Termite cohabitation: the relative effect of biotic and abiotic factors on mound biodiversity

Abstract

1. Termites are important ecosystem engineers that improve primary productivity in trees and animal diversity outside their mounds. However, their ecological relationship with the species nesting inside their mounds is poorly understood.2. The presence of termite cohabitant colonies inside 145 Cornitermes cumulans mounds of known size and location was recorded. Using network-theoretical methods in conjunction with a suite of statistical analyses, the relative influence of biotic and abiotic drivers of termite within-mound diversity on the composition and species richness of the termite community was investigated, specifically builder presence and physical aspects of the mound.3. We found that richness inside the mound increases with mound size, and the species similarity between mounds decreases with distance. The physical attributes (abiotic drivers) of termite mounds (size and relative distance to other mounds) are the strongest predictors of termite species richness and composition. The biotic driver (presence of a builder colony) has an important, though smaller, negative effect on within-mound termite species richness.4. The findings suggest that the termites' physical manipulation of their environment is an important driver of within-mound community diversity. More generally, the approach taken here, using a combination of statistical and network-theoretical methods, can be used to determine the relative importance of abiotic and biotic drivers of diversity in a wide range of communities of interacting species.

Top‐down network analysis characterizes hidden termite–termite interactions

“…This is supported by the observation that termite inquilines are more affected by the attributes of termite mounds than by the host presence in the mounds (Marins et al. ). These properties may be related to the stability of these systems, as has been observed in other contexts (De Angelis ; Rozdilsky and Stone ; Dunne et al.…”

Disturbance‐modulated symbioses in termitophily

“…The respectable amount of knowledge thereby produced allowed, as a natural step forward, that the determinants of intruders’ success at the scale of the nest entered termitophily's research agenda (Cristaldo, Rosa, Florencio, Marins, & DeSouza, ; Leponce, Roisin, & Pasteels, ). We are now starting to perceive that intruders’ success in termitaria depends not only on interindividual interactions but also on factors operating at broader levels, viz., the nest or a set of nests (DeSouza et al., ; Marins et al., ). Adding this new focus to studies on termitophily is highly desirable, given the meaning of spatial scale on the colonization dynamics of patchy/insular environments, among which termitaria seem to fit quite well.…”

“…Arriving at a termite nest by no means guarantees establishment, as immigrants have to face local restrictions in the form of antagonistic interactions with the resident species, including termites (Marins et al., ) and other termitophiles such as ants (Higashi & Ito, ). Whereas mutual nest defense is not a rule among cohabiting termite species (Cristaldo, Rodrigues, Elliot, Araújo, & DeSouza, ), it has been reported quite convincingly for termitaria‐inhabiting ants (Higashi & Ito, ).…”

Termitariophily: expanding the concept of termitophily in a physogastric rove beetle (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae)

“…It seems unwarranted, however, to consider tactile mimicry as the sole driver of this termitophily, as the physical structure of the termitarium has also been shown to affect termitophile communities Marins et al, 2016;Monteiro et al, 2017). Indeed, C. melantho individuals are reported to engage in frequent allogrooming and trophallactic interactions with their blind worker termite hosts.…”