Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 147–153 | Cite as

Female-coerced monogamy in burying beetles

  • Anne-Katrin Eggert
  • Scott K. Sakaluk
Article

Abstract

The reproductive interests of the sexes often do not coincide, and this fundamental conflict is believed to underlie a variety of sex-specific behavioral adaptations. Sexual conflict in burying beetles arises when a male and female secure a carcass that can support more offspring than a single female can produce. In such a situation, any male attracting a second female sires more surviving offspring than he would by remaining monogamous, whereas the female's reproductive success decreases if a rival female is attracted to the carcass. Monogamously paired males on large carcasses do in fact attempt to attract additional females by means of pheromone emission, whereas males on small carcasses do not. Females physically interfere with male polygynous signaling using various behavioral tactics. We demonstrate that such interference leads to a significant decrease in the amount of time that males spend signaling, according females a means by which to impose monogamy on their mates.

Key words

Sexual conflict Burying beetles Nicrophorus defodiens Monogamy Pheromones 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartlett J (1987) Filial cannibalism in burying beetles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:179–183Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett J (1988) Male mating success and paternal care in Nicrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:297–303Google Scholar
  3. Bartlett J, Ashworth CM (1988) Brood size and fitness in Nicrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:429–434Google Scholar
  4. Davies NB (1992) Dunnock behaviour and social evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Eggert A-K (1992) Alternative male mate-finding tactics in burying beetles. Behav Ecol 3:243–254Google Scholar
  6. Eggert A-K, Muffler JK (1989) Pheromone-mediated attraction in burying beetles. Ecol Entomol 14:235–237Google Scholar
  7. Eggert A-K, Müller JK (1992) Joint breeding in female burying beetles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:237–242Google Scholar
  8. Egbert A-K, Müller JK (in press) Biparental care and social evolution in burying beetles: lessons from the larder. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) Social competition and cooperation in insects and arachnids, vol II. Evolution of sociality. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Fabre JH (1899) Souvenirs entomologiques. ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Müller JK (1984) Die Bedeutung der Fallenfang-Methode für die Lösung ökologischer Fragestellungen. Zool Jb Syst 111:281–305Google Scholar
  11. Müller JK, Eggert A-K (1987) Effects of carrion-independent pheromone emission by male burying beetles (Silphidae: Necrophorus). Ethology 76:297–304Google Scholar
  12. Müller JK, Eggert A-K (1989) Paternity assurance by “helpful” males: adaptations to sperm competition in burying beetles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:245–249Google Scholar
  13. Müller JK, Eggert AK, Dressel J (1990) Intraspecific brood parasitism in the burying beetle, Necrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Anim Behav 40:491–499Google Scholar
  14. Orians GH (1969) On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am Nat 103:589–603Google Scholar
  15. Otronen M (1988) The effect of body size on the outcome of fights in burying beetles (Nicrophorus). Ann Zool Fenn 25:191–201Google Scholar
  16. Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 123–166Google Scholar
  17. Peck SB, Anderson RS (1985) Taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography of the carrion beetles of Latin America (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Quaest Entomol 21:247–317Google Scholar
  18. Pukowski E (1933) Ökologische Untersuchungen an Necrophorus F. Z Morphol Ökol Tiere 27:518–586Google Scholar
  19. Reinking M, Müller JK (1990) The benefit of parental care in the burying beetle, Necrophorus vespilloides. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 83:655–656Google Scholar
  20. Scott MP (1990) Brood guarding and the evolution of male parental care in burying beetles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:31–39Google Scholar
  21. Scott MP, Williams SM (1993) Comparative reproductive success of communally breeding burying beetles as assessed by PCR with randomly amplified polymorphic DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:2242–2245Google Scholar
  22. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  24. Trumbo ST (1990a) Reproductive benefits of infanticide in a biparental burying beetle Nicrophorus orbicollis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:269–273Google Scholar
  25. Trumbo ST (1990b) Interference competition among burying beetles. Ecol Entomol 15:347–355Google Scholar
  26. Trumbo ST (1991) Reproductive benefits and the duration of paternal care in a biparental burying beetle, Necrophorus orbicollis. Behaviour 117:82–105Google Scholar
  27. Trumbo ST (1992) Monogamy to communal breeding: exploitation of a broad resource base by burying beetles (Nicrophorus). Ecol Entomol 17:289–298Google Scholar
  28. Trumbo ST, Eggert A-K (1994) Beyond monogamy: territory quality influences sexual advertisement in male burying beetles. Anim Behav 48:1043–1047Google Scholar
  29. Trumbo ST, Fiore AJ (1994) Interspecific competition and the evolution of communal breeding in burying beetles. Am Midl Nat 131:169–174Google Scholar
  30. Trumbo ST, Wilson DS (1993) Brood discrimination, nest mate discrimination, and determinants of social behavior in facultatively quasisocial beetles (Nicrophorus spp.). Behav Ecol 4:332–339Google Scholar
  31. Verner J, Willson MF (1966) The influence of habitats on mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47:143–147Google Scholar
  32. Watson PJ (1986) Transmission of a female sex pheromone thwarted by males in the spider Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Science 233:219–221Google Scholar
  33. West-Eberhard MJ, Bradbury JW, Davies NB, Gouyon P-H, Hammerstein P, König B, Parker GA, Queller DC, Sachser N, Slagsvold T, Trillmich F, Vogel C (1987) Conflicts between and within the sexes in sexual selection—group report. In: Bradbury JW, Anderson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, Chichester, pp 180–195Google Scholar
  34. Wilson DS, Knollenberg WG, Fudge J (1984) Species packing and temperature dependent competition among burying beetles (Silphidae, Nicrophorus). Ecol Entomol 9:205–216Google Scholar
  35. Zeh DW, Smith RL (1985) Paternal investment in terrestrial arthropods. Am Zool 25:785–805Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Katrin Eggert
    • 1
  • Scott K. Sakaluk
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Zoologie der Albert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Ecology Group, Department of Biological SciencesIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations