© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/the-worlds-tiniest-gold-prospectors-architects-and-cows/
Humans (myself included) like to think of ourselves as the most important species on our planet, but we are sorely wrong. If we all ceased to be, the world and nearly all of its species would survive—and probably thrive. But the so-called eusocial insects, bees, ants, and termites, fill such important ecological niches that were they to disappear, so too would most of the life on the Earth. Bees are the most prolific pollinators in most of the world’s biomes, while ants and termites both play vital roles in maintaining soil health and decomposing dead plant matter.
The termites are the most ancient social insects and first evolved around 145 million years ago. The first termites were really ancient cockroaches that hosted cellulose-digesting bacteria in their guts. Since then, thousands of new species developed; there are over 2,600 today. Termites flourished almost immediately because they were capable of digesting wood fibers, or cellulose, as few other land animals could. This symbiosis proved particularly successful, and once termites had evolved that capability, they never looked back. In today’s tropical rain forests, as they have for over 100 million years, they are the primary decomposers, consuming almost all of the dead wood and plant material.
Their success can be measured in the millions of tons; termites comprise as much as 10% of the total biomass of all the world’s land animals. The only insects more massive and numerous than the termites are the ants, their mortal enemy. To protect their colonies, the termites evolved a caste of soldiers with highly specialized weapons. Some termite soldiers can spray toxins from their foreheads, others use enormous jaws to destroy invaders, while other have heads so large that they block tunnels and prevent ant invasions.
Soldier termites, like most of the millions in a large colony, are completely sterile. They exist only to protect the colony and are fed by the much more numerous workers. Both of these termite castes work their entire lives to ensure the reproductive success of their queen (or queens), around which the entire colony is built. Termite queens live for as long as 50 years, and become more fertile each year. A mature termite queen’s body is mostly reproductive organs, allowing her to lay one egg every ten to fifteen seconds. In addition to turning out new workers and soldiers, she produces winged immature queens (called alates) that fly from the colony in tremendous numbers. The alates have a survival strategy based on predator satiation; in other words, so many of them are produced that predators can not possibly eat them all. Those few that survive may then form new colonies of their own, producing millions of offspring throughout their long lives.
The impact of the tremendous numbers of termites is not local, or even regional, but global. Termites are the cows of the insect world. Their methane flatulence, combined with their staggering numbers, has a remarkable effect on the global climate. Methane emissions from the guts of termites are responsible for approximately 4% of the worldwide total. If not for the massive proliferation of cows, sheep, and other ruminants intended for human consumption, termites would be the main animal source of methane in our atmosphere. Termites have also been implicated in the evolution of modern angiosperm trees, as well as the development of red-tropical clays that may require the extreme alkaline conditions in the termite gut to form. The world would be a very different place without them.
Termites are the premier architects of the natural world. Certain species build large mounds that can reach up to 20 feet in height. These mounds serve to protect the colony from predators and floods, provide a large thermal mass to keep the queens at a comfortable temperature, and to dispose of wastes. The mounds are actually made up largely of saliva-cemented feces that has been digested not once, but several times. Because of the low efficiency of wood digestion, termites consume their wastes repeatedly in order to remove as much of the nutritional value as possible. The fully processed waste then provides a hard, decay-resistant building material.
Their predilection for mound building has an interesting side-benefit for humans; termites are fantastic gold prospectors. The excavated material for these mounds can come from several hundred feet below and thousands of feet away. Because they dig so deeply, termites can access the relatively unmodified rock and soil from which the thick tropical red clays develop. This parent material has not yet been exposed to the hard rains that wash out most minerals, including gold. Some termite mounds can be so rich in gold that dissolving them and panning the slurry provides a significant side income for poorer residents of tropical regions.
But the economic benefits of gold discovery are nothing compared to the billions spent around the globe each year in termite damage prevention. There are two groups of termites: those that live and die exclusively within a single woody mass, and the subterranean variety that lives in the ground and can seek out new sources of food. This second type is far more damaging to human construction because they move and live below ground, and eat a structure literally from the inside out, making them hard to detect. The historic Garden District and French Quarter in New Orleans survived Hurricane Katrina, but they may have a harder time standing against the voracious subterranean Formosan termite.
© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/the-worlds-tiniest-gold-prospectors-architects-and-cows/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Imagine having one sole reason for existence: your large head can block tunnels to keep ants out. That’s bizarre.
What is your purpose? Mine is to eat food and be a smart ass to teachers.
Mine is to deliver the mail.
“Methane emissions from the guts of termites are responsible for approximately 4% of the worldwide total.”
Okay, if that’s not damn interesting, I don’t know what is.
“while other have heads so large that they block tunnels and prevent ant invasions.”
this reminds me of a few of my old class mate
“termites comprise as much as 10% of the total biomass of all the world’s land animals. The only insects more massive and numerous than the termites are the ants, their mortal enemy.”
How much biomass % do ants make up and how much do humans make up? Like the idea that even the insect world have mortal enemies and nemesis’. Wonder if some new super insect colony species invades the planet the ants and termites will put aside their sworn conflict and join forces to fight the greater threat to both species. Like in Blade 2. I’d like to think so.
Stuart said: “Wonder if some new super insect colony species invades the planet the ants and termites will put aside their sworn conflict and join forces to fight the greater threat to both species. Like in Blade 2. I’d like to think so.”
I suppose Stuart, that if termites and ants were aware of how human beings behave themselves, they would eradicate us.
The estimates on ants very greatly. The best I found were 10-15%, but most put them as a higher biomass percentage than termites. I saw a variety for people as well, but the number 15% seemed to stick out there as well. Cows are also a significant part of the animal biomass, thanks to us. They put out about 8% of the methane in the atmosphere.
There is a super colony of ants in southern Europe that I saw some details on. It’s a bit sketchy, but it sounded like a single supercolony (or group of colonies) extended for hundreds or thousands of km. Anyway, google it and perhaps you can find out more.
When it comes to the gold industry, I guess the commercial value of using termites will not be any better compared to nuclear making of gold from Lead.
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm
No, no, you don’t really want to try making Gold from Lead. The efficiency is exceedingly low (since you have to eject 3 protons and 10 neutrons, and it’s awfully hard to eject particles from a nucleus). It’s much better to make Gold from Mercury (since you only have to add one neutron, and it’s awfully easy to add a neutron to a nucleus):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_synthesis
As for the commercial value, at least mining with termites doesn’t require the huge capital investment necessary to build a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator.
Dave
I bet if that fat-headed ant could speak, and we asked him about his job, he would tell us “You know, it is more complicated than you think…”. Just like Radiologists do… and they have remarkably similar cranial features, sans the pinchers. oh, And both don’t have to wear pants while working…
Dr.Grimgravy, radiologists don’t wear pants while working? really? weird…
why don’t the ants just dig a new tunnel to bypass the fatheads? stupid beasts…
Dave said: “No, no, you don’t really want to try making Gold from Lead. The efficiency is exceedingly low (since you have to eject 3 protons and 10 neutrons, and it’s awfully hard to eject particles from a nucleus). It’s much better to make Gold from Mercury (since you only have to add one neutron, and it’s awfully easy to add a neutron to a nucleus):……
…..no its not.
i saw a special on Discovery which showed an epic battle between ants and termites. It was narrated the way you would hear a special on Pearl Harbor being shown. It was something else. I felt bad for the millions of casualties that took place, but then I remembered that i had to do laundry… and I went back to my life of not caring about them.
How do the ones with fat heads get around normally without getting stuck? Or do they just sit there and eat until their fat heads are needed?
wow. so many people here believe evolution simply cos their told. if termites, ants and such so helped the world achieved such levels of sustenance, it’s amazing they took so many millions of years to appear. if everything weren’t created at the same time, the world would have a horrible ecological environment i believe. creation answers more questions. give me a example of a species gaining genetic information.
What? Statements like this puzzle me.
It’s basically another version of the creationists’ irreducible complexity argument, which is basically, “I can’t understand how we got the end result naturally, therefore goddidit.” In other words, it’s an argument based in a failure of imagination. They can’t come up with a way that things developed naturally, so they assume it’s impossible. Then they assume that this means that the only possible explanation is the god of their religion, because they can’t imagine any other solution. Just because you can’t figure out how something is possible, doesn’t mean it’s impossible or that other’s haven’t explained it already, nor is such a problem in one theory proof for any other claim.
To respond to hsinister, no most people don’t believe in evolution “simply cos their told” [sic.], they believe it because of the vast preponderance of the evidence from a number of fields and the fact that it makes successful predictions. Genetics, fossils, medicine, animal behavior, etc… they all support and are supported by evolution. The ecosphere is rather easily explained by evolution, because if anything throws it off, evolution continues, with species dying off and other things evolving to take advantage of the new niches available in the environment, until the environment reaches stability again. Termites and ants aren’t required for life to exist, they just evolved to take advantage of a niche in the environment.
Honestly, creationists are the ones that believe things “simply cos their told” [sic.]. There is no objective evidence for creationism (a.k.a. intelligent design), it isn’t falsifiable, and it doesn’t explain anything, it just pushes things onto something else that can’t be explained, tested, or even shown to exist, God. If people look just at the objective evidence, of life appearing gradually in the fossil record and such, then they would never claim that life appeared all at once. It’s only because they’re told this by religion that they try to claim otherwise.
HiEv and Hsinister touched on a couple of interesting and important points in the discussion of biological evolution. The first is that genetic mutation plays a central role in Ne0-Darwinist Evolutionary (NDE) Theory, since it is the sole mechanism to explain the appearance of new traits (natural selection being used to explain the removal of harmful traits and reproduction to explain the transferral of all traits). There are two major established scientific challenges to applying genetic mutation to NDE theory: mutative effect and probability. In testing and observation, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism, and appear to be “loading” the gene pools. In fact, I’ve not been able to find one example of a verified mutation that is unequivocally beneficial to the host organism, yet there are thousands of examples of harmful mutations in human medicine. That’s not to say that beneficial mutations couldn’t arise given enough time, but experiments using accelerated mutation have so far failed, and the probability of even a single complex organism arising from mutation is insignificant (see Wistar Symposium No. 5). I think that hsinister’s point is that the burden falls to evolutionary science to demonstrate a viable mechanism for change.
HiEv also touched on Intelligent Design (ID). In other comments, Jason Bellows made the important point that ID is an untestable theory. Historically speaking, evolution and creation are both untestable, since past events are unobservable. If transmutation were demonstrated, a creationist could claim that the species were created first and then transmutated, and nobody could test that statement. Instead, science must demonstrate both the possibility and probability that any past event could occur in the present. From a solely scientific viewpoint, the burden falls to Creationist Theory to likewise identify supporting clauses (such as mass appearance of the species, impossibility of transmutation, and even ID) and demonstrate them.
Finally, HiEv mentioned “life appearing gradually in the fossil record.” The “Cambrian Explosion” seems like a DI topic, that might even make a good (though controversial) article. I should look into it more myself!
Another natural world article and yet another evolution debate! I enjoy reading them but I am always left with the same questions?
Firstly why do creationists feel so threatened by evolution? There can’t really be this many fundamentalists christians out there that believe that the bible is completely literal. That must have been one huge ark to fit in two of each of the estimated 1.8 million known species, let alone the ones we haven’t discovered yet or the ones that have gone extinct. So maybe they feel that in some way evolution attacks God. But the main proponent of Natural Selection, Darwin, was a religous man he saw his work as not disproving god but simply showing the mechanisms by which he/she/they worked.
Secondly why do creationists keep using the same arguments against evolution when the evidence is there in front of them.
Any geneticist will tell you that most mutations are in fact mostly harmless and have little or no effect on the overall organism at all as they are too insignificant to affect the structure or function of the organism. In fact the only detrimental affect of these minor mutations to the genome is the increased energy cost during reproduction.
Some high school education examples to disprove this point.
Firstly, harmful effects of a mutation are relative to the environment the individual is in(excepting fatal mutation obviously). Sickle cell anemia is a debilatating and eventual fatal genetic disorder transmitted via recessive allele. Due to it being recessive both parents have to carriers of the allele for the disorder to become prevalant in the child. Clearly this disorder would usually be selected against as people with the disease are less likely to pass on their genetic information. However, in Africa and other malaria affected areas the occurances of the disorder are noticably higher than elsewhere. This is due to the fact that the recessive allele that causes sickle cell provides some protection against malaria(although the mechanism is not fully understood). In this case not having the allele is almost as likely to be fatal through malaria as having both alleles and suffering from sickle cell anemia. Therefore the medium is to carry one allele for the disorder. Therefore what would usually be a “harmful” mutation actually turns out to be a useful one.
Finally, there are plenty of examples of evolution and natural selection in action in the real world. Mosquito’s becoming resistant to DDT and other insecticides after the World Health Organisations ill fated attempt to irradicate Malaria. Rabbits becoming resistant to Myxamatosis in Australia. Antibiotic resistant bacteria. Bacteria and viruses crossing species (e.g. avian to human in flu) along with many others.
The scientific argument over evolution is over there simply is too much evidence to support it. The only real arguments left are theological ones over whether it was God, aliens, the spaghetti monster, Elvis or pure chance that started the whole process.
Here endeth the rant!
Wolfie is right in saying that most mutations have no effect on the organism, and I appreciate the correction. Most mutations are covered up by the genes of the other parent when they are passed to the offspring, so they are not expressed. However, these mutated genes may continue to be passed on recessively, which is what geneticists term “loading.” What I should have said is that expressions of mutations are overwhelmingly harmful to the host organism. This is often called “loss mutation,” because it results in the loss of a tissue, organ, or function.
The counter argument that Wolfie raised is that detrimental mutation expressions can be beneficial in the right context. Another common example of this is the beetle that lost its wings due to mutation, which is a benefit on a windswept island. Sickle cell anemia is the common example for human biology, which results in blood clots that slowly kill organs throughout the body, resulting in slow and painful death. I’ve suffered from malaria myself, and it was bad, but I don’t think I would call sickle cell anemia an improvement.
I’ve read about bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which in practice is due to existing mechanisms in bacteria, not mutations. In the laboratory, a mutation has been found that alters the cell wall, yielding antibiotic resistance, but the bacteria cannot survive in the wild due to the practical effects of the mutation. I did some research on DDT resistance in mosquitos (called knockdown resistance), but this appears to be due to a malfunction in nerve cells that impairs proper function in the sodium channel. I’ve not heard of Myxomatosis before, but it appears to be a viral problem, and I couldn’t find how that related to mutation in rabbits. What I’m saying is that Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory needs a “gain” mutation, where an organism gains a new and beneficial tissue or organ. Anyone know of any examples?
I was hoping that my initial comment would generate some discussion on evolution from a scientific viewpoint, rather than philosophical. I interpreted Wolfie’s “high school education examples” comment to be a jab, but it brings out my motivation. My high school biology teacher started the evolution chapter with a stern lecture that there would be no questions or discussion from the class, and that we were expected to answer test questions according to the text book if we wanted to pass. As a teacher and an engineer, I think that curiosity, skepticism, and discussion are essential to learning. That’s how I got to this website, and that’s why I posted. I can understand why the philosophical and religious implications of evolution/creation are both important and controversial, but personally I prefer to keep that as a separate but related discussion.
I wonder nobody commented on this. It is of course wrong.
The element of an atom is determined by the number of protons, so by adding a neutron to the nucleus of a mercury atom you just create a different mercury isotope.
Since the nucleus of a Gold (Au) atom contains 79 protons and the nucleus of a Mercury (Hg) atom contains 80 protons, you would have to extract one Proton from the mercury atom to turn it to gold.
The reaction cited in the link you provided should be read as follows:
Shoot a specific Hg-isotope with gamma rays and you’ll knock out a neutron creating another isotope, which is unstable and will decay to Gold and some not specified waste material.
Funny thing is though, neither Hsinister nor I never mentioned mutations, nor is it the “sole mechanism” that explains evolution, which is not just “new traits”, but the change in frequencies in which traits appear in a species. Genetic drift is another, where random chance can affect the allele frequency in a population where there is little or no selective pressure affecting that allele. This is especially common in small gene pools.
Even if it’s not beneficial 99.99% of the time, that 0.01% is enough. When you’ve got millions of members of millions of species across billions of years, those rare beneficial mutations rapidly add up.
Your argument that beneficial mutations never occur is simply nonsense. Chemical mutagens and radiation have been used in plant breeding experimentation for over 50 years, providing desirable traits that have been bred into many crops. I recommend you do some research on the benefits of induced mutations, rather than touting your ignorance as proof of something.
“The use of ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons and chemical mutagens for inducing variation, is well established. Induced mutations have been used to improve major crops such as wheat, rice, barley, cotton, peanuts, and beans, which are seed propagated.” – from the science journal Euphytica, March 2001 (source)
Balderdash. The scientific theory of evolution says that the species we see today must have evolved from earlier common ancestors. This makes a testable claim, in that we can look at observable evidence like fossils and genetic similarities, which would either fit or refute that claim. So far it all fits the theory of evolution.
This is simply not true. Science doesn’t have to demonstrate the possibility that the big bang could happen in the present in order to provide evidence that it did happen in the past.
Sorry I didn’t add the word “usually”, I didn’t expect to be nitpicked. In general life appears to evolve gradually across the fossil record, but there are periods of rapid evolution, called “punctuated equilibrium“, that appear in the fossil record as well. This is not a problem for the theory of evolution, since this “rapid” evolution usually occurs across thousands of years (the term “rapid” is relative to the normally slower pace of evolution.) I’ve seen it happen myself in genetic algorithms, where the fitness of a species slows, and then suddenly “leaps” ahead after one particular beneficial mutation appears.
Still, I do agree that you should look into it more yourself.
That’s only true if you have two copies of the gene. However, if you only have one copy you still have increased resistance to malaria without the problems of sickle cell anemia. You might not have gotten sick from malaria at all if you had one copy of that gene.
Then how exactly do you explain the increased frequency that antibiotic resistant bacteria are frequently found “in the wild”? The simple fact is, as long as we continue to use antibiotics, evolution will favor strains that are resistant to those antibiotics. If we quit using antibiotics, then yes, the non-resistant strains do better, but currently the bacteria you say “cannot survive in the wild” continue to exist in defiance of your claim.
How about this one, where a lizard species was introduced to an island in 1971, and 36 years later it was discovered that it had evolved many new traits, including a never before existing cecal valve? The cecal valve allows the lizards to ferment the plant material in their guts for better digestion. This allowed the previously primarily insectivorous species to become a primarily vegetarian species; an advantageous trait on an island with a lower population of insects and a lot of vegetation.
This is far from the only example, but it’s a neat new one that stuck out in my memory. A little research will turn up many more.
You know what I really love about DI? How much care people put into their comments. I mean look above me at the level of the comments HiEv has been making… Evolution Darn it if that didn’t take him many minutes or hours to come up with, write, proof read. It just is amazing how much effort people put into being intelligent on this site and I’m very grateful for it.
The best study of White Ant behaviour was done by Eugene Marais in his book, The Soul od the White Ant.