Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 10, pp 1873–1879 | Cite as

Maternal nest defense reduces egg cannibalism by conspecific females in the maritime earwig Anisolabis maritima

  • Julie S. MillerEmail author
  • Lena Rudolph
  • Andrew G. Zink
Original Paper


Nest predation imposes a major cost to reproductive females, who should therefore take measures to avoid encounters with predators. However, when predators are conspecifics, avoidance can be more difficult and may be a consequence of social or aggregative behaviors. In this study, we measured the consequences of conspecific egg cannibalism on hatching success in the maritime earwig (Anisolabis maritima), which occasionally form aggregations. We hypothesized that conspecific egg cannibalism is a byproduct of aggregation, and that cannibalism rates would increase with aggregation density; however, our results do not support this. We combined field data with a lab experiment to test the effectiveness of maternal nest defense in protecting nests from a conspecific. Nests with a guard had higher hatching success and lower rates of cannibalism than unattended nests in the presence of a conspecific. We also measured body and forcep size to see whether the outcome of contests was determined by relative size. Female guards who were larger relative to the invading conspecific maintained their nest and had higher hatching success than females who were relatively smaller, suggesting that the maritime earwig is under directional selection for larger body and/or forcep size.


Parental care Cannibalism Infanticide Nest defense Earwig 



Thanks to our lab members C. DiGennaro, N. Munoz, I. DeLaTorre, R. Goodman, and other field assistants R. Eisenstark, N. Reeder, and T. Cheng. Thanks to J. Barker, H.K. Reeve, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by an NSF TREE fellowship and the Department of Biology at San Francisco State University, made possible by G. LeBuhn. Thanks also to the Richardson Bay Audubon Society Sanctuary and staff for letting us use their site for field collections and experiments.

All research reported here was performed in compliance with US law, and with a scientific collecting permit granted to Andrew G. Zink through the California Department of Fish and Game valid from 10 November 2008 to 10 November 2010.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. Bazazi S, Ioannou CC, Simpson SJ, Sword GA, Torney CJ, Lorch PD, Couzin I (2010) The social context of cannibalism in migratory bands of the mormon cricket. PLoS ONE 5(12):e5118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennet CB (1904) Earwigs (Anisolabia maritima Bon.). Psyche 11:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheney KL (2008) Non-kin egg cannibalism and group-nest raiding by Caribbean sergeant major damselfish (Abudefduf saxatilis). Coral Reefs 27:115. doi: 10.1007/s00338-007-0324-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chin-Baarstad A, Klug H, Lindstrom K (2009) Should you eat your offspring before someone else does? Effect of an egg predator on filial cannibalism in the sand goby. Anim Behav 78(1):203–208. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.04.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Crespi BJ (1990) Subsociality and female reproductive success in a mycophagous thrips: an observational and experimental analysis. J Insect Behav 3:61–74. doi: 10.1007/BF01049195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickinson JL (1992) Egg cannibalism by larvae and adults of the milkweed leaf beetle (Labidomera clivicollis, Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ecol Entomol 17:209–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1992.tb01049.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobler R, Kölliker M (2010) Kin-selected siblicide and cannibalism in the European earwig. Behav Ecol 21(2):257–263. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elgar MA, Crespi BJ (1992) Cannibalism: ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox LR (1975) Cannibalism in natural populations. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 6:87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19(1):16–36. doi: 10.1007/BF01601955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardy IC, Field SA (1998) Logistic analysis of animal contests. Anim Behav 56:787–792. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0833 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang W (2008) Predation risk of whole-clutch filial cannibalism in a tropical skink with maternal care. Behav Ecol 19(6):1069–1074. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arn109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jennions MD, Blackwell PRY (1996) Residency and size affect fight duration and outcome in the fiddler crab Uca annulipes. Biol J Linn Soc 57(4):293–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01851.x Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan RH, Sherman PW (1980) Intraspecific oophagy in California newts. J Herpetol 14:183–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lailvaux SP, Hathway J, Pomfret J, Knell RJ (2005) Horn size predicts physical performance in the beetle Euoniticellus intermedius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Funct Ecol 19(4):632–639. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.01024.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langston RL (1974) The maritime earwig in California. Pan-Pacific Entomol 50(1):28–34Google Scholar
  18. Lion S, van Baalen M (2007) From infanticide to parental care: why spatial structure can help adults be good parents. Am Nat 170(2):E26–E46. doi: 10.1086/519462 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Machado G (2002) Maternal care, defensive behavior, and sociality in neotropical Goniosoma harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones). Insectes Soc 49:388–393. doi: 10.1007/PL00012663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manica A (2002) Filial cannibalism in teleost fish. Biol Rev 77:261–277. doi: 10.1017/S1464793101005905 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maynard-Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246(2):15–18. doi: 10.1038/246015a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mehlis M, Bakker TCM, Frommen JG (2009) Nutritional benefits of filial cannibalism in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasteroseus aculeatus). Naturwissenschaften 96:399–403. doi: 10.1007/s00114-008-0485-6 Google Scholar
  23. Morris DW (1987) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment. Ecol Monogr 57(4):269–281. doi: 10.2307/2937087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neat FC, Huntingford FA, Beveridge MMC (1998) Fighting and assessment in male cichlid fish: the effects of asymmetries in gonadal state and body size. Anim Behav 55:883–891. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0669 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park T, Mertz DB, Grodzinski W, Prus T (1965) Cannibalistic predation in populations of flour beetles. Physiol Zool 38(3):289–321Google Scholar
  26. Parsons J (1971) Cannibalism in herring gulls. Br Birds 64:528–537Google Scholar
  27. Polis GA (1981) The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 12:225–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robertson IC (1993) Nest intrusions, infanticide, and parental care in the burying beetle, Nicrophorus orbicollis (Coleoptera: Silphidae). J Zool 231:583–593. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1993.tb01940.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rypstra AL (1986) High prey abundance and a reduction in cannibalism: the first step to sociality in spiders (Arachnida). J Archnol 14:193–200Google Scholar
  30. Suzuki S (2010) Progressive provisioning by the females of the maritime earwig, Anisolabis maritima, increases the survival rate of the young. J Insect Sci 10(184):1–6. doi: 10.1673/031.010.14144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tallamy DW (1984) Insect parental care. Biosci 34(1):20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Watson NL, Simmons LW (2010) Reproductive competition promotes the evolution of female weaponry. Proc Biol Sci 277:2035–2040. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2335 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Yom-Tov Y (1974) The effect of food and predation on breeding density and success, clutch size and laying date of the crow (Corvus corone L.). J Anim Ecol 43:479–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie S. Miller
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lena Rudolph
    • 1
  • Andrew G. Zink
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologySan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurobiology and BehaviorCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations