Male Participation in Nest Building in the Dung Beetle Scarabaeus catenatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): Mating Effort Versus Paternal Effort

作者: Hiroaki Sato

DOI: 10.1023/A:1020860010165

关键词:

摘要: The dung beetle, Scarabaeus catenatus, shows not only the rolling but also tunneling tactic for nest building with bisexual cooperation. Sex roles, however, differed between tactics. In rolling, male took initiative like that of ball-roller species: he rolled a ball away and buried it. tunneling, in contrast, usually had secondary role tunnelers: was less active burrow excavation provisioning. Regardless tactics, participation did increase female reproductive output measured by number or size brood balls field, seemed to function as mate guarding against conspecific males. This suggests that, both S. catenatus invests primarily mating effort compared paternal effort. relative importance seems hold true other beetles, irrespective whether they are tunneler species. addition, strategy is ball-rollers.

参考文章(24)
Richard D. Alexander, Gerald Borgia, ON THE ORIGIN AND BASIS OF THE MALE-FEMALE PHENOMENON Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. pp. 417- 440 ,(1979) , 10.1016/B978-0-12-108750-0.50019-7
Gonzalo Halffter, W. D. Edmonds, The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae) : an ecological and evolutive approach The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae). An ecological and evolutive approach.. ,(1982)
Mitsuhiko Imamori, Hiroaki Sato, Further Observations on the Nesting Behaviour of a Subsocial Ball-rolling Scarab, Kheper aegyptiorum 昆蟲. ,vol. 56, pp. 873- 878 ,(1988)
Parental investment and sexual selection Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. pp. 136- 179 ,(2017) , 10.4324/9781315129266-7
L. W. Simmons, G. A. Parker, Nuptial Feeding in Insects: Mating Effort versus Paternal Investment Ethology. ,vol. 81, pp. 332- 343 ,(2010) , 10.1111/J.1439-0310.1989.TB00778.X
J. K. M�ller, Anne-Katrin Eggert, Paternity assurance by “helpful” males: adaptations to sperm competition in burying beetles Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. ,vol. 24, pp. 245- 249 ,(1989) , 10.1007/BF00295204