Advertisement

acta ethologica

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 47–56 | Cite as

Fifty shades of silk: sexual behavior and bridal veil deposition in the spider Ctenus longipes

  • Mariana C. TrilloEmail author
  • Álvaro Laborda
  • Gabriel Francescoli
  • Anita Aisenberg
Original Paper

Abstract

Males of some spider species lay silk threads on the female’s body during courtship and/or copulation. There are several hypotheses trying to explain the function of this behavior, known as bridal veil deposition. One of them proposes that bridal veils could occur to immobilize females and prevent sexual cannibalism when females are larger than males, or that they could inhibit female aggressive behavior. Ctenus longipes is a wandering and nocturnal spider that inhabits ravine forests in South America. The aim of this work was to describe in detail courtship and copulatory behaviors in C. longipes and confirm the occurrence of a bridal veil, discussing its possible functions in this species. For that purpose, we exposed 13 virgin male-female pairs at laboratory conditions and recorded courtship, copulation, and post-copulation behaviors. We also measured body and leg size of all individuals to estimate sexual size dimorphism. In all the cases, the male deposited silk on top of the female’s body in the form of a bridal veil, covering the anterior carapace and forelegs. The data did not support the hypothesis that bridal veil deposition is related to sexual cannibalism avoidance because females were not immobilized during mating, larger females did not present longer silk bindings, and we did not observe aggressions in any case. Future studies where males are prevented from producing silk will allow a better understanding of whether or not the veil is involved in avoiding cannibalism in C. longipes.

Keywords

Courtship Ctenidae Mate binding Sexual size dimorphism Sexual conflict 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank M. González for her help with the use of JWatcher and ImageJ programs, R. Postiglioni for his help with statistics and bibliography, L. Montes de Oca for prey maintenance, and M. Casacuberta for his pictures and video and for his help at the field. We are also grateful to E. Stanley, A. Albín, F. Baldenegro, and M. Carballo for their help with spider rearing. M. Simó provided bibliography and helped us to access material deposited in Colección de Entomología of Facultad de Ciencias, Montevideo, Uruguay. We are grateful to the two reviewers and the editor for their comments that improved the final version of the manuscript. A.A. and G.F. acknowledge support by PEDECIBA, UdelaR, and SNI (ANII).

Supplementary material

ESM 1

Bridal veil deposition and mating in Ctenus longipes. The male is on top of the female, and both sexes face to opposite directions. Video by Marcelo Casacuberta. (AVI 17646 kb)

References

  1. Aisenberg A, Viera C, Costa FG (2007) Daring females, devoted males and reversed sexual size dimorphism in the sand-dwelling spider Allocosa brasiliensis (Araneae Lycosidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aisenberg A, Estramil N, González M, Toscano-Gadea C, Costa FG (2008) Silk release by copulating Schizocosa malitiosa males (Araneae, Lycosidae): a bridal veil. J Arachnol 36:204–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aisenberg A, Costa FG, González M, Postiglioni R, Pérez-Miles F (2010) Sexual dimorphism in chelicerae, forelegs and palpal traits in two burrowing wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) with sex-role reversal. J Nat Hist 44(19–20):1189–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aisenberg A, Toscano-Gadea C, Ghione S (2011) Guía de Arácnidos del Uruguay. Ediciones de la fuga. Colección Ciencia Amiga:256Google Scholar
  5. Aisenberg A (2014) Adventurous females and demanding ales: sex role reversal in a Neotropical Spider. In: Macedo R & G Machado (Eds.). Sexual selection: perspectives and models from the Neotropics. Academic Press, London UK. 163–182Google Scholar
  6. Albo MJ, Toft S, Bilde T (2013) Sexual selection, ecology, and evolution of nuptial gifts in spiders. In: Macedo R & G Machado (Eds.). Sexual selection: perspectives and models from the Neotropics. Academic Press, London UK. 183–200Google Scholar
  7. Alvarado-Castro JA, Jiménez ML (2011) Reproductive behavior of Homalonychus selenopoides (Araneae: Homalonychidae). JArachnol:118–127Google Scholar
  8. Anava A, Lubin Y (1993) Presence of gender cues in the web of a widow spider Latrodectus revivensis, and a description of courtship behaviour. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 9:119–122Google Scholar
  9. Andersson M (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 599 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Anderson AG, Hebets E (2016) Benefits of body size dimorphism and copulatory silk wrapping in the sexually cannibalistic nursery web spider, Pisaurina mira. Biol Lett 12:20150957.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bardier B, Aisenberg A, Toscano-Gadea CA, Costa FG (2015) Wooing during day or night is not the same: an experimental study in the wolf spider Schizocosa malitiosa. Ethol 121:958–965Google Scholar
  12. Barth FG (2002) A spider’s world. Senses and behavior. Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York:394Google Scholar
  13. Baruffaldi L, Costa FG (2010) Changes in male sexual responses from silk cues of females at different reproductive states in the wolf spider Schizocosa malitiosa. J Ethol 28:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blanckenhorn WU (2005) Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology 111:977–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blumstein DT, Daniel JC, Evans CS (2000) JWatcher. Version 0.9. Available in http://www.jwatcher.ucla.edu/
  16. Breene RG, Sweet MH (1985) Evidence of insemination of multiple females by the black widow spider Latrodectus mactans (Araneae, Theridiidae). J Arachnol 13:331–335Google Scholar
  17. Brescovit AD, Oliveira U, Santos AJ (2010) Spiders (Araneae, Arachnida) from São Paulo State, Brazil: diversity, sampling efforts, and state-of-art. Biota Neotrop 11(1a):717–747 http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v11n1a/en/abstract?inventory+bn0381101a2011 Google Scholar
  18. Bristowe WS (1929) The mating habits of spiders, with special reference to the problems surrounding sex dimorphism. Proc Zool Soc 11:309–358Google Scholar
  19. Bristowe WS (1931) The mating habits of spiders: a second supplement, with the description of a new Thomisid from Krakatau. Proc Zool Soc:1401–1412Google Scholar
  20. Bruce JA, Carico JE (1988) Silk use during mating in Pisaurina mira (Walckenaer) (Araneae, Pisauridae). J Arachnol 16:1–4Google Scholar
  21. Carico JE (1993) Revision of the genus Trechalea Thorell (Araneae, Trechaleidae). J Arachnol 21:226–257Google Scholar
  22. Costa FG (1979) Análisis de la cópula y de la actividad postcopulatoria de Lycosa malitiosa Tullgren (Araneae: Lycosidae). Rev Brasil Biol 39(2):361–376Google Scholar
  23. Costa FG, Montes De Oca L, Perdomo C, Ortíz-Villatoro D, Baruffaldi L, Pérez-Miles F (2013) Is more better? Sexual confusion during courtship between two sympatric and synchronic tarantulas: Acanthoscurria siuna and Eupalaestrus weijenberghi. Zoologia 30(5):577–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Díaz VG, Aisenberg A, Peretti A (2015) Communication during copulation in the sex-role reversed wolf spider Allocosa brasiliensis: female shakes for soliciting new ejaculations? Behav Process 116:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 502 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Elgar MA (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection in spiders and other arachnids. In: Sperm competition and sexual selection. Birkhead TR, Moller AP (Eds.). London: Academic Press 307–340Google Scholar
  27. Foelix RF (2011) Biology of spiders. Oxford University Press. UK 419 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Foellmer MW, Fairbairn DJ (2005) Selection on male size, leg length and condition during mate search in a sexually highly dimorphic orb-weaving spider. Oecol 142:653–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gaskett AC (2007) Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions. Biol Rev 82:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gayon J (2000) History of concept of allometry. Am Zool 40:748–758Google Scholar
  31. Ghione S., Coelho L., Costa FG, García LF, González M, Jorge C, Laborda Á, Montes de Oca L, Pérez-Miles F, Postiglioni R, Simó M, Toscano-Gadea C, Viera C, Aisenberg A. 2017. Arácnidos prioritarios para la conservación en Uruguay. Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay 26 (1): 1–8 ISSN: 0255–4402Google Scholar
  32. González M, Peretti AV, Viera C, Costa FG (2013) Differences in sexual behavior of two distant populations of the funnel-web wolf spider Aglaoctenus lagotis. J Ethol 31(2):175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hajer J, Hajer J, Řeháková D (2011) Mating behavior of Theridiosoma gemmosum (Araneae: Theridiosomatidae) - the unusual role of male draglines silk. Arch Biol Sci, Belgrade 63(1):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2003) Past Palaentological, version 1.18 [Intenet]. Available in folk.uio.no/ohammer/past
  35. Herberstein ME, Wignall A (2011) Introduction: spider biology. In: Herberstein ME (ed.) Spider behaviour. Flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press. Macquarie University, Sydney. 1–30Google Scholar
  36. Klein AL, Trillo MC, Costa FG, Albo MJ (2014) Nuptial gift size, mating duration and remating success in the spider Paratrechalea ornata. Ethol Ecol Evol 26:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laborda A, Simó M (2015) Description of the female of Eutichurus ibiuna Bonaldo, 1994 (Araneae: Eutichuridae) with notes on natural history and sexual behavior. Zootaxa 4021(4):591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lang A (1996) Silk investment in gifts by males of the nuptial feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Behav 133:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. López A (1987) Glandular aspects of sexual biology. In: Nentwig W (ed) Ecophysiology of spiders. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merrett P (1988) Notes on the biology of the Neotropical pisaurid, Ancylometes bogotensis (Keyserling) (Araneae: Pisauridae). Bull Br Arachnol Soc 7(7):197–201Google Scholar
  41. Peretti A, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD (2006) Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav 72:413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Platnick NI (1971) The evolution of courtship behavior in spiders. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 2:40–47Google Scholar
  43. Preston-Mafham KG (1999) Notes on bridal veil construction in Oxyopes schenkeli Lessert, 1927 (Araneae: Oxyopidae) in Uganda. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 11(4):150–152Google Scholar
  44. Rasband WS (2016) Image J, U. S. National Institutes of Health. In: Bethesda. Maryland, USA https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/ Google Scholar
  45. Robinson MH, Robinson B (1973) The stabilimenta of Nephila clavipes and the origins of stabilimentum-building in Araneids. Psyche 80:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robinson MH, Robinson B (1980) Comparative studies of the courtship and mating behaviour of tropical araneid spiders. Pacific Ins Monogr 36:1–218Google Scholar
  47. Ross K, Smith RL (1979) Aspects of the courtship behavior of the black widow spider Latrodectus herperus (Araneae: Theridiidae), with evidence for the existence of a contact pheromone. J Arachnol 7:69–77Google Scholar
  48. Schmitt A (1992) Conjectures on the origins and functions of a bridal veil spun by the males of Cupiennius coccineus (Araneae, Ctenidae). J Arachnol 20:67–68Google Scholar
  49. Schneider J, Andrade M (2011) Mating behavior and sexual selection. In: Herberstein ME (ed) Spider behaviour: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press. Macquarie University, Sydney, pp 215–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott CE, Anderson AG, Andrade MC (2018) A review of the mechanisms and functional roles of male silk use in spider courtship and mating. J Arachnol 46(2):173–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simó M, Pérez-Miles F, Ponce de León R, Achaval F, Meneghel M (1994) Relevamiento de fauna de la Quebrada de los Cuervos; Area Natural Protegida (Dpto. Treinta y Tres, Uruguay). Bol Soc Zool Urug 2:1–20Google Scholar
  52. Simó M, Vazquez V, Useta G (2000) Estudio comparativo de la fenología y el hábitat de Ctenus taeniatus Keyserling 1891 y Asthenoctenus borellii Simon 1897 en el Uruguay (Araneae, Ctenidae). Bol Soc Zool Urug, 2° época 12:32–40Google Scholar
  53. Schneider JM (2014) Sexual cannibalism as a manifestation of sexual conflict. C Sp Harpers in Biol:1–16Google Scholar
  54. Uhl G, Elias D (2011) Communication. In: Herberstein M (ed) Spider behavior: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 391Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. World Spider Catalogue (2018) World Spider Catalogue. Natural History Museum Bern, online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 17.0, accessed on 29 June
  57. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 663Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISPA, CRL 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ecología y Biología EvolutivaInstituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente EstableMontevideoUruguay
  2. 2.Sección Entomología, Facultad de CienciasMontevideoUruguay
  3. 3.Sección Etología, Facultad de CienciasMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations