{"id":3684,"date":"2019-01-01T15:40:31","date_gmt":"2019-01-01T05:40:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ppmmagazine.com.au\/?p=3684"},"modified":"2022-10-06T10:39:30","modified_gmt":"2022-10-06T00:39:30","slug":"carpenter-ants-is-their-name-justified","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/pest-control-ants\/carpenter-ants-is-their-name-justified\/","title":{"rendered":"CARPENTER ANTS \u2013 IS THEIR NAME JUSTIFIED?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Carpenter ants are notorious for causing damage to properties but is their reputation based on fact or fiction? <strong>Jay Turner<\/strong> examines the evidence.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><!--more--><div class=\"hr-thick\"><\/div><\/p>\n<p>I have always had an issue with the common names given to species. They can often be misleading or used very loosely to describe multiple species. A very well known example of this is the king brown snake (<em>Pseudechis australis<\/em>), which is actually a member of the black snake family, and is more closely related to the red-bellied black snake (<em>Pseudechis<\/em> <em>porphyriacus<\/em>) than the eastern brown snake (<em>Pseudonaja<\/em> <em>textilis<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>The carpenter ant is possibly even worse. Over the years I have heard the name \u2018carpenter ant\u2019 applied to basically any member of the <em>Camponotus<\/em> genus as well as any ant found nesting within timber. Where did the name \u2018carpenter ant\u2019 come from and is it even appropriate?<\/p>\n<p>The reality is the name carpenter ant actually applies to a handful of <em>Camponotus sp<\/em>. in the United States, with the black carpenter ant (<em>C. pennsylvanicus<\/em>), western black carpenter ant (<em>C. modoc<\/em>), bi-coloured carpenter ant (<em>C. vicinus<\/em>) and the Florida carpenter ant (<em>C. floridanus<\/em>) being the main ones. These species can reach 50,000-100,000 individuals in a colony and can cause significant timber damage, and are classed as a WDO (wood destroying organism). But should the reputation of these few species be applied to all <em>Camponotus sp.<\/em>?<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_3688\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3688\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-3688\" src=\"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/iStock-486573751-LR-300x209.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"209\" srcset=\"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/iStock-486573751-LR-300x209.jpg 300w, https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/iStock-486573751-LR-150x105.jpg 150w, https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/iStock-486573751-LR.jpg 600w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3688\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">The US black carpenter ant (<em>Camponotus pennsylvanicus<\/em>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>A quick Google search for \u2018carpenter ants\u2019 shows why it\u2019s no wonder there is such a hype about these ants, even in Australia. Statements like \u2018major cause of structural damage\u2019 are common on popular sites such as Wikipedia and on company websites. There\u2019s even the claim that \u2018carpenter ants are one of nature\u2019s most aggressive wood destroyers\u2019 on another website. It seems that some companies think that scare tactics are a good marketing strategy.<\/p>\n<p>A recent survey on the very popular <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/groups\/AusPest\/\">Australian Pest Managers\u2019 Network Facebook page <\/a>revealed that Australian <em>Camponotus<\/em> species cause very little timber damage and the consensus among pest managers is they are a secondary pest to true timber pests such as fungal decay.<\/p>\n<p>Surely the reputation of these ants isn\u2019t based upon media hype alone? The reason for their reputation probably\u00a0lies within their behaviour. Many <em>Camponotus sp.<\/em> favour fungal decayed wood, where they will excavate the soft timber within to create their nest. Often this decayed timber is chewed right back to clean, sound timber, giving the impression that the ants have \u2018eaten\u2019 the wood. Another common misunderstanding is the ants\u2019 tendency to occupy old termite galleries and workings, once again giving the impression that the ants have caused the timber damage. It\u2019s no wonder many ants are falsely incriminated and incorrectly labelled \u2018carpenter ants\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>Worldwide there are over 1400 species of <em>Camponotus<\/em>, with Australia having 143 of those described species, including the famous desert honey-pot ants (<em>C. inflatus<\/em>). Other well known <em>Camponotus<\/em> species include the banded sugar ant (<em>C. consobrinus<\/em>) and the household sugar ant (<em>C. humilior<\/em>). Carpenter ants are typically nocturnal and one of the few ant species which are polymorphic, meaning having multiple-sized worker castes. The minor workers are food gatherers and are encountered further away from the nest whereas major workers stay closer to the nest and defend it. <em>Camponotus<\/em> ants feed on both carbohydrate and protein-based foodstuffs.<\/p>\n<p>The key to successful treatment of <em>Camponotus<\/em> ants is the inspection; being a nocturnal ant, this means night times are often best. <em>Camponotus<\/em> ants will often have several satellite nests so it is often a matter of taking\u00a0the time to locate these nests and directly treating the nest with an insecticidal dust or aerosol.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike their American cousins, most Australian <em>Camponotus<\/em> ant nests are relatively small with nest sizes normally numbering less than a few hundred individuals, so typically requiring very little insecticide application. Lightly using a dust\u00a0or aerosol as a flushing agent can also be an effective way of locating nests or, if you are patient and have the time, feeding foraging ants chopped up insects or cake crumbs and following them back to the nests. Failing that, residual liquids will help reduce foraging ant numbers.<\/p>\n<p>So, the question remains: are our Australian <em>Camponotus<\/em> ants be deserving of the common name \u2018carpenter ants\u2019? Or should we, as professionals, adopt the Australian Museum term of \u2018sugar ants\u2019? Perhaps this is just another misleading common name. I personally prefer to use the term <em>Camponotus<\/em>, but I\u2019ve always been a bit of a stickler for trying to be technically correct.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Jay<\/strong> <strong>Turner<\/strong>, <em>Laguna Pest Control<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Carpenter ants are notorious for causing damage to properties but is their reputation based on fact or fiction? Jay Turner examines the evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":133,"featured_media":3687,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"Carpenter ants are notorious for causing damage to properties but is their reputation based on fact or fiction? Jay Turner examines the evidence.","_seopress_robots_index":"","_gspb_post_css":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[322],"tags":[],"company":[137],"pest":[167],"pesticide":[],"product-service":[],"class_list":["post-3684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-pest-control-ants","company-jay-turner","pest-ants","wpbf-post"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/133"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3684\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3687"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3684"},{"taxonomy":"company","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/company?post=3684"},{"taxonomy":"pest","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pest?post=3684"},{"taxonomy":"pesticide","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pesticide?post=3684"},{"taxonomy":"product-service","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/professionalpestmanager.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product-service?post=3684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}