Male performance and associated costs in successive sexual encounters in a polygynous web wolf spider

  • Débora A. Abregú
  • Alfredo V. Peretti
  • Macarena GonzálezEmail author
Original Paper


Polygynous males increase their reproductive success by fertilizing as many females as possible. However, this strategy can lead to costs for the males. This study focused on an atypical wolf spider that lives in webs, Aglaoctenus lagotis. Previous studies report polyandrous females, but little is known about the mating strategy of males and its potential associated costs. Our goals were to determine the potential polygyny and the changes in sexual behaviour, body condition and physiology of males throughout successive matings. Males were expected to mate with multiple females; males’ body condition was expected to decrease and male mating performance, including sperm transfer, was expected to decrease over successive matings. Males were exposed to successive virgin females every 3 days until the male did not court, was cannibalized or died of natural causes. Agreeing with our predictions, males were capable of multiple matings, showing an average of 5 ± 2 matings (range 3–11). Their mating performance decreased in successive matings and, although no changes were found in the behavioural patterns during the courtship over successive matings, the number of palpal insertions decreased. Unexpectedly, overall body condition did not decrease and males did not deplete their sperm supply. We found that 44% of the males were victims of sexual cannibalism after their third mating. The females that attacked or cannibalized males had less sperm stored in their spermathecae than those that did not. We discuss hypotheses that may clarify this scenario and the role of the cryptic female choice mechanism.


Mating system Lycosidae Sperm transfer Sexual behaviour Body condition 



We want to thank Franco Cargnelutti, Matias Izquierdo, Mariela Oviedo-Diego, Javier Rial, Luna Silvetti and Cecilia Naval for their help in collecting the spiders. We are also very grateful to Mariela Oviedo-Diego and Germán González for the statistical support. Franco Cargnelutti gave us valuable technical assistance with sperm count. Marc Weed revised the language. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers who have contributed to the improvement of the manuscript substantially.


This study was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), SECYT UNC and Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (FONCYT) of Argentina.

Supplementary material

Video 1

A. lagotis mating, showing the male over the female (in the typical lycosid mating position). The female body shakings that occur during mating, and the moment of the dismount can be observed (MP4 20.6 mb)

Video 2

A. lagotis mating, showing the moment of cannibalism occurrence (MP4 33.2 mb)


  1. Aisenberg A, Costa FG (2005) Females mated without sperm transfer maintain high sexual receptivity level in the wolf spider Schizocosa malitiosa. Ethology 111:545–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aisenberg A, Peretti AV (2011) Sexual dimorphism in immune response, fat reserves and muscle mass in a sex role reversed spider. Zoology 114:272–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 62:29–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alavi Y, Elgar MA, Jones TM (2016) Male mating success and the effect of mating history on ejaculate traits in a facultatively parthenogenic insect (Extatosoma tiaratum). Ethology 122:523–530. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson AG, Hebets EA (2017) Increased insertion number leads to increased sperm transfer and fertilization success in a nursery web spider. Anim Behav 132:121–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson AG, Hebets EA, Bickner BM, Watts JC (2018) Males mate with multiple females to increase offspring numbers in a nursery web spider. Behav Ecol 29(4):918–924. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa F (2011) Copulation duration in the soldier fly: the roles of cryptic male choice and sperm competition risk. Behav Ecol 22:1332–1336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barry KL, Holwell G, Herberstein ME (2008) Female praying mantids use sexual cannibalism as a foraging strategy to increase fecundity. Behav Ecol 19:710–715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 28:75–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823Google Scholar
  12. Berger-Tal R, Lubin Y (2011) High male mate search costs and a female-biased sex ratio shape the male mating strategy in a desert spider. Anim Behav 82:853–859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blumstein DT, Evans CS, Daniel JC (2000) JWatcher. Online at Accessed Mar 2017
  14. Bucher E (1974) Observaciones ecológicas sobre artrópodos del bosque chaqueño de Tucumán. Revista de Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales de Córdoba (NS). Biología 1:35–122Google Scholar
  15. Ceballos L, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2015) Patterns of sperm transfer in the golden orb-weaver Nephila edulis. Ethol 121:617–624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa FG (1979) Análisis de la cópula y de la actividad postcopulatoria de Lycosa malitiosa Tullgren (Araneae: Lycosidae). Rev Brasil Biol 39:361–376Google Scholar
  17. Damiens D, Boivin G (2005) Male reproductive strategy in Trichogramma evanescens: sperm production and allocation to females. Physiol Entomol 30(3):241–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delignette-Muller ML, Dutang LC (2015) fitdistrplus: an R package for fitting distributions. J Stat Softw 64:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeVito J, Meik JM, Gerson MM, Formanowicz DR Jr (2004) Physiological tolerances of three sympatric riparian wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) correspond with microhabitat distributions. Can J Zool 82:1119–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elgar MA, Crespi BJ (1992) Cannibalism: ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Elgar MA, Nash DR (1988) Sexual cannibalism in the garden spider Araneus diadematus. Anim Behav 36:1511–1517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elgar MA, Schneider JM (2004) The evolutionary significance of sexual cannibalism. Adv Stud Behav 34:135–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elgar MA, Schneider JM, Herberstein ME (2000) Female control of paternity in the sexually cannibalistic spider. Proc R Soc London Ser B 267(1460):2439–2443Google Scholar
  24. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2003) Determinants of sperm transfer in the scorpionfly Panorpa cognata: male variation, female condition and copulation duration. J Evol Biol 16:1196–1204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernández-Montraveta C, Cuadrado M (2013) Hogna radiata males do not deplete their sperm in a single mating. J Arachnol 41:102–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fernández-Montraveta C, Ortega J (1990) Some aspects of the reproductive behavior of Lycosa tarentula fasciiventris (Araneae, Lycosidae). J Arachnol 18:257–262. Google Scholar
  27. Foelix R (2011) Biology of spiders, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  28. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder MN, Nielse A, Sibert J (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:2,233–2,249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fujisaki K (1981) Studies on the mating system of the winter cherry bug, Acanthocoris sordidus Thunberg (Heteroptera: Coreidae) II. Harem defence polygyny. Res Popul Ecol 23:262–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. García-Díaz V, Aisenberg A, Peretti AV (2015) Communication during copulation in the sex-role reversed wolf spider Allocosa brasiliensis: female shakes for soliciting new ejaculations? Behav Process 116:62–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaskett AC, Herberstein ME, Downes BJ, Elgar MA (2004) Changes in male mate choice in a sexually cannibalistic orb-web spider (Araneae: Araneidae). Behaviour 141:1197–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. González M (2015) Aspectos reproductivos de Aglaoctenus lagotis: estudio interpoblacional de una araña lobo sedentaria de gran variabilidad fenotípica. Tesis de doctorado de Ciencias Biológicas, FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  33. González M (2018) Are multiple copulations harmful? Damage to male pedipalps in the funnel-web wolf spider Aglaoctenus lagotis (Araneae: Lycosidae). J Arachnol 46:162–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 31:175–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. González M, Costa FG, Peretti AV (2014) Strong phenological differences between two populations of a Neotropical funnel-web wolf spider. J Nat Hist 48:2183–2197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. González M, Peretti AV, Costa FG (2015) Reproductive isolation between two populations of Aglaoctenus lagotis, a funnel-web wolf spider. Biol J Linn Soc 114:646–658. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. González M, Costa FG, Peretti AV (2019) Different levels of polyandry in two populations of the funnel-web wolf spider Aglaoctenus lagotis from South America.
  38. Grafe TU (1997) Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 53:1103–1117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gwynne DT (1987) Sex-biased predation and the risky mate-locating behaviour of male tick-tock cicadas (Homoptera, Cicadidae). Anim Behav 35:571–576. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heer L (2013) Male and female reproductive strategies and multiple paternity in the polygynandrous Alpine Accentor Prunella collaris. J Ornithol 154:251–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herberstein ME, Schneider JM, Elgar MA (2002) Costs of courtship and mating in a sexually cannibalistic orb-web spider: female strategies and their consequences for males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:440–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herberstein ME, Schneider JM, Harmer AMT, Gaskett AC, Robinson K, Shaddick K, Soetkamp D,Wilson PD, Pekar S, Elgar MA (2011) Sperm storage and copulation duration in a sexually cannibalistic spider. J Ethol 29(1):9–15.
  43. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P, Heiberger RM, Schuetzenmeister A, Scheibe S, Hothorn MT (2016) Package ‘multcomp’. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Project for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  44. Hughes L, Siew-Woon Chang B, Wagner D, Pierce NE (2000) Effects of mating history on ejaculate size, fecundity, longevity, and copulation duration in the ant-tended lycaenid butterfly Jalmenus evagoras. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:119–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jiao X, Chen Z, Wu J, Du H, Liu F, Chen J, Li D (2011) Male remating and female fitness in the wolf spider Pardosa astrigera: the role of male mating history. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:325–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:101–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jones TM (2001) A potential cost of monandry in the lekking sandfly Lutzomyia longipalpis. J Insect Behav 14:385–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jones TM, McNamara KB, Colvin P, Featherston R, Elgar MA (2006) Mating frequency, fecundity and fertilization success in the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus. J Insect Behav 19:357–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kasumovic MM, Bruce MJ, Herberstein ME, Andrade MCB (2007) Risky mate search and mate preference in the golden orb-web spider (Nephila plu- mipes). Behav Ecol 18:189–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW (2003) Longevity cost of reproduction for males but no longevity cost of mating or courtship for females in the male-dimorphic dung beetle Onthophagus binodis. J Insect Physiol 49:817–822. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lange R, Gruber B, Henle K, Sarre DS, Hoehna M (2013) Mating system and intrapatch mobility delay inbreeding in fragmented populations of a gecko. Behav Ecol 24:1260–1270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lauwers K, Van Dyck H (2006) The cost of mating with a non-virgin male in a monandrous butterfly: experimental evidence from the speckled wood Pararge aegeria. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:69–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Masumoto T (1991) Males’ visits to females’ webs and female mating receptivity in the spider, Agelena limbata (Araneae: Agelenidae). J Ethol 9:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Modanu M, Michalik P, Andrade MCB (2013) Mating system does not predict permanent sperm depletion in black widow spiders. Evol Dev 15(3):205–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Molina Y, Christenson T (2008) Effects of mating experience on subsequent reproductive behaviour and sperm release in the spider Nesticodes rufipes. Anim Behav 76(4):1327–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mowles SL, Jepson NM (2015) Physiological costs of repetitive courtship displays in cockroaches handicap locomotor performance. PLoS One 10:e0143664. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moya-Laraño J, Pascual J, Wise DH (2003) Mating patterns in late maturing female Mediterranean tarantulas may reflect the costs and benefits of sexual cannibalism. Anim Behav 66:469–476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Norton S, Uetz WG (2005) Mating frequency in Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz) wolf spider: evidence for a mating system with female monandry and male polygyny. J Arachnol 33:16–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Papke MJ, Riechert SE, Schulz S (2001) An airborne female pheromone associated with male attraction and courtship in a desert spider. Anim Behav 61:877–886. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Paukku S, Kotiaho JS (2005) Cost of reproduction in Callosobruchus maculatus: effects of mating on male longevity and the effect of male mating status on female longevity. J Insect Physiol 51:1220–1226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pérez-Miles F, Postiglioni R, Montes de Oca L, Baruffaldi L, Costa FG (2007) Mating system in the tarantula spider Eupalestrus weijenberghi (Thorell, 1894): evidences of monandry and polygyny. Zoology 110:253–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Perez-Staples D, Aluja M (2006) Sperm allocation and cost of mating in a tropical tephritid fruit fly. J Insect Physiol 52:839–845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pérez-Staples D, Aluja M, Macías-Ordóñez R, Sivinski J (2008) Reproductive trade-offs from mating with a successful male: the case of the tephritid fly Anastrepha obliqua. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62(8):1333–1340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Persons MH, Uetz GW (2005) Sexual cannibalism and mate choice decisions in wolf spiders: influences of male size and secondary sexual characters. Anim Behav 69:83–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prenter J, MacNeil C, Elwood RW (2006) Sexual cannibalism and mate choice. Anim Behav 71:481–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rasband W (2014) ImageJ 1.48v. National Institute of Health, USA. Java 1.6.0 20(64-bit). Access April 2019
  67. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Access April 2019
  68. Roggenbuck H, Pekár S, Schneider JM (2011) Sexual cannibalism in the European garden spider Araneus diadematus: the roles of female hunger and mate size dimorphism. Anim Behav 81:749–755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rovner JS (1971) Mechanims controlling copulatory behavior in wolf spiders (Araneae, Lycosidae). Psyche 78:150–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rovner JS, Wright EE (1975) Copulation in spider: experimental evidence for fatigue effects and bilateral control of palpal insertions. Anim Behav 23:233–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rubolini D, Galeotti P, Pupin F, Sacchi R, Nardi PA, Fasola M (2007) Repeated matings and sperm depletion in the freshwater crayfish Austropotamobius italicus. Freshw Biol 52:1898–1906. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rypstra AL, Wieg C, Walker SE, Persons MH (2003) Mutual mate assessment in wolf spiders: differences in the cues used by males and females. Ethology 109:315–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schäfer MA, Uhl G (2005) Sequential mate encounters: female but not male body size influences female remating behavior. Behav Ecol 16(2):461–466.
  74. Schneider JM, Lesmono K (2009) Courtship raises male fertilization success through post-mating sexual selection in a spider. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:3105–3111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schneider J, Michalik P (2011) One-shot genitalia are not an evolutionary dead end—regained male polygamy in a sperm limited spider species. BMC Evol Biol 11:197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shamble PS, Wilgers DJ, Swoboda KA, Hebets EA (2009) Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders. Behav Ecol 20:1242–1251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  78. Simmons LW (2002) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  79. Singer F, Riechert ES (1995) Mating system and mating success of the desert spider Agelenopsis aperta. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:313–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Snow LSE, Andrade MCB (2004) Pattern of sperm transfer in redback spiders: implications for sperm competition and male sacrifice. Behav Ecol 15:785–792. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sordi S (1996) Ecologia de populaçoes da aranha Porrimosa lagotis (Lycosidae) nas reservas Mata de Santa Genebra, Campinas (SP) e Serra do Japi, Jundai (SP). PhD Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Sao Paulo, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  82. Toscano-Gadea CA, Costa FG (2016) Description of the sexual behavior of the Neotropical wolf spider Pavocosa gallopavo (Araneae:Lycosidae), with comments on sexual cannibalism. J Arachnol 44:412–416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Uhl G (1994) Genital morphology and sperm storage in Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) (Pholcidae; Araneae). Acta Zool (Stockholm) 75(1):1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vrech D, Olivero PA, Mattoni CI, Peretti AV (2018) From storage to delivery: sperm volume and number of spermatozoa inside storage organs and ejaculates in males of Timogenes elegans (Scorpiones: Bothriuridae). J Arachnol 46:231–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wedell N, Ritchie MG (2004) Male age, mating status and nuptial gift quality in a bushcricket. Anim Behav 67:1059–1065. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Welke KW, Schneider JM (2012) Sexual cannibalism benefits offspring survival. Anim Behav 83:201–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2007) Male control of copulation duration in a wolf spider (Araneae, Lycosidae). Behaviour 144:471–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Willisch SC, Biebach I, Koller U, Bucher T, Marreros N, Degiorgis RPM, Keller FL, Neuhaus P (2012) Male reproductive pattern in a polygynous ungulate with a slow life-history: the role of age, social status and alternative mating tactics. Evol Ecol 26:187–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. World Spider Catalog (2018) World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern, online at, version 18.0. Accessed 10 June 2018

Copyright information

© ISPA, CRL 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Débora A. Abregú
    • 1
  • Alfredo V. Peretti
    • 1
  • Macarena González
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratorio de Biología Reproductiva & Evolución, Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal (IDEA)Universidad Nacional de Córdoba-CONICETCórdobaArgentina
  2. 2.Departamento de Ecología y Biología EvolutivaInstituto de Investigaciones Biológicas, Clemente EstableMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations