2016
DOI: 10.1111/een.12316
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Herbivore dung as food for dung beetles: elementary coprology for entomologists

Abstract: Abstract. 1. How do dung beetles and their larvae manage to subsist on herbivore dung consisting of plant remains that are at least partly indigestible, mixed with various metabolic waste products? To clarify what is known and not known about this basic aspect of dung beetle biology, the present review summarises information on dung composition and discusses the feeding of beetles (food: fresh dung) and larvae (food: older dung) in relation to this information.2. There is 70-85% water in typical fresh dung, an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
92
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 88 publications
(126 reference statements)
3
92
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…). This could prevent declines in dung beetle populations by buffering dung beetles against the loss of mammal species, although the extent to which changes in dung composition effects reproductive success is still unknown (Holter ). We also assumed that resource use switching in feeding or breeding resources will not have fitness consequences to the dung beetle species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…). This could prevent declines in dung beetle populations by buffering dung beetles against the loss of mammal species, although the extent to which changes in dung composition effects reproductive success is still unknown (Holter ). We also assumed that resource use switching in feeding or breeding resources will not have fitness consequences to the dung beetle species.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The loss of large-bodied mammal species could result in population increases in smaller mammal species and a subsequent compensation in dung availability (Wright 2003, Nichols et al 2009). This could prevent declines in dung beetle populations by buffering dung beetles against the loss of mammal species, although the extent to which changes in dung composition effects reproductive success is still unknown (Holter 2016). We also assumed that resource use switching in feeding or breeding resources will not have fitness consequences to the dung beetle species.…”
Section: Assumptions and Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microbes have long been hypothesized to play a critical role in enabling both juvenile and adult Onthophagus to subsist and diversify upon dung, which is primarily composed of complex polysaccharides such as cellulose and relatively low in amino acids (Flachowsky & Hennig, 1990;Frank, Brückner, Hilpert, Heethoff, & Blüthgen, 2017;Halffter & Edmonds, 1982;Holter, 2016;Muller, 1980). Recent work on O. taurus and the closely related genus Euoniticellus now shows that pedestal microbiota are enriched for genes implicated in cellulose degradation and nitrogen fixation (Estes et al, 2013;Shukla, Sanders, Byrne, & Pierce, 2016).…”
Section: Figure 3 Continuedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aphodiinae are a large cosmopolitan subfamily of Scarabaeidae in Scarabaeoidea, comprising more than 3,000 species assigned into around 200 recognized genera (Dellacasa, Bordat, & Dellacasa, ). Most of the species in Aphodiinae are small‐sized (1.5–13 mm in lengths) and inconspicuous beetles residing in dung or in the soil (Holter, ; Jameson & Ratcliffe, ; Yoshida & Katakura, ). The adults of Aphodiinae usually dwell in and feed on the dung debris (Cambefort, ), different from subfamily in Geotrupidae or Scarabaeinae, members of which bury or roll away the dung portions (Halffter & Edmonds, ; Scholtz, Davis, & Kryger, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the species in Aphodiinae are small-sized (1.5-13 mm in lengths) and inconspicuous beetles residing in dung or in the soil (Holter, 2016;Jameson & Ratcliffe, 2002;Yoshida & Katakura, 1986).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%