Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 259–265 | Cite as

Female feeding regime and polyandry in the nuptially feeding nursery web spider, Pisaura mirabilis

Original Paper

Abstract

We examined the influence of female feeding regime on polyandry in the nuptially feeding nursery web spider (Pisaura mirabilis). In this species, the nuptial gift, a dead prey item wrapped in the male’s silk, is physically separate from the ejaculate. We manipulated female feeding regime (starved or fed) and the presence or absence of a gift with three successive males to test direct-benefits hypotheses (nuptial gift or sperm supply) for the expression of polyandry. The presence of a gift was necessary for copulation, as no male without a gift successfully copulated. Female mating behavior most strongly supports polyandry due to the accumulation of gifted food items (“nuptial gift” direct-benefits hypothesis). Starved females that were presented with a gift accepted significantly more gifts and inseminations than fed females. Most starved females (74%) copulated two or more times, as opposed to only 3% of the fed females. Nearly all of the females that accepted a gift subsequently copulated. The nuptial gift item seems to function as male mating effort and females appear to receive multiple matings as part of a feeding strategy.

Keywords

Polyandry Nuptial feeding Nursery web spider Pisaura mirabilis Mating effort 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Trine Bilde, Martin Edvardsson, Darryl Gwynne, Alex Maklakov, Jordi Moya-Larano, Karim Vahed, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. Trine Bilde and Martin Edvardsson provided access to unpublished papers. This research complies with the current laws of Slovakia. This project was supported by grant VEGA no. 2/0009/09.

References

  1. Ahtiainen JJ, Alatalo RV, Kortet R, Rantala MJ (2005) A trade-off between sexual signalling and immune function in a natural population of the drumming wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. J Evol Biol 18:985–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G (1989) Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict? Anim Behav 38:749–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Austad SN, Thornhill R (1986) Female reproductive variation in a nuptial feeding spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 7:48–52Google Scholar
  6. Bilde T, Maklakov AA, Schilling N (2007a) Inbreeding avoidance in spiders: evidence for rescue effect in fecundity of females with outbreeding opportunity. J Evol Biol 20:1237–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilde T, Tuni C, Elsayed R, Pekar S, Toft S (2007b) Nuptial gifts of male spiders: sensory exploitation of the female foraging motivation. Anim Behav 73:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Boggs CL (1990) A general model of the role of male-donated nutrients in female insects’ reproduction. Am Nat 136:598–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bristowe WS (1958) The world of spiders. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruun LE, Michaelsen KR, Sørensen A, Nielsen MH, Toft S (2004) Mating duration of Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae) depends on size of the nuptial gift and not on male size. Arthr Sel 1:35–39Google Scholar
  12. Buchar J, Babrakzai H, Hodek I (1989) Life-cyle and phenology of the spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae) in central Europe. Acta Entomol Bohem 86:414–418Google Scholar
  13. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daly M (1978) The cost of mating. Am Nat 112:771–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drengsgaard IL, Toft S (1999) Sperm competition in a nuptial feeding spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Behaviour 136:877–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Edvardsson M (2007) Female Callosobruchus maculates mate when they are thirsty: resource-rich ejaculates as mating effort in a beetle. Anim Behav 74:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engqvist L (2007) Females benefit from mating with different males in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata. Behav Ecol 17:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia-Berthou E (2001) On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs. the analysis of covariance. J Anim Ecol 70:708–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gwynne DT (1990) Testing parental investment and the control of sexual selection in katydids: the operational sex ratio. Am Nat 136:474–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gwynne DT (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gifts in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 53:83–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurst GDD, Sharpe RG, Broomfield AH, Walker LE, Majerus TMO, Zakharov IA, Majerus MEN (1995) Sexually transmitted disease in a promiscuous insect, Adalia bipunctata. Ecol Entomol 20:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ivy TM, Johnson JC, Sakaluk SK (1999) Hydration benefits to courtship feeding in crickets. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1523–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson JC, Ivy TM, Sakaluk SK (1999) Female remating propensity contingent on sexual cannibalism in sagebrush crickets, Cyphoderris strepitans: a mechanism of cryptic female choice. Behav Ecol 10:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller L, Reeve HK (1995) Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv Stud Behav 24:291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lang A (1996) Silk investments in gifts by males of the nuptial feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Behaviour 133:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lorch PD, Chao L (2003) Selection for multiple mating in females due to mates that reduce female fitness. Behav Ecol 14:679–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman JA, Elgar MA (1991) Sexual cannibalism in orb-weaving spiders: an economic model. Am Nat 138:1372–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nitzsche ROM (1988) ‘‘Brautgeschenk’’ und Umspinnen der Beute bei Pisaura mirabilis, Dolomedes fimbriatus und Thaumasia uncata (Arachnida, Araneida, Pisauridae). Verh naturwiss Ver Hamburg 30:353–393Google Scholar
  32. Prokop P (2006) Insemination does not affect female mate choice in a nuptial feeding spider. Ital J Zool 73:197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ridley M (1988) Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev 63:509–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowe L (1994) The cost of mating and mate choice in water striders. Anim Behav 48:1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider JM, Lubin Y (1998) Intersexual conflict in spiders. Oikos 83:496–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Simmons LW (2001a) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Simmons LW (2001b) The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J Evol Biol 14:585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simmons LW (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simmons LW, Gwynne DT (1991) The refractory period of female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): sexual conflict over the re-mating interval? Behav Ecol 2:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stålhandske P (2001a) Nuptial gift in the spider Pisaura mirabilis maintained by sexual selection. Behav Ecol 12:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stålhandske P (2001b) Male and female reproductive strategies in the nursery web spider Pisaura mirabilis [dissertation]. Göteborg University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  43. Stålhandske P (2002) Nuptial gifts of male spiders function as sensory traps. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:905–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steele RH (1986a) Courtship feeding in Drosophila subobscura. I. The nutritional significance of courtship feeding. Anim Behav 34:1087–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steele RH (1986b) Courtship feeding in Drosophila subobscura. II. Courtship feeding by males influences female mate choice. Anim Behav 34:1099–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Takakura K (2004) The nutritional contribution of males affects the feeding behavior and spatial distribution of females in a bruchid beetle, Bruchidius dorsalis. J Ethol 22:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behavior in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am Nat 110:529–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thornhill R (1984) Alternative female choice tactics in the scorpionfly Hylobittacus apicalis (Mecoptera) and their implications. Amer Zool 24:367–383Google Scholar
  49. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Thrall PH, Antonovics J, Dobson AP (2000) Sexually transmitted diseases in polygynous mating systems: prevalence and impact on reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1555–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tregenza T, Wedell N (1998) Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 52:1726–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev 73:43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vahed K (2007) All that glisters is not gold: sensory bias, sexual conflict and nuptial feeding in insects and spiders. Ethology 113:105–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1996) The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (1997) The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defenses against genetic incompatability. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of TrnavaTrnavaSlovakia
  2. 2.Institute of ZoologySlovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and Natural SciencesNational UniversityLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations