Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 5, pp 839–850 | Cite as

Exploring the effects of individual traits and within-colony variation on task differentiation and collective behavior in a desert social spider

  • Carl N. Keiser
  • Devin K. Jones
  • Andreas P. Modlmeier
  • Jonathan N. Pruitt
Original Paper

Abstract

Social animals are extraordinarily diverse and ecologically abundant. In understanding the success of complex animal societies, task differentiation has been identified as a central mechanism underlying the emergence and performance of adaptive collective behaviors. In this study, we explore how individual differences in behavior and body size determine task allocation in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. We found that individuals with high body condition indices were less likely to participate in prey capture, and individuals’ tendency to engage in prey capture was not associated with either their behavioral traits or body size. No traits were associated with individuals’ propensity to participation in web repair, but small individuals were more likely to engage in standard web-building. We also discovered consistent, differences among colonies in their collective behavior (i.e., colony-level personality). At the colony level, within-colony variation in behavior (aggressiveness) and body size were positively associated with aggressive foraging behavior. Together, our findings reveal a subtly complex relationship between individual variation and collective behavior in this species. We close by comparing the relationship between individual variation and social organization in nine species of social spider. We conclude that intraspecific variation is a major force behind the social organization of multiple independently derived lineages of social spider.

Keywords

Animal personality Collective behavior Body condition Social spider Stegodyphus task differentiation 

References

  1. Agnarsson I, Avilés L, Coddington JA, Maddison WP (2006) Sociality in theridiid spiders: repeated origins of an evolutionary dead end. Evolution 60:2342–2351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnarsson I, Maddison WP, Avilés L (2007) The phylogeny of the social Anelosimus spiders (Araneae: Theridiidae) inferred from six molecular loci and morphology. Mol Phylogenet Evol 43:833–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agnarsson I, Avilés L, Maddison W (2013) Loss of genetic variability in social spiders: genetic and phylogenetic consequences of population subdivision and inbreeding. J Evol Biol 26:27–37PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ainsworth C, Slotow R, Crouch T, Lubin Y (2002) Lack of task differentiation during prey capture in the group living spider Stegodyphus mimosarum (Araneae, Eresidae). J Arachnol 30:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akaike H (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amir N, Whitehouse ME, Lubin Y (2000) Food consumption rates and competition in a communally feeding social spider, Stegodyphus dumicola (Eresidae). J Arachnol 28:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergmüller R, Taborsky M (2010) Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends Ecol Evol 25:504–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beshers SN, Fewell JH (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Ann Rev Entomol 46:413–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boake CB (1989) Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol 3:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown C, Irving E (2013) Individual personality traits influence group exploration in a feral guppy population. Behav Ecol 25:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Darchen R, Delage-Darchen B (1986) Societies of spiders compared to the societies of insects. J Arachnol 14:227–238Google Scholar
  13. Dussutour A, Nicolis SC, Despland E, Simpson SJ (2008) Individual differences influence collective behaviour in social caterpillars. Anim Behav 76:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebert D (1998) Behavioral asymmetry in relation to body weight and hunger in the tropical social spider Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). J Arachnol 26:70–80Google Scholar
  15. Falconer D, Mackay T (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Benjamin Cummings, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Foelix RF (1996) Biology of spiders. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Fogarty S, Cote J, Sih A (2011) Social personality polymorphism and the spread of invasive species: a model. Am Nat 177:273–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon DM (2002) The organization of work in social insect colonies. Complexity 8:43–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grinsted L, Pruitt JN, Settepani V, Bilde T (2013) Individual personalities shape task differentiation in a social spider. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 280 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1407
  20. Henschel JR (1998) Predation on social and solitary individuals of the spider Stegodyphus dumicola (Araneae, Eresidae). J Arachnol 26:61–69Google Scholar
  21. Jakob EM, Marshall SD, Uetz GW (1996) Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos 77:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jandt JM, Dornhaus A (2013) Bumblebee response thresholds and body size: does worker diversity increase colony performance? Anim Behav. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.10.017 Google Scholar
  23. Jandt JM, Bengston S, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN, Raine NE, Dornhaus A, Sih A (2013) Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 89:48–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johannesen J, Lubin Y, Smith DR, Bilde T, Schneider JM (2007) The age and evolution of sociality in Stegodyphus spiders: a molecular phylogenetic perspective. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kullmann EJ (1972) Evolution of social behavior in spiders (Araneae; Eresidae and Theridiidae). Am Zool 12:419–426Google Scholar
  26. Le Vin A, Mable B, Taborsky M, Heg D, Arnold K (2011) Individual variation in helping in a cooperative breeder: relatedness versus behavioural type. Anim Behav 82:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lohrey AK, Clark DL, Gordon SD, Uetz GW (2009) Antipredator responses of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) to sensory cues representing an avian predator. Anim Behav 77:813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lubin Y (1995) Is there division of labour in the social spider Achaearanea wau (Theridiidae)? Anim Behav 49(5):1315–1323Google Scholar
  29. Modlmeier AP, Foitzik S (2011) Productivity increases with variation in aggression among group members in Temnothorax ants. Behav Ecol 22:1026–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Modlmeier AP, Liebmann JE, Foitzik S (2012) Diverse societies are more productive: a lesson from ants. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279:2142–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Orr MR (1992) Parasitic flies (Diptera: Phoridae) influence foraging rhythms and caste division of labor in the leaf-cutter ant, Atta cephalotes (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1979) Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Pasquet A, Leborgne R, Lubin Y (1999) Previous foraging success influences web building in the spider Stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae). Behav Ecol 10:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinter-Wollman N (2012) Personality in social insects: how does worker personality determine colony personality? Curr Zool 58:579–587Google Scholar
  35. Pinter-Wollman N, Hubler J, Holley JA, Franks NR, Dornhaus A (2012) How is activity distributed among and within tasks in Temnothorax ants? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1407–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pruitt JN (2013) A real‐time eco‐evolutionary dead‐end strategy is mediated by the traits of lineage progenitors and interactions with colony invaders. Ecol Lett 16:879–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2011a) How within-group behavioural variation and task efficiency enhance fitness in a social group. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:1209–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2011b) Within-group behavioral variation promotes biased task performance and the emergence of a defensive caste in a social spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1055–1060PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE, Jones TC (2008) Behavioural syndromes and their fitness consequences in a socially polymorphic spider, Anelosimus studiosus. Anim Behav 76:871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pruitt JN, Grinsted L, Settepani V (2013) Linking levels of personality: personalities of the ‘average’ and ‘most extreme’ group members predict colony-level personality. Anim Behav 86:391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pruitt JN, Oufiero CE, Avilés L, Riechert SE (2012). Iterative evolution of increased behavioral variation characterizes the transition to sociality in spiders and proves advantageous. Am Nat 180:496–510Google Scholar
  42. Ratnieks FL, Anderson C (1999) Task partitioning in insect societies. Insect Soc 46:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Riechert SE (1985) Why do some spiders cooperate? Agelena consociata, a case study. Fla Entomol 68:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Riechert SE, Hedrick AV (1990) Levels of predation and genetically based anti-predator behaviour in the spider, Agelenopsis aperta. Anim Behav 40:679–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riechert S, Johns P (2003) Do female spiders select heavier males for the genes for behavioral aggressiveness they offer their offspring? Evolution 57:1367–1373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Robson SK, Traniello JF (1999) Key individuals and the organisation of labor in ants. In: Detrain C, Deneubourg J-L, Pasteels J (eds) Information processing in social insects. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Salomon M, Mayntz D, Lubin Y (2008) Colony nutrition skews reproduction in a social spider. Behav Ecol 19:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Settepani V, Grinsted L, Granfeldt J, Jensen JL, Bilde T (2013) Task specialization in two social spiders, Stegodyphus sarasinorum (Eresidae) and Anelosimus eximius (Theridiidae). J Evol Biol 26:51–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shear W (1970) The evolution of social phenomena in spiders. Bull Brit Arachnol Soc 1:65–76Google Scholar
  51. Swanson BO, Gibb AC, Marks JC, Hendrickson DA (2003) Trophic polymorphism and behavioral differences decrease intraspecific competition in a cichlid, Herichthys minckleyi. Ecology 84:1441–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ward PI, Enders MM (1985) Conflict and cooperation in the group feeding of the social spider Stegodyphus mimosarum. Behaviour 94:167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitehouse ME, Lubin Y (1999) Competitive foraging in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 58:677–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitehouse ME, Lubin Y (2005) The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case. Biol Rev 80:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wickler W, Seibt U (1993) Pedogenetic sociogenesis via the “sibling‐route” and some consequences for Stegodyphus spiders. Ethology 95:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson EO (1987) Causes of ecological success: the case of the ants. J Anim Ecol 56:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl N. Keiser
    • 1
  • Devin K. Jones
    • 1
  • Andreas P. Modlmeier
    • 1
  • Jonathan N. Pruitt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations