Colony-founding success of pleometrosis in a fungus-growing termite Odontotermes formosanus

  • Chun-I Chiu
  • Kok-Boon Neoh
  • Hou-Feng Li
Original Article


Cooperative colony foundation (pleometrosis) has evolved in independent groups of social insects and enhances the growth rate and survival of a colony, but it is associated with a cost because intracolonial aggression may be higher in pleometrotic than in haplometrotic colonies. We studied 647 colony-founding groups consisting of one to four pairs of reproductives of Odontotermes formosanus (Shiraki) in our laboratory to examine the benefits and costs of pleometrosis by analyzing its effects on nest excavation, degree of aggression, mortality, and colony growth. The results indicate that pleometrosis significantly reduced the time required for searching for a nesting site and increased the tunnel depth. Furthermore, the nest-excavation success rate was increased 35–50% in pleometrotic colonies. Pleometrosis also increased the fecundity and colony-survival rates. However, it increased individual mortality, probably because the reduction in the available space per individual intensified intracolonial aggression, particularly when more than three pairs of reproductives founded the colonies. Overall, the laboratory bioassays revealed that although pleometrosis benefited the colony-founding success of small groups (two pairs), it was costly for large groups (three pairs). The results are consistent with those of a field survey of O. formosanus, which showed that small pleometrotic groups (three or four reproductives) exhibit longevity, whereas large groups (more than four reproductives) are rare in the colony-founding stage. Hence, we conclude that the colony-founding success of pleometrosis depends on group size: pleometrosis benefits a small group but is costly for a large group.

Significance statement

The evolution of cooperative colony foundation (pleometrosis) in social insects is believed to have been favored because of its beneficial effects on the survival and growth of colonies. In this study, we demonstrated the costs and benefits of pleometrosis in colonies of O. formosanus, a fungus-growing termite. Pleometrosis benefits survival in the following three ways: improving performance in nest excavation, preventing colony collapse following the death of a single reproductive, and increasing the growth rate. However, colony-founding success depends on group size. Pleometrosis benefits small groups (two reproductive pairs) more than it does large groups (three reproductive pairs). We hypothesize that pleometrosis in termites evolved after eusociality was achieved because it represents a trait that is common in fungus-growing termites.


Pleometrosis Group selection Nest excavation Monogamy Polygamy 



We thank all the collectors of termite alates from the 13 localities in Taiwan (ESM 1, Appendix S1), and Chi-Yung Lai (National Changhua University of Education) for suggestions regarding rearing methods and container design.

Funding information

This study was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 104-2311-B-005-002; MOST 105-2628-B-005-003-MY3).

Supplementary material

265_2017_2429_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1543 kb)
265_2017_2429_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (95 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 94 kb)


