Advertisement

Bringing down the house: male widow spiders reduce the webs of aggressive females more

  • N. DiRienzoEmail author
  • C. T. Bradley
  • C. A. Smith
  • A. Dornhaus
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Theory suggests that males should adjust courtship in response to a variety of factors, including female quality, the risk of male-male competition, and often in spiders, the risk of sexual cannibalism. Male black widow spiders demonstrate a behavior during courtship whereby they tear down and bundle a female’s web in addition to providing other vibratory and contact sexual signals. This web reduction has been hypothesized to play a role in all three factors (sexual signaling, competition reduction, and cannibalism reduction), but rarely are these tested together. Here, we test these hypotheses by conducting mating trials using the western black widow (Latrodectus hesperus) and measuring both male and female quality and behavior. Our results indicate that amount of web reduction is best predicted by female aggression, and not aspects of either male or female quality (e.g., body mass), or by the potential for the web to attract other males (e.g., web mass). Yet, actual mating success was best predicted by the proportion of web reduced. Furthermore, there was no consistent among-individual variation in either reduction behavior or male success, indicating that all variation in both measures was due to plasticity and/or other unaccounted-for male or female traits. Collectively, we conclude that the primary function of web reduction behavior is to reduce female aggression and thus the risk of sexual cannibalism, and that any other functions such as signaling and reducing male-male competition have relatively lower importance.

Significance statement

Male widow spiders must account for female aggression, quality, and male-male competition when courting females. During courtship, males will reduce a female’s web by tearing it down and bundling the silk, which may aid in all three of these issues. Our results demonstrate that males reduce the webs of aggressive females more, and less so to potentially reduce competition from other males or in response to female quality. Ultimate mating success was dictated by how much a male reduced the web of a given female. Finally, males showed no among-individual variation in reduction behavior, indicating that the extensive variation in this behavior is due solely to plasticity in response to the female.

Keywords

Courtship behavior Web reduction Sexual cannibalism Mate choice Latrodectus 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Cameron Jones for comments on an early version of this manuscript.

Author contributions

ND and AD designed the study. ND conducted the experiment and data processing in conjunction with CB and CS. ND conducted the statistical analysis, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final editing of the manuscript.

Funding information

Funding was provided by a University of Arizona Postdoctoral Excellence in Research and Teaching Fellowship (NIH # 5K12GM000708-17) awarded to ND and by the NSF (grant no. IOS-1455983 to AD).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Widow spiders are not subject to any ethical protocals in the United States.

References

  1. Akaike H (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anava A, Lubin Y (1993) Presence of gender cues in the web of a widow spider, Latrodectus revivensis, and a description of courtship behaviour. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 9:119–122Google Scholar
  3. Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21:296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrade MC (2003) Risky mate search and male self-sacrifice in redback spiders. Behav Ecol 14:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G, Henriksson S (1997) Sexual cannibalism in the fishing spider and a model for the evolution of sexual cannibalism based on genetic constraints. Evol Ecol 11:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avigliano E, Scardamaglia RC, Gabelli FM, Pompilio L (2016) Males choose to keep their heads: preference for lower risk females in a praying mantid. Behav Process 129:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartoń K (2013) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.9. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), Vienna, p 13Google Scholar
  8. Baruffaldi L, Andrade MC (2015) Contact pheromones mediate male preference in black widow spiders: avoidance of hungry sexual cannibals? Anim Behav 102:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1Google Scholar
  10. Berning AW, Gadd RD, Sweeney K, MacDonald L, Eng RY, Hess ZL, Pruitt JN (2012) Sexual cannibalism is associated with female behavioural type, hunger state and increased hatching success. Anim Behav 84:715–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackledge TA, Zevenbergen JM (2007) Condition-dependent spider web architecture in the western black widow. Anim Behav 73:855–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonduriansky R (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 76:305–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breene RG, Sweet MH (1985) Evidence of insemination of multiple females by the male black widow spider, Latrodectus mactans (Araneae, Theridiidae). J Arachnol:331–335Google Scholar
  14. Burnham K, Anderson D (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. Byrne PG, Rice WR (2006) Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc B 273:917–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dingemanse NJ, Kazem AJ, Réale D, Wright J (2010) Behavioural reaction norms: animal personality meets individual plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 25:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DiRienzo N, Aonuma H (2017) Individual differences are consistent across changes in mating status and mediated by biogenic amines. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DiRienzo N, Aonuma H (2018) Plasticity in extended phenotype increases offspring defence despite individual variation in web structure and behaviour. Anim Behav 138:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DiRienzo N, Montiglio P-O (2016a) Linking consistent individual differences in web structure and behavior in black widow spiders. Behav Ecol 27:1424–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DiRienzo N, Montiglio PO (2016b) The contribution of developmental experience vs. condition to life history, trait variation and individual differences. J Anim Ecol 85:915–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DiRienzo N, Bradley CT, Smith CA, Dornhaus A (2018) Data From: Bringing down the house: male widow spiders reduce the webs of aggressive females more. Behav Ecol Socibiol.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.tp7637c
  23. Edward DA, Chapman T (2011) The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 26:647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elgar MA (1991) Sexual cannibalism, size dimorphism, and courtship behavior in orb-weaving spiders (Araneidae). Evolution 45:444–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaskett AC, Herberstein ME, Downes BJ, Elgar MA (2004) Changes in male mate choice in a sexually cannibalistic orb-web spider (Araneae: Araneidae). Behaviour 141:1197–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harari AR, Ziv M, Lubin Y (2009) Conflict or cooperation in the courtship display of the white widow spider. J Arachnol 37:254–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison XA (2014) Using observation-level random effects to model overdispersion in count data in ecology and evolution. PeerJ 2:e616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Head G (1995) Selection on fecundity and variation in the degree of sexual size dimorphism among spider species (class Araneae). Evolution 49:776–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herberstein ME, Wignall AE, Hebets E, Schneider JM (2014) Dangerous mating systems: signal complexity, signal content and neural capacity in spiders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 46:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson JC, Sih A (2005) Precopulatory sexual cannibalism in fishing spiders (Dolomedes triton): a role for behavioral syndromes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson JC, Trubl P, Blackmore V, Miles L (2011) Male black widows court well-fed females more than starved females: silken cues indicate sexual cannibalism risk. Anim Behav 82:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kasumovic MM, Andrade MC (2004) Discrimination of airborne pheromones by mate-searching male western black widow spiders (Latrodectus hesperus): species-and population-specific responses. Can J Zool 82:1027–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landolfa M, Barth F (1996) Vibrations in the orb web of the spider Nephila clavipes: cues for discrimination and orientation. J Comp Physiol A 179:493–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubin YD (1986) Courtship and alternative mating tactics in a social spider. J Arachnol:239–257Google Scholar
  36. MacLeod EC, Andrade MC (2014) Strong, convergent male mate choice along two preference axes in field populations of black widow spiders. Anim Behav 89:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999) Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc B 266:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montiglio P-O, DiRienzo N (2016) There’s no place like home: the contribution of direct and extended phenotypes on the expression of spider aggressiveness. Behav Ecol:arw094Google Scholar
  39. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 85:935–956Google Scholar
  40. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Persons MH, Uetz GW (2005) Sexual cannibalism and mate choice decisions in wolf spiders: influence of male size and secondary sexual characters. Anim Behav 69:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In. Available from CRAN sitesGoogle Scholar
  43. Réale D, Reader SM, Sol D, McDougall PT, Dingemanse NJ (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev 82:291–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richards SA (2005) Testing ecological theory using the information-theoretic approach: examples and cautionary results. Ecology 86:2805–2814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ross K, Smith RL (1979) Aspects of the courtship behavior of the black widow spider, Latrodectus hesperus (Araneae: Theridiidae), with evidence for the existence of a contact sex pheromone. J Arachnol:69–77Google Scholar
  46. Rovner JS (1968) Territoriality in the sheet-web spider Linyphia triangularis (Clerck)(Araneae, Linyphiidae). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 25:232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rubenstein DI (1987) Alternative reproductive tactics in the spider Meta segmentata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schielzeth H, Nakagawa S (2011) rptR: repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data. R package version 0.6 404:r36Google Scholar
  49. Scott C, Vibert S, Gries G (2012) Evidence that web reduction by western black widow males functions in sexual communication. Can Entomol 144:672–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott C, Kirk D, McCann S, Gries G (2015) Web reduction by courting male black widows renders pheromone-emitting females’ webs less attractive to rival males. Anim Behav 107:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott C, Gerak C, McCann S, Gries G (2017) The role of silk in courtship and chemical communication of the false widow spider, Steatoda grossa (Araneae: Theridiidae). Ethology:1–7Google Scholar
  52. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Helsdingen P (1965) Sexual behaviour of Lepthyphantes leprosus (Ohlert)(Araneida, Linyphiidae), with notes on the function of the genital organs. Zoologische Mededelingen 41:15–42Google Scholar
  54. Vibert S, Scott C, Gries G (2014) A meal or a male: the ‘whispers’ of black widow males do not trigger a predatory response in females. Front Zool 11(1):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wagenmakers E-J, Farrell S (2004) AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev 11:192–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watanabe T (2000) Web tuning of an orb-web spider, Octonoba sybotides, regulates prey-catching behaviour. Proc R Soc B 267:565–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Watson PJ (1986) Transmission of a female sex pheromone thwarted by males in the spider Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Science 233:219–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wise DH (1979) Effects of an experimental increase in prey abundance upon the reproductive rates of two orb-weaving spider species (Araneae: Araneidae). Oecologia 41:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options