ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
Animal Behaviour
Volume 72, Issue 5, November 2006, Pages 1159-1167
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Article
Purchase PDF (284 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.05.004    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2006 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Infanticide, sexual selection and task specialization in a biparental burying beetle

Stephen T. TrumboCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, U.S.A.

Received 7 October 2005; 
revised 17 January 2006; 
accepted 11 May 2006. 
MS. number: A10264. 
Available online 26 September 2006.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Burying beetles (Nicrophorus spp.) compete for access to small vertebrate carrion, a highly valued resource. Intruders that take over a carcass will kill young of residents and use the carcass for a replacement brood. To examine whether sexual selection alters interactions with intruders, I staged encounters in which resource competition was the only important motivator for infanticide and then compared outcomes to those in which both sexual selection and resource competition might operate. On carcasses with first-instar larvae, a single resident male or female N. orbicollis was confronted with either a heterospecific or conspecific intruder of either sex (at this stage, a carcass retains 44–75% of its original value if used for a replacement brood). Single males defended their brood significantly better than did single females. Males appear to be efficient task specialists, having both a greater tendency and greater ability to guard the brood. When intruders were heterospecifics, there was no interaction between the two independent experimental variables of sex of defender and sex of intruder. When intruders were conspecifics, however, there was a significant interaction such that infanticide was more common when a defender confronted an intruder of the opposite sex. That is, when a defender had the opportunity to recoup some of its losses from infanticide by participating in a replacement brood with the intruder (opportunity for sexual selection), the probability of infanticide increased. A follow-up experiment staged at the second and early third instar indicated that infanticidal take-overs are quite common when single females defend second instars, but are infrequent when single females defend third instars, or when pairs defend second or third instars. Other measures of reproductive success (number and mass of broods in trials not including take-overs) were similar for single females and pairs. I hypothesize that the threat of infanticide and the inability of a parent to fully compensate for the absence of a partner that is a task specialist promote extended biparental care in burying beetles.

Article Outline

Natural History of Burying Beetles
Methods
General Methods
Experiment 1: Value of Replacement Broods for N. pustulatus and N. orbicollis
Experiment 2: Intrusions and Infanticide
Experiment 2a: Heterospecific intrusions
Experiment 2b: Conspecific intrusions
Experiment 3: Intrusions against Single Females versus Male–Female Pairs
Statistics
Results
Experiment 1: Value of Replacement Broods for N. pustulatus and N. orbicollis
Experiment 2a: Heterospecific Intrusions
Experiment 2b: Conspecific Intrusions
Experiment 3: Intrusions against Single Females versus Male–Female Pairs
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References




Animal Behaviour
Volume 72, Issue 5, November 2006, Pages 1159-1167
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.