  1. Abramoff MD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophoton Int 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Adams ES, Atkinson L, Bulmer MS (2007) Relatedness, recognition errors, and colony fusion in the termite Nasutitermes corniger. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61(8):1195–1201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5(1):325–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartz SH, Hölldobler B (1982) Colony founding in Myrmecocystus mimicus Wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the evolution of foundress associations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10(2):137–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernasconi G, Strassmann JE (1999) Cooperation among unrelated individuals: the ant foundress case. Trends Ecol Evol 14:477–482.
  7. Bono JM, Crespi BJ (2006) Costs and benefits of joint colony founding in Australian Acacia thrips. Insect Soc 53(4):489–495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boomsma JJ (2007) Kin selection versus sexual selection: why the ends do not meet. Curr Biol 17(16):R673–R683.
  9. Boomsma JJ (2009) Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Phil Trans R Soc B 364(1533):3191–3207. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandl R, Hacker M, Bagine RKN, Kaib M (2001) Geographic variation of polygyny in the termite Macrotermes michaelseni (Sjöstedt). Ins Soc 48(2):134–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cahan S, Julian GE (1999) Fitness consequences of cooperative colony founding in the desert leaf-cutter ant Acromyrmex versicolor. Behav Ecol 10(5):585–591.
  12. Chiu C-I, Li HF, Yang MM (2010) The geographical distribution and the dispersal flight season of Odontotermes formosanus (Isoptera: Termitidae) in Taiwan. Formosan Entomol 30:193–202. 10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins MS (1969) Water relations in termites. In: Krishna K, Weesner FM (eds) Biology of termites. Academic Press, New York, pp 433–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darlington JPEC (1985) Multiple primary reproductives in the termite Macrotermes michaelseni (Sjöstedt). In: JAL W, Okot-Kotber BM, Noirot C (eds) Caste differentiation in social insects. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darlington JPEC (1988) Multiple reproductives in nests of Macrotermes herus (Isoptera: Termitidae). Sociobiology 14:347–351Google Scholar
  16. Ge Y-H, Ding B-R, Chen B, Yan J-C, Chen B-Y (2008) Nest distribution patterns of Odontotermes fontanellus Kemner in the dam of Maguantang reservoir. J Anhui Agric Univ 35:297–300Google Scholar
  17. Giraudoux P (2017) Pgirmess: data analysis in ecology. R package version 1.6.7.
  18. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hacker M, Kaib M, Bagine RKN, Epplen JT, Brandl R (2005) Unrelated queens coexist in colonies of the termite Macrotermes michaelseni. Mol Ecol 14(5):1527–1532. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartke TR (2010) Breeding strategies and the reproductive ecology of Nasutitermes corniger. Dissertation, Northeastern UniversityGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartke TR, Baer B (2011) The mating biology of termites: a comparative review. Anim Behav 82(5):927–936. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartke TR, Rosengaus RB (2013) Costs of pleometrosis in a polygamous termite. Proc R Soc B 280(1756):20122563. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes WOH, Oldroyd BP, Beekman M, Ratnieks FLW (2008) Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to evolution of eusociality. Science 320(5880):1213–1216. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inkscape Community Teams (2016) Inkscape 0.91. Inkscape Community Teams, Boston, USA.
  25. Inward DJG, Vogler AP, Eggleton P (2007) A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of termites (Isoptera) illuminates key aspects of their evolutionary biology. Mol Phylogenet Evol 44(3):953–967. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krishna K, Grimaldi DA, Krishna V, Engel MS (2013) Treatise on the Isoptera of the world. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 377(7):1–2704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69(1):1–33.  10.18637/jss.v069.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li H-F, Su N-Y (2008) Sand displacement during tunnel excavation by the Formosan subterranean termite. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101(2):456–462.[456:SDDTEB]2.0.CO;2
  29. Li H-F, Su N-Y (2009) Buccal manipulation of sand particles during tunnel excavation of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 102(2):333–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Majolo B, de Vizioli A, Schino G (2008) Costs and benefits of group-living in primates: group size effects on behaviour and demography. Anim Behav 76(4):1235–1247.
  31. Miyaguni Y, Sugio K, Tsuji K (2013) Antennal cropping in the Asian dry-wood termite, Neotermes koshunensis. Insect Soc 60(2):223–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Molvar EM, Bowyer RT (1994) Costs and benefits of group living in a recently social ungulate: the Alaskan moose. J Mammal 75(3):621–630.
  33. Nalepa CA, Evans TA, Lenz M (2011) Antennal cropping during colony foundation in termites. ZooKeys 148(148):185–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nowak MA, Tarnita CE, Wilson EO (2010) The evolution of eusociality. Nature 466doi:, 466, 7310, 1057, 1062
  35. Nutting WL (1969) Flight and colony foundation. In: Krishna K, Weesner FM (eds) Biology of termites. Academic Press, New York, pp 233–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Overson R, Gadau J, Clark RM, Pratt SC, Fewell JH (2014) Behavioral transitions with the evolution of cooperative nest founding by harvester ant queens. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68(1):21–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  38. Reeve HK, Nonacs P (1992) Social contracts in wasp societies. Nature 359(6398):823–825. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1987) Queen aggression, pleometrotic advantage and brood raiding in the ant Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Anim Behav 35(4):975–981.
  40. Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1991) An experimental analysis of pleometrotic advantage in the desert seed-harvester ant Messor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ins Soc 38(2):205–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosengaus RB, Traniello JFA, Bulmer MS (2010) Ecology, behavior and evolution of disease resistance of termites. In: Bignell DE, Roisin Y, Lo N (eds) Biology of termites: a modern synthesis. Springer, NY, pp 165–191.
  42. Sommer K, Holldobler B (1995) Colony founding by queen association and determinants of reduction in queen number in the ant Lasius niger. Anim Behav 50(2):287–294.
  43. Tarpy DR, Gilley DC, Seeley TD (2004) Levels of selection in a social insect: a review of conflict and cooperation during honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen replacement. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55(6):513–523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Therneau TM (2015) Coxme: mixed effects Cox models. R package version 2.2–5,
  45. Thorne BL (1984) Polygyny in the Neotropical termite Nasutitermes corniger: life history consequences of queen mutualism. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14(2):117–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thorne BL (1985) Termite polygyny: the ecological dynamics of queen mutualism. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds) Experimental behavioral ecology and sociobiology. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, pp 325–341Google Scholar
  47. Tromp-van Heerveld HJ, McDonnell JJ (2005) On the interrelations between topography, soil depth, soil moisture, transpiration rates and species distribution at the hillslope scale. Adv Water Resour 29:293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsai P-H, Chen N-S, Chen A-K, Chen C-H (1965) Architecture and development of the termitarium of Odontotermes (O.) formosanus Shiraki. Acta Entomol Sin 14:53–70Google Scholar
  49. Tschinkel WR, Howard DF (1983) Colony founding by pleometrosis in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12(2):103–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson EO (2005) Kin selection as the key to altruism: its rise and fall. Soc Res 72:159–166Google Scholar
  51. Wilson EO, Hölldobler B (2005) Eusociality: origin and consequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(38):16119–16120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyNational Chung Hsing UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations