Additional material may be found in the online version of this
article.
Figure S1: PCA analysis based on microsatellite markers
confirming that the nests sampled belong to distinct colonies.
Figure S2: Survival Kaplan-Meier curves for each pairing during
the 14 first days of colony establishment (i.e., short-term
survival). Incipient colonies were monitored every two days. Hazard
ratio for cox-proportional hazard model is reported in front of each
pairing. At each census date, bar charts indicate colony of origin of
the dead alate(s) in failed incipient colonies. Color bars denote dead
alates originating from the studied colony, dark grey bars indicate the
death of both alates (i.e., studied colony and partner), and
light grey bars represent death of the partner.
Figure S3: Hazard ratio for each pairing in the first 14 days
after colony establishment. Additional matrices provide values of every
variable tested for each pair of colonies (maximum pathogen load,
cumulative pathogen load, relatedness, unweighted Unifrac bacterial
difference, weighted Unifrac bacterial difference, unweighted Unifrac
fungal difference and weighted Unifrac fungal difference. These values
are used to test for the correlations presented in Figure 3).
Figure S4 : (a) Principal Coordinate Analyses (PCoA) of
individuals based on their bacterial or fungal difference (weighted and
unweighted Unifrac values). Each individual is colored according to its
colony of origin, alates are indicated with circles and workers with
squares. (b) Pairwise distance matrices between each pair of alates from
the same or different colonies. Each pair is colored according to its
microbial similarity (i.e., bacterial and fungal similarity from
weighted and unweighted Unifrac) obtained from Euclidean distances
between the two individuals on the two first PCs of the PCoA. Darker
values indicate low microbial differentiation between a pair of
individuals (i.e., close on the PCoA analysis). (c) Violin plots
of bacterial and fungal differentiation (weighted and unweighted
Unifrac) among individuals within and between colonies. Box plots
represent median and 1st and 3rd quartile; whiskers include 95% of all
observations; dots indicate individual values.
Figure S5: Survival Kaplan-Meier curves for each pairing during
the overall length of the long-term survival experiment (450 days).
Incipient colonies were monitored every two days. Hazard ratio for
cox-proportional hazard model is reported in front of each pairing.
Figure S6: Correlation between hazard ratios of each pairing
during the short-term experiment (14 days) and those of the long-term
experiment (450 days). Hazard ratios of inbred pairings are highlighted
in color.
Figure S7: Number of eggs, workers and soldiers present within
inbred and outbred incipient colonies each month for 450 days (15
months) after pairing.
Figure S8: Microbial load (mean number of colony forming units,
CFUs) for each pairing investigated.
Table S1: Linear and logarithmic correlations between the
susceptibility of a pairing (i.e., hazard ratio) and (i )
the cumulative microbial load and (ii ) the maximum microbial load
of the constituent colonies. AIC model selection was used to assess
whether linear or logarithmic regression better explains the data in
both analyses.
Supporting Information S1: DNA extraction and PCR protocols for
termite DNA, as well as bacterial and fungal DNA.
Supporting Information S2: Potential presence of internal
parasites, not counted in the microbial load.
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1 : Kaplan-Meier survival distributions of inbred and
outbred incipient colonies during the first 14 days after pairing (a)
and along the overall length of the experiment (450 days; b).
Figure 2 : (a) Colony of origin of the 202 surviving alates 14
days after colony establishment (inner circle). For each colony of
origin, pie charts represent the distribution of surviving inbred and
outbred pairings; outbred pairings are divided and light-colored
according to the colony of origin of the partner, inbred pairings are
represented by bright colors. (b) Radar plot represents the hazard ratio
of each inbred and outbred pairings in the first 14 days after colony
establishment. Outbred pairings are marked with a circle, while outbred
pairings are represented with a square
Figure 3 : Correlation between hazard ratio of a pairing and the
maximum pathogen load (a), cumulative pathogen load (b), relatedness
(c), unweighted Unifrac bacterial difference (d), weighted Unifrac
bacterial difference (e), unweighted Unifrac fungal difference (f) and
weighted Unifrac fungal difference (g). Trendlines represent logarithmic
correlations for plots a and b, and denote linear correlations for all
the other plots. In each plot, inbred pairings are colored according to
their colony of origin.
Figure 4 : (a) Principal Coordinate Analyses (PCoA) of
individuals based on their unweighted Unifrac values for bacterial
similarity and weighted Unifrac values for fungal similarity. Each
individual is colored according to its colony of origin, alates are
indicated with circles and workers with squares. (b) Violin plots of
bacterial (unweighted Unifrac) and fungal differentiation (weighted
Unifrac) among individuals within and between colonies. Box plots
represent median and 1st and 3rd quartile; whiskers include 95% of all
observations; dots indicate individual values. Results for weighted
Unifrac bacterial similarity and unweighted Unifrac fungal similarity
are provided in Supplementary Figure S4.
Figure 5 : (a) Graphical representation of the productivity of
incipient colonies over the overall duration of the experiment (450
days, 15 months). Productivity is measured as the number of workers
(outer circle), soldiers (middle circle) and eggs (inner circle) for
each pairing. Productivity of inbred pairings is reported on the upper
half-circle, while the productivity of outbred pairings is reported on
the bottom half-circle. Box plots represent median and 1st and 3rd
quartile; whiskers include 95% of all observations; individual dots
indicate outlier values. P values indicate significant effect of the
type of pairing on the number of workers and soldiers in a colony over
time, with an increased production in inbred colonies (see also
Supplementary Figure S6). (b) Kaplan-Meier survival distributions of
offspring from inbred and outbred colonies when challenged toward
entomopathogens. (c) Violin plot of microbial loads (mean number of CFU)
of offspring from inbred and outbred colonies. Box plots represent
median and 1st and 3rd quartile; whiskers include 95% of all
observations; dots indicate individual values.
Figure 6 : Schematic illustration of the inbreeding depression
termite colonies face over the different stages of their lifespan. The
black line represents the level of inbreeding depression. Inbreeding
depression is low during colony foundation and offspring production, but
is higher during colony development, when small colonies face pathogen
pressure (this study; DeHeer & Vargo, 2006). The dotted lines represent
colony size (i.e., number of workers per colony). The red curve
represents the efficiency of social immunity, which increases with
colony size until it is expected to slightly decrease due to inbreeding
from neotenic reproduction. The high efficiency of social immunity in
large mature colonies releases inbreeding depression, allowing the
development of inbred neotenic reproductives without suffering costs
associated with pathogen pressure (Aguero et al. 2021).
REFERENCES
Abbott D. (1993). Social conflict and
reproductive suppression in marmoset and tamarin monkeys. In:Primate Social Conflict (eds. Mason WA & Mendoza SP). State
University of New York Press New York, pp. 331-372.
Aguero C., Eyer P.A. & Vargo E.L.
(2020). Increased genetic diversity from colony merging in termites does
not improve survival against a fungal pathogen. Sci. Rep. 10,
4212.
Aguero C.M., Eyer P.-A., Crippen T.L.
& Vargo E.L. (2021a). Reduced environmental microbial diversity on the
cuticle and in the galleries of a subterranean termite compared to
surrounding soil. Microb. Ecol. 81, 1054-1063.
Aguero C.M., Eyer P.-A., Martin J.S.,
Bulmer M.S. & Vargo E.L. (2021b). Natural variation in colony
inbreeding does not influence susceptibility to a fungal pathogen in a
termite. Ecol. Evol. 11, 3072-3083.
Aguilera-Olivares D., Flores-Prado L.,
Véliz D. & Niemeyer H. (2015). Mechanisms of inbreeding avoidance in
the one-piece drywood termite Neotermes chilensis. Insect.
Soc. 62, 237-245.
Amos B., Schlotterer C. & Tautz D.
(1993). Social structure of pilot whales revealed by analytical DNA
proftling. Science , 260, 670-672.
Barribeau S.M., Sadd B.M., du Plessis
L., Brown M.J.F., Buechel S.D., Cappelle K., et al. (2015). A
depauperate immune repertoire precedes evolution of sociality in bees.Gen. Biol. 16, 83.
Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B. &
Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.J Stat. Soft. 67, 1-48.
Beani L., Bagnères A.G., Elia M.,
Petrocelli I., Cappa F. & Lorenzi M.C. (2019). Cuticular hydrocarbons
as cues of sex and health condition in Polistes dominula wasps.Insect. Soc. 66, 543-553.
Bengtsson B.O. (1978). Avoiding
inbreeding: at what cost? J Theor. Biol. 73, 439-444.
Blouin S.F. & Blouin M. (1988).
Inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3, 230-233.
Bolyen E., Rideout J.R., Dillon M.R.,
Bokulich N.A., Abnet C.C., Al-Ghalith G.A., et al. (2019).
Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data
science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotech. 37, 852-857.
Boomsma J.J. (2013). Beyond
promiscuity: mate-choice commitments in social breeding. Philos.
Trans. Roy. Soc. B. 368.
Brooked M.G., Rowley I., Adams M. &
Baverstock P.R. (1990). Promiscuity: an inbreeding avoidance mechanism
in a socially monogamous species? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26,
191-199.
Callahan B.J., McMurdie P.J., Rosen
M.J., Han A.W., Johnson A.J.A. & Holmes S.P. (2016). DADA2:
High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat.
Meth. 13, 581-583.
Calleri D., II, Rosengaus R. &
Traniello J.A. (2005). Disease and colony foundation in the dampwood
termite Zootermopsis angusticollis: The survival advantage of nestmate
pairs. Naturwissenschaften , 92, 300-304.
Calleri D.V., McGrail Reid E.,
Rosengaus R.B., Vargo E.L. & Traniello J.F.A. (2006). Inbreeding and
disease resistance in a social insect: effects of heterozygosity on
immunocompetence in the termite Zootermopsis angusticollis .Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 273, 2633-2640.
Cassidy S.T., Chapa J., Tran T.-A.,
Dolezal N., Gerena C., Johnson G., et al. (2021). Disease
defences across levels of biological organization: individual and social
immunity in acorn ants. Anim. Behav. 179, 73-81.
Chouvenc T. (2019). The relative
importance of queen and king initial weights in termite colony
foundation success. Insect. Soc. 66, 177-184.
Chouvenc T. & Su N.Y. (2012). When
subterranean termites challenge the rules of fungal epizootics.Plos One , 7, e34484.
Clutton-Brock T.H. (1989). Female
transfer and inbreeding avoidance in social mammals. Nature , 337,
70-72.
Cole E.L., Bayne H. & Rosengaus R.B.
(2020). Young but not defenceless: antifungal activity during embryonic
development of a social insect. Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 7,
191418-191418.
Cole E.L., Ilieş I. & Rosengaus R.B.
(2018). Competing physiological demands during incipient colony
foundation in a social insect: consequences of pathogenic stress.Front. Ecol. Evol. 6.
Cole E.L. & Rosengaus R.B. (2019).
Pathogenic dynamics during colony ontogeny reinforce potential drivers
of termite eusociality: mate assistance and biparental care.Front. Ecol. Evol. 7.
Cotter S.C. & Kilner R.M. (2010).
Personal immunity versus social immunity. Behav. Ecol. 21,
663-668.
Cremer S., Armitage S.A.O. &
Schmid-Hempel P. (2007). Social immunity. Curr. Biol. 17,
R693-R702.
Cremer S., Pull C.D. & Fürst M.A.
(2018). Social immunity: Emergence and evolution of colony-level disease
protection. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 63, 105-123.
Davis H.E., Meconcelli S., Radek R.
& McMahon D.P. (2018). Termites shape their collective behavioural
response based on stage of infection. Sci. Rep. 8, 14433-14433.
de Boer R.A., Vega-Trejo R.,
Kotrschal A. & Fitzpatrick J.L. (2021). Meta-analytic evidence that
animals rarely avoid inbreeding. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 949-964.
DeHeer C.J. & Vargo E.L. (2006). An
indirect test of inbreeding depression in the termites Reticulitermes
flavipes and Reticulitermes virginicus. Behav. Ecol.
Sociobiol. 59, 753-761.
Eyer P.-A., Blumenfeld A.J., Johnson
L.N.L., Perdereau E., Shults P., Wang S., et al. (2021a).
Extensive human-mediated jump dispersal within and across the native and
introduced ranges of the invasive termite Reticulitermes
flavipes . Mol. Ecol. 30, 3948-3964.
Eyer P.-A., Salin J., Helms A.M. &
Vargo E.L. (2021b). Distinct chemical blends produced by different
reproductive castes in the subterranean termite Reticulitermes
flavipes . Sci. Rep. 11, 4471.
Fei H.X. & Henderson G. (2003).
Comparative study of incipient colony development in the Formosan
subterranean termite, Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki
(Isoptera,Rhinotermitidae). Insect. Soc. 50, 226-233.
Fougeyrollas R., Dolejšová K.,
Křivánek J., Sillam-Dussès D., Roisin Y., Hanus R. et al. (2018).
Dispersal and mating strategies in two neotropical soil-feeding
termites, Embiratermes neotenicus and Silvestritermes
minutus (Termitidae, Syntermitinae). Insect . Soc. 65,
251-262.
Fox C.W. & Reed D.H. (2011).
Inbreeding depression increases with environmental stress: An
experimental study and meta-analysis. Evolution , 65, 246-258.
Gerlach G. & Lysiak N. (2006). Kin
recognition and inbreeding avoidance in zebrafish, Danio rerio ,
is based on phenotype matching. Anim. Behav. 71, 1371-1377.
Hamady M., Lozupone C. & Knight R.
(2010). Fast UniFrac: facilitating high-throughput phylogenetic analyses
of microbial communities including analysis of pyrosequencing and
PhyloChip data. ISME J. 4, 17-27.
Hanby J.P. & Bygott J.D. (1987).
Emigration of subadult lions. Anim. Behav. 35, 161-169.
He S., Sieksmeyer T., Che Y., Mora
M.A.E., Stiblik P., Banasiak R., et al . (2021). Evidence for
reduced immune gene diversity and activity during the evolution of
termites. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 288, 20203168.
Hurst J.L., Payne C.E., Nevison C.M.,
Marie A.D., Humphries R.E., Robertson D.H.L., et al. (2001).
Individual recognition in mice mediated by major urinary proteins.Nature , 414, 631-634.
Hussain A., Tian M.-Y., He Y.-R.,
Bland J.M. & Gu W.-X. (2010). Behavioral and electrophysiological
responses of Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki towards
entomopathogenic fungal volatiles. Biol. Cont. 55, 166-173.
Husseneder C., Simms D.M. & Ring
D.R. (2006). Genetic diversity and genotypic differentiation between the
sexes in swarm aggregations decrease inbreeding in the Formosan
subterranean termite. Insect. Soc. 53, 212-219.
Jombart T. (2008). adegenet: a R
package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers.Bioinformatics , 24, 1403-1405.
Kearse M., Moir R., Wilson A.,
Stones-Havas S., Cheung M., Sturrock S., et al . (2012). Geneious
Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the
organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics , 28,
1647-1649.
Koenig WD, Haydock J & MT. S.
(1998). Reproductive roles in the cooperatively breeding acorn
woodpecker: incest avoidance versus reproductive competition. Am.
Nat. 151, 243-255.
Kokko H., Ots I. & Tregenza T.
(2006). When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution , 60, 467-475.
Kozich J.J., Westcott S.L., Baxter
N.T., Highlander S.K. & Schloss P.D. (2013). Development of a
dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing
amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform.Applied Environ. Microbiol. 79, 5112-5120.
Lehmann L. & Perrin N. (2003).
Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: Choosy females boost male
dispersal. Am. Nat. 162, 638-652.
Li G., Gao Y., Sun P., Lei C. &
Huang Q. (2013). Factors affecting mate choice in the subterranean
termite Reticulitermes chinensis (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae).J. Ethol. 31, 159-164.
Liu L., Zhao X.-Y., Tang Q.-B., Lei
C.-L. & Huang Q.-Y. (2019). The mechanisms of social immunity against
fungal infections in eusocial insects. Toxins , 11, 244.
López-Uribe M.M., Sconiers W.B.,
Frank S.D., Dunn R.R. & Tarpy D.R. (2016). Reduced cellular immune
response in social insect lineages. Biol. Lett. 12, 20150984.
Matsuura K. & Kobayashi N. (2010).
Termite queens adjust egg size according to colony development.Behav. Ecol. 21, 1018-1023.
Meusemann K., Korb J., Schughart M.
& Staubach F. (2020). No evidence for single-copy immune-gene specific
signals of selection in termites. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8.
Miyaguni Y., Agarie A., Sugio K.,
Tsuji K. & Kobayashi K. (2021). Caste development and sex ratio of the
Ryukyu drywood termite Neotermes sugioi and its potential mechanisms.Sci. Rep. 11, 15037.
Mullins A.J., Messenger M.T.,
Hochmair H.H., Tonini F., Su N.-Y. & Riegel C. (2015). Dispersal
flights of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera:
Rhinotermitidae). J Econ. Entomol. 108, 707-719.
Nichols H.J. (2017). The causes and
consequences of inbreeding avoidance and tolerance in cooperatively
breeding vertebrates. J. Zool. 303, 1-14.
Otani S., Bos N. & Yek S.H. (2016).
Transitional complexity of social insect immunity. Front. Ecol.
Evol. 4.
Perdereau E., Bagnères A.G.,
Bankhead-Dronnet S., Dupont S., Zimmermann M., Vargo E.L. et al.(2013). Global genetic analysis reveals the putative native source of
the invasive termite, Reticulitermes flavipes , in France.Mol. Ecol. 22, 1105-1119.
Pusey A. & Wolf M. (1996).
Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 201-206.
Queller D.C. & Goodnight K.F.
(1989). Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution ,
43, 258-275.
R Development Core Team (2016).
Language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. In: Vienna.
Rosengaus R.B., Cornelisse T.,
Guschanski K. & Traniello J.F.A. (2007). Inducible immune proteins in
the dampwood termite Zootermopsis angusticollis .Naturwissenschaften , 94, 25-33.
Rosengaus R.B., James L.-T., Hartke
T.R. & Brent C.S. (2011a). Mate preference and disease risk inZootermopsis angusticollis (Isoptera: Termopsidae).Environ. Entomol. 40, 1554-1565.
Rosengaus R.B., Moustakas J.E.,
Calleri D.V. & Traniello J.F.A. (2003). Nesting ecology and cuticular
microbial loads in dampwood (Zootermopsis angusticollis ) and
drywood termites (Incisitermes minor, I. schwarzi, Cryptotermes
cavifrons ). J. Insect. Sci. 3.
Rosengaus R.B. & Traniello J.F.
(1993). Disease risk as a cost of outbreeding in the termite
Zootermopsis angusticollis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 90, 6641-6645.
Rosengaus R.B. & Traniello J.F.
(2001). Disease susceptibility and the adaptive nature of colony
demography in the dampwood termite Zootermopsis angusticollis .Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50, 546-556.
Rosengaus R.B., Traniello J.F.A. &
Bulmer M. (2011b). Ecology, behavior and evolution of disease resistance
in termites. In: biology of termites: a modern synthesis (eds.
Bignell D, Roisin Y & Lo N). Springer Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp.
165-191.
Rosengaus R.B., Traniello J.F.A.,
Chen T., Brown J.J. & Karp R.D. (1999). Immunity in a social insect.Naturwissenschaften , 86, 588-591.
Ross K.G. & Fletcher D.J.C. (1986).
Diploid male production — a significant colony mortality factor in the
fire ant Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19, 283-291.
Schwenke R.A., Lazzaro B.P. &
Wolfner M.F. (2016). Reproduction–Immunity trade-offs in insects.Ann. Rev. Entomol. 61, 239-256.
Shellman-Reeve J.S. (1990). Dynamics
of biparental care in the dampwood termite, Zootermopsis nevadensis
(Hagen): response to nitrogen availability. Behav. Ecol.
Sociobiol. 26, 389-397.
Shellman-Reeve J.S. (1999). Courting
strategies and conflicts in a monogamous, biparental termite.Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 266, 137-144.
Shellman-Reeve J.S. (2001). Genetic
relatedness and partner preference in a monogamous, wood-dwelling
termite. Anim. Behav. 61, 869-876.
Sillero-Zubiri C., Gottelli D. &
Macdonald D.W. (1996). Male philopatry, extra-pack copulations and
inbreeding avoidance in Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis ).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38, 331-340.
Sinotte V.M., Conlon B.H., Seibel E.,
Schwitalla J.W., de Beer Z.W., Poulsen M. et al . (2021).
Female-biased sex allocation and lack of inbreeding avoidance inCubitermes termites . Ecol. Evol. 11, 5598-5605.
Szulkin M., Stopher K.V., Pemberton
J.M. & Reid J.M. (2013). Inbreeding avoidance, tolerance, or preference
in animals? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 205-211.
Therneau T. & Grambsch P. (2000).Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model . Springer, New
York.
Thompson G.J., Lenz M., Crozier R.H.
& Crespi B.J. (2007). Molecular-genetic analyses of dispersal and
breeding behaviour in the Australian termite Coptotermes lacteus :
evidence for non-random mating in a swarm-dispersal mating system.Austr. J. Zool. 55, 219-227.
Traniello J.F.A., Rosengaus R.B. &
Savoie K. (2002). The development of immunity in a social insect:
Evidence for the group facilitation of disease resistance. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 99, 6838-6842.
Tranter C., LeFevre L., Evison S.E.F.
& Hughes W.O.H. (2014). Threat detection: contextual recognition and
response to parasites by ants. Behav. Ecol. 26, 396-405.
Van Meyel S., Körner M. & Meunier J.
(2018). Social immunity: why we should study its nature, evolution and
functions across all social systems. Curr. Opin. Insect. Sci. 28,
1-7.
Vargo E.L. (2019). Diversity of
termite breeding systems. Insects . 10, 52.
Vargo E.L. & Husseneder C. (2011).
Genetic structure of termite colonies and populations. In: Biology
of termites: A modern synthesis (eds. Bignell D, Roisin Y & Lo N).
Springer Dordrecht, pp. 133-164.
Viljakainen L., Evans J.D.,
Hasselmann M., Rueppell O., Tingek S. & Pamilo P. (2009). Rapid
evolution of immune proteins in social insects. Mol. Biol. Evol.26, 1791-1801.
Wang J. (2011). Coancestry: a program
for simulating, estimating and analysing relatedness and inbreeding
coefficients. Mol. Ecol. Res. 11, 141-145.
Waser P.M., Austad S.N. & Keane B.
(1986). When should animals tolerate inbreeding? Am. Nat. 128,
529-537.
White T.J., Burns T., Lee S. &
Taylor J. (1990). Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal
ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: PCR Protocols: A Guide
to Methods and Applications (eds. Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Snisky JJ &
White TJ). Academic Press San Diego, pp. 315-322.
Wolff J.O. (1992). Parents suppress
reproduction and stimulate dispersal in opposite-sex juvenile
white-footed mice. Nature , 359, 409-410.
Yanagawa A., Imai T., Akino T., Toh
Y. & Yoshimura T. (2015). Olfactory cues from pathogenic fungus affect
the direction of motion of termites, Coptotermes formosanus .J. Chem. Ecol . 41, 1118-1126.
Zayed A. & Packer L. (2005).
Complementary sex determination substantially increases extinction
proneness of haplodiploid populations. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 102,
10742-10746.
Zhang Z.-Y., Ren J., Chu F., Guan
J.-X., Yang G.-Y., Liu Y.-T., et al. (2021). Biochemical,
molecular, and morphological variations of flight muscles before and
after dispersal flight in a eusocial termite, Reticulitermes
chinensis . Insect. Sci. 28, 77-92.