Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 333–342 | Cite as

Influence Of Diet-Related Chemical Cues from Predators on the Hatching of Egg-Carrying Spiders

  • Daiqin Li
  • Robert R. Jackson
Article

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that animals may make adaptive adjustments in response to chemical cues from predators, but hatching responses to diet-related chemical cues from predators have not been previously demonstrated. In the system studied here, the predator is an araneophagic jumping spider (Salticidae), Portia labiata, and the prey organism is a subsocial spitting spider, Scytodes pallida (Scytodidae). The spitting spider carries its eggs in its chelicerae, and carrying eggs is known to make it more vulnerable to predators. It is also known from an earlier study that the prior diet of the predator alters how dangerous the individual predator is to the spitting spider. In the experiments reported here, incubation time was shorter when volatile cues from the predator were present and longer in control tests when no chemical cues from the predator were present. The previous predator’s diet also influenced incubation time: when in the presence of volatile cues from individuals of P. labiata that had previously fed on individuals of S. pallida, incubation time was shorter than when in the presence of volatile cues from individuals of P. labiatathat had been feeding instead on house flies.

Keywords

Chemical cues assessment predation anti-predator defence hatching strategies spiders Scytodes pallida Portia labiata. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, P. A. 2000. The impact of habitat selection on the spatial heterogeneity of resources in varying environments. Ecology 81:2902–2913.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. L. and Baker, R. L. 1996. Predator-induced life history changes: Antipredator behavior costs or facultative life history shifts. Ecology 77:1116–1124.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, T. D. and Brown, J. A. 1992. Threat-sensitive foraging by larval threespine stickebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 31:133–138.Google Scholar
  4. Blaustein, L. 1997. Non-consumptive effects of larval Salamandra on crustacean prey: Can eggs detect predators? Oecologia 110:212–217.Google Scholar
  5. Chivers, D. P. and Mirza, R. S. 2001. Predator diet cues and the assessment of predation risk by aquatic vertebrates: A view and prospectus, pp. 277-284, in A. Marchlewska-Koj, J. J. Lepri, and D. Müller-Schwarze (eds.). Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Vol. 9. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Chivers, D. P. and Smith, R. J. F. 1998. Chemical alarm signaling in aquatic predator prey interactions: A review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5:338–352.Google Scholar
  7. Chivers, D. P., Kiesecker, J. M., Marco, A., Devito, J., Anderson, M. T., and Blaustein, A. R. 2001. Predator-induced life history changes in amphibians: Egg predation induces hatching. Oikos 92:135–142.Google Scholar
  8. Cowan, C. A. and Pekarsky, B. L. 1994. Diet feeding and positioning periodicity of a grazing mayfly in a trout stream and a fishless stream. Can. J. Fisheries Aquat. Sci.51:450–459.Google Scholar
  9. Crowl, T. A. and Covich, A. P. 1990. Predator-induced life history shifts in a freshwater snail. Science 247:949–951.Google Scholar
  10. Devito, J., Chivers, D. P., and Kiesecker, J. M. 1998. The effects of snake predation on metamorphosis of western toads, Bufo boreas (Amphibia: Bufonidae). Ethology 104:185–193.Google Scholar
  11. Dicke, M. and Grostal, P. 2001. Chemical detection of natural enemies by arthropods: An ecological perspective. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:1–23.Google Scholar
  12. Helfman, G. S. 1989. Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish–trumpetfish interactions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 24:47–58.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, R. R. and Hallas, S. E. A. 1986. Comparative biology of Portia africana, P. albimana, P. fimbriata, P. labiata, and P. schultzi, araneophagic web-building jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae): Utilisation of silk, predatory versatility, and intraspecific interactions. N. Z. J. Zool. 13:423–489.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, R. R. and Li, D. 2004. One-encounter search-image formation by araneophagic spiders. Anim. Cogn. 7:247–254. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-004-0219-x.Google Scholar
  15. Jackson, R. R., Li, D., Fijn, N., and Barrion, A. 1998. Predator–prey interactions between aggressive-mimic jumping spiders (Salticidae) and araneophagic spitting spiders (Scytodidae) from the Philippines. J. Insect Behav. 11:319–342.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, R. R., Pollard, S. D., Li, D., and Fijn, N. 2002. Interpopulation variation in the risk-related decisions by Portia labiata, an araneophagic jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae), during predatory sequences with spitting spiders. Anim. Cogn. 5:215–223.Google Scholar
  17. Kats, L. B. and Dill, L. M. 1998. The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predator risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394.Google Scholar
  18. Keefe, M. L. 1992. Chemically mediated avoidance behaviour in wild brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis: The response to familiar and unfamiliar predaceous fishes and the influence of fish diet. Can. J. Zool. 70:288–292.Google Scholar
  19. Laurila, A., Kujasalo, J., and Ranta, E. 1998. Predator-induced changes in life history in two anuran tadpoles: Effects of predator diet. Oikos 83:307–317.Google Scholar
  20. Laurila, A., Pakkasmaa, S., Crochet, P. A., and Merilä, J. 2002. Predator-induced plasticity in early life history and morphology in two anuran amphibians. Oecologia 132:524–530.Google Scholar
  21. Lehmann, L. M., Walker, S. E., and Persons, M. H. 2004. The influence of predator sex on chemically mediated antipredator response in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae). Ethology 110:323–339.Google Scholar
  22. Li, D. 2002. Hatching responses of subsocial spitting spiders to predation risk. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:2155–2161.Google Scholar
  23. Li, D. and Jackson, R. R. 2003. A predator’s preference for egg-carrying prey: A novel cost of parental care. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.55:129–136.Google Scholar
  24. Li, D., Jackson, R. R., and Barrion, A. 1999. Parental and predatory behaviour of Scytodessp., an araneophagic spitting spider (Araneae: Scytodidae) from the Philippines. J. Zool. Lond. 247:293–310.Google Scholar
  25. Lima, S. L. and Dill, L. M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68:619–640.Google Scholar
  26. Mangel, M. and Clark, C. 1988. Dynamic Modeling in Behavioral Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  27. Mcintosh, A. R., Pekarsky, B. L., and Taylor, B. W. 2003. The influence of predatory fish on mayfly drift: Extrapolating from experiments to nature. Freshwater Biol. 47:1497–1513.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, R. D., Newton, B., and Sih, A. 1996. Delayed hatching as a response of streamside salamander eggs to chemical cues from predatory sunfish. Oikos 77:331–335.Google Scholar
  29. Peckarsky, B. L. 1996. Alternative predator avoidance syndromes of stream-dwelling mayfly larvae. Ecology 77:1888–1905.Google Scholar
  30. Peckarsky, B. L. and Mcintosh, A. R. 1998. Fitness and community consequences of avoiding multiple predators. Oecologia113:565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peckarsky, B. L., Mcintosh, A. R., Taylor, B. W., and Dahl, J. 2002. Predator chemicals induce changes in mayfly life history traits: A whole-stream manipulation. Ecology 83:612–618.Google Scholar
  32. Peckarsky, B. L., Taylor, B. W., Mcintosh, A. R., Mcpeek, M. A., and Lytle, D. A. 2001. Variation in mayfly size at metamorphosis as a developmental response to risk of predation. Ecology 82:740–757.Google Scholar
  33. Persons, M. H., Walker, S. E., Rypstra, A. L., and Marshall, S. D. 2001. Wolf spider predator avoidance tactics and survival in the presence of diet-mediated predator cues (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 61:43–51.Google Scholar
  34. Relyea. R. A. 2001. The lasting effects of adaptive plasticity: Predator-induced tadpoles become long-legged frogs. Ecology 82:1947–1955.Google Scholar
  35. Relyea. R. A. and Werner, E. E. 1999. Quantifying the relation between predator-induced behavior and growth performance in larval anurans. Ecology 80:2117–2124.Google Scholar
  36. Reznick, D. N. 1990. Plasticity in age and size at maturity in male guppies (Poecilia reticulata): An experimental evaluation of alternative models of development. J. Evol. Biol. 3:195–203.Google Scholar
  37. Rowe, L. and Ludwig, D. 1991. Variation in size and timing of metamorphosis in complex life histories. Ecology 72:413–427.Google Scholar
  38. Sih, A. and Moore, R. D. 1993. Delayed hatching of salamander eggs in response to enhanced larval predation risk. Am. Nat. 142:947–960.Google Scholar
  39. Sih, A. and Wooster, D. E. 1994. Prey behavior, prey dispersal, and predator impacts on stream prey. Ecology 75:1199–1207.Google Scholar
  40. Skelly, D. K. 1992. Field evidence for a cost of behavioral antipredator responses in a larval amphibian. Ecology 73:704–708.Google Scholar
  41. Skelly, D. K. and Werner, E. E. 1990. Behavioral and life-historical responses of larval American toads to an odonate predator. Ecology 71:2313–2322.Google Scholar
  42. Tollrian, R. 1995. Predator-induced morphological defenses: Costs, life history shifts, and maternal effects in Daphnia pulex. Ecology 76:1691–1705.Google Scholar
  43. Tollrian, R. and Harvell, C. D. 1999. The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  44. Venzon, M., Janssen, A., Pallini, A., and Sabelis, M. W. 2002. Diet of a polyphagous arthropod predator affects refuge seeking of its thrips prey. Anim. Behav. 60:369–375.Google Scholar
  45. Warkentin, K. M. 2000. Wasp predation and wasp-induced hatching of red-eyed treefrog eggs. Anim. Behav.60:503–510.Google Scholar
  46. Werner, E. E. 1986. Amphibian metamorphosis: Growth rate, predation risk and the optimal size at transformation. Am. Nat. 128:319–341.Google Scholar
  47. Whitfield, J. 1999. Spit and polish off. Nature 398:369.Google Scholar
  48. Wisenden, B D. 2000. Scents of danger: The evolution of olfactory ornamentation in chemically-mediated predator-prey interactions, pp. 221–242, in Y. Espmark, T. Admundsen, and G. Rosenqvist (eds.). Adaptive Significance of Signaling and Signal Design in Animal Communication, Proceedings of the Royal Norwegian Society of Arts and Letters, Tapir Publisher.Google Scholar
  49. Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall International Editions, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations