Advertisement

The Science of Nature

, 105:64 | Cite as

Reduced light avoidance in spiders from populations in light-polluted urban environments

  • Tomer J. CzaczkesEmail author
  • Ana María Bastidas-Urrutia
  • Paolo Ghislandi
  • Cristina Tuni
Short Communication

Abstract

Increased urbanisation is leading to a rise in light pollution. Light pollution can disrupt the behaviour and physiology of animals resulting in increased mortality. However, animals may also benefit from artificial light sources, as these may aggregate prey or signal suitable environments. For example, spiders are commonly seen congregating around artificial light sources. Changes in selective pressures engendered by urban environments are driving changes in urban organisms, driving better adaptation to these environments. Here, we ask whether urban populations of the synanthropic spider Steatoda triangulosa show different responses to light compared to rural populations. Egg-sacs from urban and rural populations were collected and incubated in a common garden setting, and the emerging spiderlings tested for light preference. While rural spiderlings avoided light (37% built webs in the light), urban spiderlings were indifferent to it (49% built webs in the light). Reduced light avoidance may benefit spiders through increased prey capture, increased movement into suitable habitats, or due to a release from selection pressure from visually hunting predators which do not enter buildings.

Keywords

Light pollution Urban evolution Anthropogenic selection Urbanisation Artificial light at night Steatoda triangulosa 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Fabio De Vita, Marco Bianco, and Pietro Canepa for help with spider collection and provision of local information. TJC was funded by a Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Emmy Noether grant number CZ 237/1-1.

Author contributions

TJC conceived of the study, wrote the manuscript, and analysed the data. TJC and CT coordinated the study. CT provided logistical support and laboratory space. PG collected the spiders. AMB collected the data. All authors helped design the study and gave final approval for publication.

Supplementary material

114_2018_1589_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (45 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 44 kb)
114_2018_1589_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Altermatt F, Ebert D (2016) Reduced flight-to-light behaviour of moth populations exposed to long-term urban light pollution. Biol Lett 12:20160111.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Blick T, Kropf C, Hänggi A, et al (2010) Spiders of Europe.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0458
  3. Cinzano P, Falchi F, Elvidge CD (2001) The first world atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Mon Not R Astron Soc 328:689–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davies TW, Bennie J, Gaston KJ (2012) Street lighting changes the composition of invertebrate communities. Biol Lett :rsbl20120216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2150135112443971
  5. Dwyer RG, Bearhop S, Campbell HA, Bryant DM (2013) Shedding light on light: benefits of anthropogenic illumination to a nocturnally foraging shorebird. J Anim Ecol 82:478–485.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaston KJ, Bennie J, Davies TW, Hopkins J (2013) The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol Rev 88:912–927.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Heiling AM (1999) Why do nocturnal orb-web spiders (Araneidae) search for light? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hölker F, Moss T, Griefahn B, Kloas W, Voigt CC, Henckel D, Hänel A, Kappeler PM, Völker S, Schwope A, Franke S, Uhrlandt D, Fischer J, Klenke R, Wolter C, Tockner K (2010) The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research agenda for light pollution policy. Ecol Soc 15.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03685-150413
  9. Johnson MTJ, Munshi-South J (2017) Evolution of life in urban environments. Science 358:eaam8327.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8327 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kettlewell HBD (1955) Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity 9:323–342.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1955.36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knop E, Zoller L, Ryser R, Gerpe C, Hörler M, Fontaine C (2017) Artificial light at night as a new threat to pollination. Nature 548:206–209.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23288 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191–198. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0191:ELP]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  13. Lubin Y, Ellner S, Kotzman M (1993) Web relocation and habitat selection in desert widow spider. Ecology 74:1915–1928.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mammola S, Isaia M, Demonte D, Triolo P, Nervo M (2018) Artificial lighting triggers the presence of urban spiders and their webs on historical buildings. Landsc Urban Plan 180:187–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manfrin A, Singer G, Larsen S, Weiß N, van Grunsven RHA, Weiß NS, Wohlfahrt S, Monaghan MT, Hölker F (2017) Artificial light at night affects organism flux across ecosystem boundaries and drives community structure in the recipient ecosystem. Front Environ Sci 5.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00061
  16. McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK (2015) Adaptation and adaptedness of organisms to urban environments. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:261–280.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Opell BD (1998) Economics of spider orb-webs: the benefits of producing adhesive capture thread and of recycling silk. Funct Ecol 12:613–624.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00222.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Polak T, Korine C, Yair S, Holderied MW (2011) Differential effects of artificial lighting on flight and foraging behaviour of two sympatric bat species in a desert. J Zool 285:21–27Google Scholar
  19. Ringelberg J (1991) Enhancement of the phototactic reaction in Daphnia hyalina by a chemical mediated by juvenile perch (Perca fluviatilis). J Plankton Res 13:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/13.1.17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanders D, Gaston KJ (2018) How ecological communities respond to artificial light at night. J Exp Zool Part Ecol Integr Physiol:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.2157
  21. Turnbull AL (1964) The search for prey by a web-building spider Achaearanea tepidariorum (CL Koch)(Araneae, Theridiidae). Can Entomol 96:568–579.  https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent96568-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van der Putten WH, de Ruiter PC, Bezemer TM et al (2004) Trophic interactions in a changing world. Basic Appl Ecol 5:487–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Warren AD (1990) Predation of five species of Noctuidae at ultraviolet light by the western yellowjacket (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). J Lepidopterists Soc 44:32Google Scholar
  24. Wong BBM, Candolin U (2015) Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behav Ecol 26:665–673.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yuen SW, Bonebrake TC (2017) Artificial night light alters nocturnal prey interception outcomes for morphologically variable spiders. PeerJ 5:e4070.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4070 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyUniversität RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of BiologyLudwig-Maximilians University of MunichPlanegg-MartinsriedGermany
  3. 3.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations