Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 277–289 | Cite as

Ownership, size and reproductive status affect the outcome of food ball contests in a dung roller beetle: when do enemies share?

  • Ivette A. Chamorro-Florescano
  • Mario E. FavilaEmail author
  • Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez
Research Article


Theory predicts that asymmetry between contenders influences their ability to defend resources. More recently, some theoretical approaches have also examined the circumstances that might promote sharing of the disputed resources. We tested these hypotheses in males of the ball roller beetle Canthon cyanellus cyanellus. Males fight for possession of a food ball, which is a vital resource used for nesting. We evaluated the role of food resource ownership, body size and reproductive status on the outcome of contests (win, lose or share) between males that rolled a food ball (owners or finders) either alone or with a female partner, when faced with male intruders (or joiners). Large owners of a food ball had a higher probability of victory than small intruders, and small owners had a high probability of losing when faced with large intruders. The reproductive status of both contenders also influenced their chances of winning: previously mated owners of a food ball had a higher probability of winning than virgin owners. Males of a similar size tended to split the food ball, thereby sharing the resource. Our results suggest that competitors may adjust the intensity of their aggression depending at least on their own resource holding power (RHP), the value of the resource in dispute and perhaps even the RHP of their opponents. Sharing the food ball emerges as a fresh solution between similarly matched contestants.


Asymmetric contests Canthon cyanellus cyanellus Foraging competition Resource holding power Food sharing Roller beetles 



We thank Roberto Munguía and Roger Guevara for statistical advice. Keith MacMillan translated and revised a first English version of the manuscript. Comments by two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript. Bianca Delfosse revised the final version of the manuscript. This work was supported by CONACYT-Mexico (49472-Q). IACF is grateful to CONACyT for a graduate studies scholarship (number 124849).


  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnott G, Elwood RW (2008) Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contest. Anim Behav 76:529–542. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnott G, Elwood RW (2009) Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests. Anim Behav 77:991–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austad SN (1983) A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela). Anim Behav 31:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briffa M, Elwood RW (2004) Use of energy reserves in fighting hermit crabs. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briffa M, Sneddon LU (2007) Physiological constraints on contest behaviour. Funct Ecol 21:627–637. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01188.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chamorro-Florescano I, Favila ME (2008) Male reproductive status affects contest outcome during nidification in Canthon cyanellus cyanellus LeConte (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behaviour 145:1811–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman T, Miyatake T, Smith H, Partridge L (1998) Interactions of mating, egg production and death rates in females of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1879–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng LI, Howard RW, Campbell JF, Charlton RE, Nechols JR, Ramaswamy S (2003) Behavioral interaction between males of Cephalonomia tarsalis (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) competing for females. J Insect Behav 16:625–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cordero C (2000) Trade-off between fitness components in males of the polygynous butterfly Callophrys xami (Lycaenidae): the effect of multiple mating on longevity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:458–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Draud M, Macías-Ordóñez R, Verga J, Itzkowitz M (2004) Female and male Texas cichlids (Herichthys cyanoguttatum) do not fight by the same rules. Behav Ecol 15:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois F, Giraldeau LA (2003) The forager’s dilemma: food-sharing and food-defense as risk-sensitive foraging options. Am Nat 162:768–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubois F, Giraldeau LA (2005) Fighting for resources: the economics of defense and appropriation. Ecology 86:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubois F, Giraldeau LA (2007) Food sharing among retaliators: sequential arrivals and information asymmetries. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubois F, Giraldeau LA, Grant JWA (2003) Resource defense in a group foraging context. Behav Ecol 14:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enquist M, Leimar O (1987) Evolution of fighting behaviour: the effect of variation in resource value. J Theor Biol 107:187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Favila ME (1988) Comportamiento durante el periodo de maduración gonádica en un escarabajo rodador (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). Fol Entomol Mex 76:55–64Google Scholar
  18. Favila ME (1993) Some ecological factors affecting the life-style of Canthon cyanellus cyanellus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): an experimental approach. Ethol Ecol Evol 5:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Favila ME (2001) Historias de vida y comportamiento de una escarabajo necrófago: Canthon cyanellus cyanellus LeConte (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Fol Entomol Mex 40:245–278Google Scholar
  20. Favila ME, Díaz A (1996) Canthon cyanellus cyanellus LeConte (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) makes a nest in the field with several brood balls. Coleopt Bull 50:52–60Google Scholar
  21. Fowler K, Partridge L (1989) A cost of mating in female fruit flies. Nature 338:760–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fromhage L, Schneider JM (2005) Virgin doves and mated hawks: contest behaviour in a spider. Anim Behav 70:1099–1104. doi: 10.1016/janbehav.2005.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gherardi F (2006) Fighting behavior in hermit crabs: the combined effect of resource-holding potential and resource value in Pagurus longicarpus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:500–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilg MR, Kruse KC (2002) Reproduction decreases life span in the giant waterbug (Belostoma flumineum). Am Midl Nat 149:306–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldsmith SK, Stewart Z, Adams S, Trimble A (1996) Body size, male aggression, and male mating success in the cottonwood Borer, Plectrodera scalator (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J Insect Behav 9:719–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halffter G (1997) Subsocial behaviour in the Scarabaeinae beetles. In: Choe J, Crespi B (eds) Social and sexual competition in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237–259Google Scholar
  27. Halffter G, Edmonds WD (1982) The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae). An evolutive and ecological approach. Publication 10. Instituto de Ecología, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  28. Halffter G, Matthews EG (1966) The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Fol Entomol Mex 12:1–312Google Scholar
  29. Hardy IC, Field SA (1998) Logistic analysis of animal contests. Anim Behav 56:787–792. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0833 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Heinrich B, Bartholomew GA (1979) The ecology of the African dung beetle. Sci Am 241:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hongo Y (2003) Appraising behaviour during male-male interaction in the Japanese horned beetle Trypoxylus dichotomus septentrionalis (Kono). Behaviour 140:501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hsu Y, Earley RL, Wolf LL (2006) Modulation of aggressive behavior by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biol Rev 8:33–74Google Scholar
  33. Kemp DJ, Rutowski RL (2004) A survival cost to mating in a polyandrous butterfly, Colias eurytheme. Oikos 105:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kotrschal K, Hemetsberger J, Dittami J (1993) Food exploitation by a winter flock of greylag geese: behavioral dynamics, competition and social status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthews EG (1963) Observations on the ball-rolling behavior of Canthon pilularius (L.) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Psyche 70:75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Montes de Oca E, Martínez I, Cruz M, Favila ME (1991) Observaciones de campo sobre el comportamiento y madurez gonádica en Canthon indigaceus chevrolati Harold (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Fol Entomol Mex 83:69–86Google Scholar
  38. Mozeck AP, Emlen DJ (2000) Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes? Anim Behav 59:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nosil P (2002) Food fights in house crickets, Acheta domesticus, and the effects of body size and hunger level. Can J Zool 80:409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Okada K, Miyanoshita A, Miyatake T (2006) Intra-sexual dimorphism in male mandibles and aggressive behavior in the broad-horned flour beetle Gnatocerus cornutus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J Insect Behav 19:457–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oliver C, Cordero C (2007) Multiple mating reduces male survivorship but not ejaculate size in the polygamous insect Stenomacra marginella (Heteroptera: Largidae). Evol Ecol 22:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behavior. J Theor Biol 47:223–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
  44. Rosenberg RH, Enquist M (1991) Contest behaviour in Weemeyer’s admiral butterfly Limenitis weidemeyerii (Nymphalidae): the effect of size and residency. Anim Behav 42:805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Safryn SA, Scott MP (2000) Sizing up the competition: do burying beetles weigh or measure their opponents. J Insect Behav 13:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sato H (1998) Male participation in nest building in the dung beetle Scarabaeus catenatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): Mating effort versus paternal effort. J Insect Behav 11:833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sato H, Hiramatsu K (1993) Mating behaviour and sexual selection in the African ball-rolling scarab Kheper platynotus (Bates) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). J Nat Hist 27:657–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sato H, Imamori M (1987) Nesting behaviour of a subsocial African ball-roller Kheper platynotus (Coleoptera, Scarabaidae). Ecol Entomol 12:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schaefer MA, Uhl G (2003) Male competition over access to females in a spider with last-sperm priority. Ethology 109:385–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simmons LW (1986) Inter-male competition and mating success in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim Behav 34:567–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siva-Jothy MT (1987) Mate securing tactics and the cost of fighting in the Japanese horned beetle Allomyrina dichotoma L. (Scarabaeidae). J Ethol 5:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stokkebo S, Hardy ICW (2000) The importance of being gravid: egg load and contest outcome in a parasitoid wasp. Anim Behav 59:1111–1118. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1407 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivette A. Chamorro-Florescano
    • 1
  • Mario E. Favila
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rogelio Macías-Ordóñez
    • 3
  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas y AgropecuariasUniversidad VeracruzanaTuxpanMexico
  2. 2.Red de EcoetologíaInstituto de Ecología, A.CXalapaMexico
  3. 3.Red de Biología EvolutivaInstituto de Ecología, A.CXalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations