Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 10, pp 1957–1966 | Cite as

Reproductive consequences of male body mass and aggressiveness depend on females’ behavioral types

  • Jonathan N. Pruitt
  • Susan E. Riechert
  • David J. Harris
Original Paper

Abstract

Relatively few investigations explicitly test for concordant versus conflicting selection pressures from intrasexual versus intersexual selection. Here, we examine the effects of male body mass and behavioral type (BT) on reproductive success in the spider Anelosimus studiosus, with emphasis placed on the potential interaction between intrasexual and intersexual selection influences. Female A. studiosus exhibit either an aggressive-active or docile-passive BT, both of which co-occur in multifemale colonies. Males, in contrast, exhibit a more continuous distribution of behavioral tendencies. We investigated the male traits favored by females in five trial types: one docile female, one aggressive female, four docile females, four aggressive females, and two docile and two aggressive females. Male reproductive success was estimated by the number eggs produced by females following staged mating trials. In previous work, it was established that large aggressive males are favored in male–male contests, an intrasexual effect. However, large aggressive males were not universally favored here. We failed to detect an effect of male body mass or aggressiveness on reproductive success in trials with all docile females; however, in situations involving aggressive females, large aggressive males experienced diminished reproductive success relative to small docile males. Large, aggressive males were also more likely to be attacked and killed by aggressive females in the first 20 min of staged encounters and were more likely to be found dead after 72 h of unobserved interactions. Taken together, our data suggest that the reproductive consequences of male traits differ based on (1) the aspect of sexual selection being considered (intrasexual versus intersexual) and (2) the BT of their prospective mates: large aggressive males enjoy advantages in intrasexual selection and when courting docile females and small docile males experience reduced risk of cannibalism and increased reproductive success with aggressive females.

Keywords

Behavioral syndrome Personality Sexual selection Social selection Temperament 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Eileen Hebets, Kyle Demes, Stephanie Kamel, Jennifer Krauel, Mark Hauber, and one anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Albo MJ, Viera C, Costa FG (2007) Pseudocopulation and male–male conflict elicited by subadult females of the subsocial spider Anelosimus cf. studiosus (Theridiidae). Behaviour 144:1217–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock J (1994) Alternative mate-locating tactics in Chlosyne californica (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ethology 97:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson MB, Isawa Y (1996) Sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 11:53–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker E, Riechert SE, Singer F (2005) Male induction of female quiescence/catalepsies during courtship in the spider, Agelenopsis aperta. Behaviour 142:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell AM (2007) Future directions in behavioural syndromes research. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berglund A, Bisazza A, Pilastro A (1996) Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biol J Linn Soc 58:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boake CRB (1989) Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol 3:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B (2002a) Uncoupling direct and indirect components of female choice in the wild. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:14897–14902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calsbeek R, Sinervo B (2002b) The ontogeny of territoriality during maturation. Oecologia 132:468–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark DC, Moore AJ (1995a) Variation and repeatability of male agonistic hiss characteristics and their relationship to social rank in Gromphadorhina portentosa. Anim Behav 50:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark DC, Moore AJ (1995b) Genetic aspects of communication during male–male competition in the Madagascar hissing cockroach—honest signal of size. Heredity 75:198–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark DC, Moore AJ (1995c) Social communication in the Madagascar hissing cockroach—features of male courtship hisses and comparison of courtship and agonistic hisses. Behaviour 132:401–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clutton-Brock TH, Harvey PH, Rudder B (1977) Sexual dimorphism, socionomic sex ratio and body weight in primates. Nature 269:797–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Harvey PH (1980) Antlers, body size and breeding group size in the Cervidae. Nature 285:565–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook JM, Compton SG, Herre EA, West SA (1997) Alternative mating tactics and extreme male dimorphism in fig wasps. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crutsinger GM, Collins MD, Fordyce JA, Gompert Z, Nice CC, Sanders NJ (2006) Plant genotypic diversity predicts community structure and governs an ecosystem process. Science 313:966–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species, 1st edn. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Darwin C (1871) Descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection, 2nd edn. Clarendon, DoverGoogle Scholar
  21. Foelix R (1996) Biology of spiders, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Gering R (1949) Structure and function of the genitalia in some American Agelenid spiders. Smithson Misc Collect 121:1–84Google Scholar
  23. Hagelin JC (2002) The kinds of traits involved in male–male competition: a comparison of plumage, behavior, and body size in a quail. Behav Ecol 13:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanlon RT, Naud MJ, Shaw PW, Havenhand JN (2005) Transient sexual mimicry leads to fertilization. Nature 433:212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harcourt AH, Harvey PH, Larson SG, Short RV (1981) Testis weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Nature 293:55–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvey PH, Kavanagh M, Clutton-Brock TH (1978) Canine tooth size in female primates. Nature 276:817–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hebets EA (2003) Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13390–13395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoefler CD, Carlascio AL, Persons MH, Rypstra AL (2009) Male courtship repeatability and potential indirect genetic benefits in a wolf spider. Anim Behav 78:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Houde AE (1997) Sex, color and mate choice in guppies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Howard RD, Moorman RS, Whiteman HH (1997) Differential effects of mate competition and mate choice on eastern tiger salamanders. Anim Behav 53:1345–1356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunt J, Breuker CJ, Sadowski JA, Moore AJ (2009) Male–male competition, female mate choice, and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J Evol Biol 22:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson JC, Sih A (2005) Pre-copulatory sexual cannibalism in fishing spiders (Dolomedes triton): a role for behavioral syndromes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson JC, Sih A (2007) Fear, food, sex and parental care: a syndrome of boldness in the fishing spider, Dolomedes triton. Anim Behav 74:1131–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson MTJ, Stinchcombe JR (2007) An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol 22:250–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson MTJ, Lajeunesse MJ, Agrawal AA (2006) Additive and interactive effects of plant genotypic diversity on arthropod communities and plant fitness. Ecol Lett 9:24–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones TC, Parker PG (2008) First male sperm precedence in multiply-mated females of the cooperative spider Anelosimus studiosus (Araneae, Theridiidae). J Arach 36:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones TC, Riechert SE, Dalrymple S, Parker PG (2007) Fostering model explains environmental variation in levels of sociality in a spider system. Anim Behav 73:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones TC, Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2010) Reproductive success in a socially polymorphic spider: social individuals experience depressed reproductive success in isolation. Ecol Entomol 35:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koh TH, Seah WK, Yap L, Li DG (2009) Pheromone-based female mate choice and its effect on reproductive investment in a spitting spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lang A (1996) Silk investment in gifts by males of the nuptial feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Behaviour 133:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lank DB, Smith CM, Hanotte O, Burke T, Cooke F (1995) Genetic polymorphism or alternate mating behaviour in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378:59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore AJ, Moore RJ (1999) Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore AJ, Brodie ED III, Wolf JB (1997) Interacting phenotype and the evolutionary process: I. direct and indirect genetic effect of social interactions. Evolution 51:1352–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morris MR, Batra P, Ryan MJ (1992) Male–male competition and access to females in the swordtail Xiphophorus nigrensis. Copeia 1992:980–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parker GA (1998) Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In: Birkhead TR, Moller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, London, pp 3–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2009a) Sex matters: sexually dimorphic fitness consequences of a behavioral syndrome. Anim Behav 78:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2009b) Male mating preference is associated with risk of pre-copulatory cannibalism in a socially polymorphic spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1573–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2009c) Frequency dependent success of cheaters during foraging bouts might limit their spread within colonies of a socially polymorphic spider. Evolution 63:2966–2973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2011a) How within-group behavioral variation and task efficiency enhance fitness in a social group. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:1209–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2011b) Non-conceptive sexual experience diminishes individuals’ latency to mate and increases maternal investment. Anim Behav 81:789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE, Jones TC (2008) Behavioral syndromes and their fitness consequences in a socially polymorphic spider, Anelosimus studiosus. Anim Behav 76:871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE, Iturralde G, Vega M, Fitzpatrick BM, Avilés L (2010) Population differences in behaviour are explained by shared within-population trait correlations. J Evol Biol 23:748–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E (1998) Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol 13:498–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rasmussen LEL, Schulte BA (1998) Chemical signals in the reproduction of Asian (Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana) elephants. Anim Reprod Sci 53:19–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Riechert SE, Jones TC (2008) Phenotypic variation in the behaviour of the spider, Anelosimus studiosus, facilitates shift from single female to multiple female nests in colder environments. Anim Behav 75:1893–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rundus AS, Sullivan-Beckers L, Wilgers DJ, Hebets EA (2011) Females are choosier in the dark: environmental-dependent reliance on courtship components and its impacts on fitness. Evolution 65:268–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ryan MJ, Hews DK, Wagner WE (1990) Sexual selection on alleles that determine body size in the swordtail Xiphophorus nigrensis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Svensson BG, Petersson E, Frisk M (1990) Nuptial gift size prolongs copulation duration in the dance fly Empis borealis. Ecol Entomol 15:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Oers K, Drent PJ, Dingemanse NJ, Kempenaers B (2008) Personality is associated with extra-pair paternity in great tits (Parus major). Anim Behav 76:555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2008) Sexual size dimorphism predicts the frequency of sexual cannibalism within and among species of spiders. Am Nat 172:431–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL, Elgar MA (2009) The importance of ecological and phylogenetic conditions for the occurrence and frequency of sexual cannibalism. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiley RH, Poston J (1996) Perspective: indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution 50:1371–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ (1998) Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:64–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Moore AJ (1999) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. II. Selection resulting from social interactions. Am Nat 153:254–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wong BBM, Candolin U (2005) How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biol Rev 80:558–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan N. Pruitt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Susan E. Riechert
    • 1
  • David J. Harris
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.The Center for Population BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations