Journal of Ethology

, 29:473

Condition dependence of male nuptial gift construction in the spider Pisaura mirabilis (Pisauridae)



Pisaura mirabilis males offer a prey wrapped in silk as a nuptial gift that functions as a male mating effort. If nuptial gift construction is costly, males in poor feeding condition would invest less in this behaviour than males in good condition. We investigated frequencies and characteristics of gift construction in males under different sexual stimuli and different feeding conditions. We analysed gift construction behaviours of 17 males exposed sequentially to three treatments: female silk (S), female silk plus female (SF) and no female cues (control; C). The same individuals were first tested when in good feeding condition (young/satiated) and subsequently in poor feeding condition (old/starved). A separate group in good feeding condition controlling for effects of male age was also tested (old/satiated). Presence of female cues (S and SF) elicited much stronger gift construction response in males compared with the control group. Both groups of satiated males constructed nuptial gifts more frequently than starved males, spending more time on gift construction and using more silk. Our findings show that poor feeding condition affects pre-copulatory gift construction behaviour. Nuptial gift construction may be an honest indicator of male condition and therefore a target of female choice.


Indicator trait Handicap hypothesis Gift construction Male quality Nuptial gift Sexual selection Spiders 


  1. Ahtiainen J, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho JS, Mappes J, Parri S, Vertainen L (2001) Sexual selection in the drumming wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. In: Toft S, Scharff N (eds) European Arachnology 2000. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp 129–137Google Scholar
  2. Albo MJ, Costa FG (2010) Nuptial gift giving behaviour and male mating effort in the Neotropical spider Paratrechalea ornata (Trechaleidae). Anim Behav 79:1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albo MJ, Costa-Schmidt LE, Costa FG (2009) To feed or to wrap? Female silk cues elicit male nuptial gift construction in the spider Paratrechalea ornata (Trechaleidae). J Zool 277:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcock J (1998) Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach, 6th edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen T, Bollerup K, Toft S, Bilde T (2008) Why do males of the spider Pisaura mirabilis wrap their nuptial gifts in silk: female preference or male control? Ethology 114:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson JF (1974) Responses to starvation in the spiders Lycosa lento Hentz and Filistata hibernalis (Hentz). Ecology 55:576–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Andrade MCB, Mason AC (2000) Male condition, female choice, and extreme variation in repeated mating in a scaly cricket, Ornebius aperta (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Mogoplistinae). J Insect Behav 13:483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Austad SN, Thornhill R (1986) Female reproductive variation in a nuptial-feeding spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 7:48–52Google Scholar
  11. Bilde T, Tuni C, Elsayed R, Pekar S, Toft S (2006) Death feigning in the face of sexual cannibalism. Biol Lett 2:23–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bilde T, Tuni C, Elsayed R, Pekar S, Toft S (2007) Nuptial gifts of male spiders: sensory exploitation of female’s maternal care instinct or foraging motivation? Anim Behav 73:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boggs CL (1995) Male nuptial gifts: phenotypic consequences and evolutionary implications. In: Leather SR, Hardie J (eds) Insect reproduction. CRC, New York, pp 215–242Google Scholar
  14. Bristowe WS (1968) The world of spiders. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruun LE, Michaelsen KR, Sørensen A, Nielsen MH, Toft S (2003) Mating duration of Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae) depends on size of the nuptial gift and not on male size. Arthropoda Sel (special issue) 1:35–39Google Scholar
  16. Costa-Schmidt LE, Carico JE, Araújo AM (2008) Nuptial gifts and sexual behaviour in two species of spider (Araneae, Trechaleidae, Paratrechalea). Naturwissenschaften 95:731–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig CL (2003) Spiderwebs and silk: tracing evolution from molecules to genes to phenotypes. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drengsgaard IL, Toft S (1999) Sperm competition in a nuptial feeding spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Behaviour 136:877–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engels S, Sauer KP (2006) Resource-dependent nuptial feeding in Panorpa vulgaris: an honest signal for male quality. Behav Ecol 17:628–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2003) Influence of nutrition on courtship and mating in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata (Mecoptera, Insecta). Ethology 109:911–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gwynne DT (2008) Sexual conflict over nuptial gift in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 53:83–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2003) PAST—palaeontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Version 1.18.
  24. Hansen LS, Fernández González S, Toft S, Bilde T (2008) Thanatosis as an adaptive male mating strategy in the nuptial gift-giving spider Pisaura mirabilis. Behav Ecol 19:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Smith MJ, Bentsen CL, Bussiere LF (2004) High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature 432:1024–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kotiaho JS (2002) Sexual selection and condition dependence of courtship display in three species of horned dung beetles. Behav Ecol 13:791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lang A (1996) Silk investments in gifts by males of the nuptial feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Behaviour 133:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lomborg JP, Toft S (2009) Nutritional enrichment increase courtship intensity and improves mating success in male spiders. Behav Ecol 20:700–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mappes J, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Parri S (1996) Viability costs of condition-dependent sexual male display in a drumming wolf spider. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:785–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nitzsche ROM (1988) Brautgeschenk’ und Umspinnen der Beute bei Pisaura mirabilis, Dolomedes fimbriatus und Thaumasia uncata (Arachnida, Araneida, Pisauridae). Verh des Naturwiss Ver Hamburg 30:353–393Google Scholar
  31. Nitzsche ROM (1999) Das Brautgeschenk der Spinne. Rainar Nitzsche Verlag, KaiserslauternGoogle Scholar
  32. Parri S, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Mappes J (1997) Female choice for male drumming in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Anim Behav 53:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prokop P (2006) Insemination does not affect female mate choice in a nuptial feeding spider. Ital J Zool 73:197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prokop P, Maxwell MR (2009) Female feeding and polyandry in the nuptially feeding nursery web spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Naturwissenschaften 96:259–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sakaluk SK (2000) Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc R Soc Lond 267:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simmons LW, Beesley L, Lindhjem P, Newbound D, Norris J, Wayne A (1998) Nuptial feeding by male bushcrickets: an indicator of male quality? Behav Ecol 3:263–269Google Scholar
  37. Stålhandske P (2001) Nuptial gift in the spider Pisaura mirabilis maintained by sexual selection. Behav Ecol 6:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stålhandske P (2002) Nuptial gifts of male spiders function as sensory traps. Proc R Soc Lond 269:905–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behaviour in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am Nat 110:529–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Toft S, Wise DH (1999) Growth, development, and survival of a generalist predator fed single- and mixed-species diets of different quality. Oecología 119:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Uetz GW, Papke R, Kilinc B (2002) Influence of feeding regime on body size, body condition and a male secondary sexual character in Schizocosa ocreata wolf spiders (Araneae, Lycosidae): condition-dependent in a visual signalling trait. J Arachnol 30:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: review of empirical studies. Biol Rev 73:43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vahed K (2007) All that glisters not gold: sensory bias, sexual conflict and nuptial feeding in insects and spiders. Ethology 113:105–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walker SE, Marshall SD, Rypstra AL, Taylor DH (2000) The effects of hunger on locomotory behaviour in two species of wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav 58:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratorio de Etología, Ecología y EvoluciónInstituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente EstableMontevideoUruguay
  2. 2.Department of Biological Sciences, Ecology and GeneticsAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations