Artificial Life and Robotics

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 469–473 | Cite as

Barricade construction by primitive termites: task allocation and evolutionary perspectives

  • Nobuaki MizumotoEmail author
Original Article


The collective activities of social insects often result in the formation of complex structures. Previous studies have revealed the building mechanisms of various species, where sophisticated colony-level structures emerge from the interactions among individuals. However, little is known about the building behaviors of primitive species, which would give us an insight into the evolutionary processes that gave rise to collective building of sophisticated structures. Therefore, in this study, I investigated the building behavior of the primitive termite Zootermopsis nevadensis, which constructs simple barricades to plug the openings to its nests. Observation of the time course of barricade construction showed that the building dynamics followed a logistic pattern, suggesting that their collective building involves an amplification phase, which plays an important role in self-organized building activities in social insects. Moreover, this species exhibited highly skewed task allocation during construction. Together, these results suggest that this primitive species possesses building mechanisms similar to species with more sophisticated collective behaviors.


Collective behavior Self-organization Social insects Stigmergy Task allocation 



I thank K. Matsuura, S. Dobata, H. Nishimori, R. Fujisawa, N. Nagaya, M. S. Abe, H. Shimoji and T. Nozaki for helpful discussion. I also thank J. Uto and T. Inagaki for help of collecting termites. Enago ( performed the English language review. I completed the manuscript, supported by JSPS Overseas Research Fellowships (supervision by S. C. Pratt). This study was supported by a Research Fellowship for Young Scientists from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) no. 15J02767.


  1. 1.
    Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR et al (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J-L et al (1998) A model for the emergence of pillars, walls and royal chambers in termite nests. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 353:1561–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Deneubourg J-L (1998) The origin of nest complexity in social insects. Complexity 3:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mizumoto N, Kobayashi K, Matsuura K (2015) Emergence of intercolonial variation in termite shelter tube patterns and prediction of its underlying mechanism. R Soc Open Sci 2:150360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khuong A, Gautrais J, Perna A et al (2016) Stigmergic construction and topochemical information shape ant nest architecture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:1303–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grassé P-P (1959) La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations interindividuelles chez Bellicositermes natalensis et Cubitermes sp. la théorie de la stigmergie: Essai d’interprétation du comportement des termites constructeurs. Insectes Soc 6:41–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emerson EA (1938) Termite nests: a study of the phylogeny of behavior. Ecol Monogr 8:247–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abe T (1987) Evolution of life types in termites. In: Kawano S, Connell J, Hidaka T (eds) Evolution and coadaptation in biotic communities. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp 125–148Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mizumoto N, Matsuura K (2013) Colony-specific architecture of shelter tubes by termites. Insect Soc 60:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yashiro T, Mitaka Y, Nozaki T, Matsuura K (2018) Chemical and molecular identification of the invasive termite Zootermopsis nevadensis (Isoptera: Archotermopsidae) in Japan. Appl Entomol Zool 53:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howse PE (1968) On the division of labour in the primitive termite Zootermopsis nevadensis (Hagen). Insectes Soc 15:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buhl J, Deneubourg J-L, Grimal A, Theraulaz G (2005) Self-organized digging activity in ant colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buhl J, Gautrais J, Deneubourg JL, Theraulaz G (2004) Nest excavation in ants: Group size effects on the size and structure of tunneling networks. Naturwissenschaften 91:602–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tenczar P, Lutz CC, Rao VD et al (2014) Automated monitoring reveals extreme interindividual variation and plasticity in honeybee foraging activity levels. Anim Behav 95:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morisita M (1962) Iδ-Index, a measure of dispersion of individuals. Res Popul Ecol 4:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang R-L, Su N-Y, Bardunias PM (2009) Individual task load in tunnel excavation by the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 102:906–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toffin E, Kindekens J, Deneubourg J-L (2010) Excavated substrate modulates growth instability during nest building in ants. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2617–2625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toffin E, Dl Paolo D, Campo A et al (2009) Shape transition during nest digging in ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18616–18620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bourguignon T, Chisholm RA, Evans TA (2016) The termite worker phenotype evolved as a dispersal strategy for fertile wingless individuals before eusociality. Am Nat 187:372–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bordereau C, Pasteels J (2011) Pheromones and chemical ecology of dispersal and foraging in termites. In: Bignell DE, Roisin Y, Lo N (eds) Biology of termites: a modern synthesis. Springer, Berlin, pp 279–320Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAROB 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Insect Ecology, Graduate School of AgricultureUniversity of KyotoKyotoJapan
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations