Reduction
 52% Reduction
 35% Reduction
Rice Mill #4
 Mean Trap
Capture
 62% Reduction
 Probability of
Capture
 40% Reduction
Percent Reduction After Fumigation (n=9)
81±5% 63±7%
 Preliminary Comparison of Reduction in
Mean Trap Capture
85±4% (n=23) 81±5% (n=9)

 Mill type and

fumigant type
confounded,
so can not
test either
separately at
this point
Preliminary Comparison of Reduction in
Probability of Capture
71±5% (n=23) 62±7% (n=9)
 Mill type and
fumigant type
confounded,
so can not
test either
separately at
this point
Rice Mills: Rebound (Time to Event Analysis)

384±33 days
(n=7, 4 did not reach)

260±56 days
(n=7, 2 did not reach)
Time To Event Analysis
 Rebound rate slower in the rice mills than in wheat
mills, which may reflect differences in intrinsic
population growth and larger seasonal impacts
Mean Capture Threshold Probability of Capture Threshold
Discussion
 Differences due to fumigant alone can’t be
determined at this point because effects confounded
by differences in mill type, but initial reduction in trap
captures should be the most comparable
 Considerable variation in response complicates
evaluations based on small datasets
 Data and analysis illustrates approach to developing
a statistical comparison of structural fumigations
 As more fumigations and locations are incorporated
into the analysis will provide a powerful approach to
evaluate efficacy, factors that influence it, and
information to guide IPM programs
Questions? Acknowledgements:
 Collaborators on
wheat mill analysis –
F. Arthur, M. Toews,
and T. Arbogast

Technical Support:
R. Hammel and many
undergraduates

Dow AgroSciences
for facilitating start of
monitoring programs
at some rice mills

 Funded in part by –
USDA CSREES
james.campbell@ars.usda.gov RAMP, PMAP, Methyl
ars.usda.gov/npa/gmprc/spiru/campbell Bromide Alternatives
programs