Advertisement

The Science of Nature

, 102:8 | Cite as

Innate prey preference overridden by familiarisation with detrimental prey in a specialised myrmecophagous predator

  • Stano Pekár
  • Manuel Cárdenas
Original Paper

Abstract

Prey-specialised spiders often do not have brood care and may not deposit eggs in the proximity of the preferred prey. Thus, naïve spiderlings are left to their own to find their focal prey. Our aim was to reveal whether the choice of a specific prey is innate and whether familiarisation with a certain prey will condition prey choice. We used the myrmecophagous spider Euryopis episinoides, which specialises on Messor ants. It finds ants using chemical cues deposited on the substrate. Naïve spiderlings were offered chemical cues from Messor and Myrmica ants and Drosophila flies. They chose significantly more chemical cues from Messor ants than those from Drosophila flies. Then spiderlings were assigned to three prey treatments: fed with Messor ants only (optimal prey), fed with Myrmica ants only (suboptimal prey) or fed with Drosophila flies only (detrimental prey) until adulthood. Every 2 weeks, all spiders from all treatments were offered chemical cues from the three prey types and the frequency of choice and latency to assuming a posture were recorded. Experienced spiderlings preferred chemical cues from the prey in which they were raised. They suffered high mortality on Drosophila flies and attained largest size on the optimal prey. We show here that majority of spiderlings are born with an innate preference to their focal prey, which can be altered by familiarisation with alternative prey, irrespective of whether such a prey is beneficial.

Keywords

Myrmecophagy Chemical stimuli Fitness Imprinting Olfaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for the useful comments. This work was supported by the programme “Employment of newly graduated doctors of science for scientific excellence” (CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.009) co-financed from the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic.

References

  1. Allan RA, Elgar MA, Capon RJ (1996) Exploitation of an ant chemical alarm signal by the zodariid spider Habronestes bradleyi Walckenaer. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes MC, Persons MH, Rypstra AL (2002) The effect of predator chemical cue age on antipredator behaviour in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae). J Insect Behav 15(2):269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson P (2000) What must be known in order to understand imprinting? In: Heyes CB, Huber L (eds) The Evolution of Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  4. Bernays EA (2001) Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annu Rev Entomol 46:703–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernays EA, Wcislo WT (1994) Sensory capabilities, information processing, and resource specialization. Q Rev Biol 69:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolhuis JJ, Bateson P (1990) The importance of being first: a primary effect in filial imprinting. Anim Behav 40:472–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burghardt GM, Hess EH (1966) Food imprinting in the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentine. Science 151:108–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carico JE (1978) Predatory behaviour in Euryopis funebris (Hentz) (Araneae: Theridiidae) and the evolutionary significance of web reduction. Symp Zool Soc Lond 42:51–58Google Scholar
  9. Clark RJ, Jackson RR, Cutler B (2000) Chemical cues from ants influence predatory behavior in Habrocestum pulex, an ant-eating jumping spider (Araneae, Salticidae). J Arachnol 28:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darmaillacq A-S, Chichery R, Shashar N, Dickel L (2006) Early familiarization overrides innate prey preference in newly hatched Sepia officinalis cuttlefish. Anim Behav 71:511–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dukas R, Kamil AC (2001) Limited attention: the constraint underlying search image. Behav Ecol 12(2):192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferran A, Dixon AFG (1993) Foraging behaviour of ladybird larvae (Coleoptera: Coccinelidae). Eur J Entomol 90:383–402Google Scholar
  14. Gehlbach FR, Watkins JF II, Kroll JC (1971) Pheromone trail-following studies of typhlopid, leptotyphlopid, and colubrid snakes. Behaviour 40:282–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Giurfa M, Núňez J, Chittka L, Menzel R (1995) Colour preferences of flower-naive honeybees. J Comp Physiol A177:247–259Google Scholar
  16. Guibe M, Poirel N, Houde O, Dickel L (2012) Food imprinting and visual generalization in embryos and newly hatched cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Anim Behav 84:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hauge MS, Nielsen FH, Toft S (1998) The influence of three cereal aphid species and mixed diet on larval survival, development and adult weight of Coccinella septempunctata. Entomol Exp Appl 89(3):319–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson RR, Cross FR (2011) Spider cognition. Adv Insect Physiol 41:115–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson RR, Clark RJ, Harland DP (2002) Behavioural and cognitive influence of kairomones on an araneophagic jumping spider. Behaviour 139:749–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li D, Jackson RR (1997) Influence of diet on survivorship and growth in Portia fimbriata, an araneophagic jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Can J Zool 75:1652–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayntz D, Raubenheimer D, Salomon M, Toft S, Simpson SJ (2005) Nutrient-specific foraging in invertebrate predators. Science 307:111–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Neradilová M (2013) Trophic niche of myrmecophagous spiders. Bachelor thesis. Masaryk University, Brno. [in Czech]Google Scholar
  23. Pekár S, Brabec M (2012) Modern analysis of biological data. 2. Linear Models with Correlations in R. Masaryk University Press, Brno. [in Czech]Google Scholar
  24. Pekár S, Král J (2001) A comparative study of the biology and karyotypes of two central European zodariid spiders (Araneae, Zodariidae). J Arachnol 29(3):345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pekár S, Toft S (2009) Can ant-eating Zodarion spiders (Araneae: Zodariidae) develop on a diet optimal for polyphagous predators? Physiol Entomol 34(2):195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pekár S, Toft S, Hrušková M, Mayntz D (2008) Dietary and prey-capture adaptations by which Zodarion germanicum, an ant-eating spider (Araneae: Zodariidae), specialises on the Formicinae. Naturwissenschaften 95(3):233–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Persons MH, Rypstra AL (2000) Preference for chemical cues associated with recent prey in the wolf spider Hogna helluo (Araneae: Lycosidae). Ethology 106:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Porter SD, Eastmond DA (1982) Euryopis coki (Theridiidae), a spider that preys on Pogonomyrmex ants. J Arachnol 10:275–277Google Scholar
  29. Powell W, Wright AF (1991) The influence of host food plants on host recognition by four aphidiine parasitoids. Bull Entomol Res 81(4):449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Punzo F (2002) Food imprinting and subsequent prey preference in the lynx spider, Oxyopes salticus (Araneae: Oxyopidae). Behav Process 58:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. Schausberger P, Walzer A, Hoffmann D, Rahmani H (2010) Food imprinting revisited: early learning in foraging predatory mites. Behaviour 147:883–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Storeck A, Poppy GM, Van Emden HF, Powell W (2000) The role of plant chemical cues in determining host preference in the generalist aphid parasitoid Aphidius colemani. Entomol Exp Appl 17:297–304Google Scholar
  34. Therneau T, Lumley T (2006) Survival: survival analysis, including penalised likelihood. R package version 2.29Google Scholar
  35. Thompson JN (1988) Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between preference and performance of offspring in phytophagus insects. Entomol Exp Appl 47:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Toft S (1999) Prey choice and spider fitness. J Arachnol 27:301–307Google Scholar
  37. Van Emden HF, Storeck AP, Douloumpaka S, Eleftherianos I, Poppy GM, Powell W (2008) Plant chemistry and aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): imprinting and memory. Eur J Entomol 105:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. World Spider Catalog (2014) World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern. Online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 15.5, accessed on 25.9.2014
  39. Yan J, Fine J (2004) Estimating equations for association structures. Stat Med 23:859–874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations