Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 525–530 | Cite as

Colony-specific architecture of shelter tubes by termites

  • N. Mizumoto
  • K. Matsuura
Research Article


Social insects build sophisticated and complex architectures such as huge nests and underground galleries based on self-organizing rules. The structures of these architectures vary widely in size and shape within a species. Some studies have revealed that the current environmental and/or social factors can cause differences in the architectures that emerge from collective building. However, little is known about the effect of colony-level variations on the architecture. Here, we demonstrate that termite colonies build colony-specific architecture using shelter-tube construction as a model system. When we divided a colony into multiple groups of individuals, groups drawn from the same colony performed similar patterns of construction, whereas groups from different colonies exhibited different patterns. The colony variations in shelter-tube construction are generally thought to reflect differences in foraging strategy, and this difference can have important fitness consequences depending on the distribution of wood resources in the environment. This is the first demonstration of colony variation in the architecture that emerges from collective behavior. Colony-specific architectural variations provide new insights into our understanding of the self-organization systems, which were previously assumed to provide each species with a species-specific construction mechanism.


Collective behavior Self-organization Gallery architecture Colony variation Social insects 



We thank Dr. Kazuya Kobayashi and Dr. Jin Yoshimura for helpful comments. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 09001407) and by the Sumitomo Foundation to K. M.


  1. Abe T. 1987. Evolution of life types in termites. In: Evolution and Coadaptation in Biotic Communities (Kawano S., Connell J. and Hidaka T., Eds), Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp 125-148Google Scholar
  2. Araújo A.P.A., de Araújo F.S. and De Souza O. 2011. Resource suitability affecting foraging area extension in termites (Insecta, Isoptera). Sociobiology 57: 271-284Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Shahar Y., Robichon A., Sokolowski M. and Robinson G. 2002. Influence of gene action across different time scales on behavior. Science 296: 741-744Google Scholar
  4. Bollazzi M., Kronenbitter J. and Roces F. 2008. Soil temperature, digging behaviour, and the adaptive value of nest depth in South American species of Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants. Oecologia 158: 165-175Google Scholar
  5. Bonabeau E., Theraulaz G., Deneubourg J.L., Aron S. and Camazine S. 1997. Self-organization in social insects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 188-193Google Scholar
  6. Buhl J., Deneubourg J.L., Grimal A. and Theraulaz G. 2005. Self-organized digging activity in ant colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58: 9-17Google Scholar
  7. Camazine S. 1991. Self-organizing pattern formation on the combs of honey bee colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 61-76Google Scholar
  8. Camazine S., Deneubourg J.L., Franks N.R., Sneyd J.,Theraulaz G. and Bonabeau E. 2001. Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornelius M.L. and Osbrink W.L.A. 2010. Effect of soil type and moisture availability on the foraging behavior of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 103: 799-807Google Scholar
  10. Crosland M., Ren S. and Traniello J. 1998. Division of labour among workers in the termite, Reticulitermes fukienensis (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Ethology 104: 57-67Google Scholar
  11. Crosland M.W.J. and Traniello J.F.A. 1997. Behavioral plasticity in division of labor in the lower termite Reticulitermes fukienensis. Naturwissenschaften 84: 208-211Google Scholar
  12. Deneubourg J.-L. 1977. Application de l'ordre par fluctuations a la description de certaines étapes de la construction du nid chez les termites. Insect. Soc. 24: 117–130Google Scholar
  13. Franks N., Wilby A., Silverman B.W. and Tofts C. 1992. Self-organizing nest construction in ants: sophisticated building by blind bulldozing. Anim. Behav. 44: 357-375Google Scholar
  14. Franks N.R. and Deneubourg J.L. 1997. Self-organizing nest construction in ants: individual worker behaviour and the nest’s dynamics. Anim. Behav. 54: 779-796Google Scholar
  15. Gordon D.M., Guetz A., Greene M.J. and Holmes S. 2011. Colony variation in the collective regulation of foraging by harvester ants. Behav. Ecol. 22: 429-435Google Scholar
  16. Gotelli N.J. and Ellison A.M. 2004. A Primer of Ecological Statistics. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Haifig I., Jost C., Janei V. and Costa-Leonardo A.M. 2011. The size of excavators within a polymorphic termite species governs tunnel topology. Anim. Behav. 82: 1409-1414Google Scholar
  18. Hansell M.H. 2005. Animal Architecture. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Ingram K.K., Oefner P. and Gordon D.M. 2005. Task-specific expression of the foraging gene in harvester ants. Mol. Ecol. 14: 813-818Google Scholar
  20. Kaiser H.F. 1974. Index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39: 31-36Google Scholar
  21. Karsai I. and Penzes Z. 1993. Comb building in social wasps - self-organization and stigmergic script. J. Theor. Biol. 161: 505-525Google Scholar
  22. Korb J. and Heinze J. 2004. Multilevel selection and social evolution of insect societies. Naturwissenschaften 91: 291-304Google Scholar
  23. Leadbeater E. and Chittka L. 2007. Social learning in insects- from miniature brains to consensus building. Curr. Biol. 17: 703-713Google Scholar
  24. Robinson G.E., Fahrbach S.E. and Winston M.L. 1997. Insect societies and the molecular biology of social behavior. Bioessays 19: 1099-1108Google Scholar
  25. Scharf I., Modlmeier A.P., Fries S., Tirard C. and Foitzik S. 2012. Characterizing the collective personality of ant societies: aggressive colonies do not abandon their home. PLoS One 7: e33314Google Scholar
  26. Shellman-Reeve J.S. 1997. The spectrum of eusociality in termites. In: The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids (Choe J. and Crespi B., Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52-93Google Scholar
  27. Theraulaz G. and Bonabeau E. 1995. Coordination in distributed building. Science 269: 686-686Google Scholar
  28. Theraulaz G., Bonabeau E. and Deneubourg J.L. 1998 The origin of nest complexity in social insects. Complexity 3: 15-25Google Scholar
  29. Theraulaz G., Bonabeau E., Nicolis S.C., Sole R.V., Fourcassié V., Blanco S., Fournier R., Joly J.L., Fernandez P., Grimal A., Dalle P. and Deneubourg J.L. 2002. Spatial patterns in ant colonies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99: 9645-9649Google Scholar
  30. Toffin E., Di Paolo D., Campo A., Detrain C. and Deneubourg J.L. 2009. Shape transition during nest digging in ants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 18616-18620Google Scholar
  31. Toffin E., Kindekens J. and Deneubourg J.L. 2010. Excavated substrate modulates growth instability during nest building in ants. Proc. R. Soc. B. 277: 2617-2625Google Scholar
  32. Tschinkel W.R. 2004. The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. J. Insect. Sci. 4: 21Google Scholar
  33. von Frisch K. 1975. Animal Architecture. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson E.O. 1971. The Insect Societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Wray M.K., Mattila H.R. and Seeley T.D. 2011. Collective personalities in honeybee colonies are linked to colony fitness. Anim. Behav. 81: 559-568Google Scholar
  36. Yang R.L., Su N.Y. and Bardunias P. 2009. Individual task load in tunnel excavation by the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 102: 906-910Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Insect Ecology, Graduate School of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations