Multiple structures interactively influence prey capture efficiency in spider orb webs

Building structures and aggregating can increase an animal’s fitness, but the benefits come at a cost. Some orb web spiders build multiple structures or build in aggregations, which may have the same effect on prey capture success as the addition of a structure. As these structures often appear together, they may bestow interactive benefits not realized if the structures were added alone. We performed field experiments to investigate whether the multiple structures associated with the orb webs of two spider species provide interactive benefits. The orb web spider Nephila clavata adds barrier webs and prey carcass decorations to its webs. We manipulated their webs in the field by removing either, both or neither the barrier webs or the carcass decorations. We found that prey interception rate was greatest when neither barrier webs nor carcasses were present but, for the prey caught, the prey retention rate was greatest with both structures present. Another orb web spider, Cyclosa mulmeinensis, adds prey carcass decorations and forms aggregations. We manipulated the decorations and aggregations of C. mulmeinensis in the field to determine their interactive influences. In solitary webs and webs with decorations, prey capture rates were lower than those without structures. These negative foraging effects, however, did not exist in decorated webs that were in aggregations. Our results thus show that multiple structures, individually, are costly, but interactively they provide substantial benefits.

[1]  L. Avilés,et al.  Group living and inbreeding depression in a subsocial spider , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  G. Uetz,et al.  Foraging strategies of spiders. , 1992, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[3]  L. Lens,et al.  Nest-building by crested tit Parus cristatus males: an analysis of costs and benefits , 1994, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[4]  G. Uetz,et al.  Kleptoparasites: a twofold cost of group living for the colonial spider, Metepeira incrassata (Araneae, Araneidae) , 2009, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[5]  Lin Schwarzkopf,et al.  Self-made shelters protect spiders from predation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Jennifer L. Williams,et al.  Burrow decorations as antipredatory devices , 2006 .

[7]  G. Uetz Risk Sensitivity and the Paradox of Colonial Web-Building in Spiders , 1996 .

[8]  J. Korb Thermoregulation and ventilation of termite mounds , 2003, Naturwissenschaften.

[9]  W. Eberhard Substitution of silk stabilimenta for egg sacs by Allocyclosa bifurca (Araneae: Araneidae) suggests that silk stabilimenta function as camouflage devices , 2003 .

[10]  L. Lafuma,et al.  Aromatic plants in bird nests as a protection against blood-sucking flying insects? , 2001, Behavioural Processes.

[11]  Physical constraints on group foraging and social evolution : observations on web-spinning spiders , 1991 .

[12]  M. Mainwaring,et al.  Experimental evidence for state-dependent nest weight in the blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus , 2009, Behavioural Processes.

[13]  M. Elgar,et al.  Web-building spiders attract prey by storing decaying matter , 2004, Naturwissenschaften.

[14]  Christopher G. Brown,et al.  Antipredatory properties of an animal architecture: how complex faecal cases thwart arthropod attack , 2010, Animal Behaviour.

[15]  L. Higgins Developmental changes in barrier web structure under different levels of predation risk inNephila clavipes (Araneae: Tetragnathidae) , 1992, Journal of Insect Behavior.

[16]  P. Shen,et al.  A test of prey-attracting and predator defence functions of prey carcass decorations built by Cyclosa spiders , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  G. Uetz The “ricochet effect” and prey capture in colonial spiders , 1989, Oecologia.

[18]  Y. Hénaut,et al.  Retention, capture and consumption of experimental prey by orb‐web weaving spiders in coffee plantations of Southern Mexico , 2001 .

[19]  Frequency, composition and variation in external food stores constructed by orb-web spiders: Nephila edulis and Nephila plumipes (Araneae : Araneoidea) , 2003 .

[20]  Kai-Jung Chi,et al.  The effects of wind on trap structural and material properties of a sit-and-wait predator , 2009 .

[21]  Cha Mg Aggregation of the littorinid snail Littorina unifasciata in New South Wales, Australia , 1995 .

[22]  Kensuke Nakata,et al.  To be or not to be conspicuous: the effects of prey availability and predator risk on spider's web decoration building , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  Koichi Tanaka,et al.  Energetic cost of web construction and its effect on web relocation in the web-building spider Agelena limbata , 1989, Oecologia.

[24]  M. Elgar,et al.  Food caching in orb-web spiders (Araneae: Araneoidea) , 2001, Naturwissenschaften.

[25]  T. Bilde,et al.  Survival benefits select for group living in a social spider despite reproductive costs , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[26]  G. Uetz,et al.  Symbiosis Between Social Spiders and Yeast:The Role in Prey Attraction , 1987 .

[27]  Daiqin Li,et al.  Why do orb-weaving spiders (Cyclosa ginnaga) decorate their webs with silk spirals and plant detritus? , 2010, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  E. Yang,et al.  Colourful orb-weaving spiders, Nephila pilipes, through a bee's eyes , 2004, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[29]  Daiqin Li,et al.  Detritus decorations of an orb-weaving spider, Cyclosa mulmeinensis (Thorell): for food or camouflage? , 2009, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[30]  M. Whitehouse,et al.  The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case , 2005, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[31]  I. Tso,et al.  A risky defence by a spider using conspicuous decoys resembling itself in appearance , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  E. Yang,et al.  Colour-associated foraging success and population genetic structure in a sit-and-wait predator Nephila maculata (Araneae: Tetragnathidae) , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  M. Elgar,et al.  The functional significance of silk decorations of orb‐web spiders: a critical review of the empirical evidence , 2000, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[34]  William G. Eberhard,et al.  Function and Phylogeny of Spider Webs , 1990 .

[35]  S. Calmé,et al.  Insect attraction by webs of Nephila clavipes (Araneae: Nephilidae) , 2010 .

[36]  G. Uetz Group forating in colonial web-building spiders , 1988, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[37]  K. Prestwich,et al.  The energetics of web-building in spiders , 1977 .

[38]  Samuel Venner,et al.  Spider webs designed for rare but life-saving catches , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[39]  C. Craig Spiderwebs and silk : tracing evolution from molecules to genes to phenotypes , 2003 .

[40]  G. Ruxton,et al.  When should we use one‐tailed hypothesis testing? , 2010 .

[41]  E. Yang,et al.  Insect form vision as one potential shaping force of spider web decoration design , 2010, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[42]  Leticia Avilés,et al.  Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[43]  M. Justice,et al.  WEB ORIENTATION, STABILIMENTUM STRUCTURE AND PREDATORY BEHAVIOR OF ARGIOPE FLORIDA CHAMBERLIN & IVIE 1944 (ARANEAE, ARANEIDAE, ARGIOPINAE) , 2005 .

[44]  M. Herberstein,et al.  EVALUATION OF FORMULAE TO ESTIMATE THE CAPTURE AREA AND MESH HEIGHT OF ORB WEBS (ARANEOIDEA, ARANEAE) , 2000 .

[45]  D. Rao,et al.  The aggregating behaviour of Argiope radon, with special reference to web decorations , 2007, Journal of Ethology.

[46]  Florencia Fernández Campón,et al.  Group foraging in the colonial spider Parawixia bistriata (Araneidae): effect of resource levels and prey size , 2007, Animal Behaviour.