Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 171–179 | Cite as

Vibratory communication in the soil: pupal signals deter larval intrusion in a group-living beetle Trypoxylus dichotoma

  • Wataru Kojima
  • Takuma TakanashiEmail author
  • Yukio Ishikawa
Original Paper


Pupae of several insect species are known to generate air-borne sounds and/or substrate-borne vibrations, but the functions of the sounds/vibrations are not well understood. Here, we present the first evidence of vibratory communication between pupae and larvae of a group-living Japanese rhinoceros beetle Trypoxylus dichotoma which inhabits humus soil. The last-instar larvae of this beetle construct their own pupal cells to ensure normal pupation and eclosion. These cells are fragile and subject to damage from burrowing larvae because pupae and larvae co-inhabit the same patches of humus. In laboratory experiments, we demonstrated that pupal cells harboring live pupae were less likely to be broken by larvae than those harboring dead pupae. It was also demonstrated that pupae produced vibrations in response to larvae approaching the pupal cells. High-speed video and vibration analyses showed that pupae emitted 3–7 pulses at 1.3-s intervals by beating their pronotum against the inner wall of the pupal cell. The pupal vibration was of low frequency with a maximum energy at ≈ 100 Hz. The drumming behavior was more frequently observed in the presence of an approaching larva than in its absence. When pupal vibrations were played back near to vacant artificial pupal cells, these cells were rarely disturbed by the larvae. These results provide evidence that pupae generate vibrations to deter conspecific larvae, thereby preventing damage to the cells. This larval response to pupal vibrations may have evolved through preexisting anti-predator and/or sib-killing-avoidance behavior.


Vibration Rhinoceros beetle Pupae Altruism Predator avoidance 



We thank A. Surlykke, H. Nishino, R. Nakano, and the two anonymous referees for invaluable comments on the manuscript, W. Ohmura and M. Jinkawa for the loan of the highspeed video and the vibration excitor, and R. Nakano for preliminary vibration recordings. This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (T.T., Y.I.).

Supplementary material

265_2011_1264_MOESM1_ESM.doc (3.9 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 3.86 mb)
265_2011_1264_MOESM2_ESM.wmv (1.2 mb)
ESM 2 (WMV 1.16 mb)

(WMV 1.38 mb)


  1. Barbero F, Thomas JA, Bonelli S, Belletto E, Schönrogge K (2009) Queen ants make distinctive sounds that are mimicked by a butterfly social parasite. Science 323:782–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cocroft RB (1999) Parent-offspring communication in response to predators in a subsocial treehopper (Hemiptera: Membracidae: Umbonia crassicornis). Ethology 105:553–568Google Scholar
  3. Cocroft RB (2005) Vibrational communication facilitates cooperative foraging in a phloem-feeding insect. Proc R Soc B 272:1023–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cocroft RB, Hamel JA (2010) Vibrational communication in the “other” social insects: a diversity of ecology, signals, and signal function. In: O’Connell-Rodwell C (ed) The use of vibrations in communication: properties, mechanisms and function across taxa. Research Signposts, India, pp 47–68Google Scholar
  5. Cocroft RB, Rodríguez RL (2005) The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication. BioScience 55:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Čokl A, Virant-Doberlet M (2003) Communication with substrate-borne signals in small plant-dwelling insects. Annu Rev Entomol 48:29–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards DP, Yu DW (2007) The roles of sensory traps in the origin, maintenance, and breakdown of mutualism. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1321–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisner T, Eisner M (1992) Operation and defensive role of “gin traps” in a coccinellid pupa (Cycloneda sanguinea). Psyche 99:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Field LH, Matheson T (1998) Chordotonal organs in insects. Adv Insect Physiol 27:1–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fletcher LE (2007) Vibrational signals in a gregarious sawfly larva (Perga affinis): group coordination or competitive signaling? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1809–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner A, Griffin AS, West SA (2010) Altruism and cooperation. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW (eds) Evolutionary behavioural ecology. Oxford Univ Press, New York, pp 308–326Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton WD (1964a) The genetical evolution of social behaviour I. J Theor Biol 7:1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton WD (1964b) The genetical evolution of social behaviour II. J Theor Biol 7:17–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill PSM (2009) How do animals use substrate-borne vibrations as an information source? Naturwissenschaften 96:1355–1371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinton HE (1946) The “gin-traps” of some beetle pupae; a protective device which appears to be unknown. Trans R Entomol Soc Lond 97:473–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinton HE (1948) Sound production in Lepidopterous pupae. Entomologist 81:254–269Google Scholar
  17. Ichikawa T, Kurauchi T (2009) Larval cannibalism and pupal defence against cannibalism in two species of tenebrionid beetles. Zool Sci 26:525–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laird NM, Ware JH (1982) Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38:963–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lambert D (1992) Zero-inflated Poisson regression with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics 31:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mankin RW, Brandhorst-Hubbard J, Flanders KL, Zhang M, Crocker RL, Lapointe SL, McCoy CW, Fisher JR, Weaver DK (2000) Eavesdropping on insects hidden in soil and interior structures of plants. J Econ Entomol 93:1173–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McIver SB (1985) Mechanoreception. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LI (eds) Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology VI. Pergamon, New York, pp 71–132Google Scholar
  22. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodríguez RL, Ramaswamy K, Cocroft RB (2006) Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feeding insects. Proc R Soc B 273:2585–2593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stumpner A, von Helversen D (2001) Evolution and function of auditory systems in insects. Naturwissenschaften 88:159–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sullivan-Beckers L, Cocroft RB (2009) The importance of female choice, male-male competition, and signal transmission as causes of selection on male mating signals. Evolution 64:3158–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Travassos MA, Pierce NE (2000) Acoustics, context and function of vibrational signalling in a lycaenid butterfly-ant mutualism. Anim Behav 60:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsurumaki H (1987) Collecting and breeding of the Japanese rhinoceros beetle. Saishu To Shiiku 49:254–257 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  28. Virant-Doberlet M, Čokl A (2004) Vibrational communication in insects. Neotrop Entomol 33:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yack JE, Smith ML, Weatherhead PJ (2001) Caterpillar talk: acoustically mediated territoriality in larval Lepidoptera. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11371–11375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wataru Kojima
    • 1
  • Takuma Takanashi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yukio Ishikawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Forest Entomology, Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations