This species' northern range limit may approach or correspond to the southern range limit of its very close relative Proagoderus ramosicornis, so Davis et al. (2020) recommend that "a reconsideration of the differences" between the species be conducted to clarify their distinctiveness and respective ranges.

This species is listed as Least Concern on the basis that it is extremely widespread. Available data suggest that it is adaptable with many known subpopulations are in well-preserved protected areas. Nevertheless the causes of its currently patchy distribution require further research and are thought likely to reflect historical range contractions of monogastric herbivores.

This species is widespread in southeastern Africa, from South Africa adjacent to the northern border of Eswatini north reportedly as far as Tanzania (Davis et al. 2020). Records are known from Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, and it has also been reported from Namibia and Malawi (Davis et al. 2020). Its northern range limit in Tanzania appears to be unclear, but these authors state that it is "presumably" to the south of the range occupied by the related East African species Proagoderus ramosicornis. Although locality records mapped by Davis et al. (2020) suggest a relatively continuous distribution centred on the Kruger National Park in northeast South Africa. Elsewhere in southern Africa its distribution is patchy. This pattern apparently follows declines in the mammals on the dung of which it relies, and the beetle is now largely restricted to game reserves or areas with large equine populations (Davis et al. 2020). It has been recorded between 61 and 1,478 m asl. (Davis et al. 2020).

Available data suggest that it is regularly recorded at least in the south of its range (Davis et al. 2020).

In southern Africa, this species' distribution is centred on dry savanna woodland ecoregions and bioregions (Davis et al. 2020). Although it has been collected on various soils, the majority of qualitative southern African records are from sandy loam in pasture, shrubland, or open woodland (Davis et al. 2020). Although its South African distribution is centred on a reserve containing monogastric herbivores, half of the qualitative South Africam dung records are from animals other than elephants or rhinoceros, including cattle. In a quantitative study at Phalaborwa, it was much more abundant on omnivore (pig) than herbivore (elephant or cattle) dung (Davis et al. 2020). At the same locality it has been recorded with the greatest frequency in warm, sunny conditions soon after heavy rainfall, compared with either warm cloudy or hot dry conditions (Davis et al. 2020). Diurnal flight activity has been recorded between October and March in southern Africa (Davis et al. 2020).

Across the known southern African localities mean annual rainfall ranges from 317–1,100 mm and mean annual temperature from 16.7–25.7 °C (Davis et al. 2020)

Both the available quantitative and qualitative data suggest that this species is not a dietary specialist, as it has been recorded equally on the dung of both ruminants and monogastric herbivores and quantitative data indicate a strong bias to omnivore dung (Davis et al. 2020). Nevertheless, at least part of its scattered distribution is centred on reserves where large monogastric herbivores survive and it is thought likely to have suffered range contractions resulting from declines in the ranges of these animals (Davis et al. 2020). It is possible that clearance of woody vegetation may impact this species, as most records are from savanna woodland, but at present most known localities are in protected areas (Davis et al. 2020).

There is no known use of or trade in this species.

Many records are from game reserves, and most of its distribution in South Africa falls within Kruger National Park (Davis et al. 2020). Further research is needed to clarify this species' ecology and to determine whether, as implied by its distribution, it is more reliant on the dung of monogastric herbivores than suggested by the available ecological data. An evaluation is also required to gauge the possible impacts of declines in both these herbivores and woody vegetation (Davis et al. 2020).