Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building Castles on the Ground: Conversations Between Ecologists and Engineers

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Indian Institute of Science Aims and scope

Abstract

The architectural feats of termites and their farming capabilities have been admired by biologists, engineers and architects and have inspired writers including early natural historians. South India is endowed with termite mud castles; their seeming impregnability threw up intellectual challenges, initiating conversations between biologists and engineers. The biologists were interested in how termites kept their farmed basidiomycete fungus free from parasites and discovered experimentally that termites can sniff out parasitic ascomycete fungi, proceed to anoint them with broad-spectrum fungicides and bury them resulting in mortality-yielding anoxia. High levels of humidity and carbon dioxide inside soil nests are conducive to the growth of parasitic fungi whose density is likely actively supressed by eradication of incipient foci of parasite growth by the termite farmers. The engineers were interested in how the mound acquired its strength, stability and longevity while allowing gas exchange. They discovered that the safety factor of termite mounds is very high, that termite-manipulated soil achieves great strength and weathering resistance, that termites manipulate the water content of soil between its plastic and liquid limits and that mounds have a more porous exterior shell and a less porous core. Dialogues between biologists and engineers have enabled insights into the bio-engineering aspects of animal-built architecture. The natural biological constraints of the termite builders (e.g. size, load-carrying ability in relation to particle grain size, caste) and available material (red soil containing organic matter) in the presence of water have been realistically incorporated into modelling the greenhouses that harbour termites and their crops.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1:
Figure 2:

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data mentioned in this manuscript are available in the original papers cited within.

References

  1. Swart S (2004) The construction of Eugène Marais as an Afrikaner hero. J South Afr Stud 30:847–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hugo Q (2020) Eugène Nielen Marais: an Adlerian psychobiography. Master’s dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

  3. Chouvenc T, Šobotník J, Engel MS, Bourguignon T (2021) Termite evolution: mutualistic associations, key innovations, and the rise of Termitidae. Cell Mol Life Sci 78:2749–2769

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson MM (2021) A molecular, morphological, and mycological approach to understanding the evolution of the social cockroaches, termites. PhD dissertation. The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers, USA

  5. Lo N, Tokuda G, Watanabe H, Rose H, Slaytor M, Maekawa K, Bandi C, Noda H (2000) Evidence from multiple gene sequences indicates that termites evolved from wood-feeding cockroaches. Curr Biol 10:801–804

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nalepa CA (2015) Origin of termite eusociality: trophallaxis integrates the social, nutritional, and microbial environments. Ecol Entomol 40:323–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nobre T, Aanen DK (2012) Fungiculture or termite husbandry? The ruminant hypothesis. Insects 3:307–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Aanen DK, Eggleton P, Rouland-Lefevre C et al (2002) The evolution of fungus-growing termites and their mutualistic fungal symbionts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:14887–14892

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. van de Peppel LJ, Nieuwenhuis M, Auxier B et al (2021) Ancestral predisposition toward a domesticated lifestyle in the termite-cultivated fungus Termitomyces. Curr Biol 31:4413–4421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chanam J, Sheshshayee MS, Kasinathan S, Jagdeesh A, Joshi KA, Borges RM (2014) Nutritional benefits from domatia inhabitants in an ant–plant interaction: interlopers do pay the rent. Funct Ecol 28:1107–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Borges RM (2015) How mutualisms between plants and insects are stabilized. Curr Sci 108:1862–1868

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gupta S, Borges RM (2019) Density-dependent fitness effects stabilize parasitic hitchhiking within a mutualism. Funct Ecol 33:2304–2315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gupta S, Borges RM (2021) Hopping on: conspecific traveller density within a vehicle regulates parasitic hitchhiking between ephemeral microcosms. J Anim Ecol 90:899–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Batra LR, Batra SW (1966) Fungus-growing termites of tropical India and associated fungi. J Kansas Entomol Soc 39:725–738

    Google Scholar 

  15. Batra SWT (1975) Termites (Isoptera) eat and manipulate symbiotic fungi. J Kansas Entomol Soc 48:89–92

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chhotani OB (1997) Fauna of India-Isoptera (Termites), vol 2. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta

    Google Scholar 

  17. Katariya L, Ramesh PB, Gopalappa T, Borges RM (2017) Sex and diversity: the mutualistic and parasitic fungi of a fungus-growing termite differ in genetic diversity and reproductive strategy. Fungal Ecol 26:20–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim KH, Ramadhar TR, Beemelmanns C et al (2014) Natalamycin A, an ansamycin from a termite-associated Streptomyces sp. Chem Sci 5:4333–4338

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Beemelmanns C, Ramadhar TR, Kim KH et al (2017) Macrotermycins A-D, glycosylated macrolactams from a termite-associated Amycolatopsis sp. M39. Org Lett 19:1000–1003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Katariya L, Ramesh PB, Borges RM (2018) Dynamic environments of fungus-farming termite mounds exert growth-modulating effects on fungal crop parasites. Environ Microbiol 20:971–979

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Katariya L, Ramesh PB, Gopalappa T, Desireddy S, Bessière J-M, Borges RM (2017) Fungus-farming termites selectively bury weedy fungi that smell different from crop fungi. J Chem Ecol 43:986–995

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Katariya L, Ramesh PB, Sharma A, Borges RM (2018) Local hypoxia generated by live burial is effective in weed control within termite fungus farms. Insectes Soc 65:561–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ishikawa Y, Aonuma H, Sasaki K, Miura T (2016) Tyraminergic and octopaminergic modulation of defensive behavior in termite soldier. PLoS One 11:e0154230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Abbot P (2022) Defense in social insects: diversity, division of labor, and evolution. Annu Rev Entomol 67:407–436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Scharf ME, Peterson BF (2021) A century of synergy in termite symbiosis research: linking the past with new genomic insights. Annu Rev Entomol 66:23–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schmidt S, Kildgaard S, Guo H, Beemelmanns C, Poulsen M (2022) The chemical ecology of the fungus-farming termite symbiosis. Nat Prod Rep 39:231–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Park YI, Raina AK (2005) Light sensitivity in workers and soldiers of the Formosan subterranean termite, Coptotermes formosanus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 45:367–376

    Google Scholar 

  28. Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (1999) A brief history of stigmergy. Art Life 5:97–116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Calovi DS, Bardunias P, Carey N et al (2019) Surface curvature guides early construction activity in mound-building termites. Phil Trans R Soc B 374:20180374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heyde A, Guo L, Jost C, Theraulaz G, Mahadevan L (2021) Self-organized biotectonics of termite nests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118:2006985118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Oberst S, Lai JC, Martin R, Halkon BJ, Saadatfar M, Evans TA (2020) Revisiting stigmergy in light of multi-functional, biogenic, termite structures as communication channel. Comput Structr Biotech J 18:2522–2534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mitaka Y, Akino T (2021) A review of termite pheromones: multifaceted, context-dependent, and rational chemical communications. Front Ecol Evol 8:595614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rao SM, Revanasiddappa K (2002) Collapse behaviour of a residual soil. Géotechnique 52:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kandasami RK, Borges RM, Murthy TG (2016) Effect of biocementation on the strength and stability of termite mounds. Environ Geotech 3:99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zachariah N (2020) Brick-laying to building mud castles: Ecology and engineering of mound construction by the fungus-farming termite Odontotermes obesus. PhD dissertation. Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

  36. Zachariah N, Das A, Murthy TG, Borges RM (2017) Building mud castles: a perspective from brick laying termites. Sci Rep 7:4692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zachariah N, Murthy TG, Borges RM (2020) Moisture alone is sufficient to impart strength but not weathering resistance to termite mound soil. R Soc Open Sci 7:200485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. King H, Ocko S, Mahadevan L (2015) Termite mounds harness diurnal temperature oscillations for ventilation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:11589–11593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mueller UG, Gerardo N (2002) Fungus-farming insects: multiple origins and diverse evolutionary histories. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:15247–15249

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zachariah N, Singh S, Murthy TG, Borges RM (2020) Bi-layered architecture facilitates high strength and ventilation in nest mounds of fungus-farming termites. Sci Rep 10:13157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mazzoleni I (2013) Architecture follows nature—biomimetic principles for innovative design. CRC Press, p 264

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our labs have been generously funded over the years by DST, DST-FIST, CSIR, DBT and the Indian Institute of Science, all of which are gratefully acknowledged. We thank the members of our lab for providing logistical support and many ideas for the difficult problems that we have tackled with these most frustrating insects, the termites and their fungus crops.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India

    Renee M. Borges

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India

    Tejas G. Murthy

Authors
  1. Renee M. Borges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tejas G. Murthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Renee M. Borges or Tejas G. Murthy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest whatsoever.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borges, R.M., Murthy, T.G. Building Castles on the Ground: Conversations Between Ecologists and Engineers. J Indian Inst Sci 103, 1093–1104 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-023-00372-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-023-00372-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation