Naturwissenschaften

, 98:557 | Cite as

Loss of legs: is it or not a handicap for an orb-weaving spider?

Original Paper

Abstract

Leg loss is a common phenomenon in spiders, and according to the species 5% to 40% of the adults can present at least one missing leg. There is no possibility of regeneration after adult moult and the animal must manage with its missing appendages until its death. With the loss of one or more legs, female orb-weaving spiders can be penalized twice: firstly, because the legs are necessary for web construction and secondly, the legs are essential for the control of the prey after its interception by the web. During development, spiders may be also penalized because regeneration has energetic costs that take away resources for survival, growth and reproduction. All these consequences should influence negatively the development of the spider and thus its fitness. We investigated the impact of leg loss in the orb-weaving spider, Zygiella x-notata by studying its frequency in a natural population and web building and prey capture behaviours in laboratory. In field populations, 9.5% to 13%, of the adult females presented the loss of one or more legs; the majority of individuals had lost only one leg (in 48% of cases, a first one). Leg loss seems to affect all the adult spiders, as there is no difference of mass between intact spiders and those with missing leg. Data obtained with laboratory-reared spiders, showed that the loss of legs due to the moult is rare (less than 1%). Considering changes in web design, spiders with missing legs decreased their silk investment, increased the distance between spiral turns but did not change the capture surface of the web. Under our laboratory experimental conditions, spiders with one or two lost legs did not present any difference in prey capture efficiency. In laboratory conditions, spiders with lost leg(s) did not show any difference in egg sac production or in longevity (adult lifespan) compared to intact spiders.

Keywords

Autotomy Spider Zygiella x-notata Web construction Prey capture 

References

  1. Amaya CC, Klawinski PD, Formanowicz DR (2001) The effects of leg autotomy on running speed and foraging ability in two species of wolf spider (Lycosidae). Am Midl Nat 145:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apontes P, Brown CA (2005) Between-sex variation in running speed and a potential cost of leg autotomy in the wolf spider Pirata sedentarius. Am Midl Nat 154:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bel-Venner MC, Venner S (2006) Mate-guarding strategies and male competitive ability in an orb-weaving spider: results from a field study. Anim Behav 71:1315–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackledge TA, Eliason CM (2007) Functionally independent components of prey capture are architecturally constrained in spider orb webs. Biol Lett 22:456–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackledge TA, Zevengergen JM (2006) Mesh width influences prey retention in spider orb webs. Ethology 112:1194–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brock RE, Smith LD (1998) Recovery of claw size and function following autotomy in Cancer productus (Decapoda: Brachyura). Biol Bull 194:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brueseke MA, Rypstra AL, Walker SE, Persons MH (2001) Leg autotomy in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina: a common phenomenon with apparent few costs. Am Midl Nat 146:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisner T, Camazine S (1983) Spider leg autotomy induced by prey venom injection: an adaptative response to “pain”? Proc Natl Acad Sci Unit States Am 80:3382–3385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleming PA, Muller D, Bateman PW (2007) Leave it behind: a taxonomic perspective of autotomy in invertebrates. Biol Rev 82:481–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foelix RF (1996) Biology of spiders. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Formanowicz DR (1990) The antipredator efficacy of spider leg autotomy. Anim Behav 40:400–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fromhage L, Schneider J (2006) Emasculation to plug up females: the significance of pedipalp damage in Nephila fenestrata. Behav Ecol 10:353–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guffey C (1999) Costs associated with leg autotomy in the harvestmen Leiobunum nigripes and Leiobunum vittatum (Arachnida: Opiliones). Can J Zool 77:824–830Google Scholar
  14. Herberstein ME, Heiling AM (1998) Does mesh height influence prey length in orb webs spiders (Araneae). Eur J Entomol 95:367–371Google Scholar
  15. Johnson SA, Jakob EM (1999) Leg autotomy in a spider has minimal costs in competitive ability and development. Anim Behav 57:957–965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krink T, Vollrath F (1999) A virtual robot to model the use of regenerated leg in a web- building spider. Anim Behav 57:223–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lutzy RM, Morse DH (2008) Effects of leg loss on male crab spiders Misumena vatia. Anim Behav 76:1519–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maginnis TL (2006) The costs of autotomy and regeneration in animals: a review and framework for future research. Behav Ecol 17:857–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murakami Y (1983) Factors determining the prey size of the orb-web Argiope amoena (L. Koch) (Argiopidae). Oecologia 57:72–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roberts MJ (1996) Spiders of Britain and Northern Europe—Collins Field Guide. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Rypstra AL, Schmidt JM, Reif BD, DeVito J, Persons MH (2007) Tradeoffs involved in site selection and foraging in a wolf spider: effects of substrate structure and predation risk. Oikos 116:853–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandoval CP (1994) Plasticity in web design in the spider Parawixia bistriata: a response to variable prey type. Funct Ecol 8:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scharf I, Lubin Y, Ovadia O (2010) Foraging decisions and behavioural flexibility in trap building predators: a review. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00163.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Taylor PW, Roberts JA, Uetz GW (2006) Compensation for injury? Modified multi- modal courtship of wolf spiders following autotomy of signalling appendages. Ethol Ecol Evol 18:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uetz GW, McClintock WJ, Smith EI, Cook KK (1996) Limb regeneration and subsequent asymmetry in a male secondary sexual character influences sexual selection in wolf spiders. Zool Sci 6:927–933Google Scholar
  26. Venner S, Casas J (2005) Spider webs designed for rare but life-saving catches. Pro R Soc B 272:1587–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Venner S, Thevenard L, Pasquet A, Leborgne R (2001) Estimation of the web's capture thread length in the orb-weaving spiders: determination of the most efficient formula. Ann Entomol Soc Am 94:490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vollrath F (1987) Altered geometry of webs in spiders with regenerated leg. Nature 328:247–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vollrath F (1990) Leg regeneration in web spiders and its implication of Weaver phylogeny. Bull Brit Arachnol Soc 8:177–184Google Scholar
  30. Witt PN, Reed CF, Peakall DB (1968) A spider's web, problems in regulatory biology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Wrinn KM, Uetz GW (2007) Impacts of leg loss and regeneration on body condition, growth, and development time in the wolf spider Schizocosa ocreata. Can J Zool 85:823–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wrinn KM, Uetz GW (2008) Effects of autotomy and regeneration on detection and capture of prey in a generalist predator. Behav Ecol 19:1282–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Pasquet
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mylène Anotaux
    • 1
    • 2
  • Raymond Leborgne
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de Strasbourg, IPHC, DEPE, CNRS UMR7178StrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire: Expression and Evolution des ComportementsUniversité Henri Poincaré, Nancy-UniversitéVandoeuvre-Les-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations