Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 347–360 | Cite as

Resource Holding Potential and the Outcome of Aggressive Interactions between Paired Male Aegus chelifer chelifer (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) Stag Beetles

  • Nut Songvorawit
  • Buntika Areekul Butcher
  • Chatchawan ChaisuekulEmail author


Interactions between male stag beetles usually involve aggressive behavior using their long mandibles as weapons to compete with rival males over females. Considerable variation exists within populations in male body size, and may affect their behavior and the outcome of male-male contests. We investigated the aggressive interactions between male Aegus chelifer chelifer, a small tropical stag beetle species. Morphological traits in relation to aggressiveness and the outcome of fights were examined in laboratory-reared beetles. The fight-engagement ratios of major and minor morph males were not significantly different and analyses revealed that the size of body parts had more effect on the fighting success than the weapon part (mandibles). The probability of winning a contest was higher in males with a larger head width (HW), and so HW was considered as the resource holding potential (RHP). No effects of the trait size on the initiation of fights or aggressive intensity was found. Relationships between the fight duration and RHP were not significantly consistent with any assessment strategies, but were close to the mutual assessment model.


Fight dimorphism assessment mandible body size variation 



We would like to thank Dr. Robert Douglas John Butcher for his advice and comments in this work. This research was supported by the 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Fund (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund).

Supplementary material

10905_2018_9683_MOESM1_ESM.docx (92 kb)
Online Resource 1 (DOCX 92 kb)
10905_2018_9683_MOESM2_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Online Resource 2 (DOCX 12 kb)
10905_2018_9683_MOESM3_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Online Resource 3 (DOCX 12 kb)
10905_2018_9683_MOESM4_ESM.mp4 (9.8 mb)
Online Resource 4 (MP4 10070 kb)


  1. Arnott G, Elwood RW (2009) Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests. Anim Behav 77:991–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridge AP, Elwood RW, Dick JTA (2000) Imperfect assessment and limited information preclude optimal strategies in male–male fights in the orb-weaving spider Metellina mengei. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briffa M (2008) Decisions during fights in the house cricket, Acheta domesticus: mutual or self assessment of energy, weapons and size? Anim Behav 75:1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briffa M (2014) What determines the duration of war? Insights from assessment strategies in animal contests. PLoS One 9:e108491CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Briffa M, Elwood RW (2009) Difficulties remain in distinguishing between mutual and self-assessment in animal contests. Anim Behav 77:759–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook JM, Bean D (2006) Cryptic male dimorphism and fighting in a fig wasp. Anim Behav 71:1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ek-Amnuay P (2008) Beetles of Thailand. In: 2 edn. Amarin Printing and Publishing Public, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  8. Emlen DJ (1997) Alternative reproductive tactics and male-dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goyens J, Dirckx J, Aerts P (2015a) Costly sexual dimorphism in Cyclommatus metallifer stag beetles. Funct Ecol 29:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goyens J, Dirckx J, Aerts P (2015b) Stag beetle battle behavior and its associated anatomical adaptations. J Insect Behav 28:227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardy IC, Field SA (1998) Logistic analysis of animal contests. Anim Behav 56:787–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoem SA, Melis C, Linnell JD, Andersen R (2007) Fighting behaviour in territorial male roe deer Capreolus capreolus: the effects of antler size and residence. Eur J Wildl Res 53:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofmann HA, Schildberger K (2001) Assessment of strength and willingness to fight during aggressive encounters in crickets. Anim Behav 62:337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hongo Y (2014) Interspecific relationship between the Japanese horned beetle and two Japanese stag beetle species. Entomol Sci 17:134–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hongo Y, Okamoto K (2013) Interspecific contests between males of two Japanese stag beetle species, Lucanus maculifemoratus and Prosopocoilus inclinatus: what overcomes a body size disadvantage? Behaviour 150:39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Inoue A, Hasegawa E (2013) Effect of morph types, body size and prior residence on food-site holding by males of the male-dimorphic stag beetle Prosopocoilus inclinatus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). J Ethol 31:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennings DJ, Gammell MP, Carlin CM, Hayden TJ (2004) Effect of body weight, antler length, resource value and experience on fight duration and intensity in fallow deer. Anim Behav 68:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karino K, Niiyama H, Chiba M (2005) Horn length is the determining factor in the outcomes of escalated fights among male Japanese horned beetles, Allomyrina dichotoma L.(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J Insect Behav 18:805–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kijimoto T, Pespeni M, Beckers O, Moczek AP (2013) Beetle horns and horned beetles: emerging models in developmental evolution and ecology. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 2:405–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL (2001) The discrimination of alternative male morphologies. Behav Ecol 12:553–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ligon JD, Thornhill R, Zuk M, Johnson K (1990) Male-male competition, ornamentation and the role of testosterone in sexual selection in red jungle fowl. Anim Behav 40:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mizunuma T, Nagai S (1994) Sekai no Kuwagatamushi Daizukan: the Lucanid beetles of the world. Mushisha, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  23. Okada Y, Suzaki Y, Miyatake T, Okada K (2012) Effect of weapon-supportive traits on fighting success in armed insects. Anim Behav 83:1001–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Payne RJH, Pagel M (1997) Why do animals repeat displays? Anim Behav 54:109–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinratana A, Maes J-M (2003) Lucanidae of Thailand. Sunprinting, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  26. Pomfret JC, Knell RJ (2006) Sexual selection and horn allometry in the dung beetle Euoniticellus intermedius. Anim Behav 71:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratt AE, McLain DK, Lathrop GR (2003) The assessment game in sand fiddler crab contests for breeding burrows. Anim Behav 65:945–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Development Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
  30. Rohlf FJ (2013) tpsDIG version 2.17. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Shiokawa T, Iwahashi O (2000a) Mandible dimorphism in males of a stag beetle, Prosopocoilus dissimilis okinawanus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). Appl Entomol Zool 35:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiokawa T, Iwahashi O (2000b) Mating success of small sized males of Japanese stag beetle Prosopocoilus dissimilis okinawanus Nomura. Jap J Entomol (New Ser) 3:157–165Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Small J, Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2009) Male eyespan and resource ownership affect contest outcome in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. Anim Behav 78:1213–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith JM (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press,Google Scholar
  36. Sneddon LU, Huntingford FA, Taylor AC (1997) Weapon size versus body size as a predictor of winning in fights between shore crabs, Carcinus maenas (L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sneddon L, Huntingford F, Taylor A, Orr J (2000) Weapon strength and competitive success in the fights of shore crabs (Carcinus maenas). J Zool 250:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Songvorawit N, Butcher BA, Chaisuekul C (2017) Different allometric intercepts in major Aegus chelifer chelifer stag beetle males from urban and forest habitats. J Asia Pac Entomol 20:835–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevenson PA, Dyakonova V, Rillich J, Schildberger K (2005) Octopamine and experience-dependent modulation of aggression in crickets. J Neurosci 25:1431–1441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor PW, Elwood RW (2003) The mismeasure of animal contests. Anim Behav 65:1195–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Umbers KD, Osborne L, Keogh JS (2012) The effects of residency and body size on contest initiation and outcome in the territorial dragon, Ctenophorus decresii. PLoS One 7:e47143CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Integrative Ecology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Center of Excellence in Entomology: Bee Biology, Biodiversity of Insects and MitesChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations