Advertisement

Exposure to predators reduces collective foraging aggressiveness and eliminates its relationship with colony personality composition

  • Colin M. WrightEmail author
  • James L. L. Lichtenstein
  • Graham A. Montgomery
  • Lauren P. Luscuskie
  • Noa Pinter-Wollman
  • Jonathan N. Pruitt
Original Article

Abstract

Predation is a ubiquitous threat that often plays a central role in determining community dynamics. Predators can impact prey species by directly consuming them, or indirectly causing prey to modify their behavior. Direct consumption has classically been the focus of research on predator-prey interactions, but substantial evidence now demonstrates that the indirect effects of predators on prey populations are at least as strong as, if not stronger than, direct consumption. Social animals, particularly those that live in confined colonies, rely on coordinated actions that may be vulnerable to the presence of a predator, thus impacting the society’s productivity and survival. To examine the effect of predators on the behavior of social animal societies, we observed the collective foraging of social spider colonies (Stegodyphus dumicola) when they interact with dangerous predatory ants either directly, indirectly, or both. We found that when colonies were exposed directly and indirectly to ant cues, they attacked prey with approximately 40–50% fewer spiders, and 40–90% slower than colonies that were not exposed to any predator cues. Furthermore, exposure to predatory ants disassociated the well-documented positive relationship between colony behavioral composition (proportion of bold spiders) and foraging aggressiveness (number of attackers) in S. dumicola, which is vital for colony growth. Thus, the indirect effects of predator presence may limit colony success. These results suggest that enemy presence could compromise the organizational attributes of animal societies.

Significance statement

This study demonstrates that predator presence can compromise the organizational structure of complex animal societies. Indirect cues of predators proved to be most effective at eliminating the relationship between colony personality composition and group foraging. These results suggest that colonies may only incur the foraging benefits associated with particular personality compositions in habitats where their main predator does not occur. It is true that most, if not all, animals must respond at some time to the threat of predation, and shifts in behavior are often used as a first line of defense. Therefore, given the fact that individual differences in behavior are important in determining collective outcomes in many species, we feel our findings could have implications for a broad range of social taxa.

Keywords

Behavioral syndrome Personality Predation Trait-mediated interaction Temperament 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mr. Chunky, the rock locust, for being a model citizen to us all. Additionally, we would like to thank Christine Rice (whose favorite food is rice) for providing us with lessons on the scientific greatness of Archimedes, even though every sane person agrees that Isaac Newton was an objectively better scientist. Funding for this research was generously provided by NSF IOS grants 1352705, 1455895 to JNP, 1456010 to NPW, and NIH GM115509 to JNP and NPW.

Supplementary material

265_2017_2356_MOESM1_ESM.docx (74 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 74 kb)

References

  1. Agnarsson I, Avilés L, Coddington JA, Maddison WP (2006) Sociality in theridiid spiders: repeated origins of an evolutionary dead end. Evolution 60:2342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amir N, Whitehouse MEA, Lubin Y (2000) Food consumption rates and competition in a communally feeding social spider, Stegodyphus dumicola (Eresidae). J Arachnol 28:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aplin LM, Farine DR, Mann RP, Sheldon BC (2014) Individual-level personality influences social foraging and collective behaviour in wild birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 281(1789):20141016Google Scholar
  4. Aviles L, Purcell J (2012) The evolution of inbred social systems in spiders and other organisms: from short-term gains to long-term evolutionary dead ends? Adv Study Behav 44:99–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry MJ (1994) The costs of crest induction for Daphnia carinata. Oecologia 97:278–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell AM, Sih A (2007) Exposure to predation generates personality in threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Ecol Lett 10:828–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengston SE, Jandt JM (2014) The development of collective personality: the ontogenetic drivers of behavioral variation across groups. Front Ecol Evol 2(81):36–48Google Scholar
  8. Berryman AA (1992) The origins and evolution of predator-prey theory. Ecology 73:1530–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beshers SN, Fewell JN (2001) Models of division of labor in social insects. Ann Rev Entomol 46:413–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg JL (1998) Fixed response thresholds and the regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Bull Math Biol 60:753–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Self Organ Biol Syst i-viii:1–538Google Scholar
  12. Castellanos I, Barbosa P (2006) Evaluation of predation risk by a caterpillar using substrate-borne vibrations. Anim Behav 72:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chittka L, Muller H (2009) Learning, specialization, efficiency and task allocation in social insects. Commun Integr Biol 2:151–154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Clinchy M, Sheriff MJ, Zanette LY (2013) Predator-induced stress and the ecology of fear. Funct Ecol 27:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cote J, Fogarty S, Tymen B, Sih A, Brodin T (2013) Personality-dependent dispersal cancelled under predation risk. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 280(1773):20132349Google Scholar
  16. Daly M, Behrends PR, Wilson MI, Jacobs LF (1992) Behavioral modulation of predation risk - moonlight avoidance and crepuscular compensation in a nocturnal desert rodent, Dipodomys merriami. Anim Behav 44:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. David M, Salignon M, Perrot-Minnot MJ (2014) Shaping the antipredator strategy: flexibility, consistency, and behavioral correlations under varying predation threat. Behav Ecol 25:1148–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deneubourg JL, Aron S, Goss S, Pasteels JM (1990) The self-organizing exploratory pattern of the Argentine ant. J Insect Behav 3:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downes S (2001) Trading heat and food for safety: costs of predator avoidance in a lizard. Ecology 82:2870–2881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flack JC, Girvan M, de Waal FBM, Krakauer DC (2006) Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439:426–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Grinsted L, Pruitt JN, Settepani V, Bilde T (2013) Individual personalities shape task differentiation in a social spider. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 280(1767):20131407Google Scholar
  22. Harwood G, Aviles L (2013) Differences in group size and the extent of individual participation in group hunting may contribute to differential prey-size use among social spiders. Biol Lett 9(6):20130621Google Scholar
  23. Henschel JR (1998) Predation on social and solitary individuals of the spider Stegodyphus dumicola (Araneae, Eresidae). J Arachnol 26:61–69Google Scholar
  24. Jakob EM, Marshall SD, Uetz GW (1996) Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos 77:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jandt JM, Sarah Bengston, Noa Pinter-Wollman, Jonathan N. Pruitt, Nigel E. Raine, Anna Dornhaus, Andrew Sih (2013) Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels. Biol Rev 89(1):48–67Google Scholar
  26. Johnson CJ, Sih A (2005) Precopulatory sexual cannibalism in fishing spiders (Dolomedes triton): a role for behavioral syndromes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jolles JW, Fleetwood-Wilson A, Nakayama S, Stumpe MC, Johnstone RA, Manica A (2015) The role of social attraction and its link with boldness in the collective movements of three-spined sticklebacks. Anim Behav 99:147–153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Keiser CN, Howell KA, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN (2016a) Personality composition alters the transmission of cuticular bacteria in social groups. Biol Lett 12(7):20160297Google Scholar
  29. Keiser CN, Jones DK, Modlmeier AP, Pruitt JN (2014) Exploring the effects of individual traits and within-colony variation on task differentiation and collective behavior in a desert social spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:839–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keiser CN, Pinter-Wollman N, Augustine DA, Ziemba MJ, Hao LR, Lawrence JG, Pruitt JN (2016b) Individual differences in boldness influence patterns of social interactions and the transmission of cuticular bacteria among group-mates. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283Google Scholar
  31. Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2014) Personality composition is more important than group size in determining collective foraging behaviour in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 281(1796):20141424Google Scholar
  32. Keiser CN, Wright CM, Pruitt JN (2015) Warring arthropod societies: social spider colonies can delay annihilation by predatory ants via reduced apparency and increased group size. Behav Process 119:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keiser CN, Wright CM, Pruitt JN (2016c) Increased bacterial load can reduce or negate the effects of keystone individuals on group collective behaviour. Anim Behav 114:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleeberg I, Pamminger T, Jongepier E, Papenhagen M, Foitzik S (2014) Forewarned is forearmed: aggression and information use determine fitness costs of slave raids. Behav Ecol 25:1058–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krause J, Godin JGJ (1995) Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes—consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim Behav 50:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laskowski KL, Montiglio P, Pruitt JN (2016) Individual and group performance suffers from social niche disruption. Am Nat 187(6):776–785Google Scholar
  37. Laskowski KL, Pruitt JN (2014) Evidence of social niche construction: persistent and repeated social interactions generate stronger personalities in a social spider. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 281(1783):20133166Google Scholar
  38. Lichtenstein JLL, Wright CM, Luscuskie LP, Montgomery GA, Pinter-Wollman N, Pruitt JN (2016) Participation in cooperative prey capture and the benefits gained from it are associated with individual personality. Curr Zool. doi: 10.1093/cz/zow097
  39. Lima SL (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions—what are the ecological effects of anti-predator decision-making? Bioscience 48:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can J Zool Rev Can Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Modlmeier AP, Foitzik S (2011) Productivity increases with variation in aggression among group members in Temnothorax ants. Behav Ecol 22:1026–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Modlmeier AP, Keiser CN, Watters JV, Sih A, Pruitt JN (2014a) The keystone individual concept: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Anim Behav 89:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Modlmeier AP, Keiser CN, Wright CM, Lichtenstein JLL, Pruitt JN (2015) Integrating animal personality into insect population and community ecology. In. Elsevier, Current Opinion in Insect Science, pp 77–85Google Scholar
  44. Modlmeier AP, Laskowski KL, DeMarco AE, Coleman A, Zhao K, Brittingham HA, McDermott DR, Pruitt JN (2014b) Persistent social interactions beget more pronounced personalities in a desert-dwelling social spider. In, Biology Letters, pp 2014–19Google Scholar
  45. Modlmeier AP, Liebmann JE, Foitzik S (2012) Diverse societies are more productive: a lesson from ants. Proc Biol Sci 279:2142–2150CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Murdoch WW, Briggs CJ, Nisbet RM (2003) Consumer-resource dynamics, vol 36. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Nentwig W (1985) Social spiders catch larger prey—a study of Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nonacs P, Blumstein DT (2010) Predation risk and behavioral life history. Oxford University Press, NY, p 207–221Google Scholar
  49. Orrock JL, Grabowski JH, Pantel JH, Peacor SD, Peckarsky BL, Sih A, Werner EE (2008) Consumptive and nonconsumptive effects of predators on metacommunities of competing prey. Ecology 89:2426–2435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Oster G, Wilson EO (1978) Castes and ecology in the social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. Perez-Tris J, Diaz JA, Telleria JL (2004) Loss of body mass under predation risk: cost of antipredatory behaviour or adaptive fit-for-escape? Anim Behav 67:511–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinter-Wollman N (2012) Personality in social insects: how does worker personality determine colony personality? Curr Zool 58:580–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pinter-Wollman N, Mi, Brian, Pruitt JN (2017) Replacing bold individuals has a smaller impact on group performance than replacing shy individuals. Behav Ecol 28(3):883–889Google Scholar
  54. Powers KS, Aviles L (2007) The role of prey size and abundance in the geographical distribution of spider sociality. J Anim Ecol 76:995–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 16:879–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Pruitt JN, Goodnight CJ (2014) Site-specific group selection drives locally adapted colony compositions. Nature 514(7522):359Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Pruitt JN, Keiser CN (2014) The personality types of key catalytic individuals shape colonies' collective behaviour and success. Anim Behav 93:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pruitt JN, Pinter-Wollman N (2015) The legacy effects of keystone individuals on collective behaviour scale to how long they remain within a group. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pruitt JN, Riechert SE (2011) How within-group behavioural variation and task efficiency enhance fitness in a social group. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:1209–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pruitt JN, Wright CM, Keiser CN, DeMarco AE, Grobis MM, Pinter-Wollman N (2016) The Achilles’ heel hypothesis: misinformed keystone individuals impair collective learning and reduce group success. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 300(823):20152888Google Scholar
  63. Riechert SE, Hedrick AV (1990) Levels of predation and genetically based antipredator behavior in the spider, Agelenopsis aperta. Anim Behav 40:679–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Robinson GE (1992) Regulation of division-of-labor in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 37:637–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Seibt U, Wickler W (1990) The protective function of the compact silk nest of social Stegodyphus spiders (Araneae, Eresidae). Oecologia 82:317–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Sih A, Cote J, Evans M, Fogarty S, Pruitt J (2012) Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol Lett 15:278–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sih A, Krupa J, Travers S (1990) An experimental study on the effects of predation risk and feeding regime on the mating behavior of the water strider. Am Nat 135:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sloan Wilson D, Clark AB, Coleman K, Dearstyne T (1994) Shyness and boldness in humans and other animals. Trends Ecol Evol 9:442–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Thomson RL, Tomas G, Forsman JT, Broggi J, Monkkonen M (2010) Predator proximity as a stressor in breeding flycatchers: mass loss, stress protein induction, and elevated provisioning. Ecology 91:1832–1840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Waibel M, Floreano D, Magnenat S, Keller L (2006) Division of labour and colony efficiency in social insects: effects of interactions between genetic architecture, colony kin structure and rate of perturbations. Proc Biol Sci 273:1815–1823CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitehouse MEA, Lubin Y (1999) Competitive foraging in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 58:677–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams TM, Estes JA, Doak DF, Springer AM (2004) Killer appetites: assessing the role of predators in ecological communities. Ecology 85:3373–3384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wray MK, Mattila HR, Seeley TD (2011) Collective personalities in honeybee colonies are linked to colony fitness. Anim Behav 81:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wright CM, Holbrook CT, Pruitt JN (2014) Animal personality aligns task specialization and task proficiency in a spider society. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:9533–9537CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Wright CM, Hyland TD, Izzo AS, McDermott DR, Tibbetts EA, Pruitt JN (2017) Polistes metricus queens exhibit personality variation and behavioral syndromes. Curr Zool. doi: 10.1093/cz/zox008
  78. Wright CM, Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2015) Personality and morphology shape task participation, collective foraging and escape behaviour in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 105:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wright CM, Keiser CN, Pruitt JN (2016a) Colony personality composition alters colony-level plasticity and magnitude of defensive behaviour in a social spider. Anim Behav 115:175–183Google Scholar
  80. Wright CM, Skinker VE, Izzo AS, Tibbetts EA, Pruitt JN (2016b) Queen personality type predicts nest-guarding behaviour, colony size and the subsequent collective aggressiveness of the colony. Anim Behav 124:7–13Google Scholar
  81. Yip EC, Powers KS, Aviles L (2008) Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:11818–11822CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations