Dung feeding in hydrophilid, geotrupid and scarabaeid beetles: Examples of parallel evolution

Holter, Peter

doi:10.14411/eje.2004.051

Cited by 20 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They progressively dry out due to evaporation, which is increased by insect activity, water uptake by insects and seepage, the rate of which depends on the nature of the substrate (Hughes et al, 1975). The buccal apparatus of dung beetles is delicate and adapted for extracting fluid and small particles (Miller, 1961;Holter, 2004), therefore, beetles are unable to feed on faeces with a low moisture content and hard structure. Similar nutritional dependencies probably exist in species feeding on dead organic matter (saprophages), fungi and other organisms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These changes result from the activity of the various organisms that colonize animal dung, including bacteria, protozoa, fungi, nematodes, arachnids, insects and earthworms, as well as local weather conditions. The species composition of the invertebrates colonizing animal dung are determined by several factors: physicochemical properties of the dung (moisture content and size of particles), weather conditions, soil type, exposure to direct sun light, season, the size of dung piles, interactions between species, the "age" and type of dung (Landin, 1961;Desiere, 1973;Olechowicz, 1974;Breymeyer & Zachareva-Stoilova, 1975;Holter, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences between beetle communities colonizing cattle and horse dung

Mroczynski

Komosiński

2014

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

abstract. Piles of fresh cow and horse dung were placed in a pasture in Dziarny in north-east Poland. The differences between the beetle communities colonizing both types of dung at various stages of succession were analyzed. Beetles were sampled 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 days after placing the piles of dung in the pasture. A total of 5 343 individuals belonging to 125 species and 10 families were collected in 24 samples. None of the species of beetles collected colonized exclusively one type of dung. Several taxa showed a clear preference for cow or horse dung. Beetle succession proceeded faster in horse dung and there were significant differences in the dominant species recorded in the two types of dung. The reasons for the reported patterns are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between beetle communities colonizing cattle and horse dung

Mroczynski

Komosiński

2014

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several minor secondary shifts to terrestrial habitats also occurred in the basal clades, for instance in some species of Helophorus (Angus, 1973). Within the primarily nonaquatic Sphaeridiinae several semi-terrestrial species occur and also species specialized on soft dung (Holter, 2004).…”

Section: Phylogenetic Analysis and Ancestral State Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat-dependent diversification and parallel molecular evolution: Water scavenger beetles as a case study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat shift is a key innovation that has contributed to the extreme diversification of insects. Most groups are well-adapted to more or less specific environments and shifts usually only happen between similar habitats. To colonize a profoundly different habitat type does not only present ecological opportunities but also great challenges. We used Hydrophiloidea (water scavenger beetles) as a system to study transitions between terrestrial and aquatic environments. We estimated the diversification rate of different clades using phylogenetic trees based on a representative taxon sampling and six genes. We also investigated possible evolutionary changes in candidate genes following habitat shifts. Our results suggest that the diversification rate is relatively slow (0.039-0.050 sp/My) in the aquatic lineage, whereas it is distinctly increased in the secondarily terrestrial clade (0.055-0.075 sp/My). Our results also show that aquatic species have a G (Glycine) or S (Serine) amino acid at a given site of COI, while terrestrial species share an A (Alanine) amino acid with terrestrial outgroups. This indicates that habitat factors may create selection pressure on the evolution of functional genes and cause homoplasy in molecular evolution [Current Zoology 60 (5): [561][562][563][564][565][566][567][568][569][570] 2014 ].

show abstract

“…The latter include nutritious food items such as bacteria and dead gut epithelial cells. This unusual feeding, recently reviewed by Scholtz (2009), is achieved by specialized mouthparts (e.g., Miller,1961; Edmonds,1972; Hata and Edmonds,1983; Nel and Scholtz,1990; Holter,2004; Verdú and Galante2004) that are quite different from the normal biting type in most Coleoptera (Crowson,1981; Lawrence and Britton,1991), including many Scarabaeidae. Thus, the distal mandibular lobes, i.e., the sclerotized, cutting “incisor lobes” of most beetles, have become membraneous and soft in scarabaeine dung feeders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re‐establishment of biting mouthparts in desert‐living dung beetles (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) feeding on plant litter—Old structures reacquired or new ones evolved?

Holter

Scholtz

2011

Journal of Morphology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution of dung beetle (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) mouthparts for eating moist, fresh dung has led to a loss of any ability to chew. However, the desert-living genus Pachysoma, probably evolved from a wet-dung feeding, Scarabaeus-like ancestor, has switched to dry faecal pellets (of rodents or small ruminants) and plant litter that might require re-establishment of chewing. Indeed, gut contents of a litter-feeding Pachysoma species indicate efficient food comminution prior to ingestion. Cutting and grinding mouthpart structures in six species, of two lineages and with different food preferences, are described and compared with homologous structures in wet-dung feeding Scarabaeus species. In Pachysoma, cutting and breaking of large food items is performed by a clypeal scraper, a prominent epipharyngeal tooth and large maxillary galeal hooks.Further comminution is achieved by a large, grinding area evolved on the mandibular 2 molae. Interspecific differences and the probable function and evolution of these structures are discussed. Particularly the unique tools for cutting/breaking are novel structures and not re-acquired normal biting mouthparts.ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: desert adaptations -detritus feeding -dung feedingevolution -mouthpart morphology -Pachysoma

show abstract

Dung feeding in hydrophilid, geotrupid and scarabaeid beetles: Examples of parallel evolution

Cited by 20 publications

References 20 publications

Differences between beetle communities colonizing cattle and horse dung

Differences between beetle communities colonizing cattle and horse dung

Habitat-dependent diversification and parallel molecular evolution: Water scavenger beetles as a case study

Re‐establishment of biting mouthparts in desert‐living dung beetles (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) feeding on plant litter—Old structures reacquired or new ones evolved?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About