Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 201–206 | Cite as

Does Body Size Influence Male Care? Investigating an Alternative Reproductive Tactic in Manogea porracea (Araneae: Araneidae), a Spider with Amphisexual Care

  • Rafael R. MouraEmail author
  • Nelson S. Pinto
  • João Vasconcellos-Neto
  • Marcelo O. Gonzaga
Article

Abstract

The balance between the investment of time and energy by males in searching for new partners and in protecting and/or feeding offspring can influence reproductive strategies. Strong competitors may enhance their mating effort, while weak competitors may compensate their disadvantage in intrasexual competition by investing in the increase of offspring survival. This balance and its implications to male reproductive strategies have been extensively investigated in vertebrate species but remain poorly understood in invertebrates, because paternal care is rare. Manogea porracea is the only described solitary spider in which extended male care occurs in the absence of females (i.e. amphisexual care). Large males usually win disputes and prefer large, more fecund females. Therefore, they may increase their reproductive success by prioritizing the investment in the search for additional partners, while small males may compensate their competitive disadvantage by increasing their own parental efforts. We tested the prediction that lighter males will invest in the care of the offspring more often than heavier ones. However, our results indicate that males care for offspring regardless of their size. We discuss how the benefits of parental care may override the costs of reducing the number of potential mates for M. porracea males and suggest new directions for further studies.

Keywords

Alternative reproductive tactics male care male-male competition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank MSc. Giancarlo Ângelo Ferreira and Yuri Lima Vasconcelos Ferreira for providing transport to the study area in several occasions. This project was supported Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (São Paulo Research Foundation, FAPESP: Proc. 14196-5/2017, 465562/2014-0), Duratex S.A., Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia dos Hymenoptera Parasitoides da Região Sudeste (HYMPAR/Sudeste - CNPq/CAPES/FAPESP), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG: Proc. APQ-02984-17, APQ-02104-14, CRA-30058/12, APQ-03202-13), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq: Proc. 311823/2017-3; 403733/2012-0; 445832/2014-2; 465562/2014-0; 441225/2016-0).

References

  1. Alissa LM, Muniz DG, Machado G (2017) Devoted fathers or selfish lovers? Conflict between mating effort and parental care in a harem-defending arachnid. J Evol Biol 30:191–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrade MCB (1996) Sexual selection for male sacrifice in the Australian Redback spider. Science 271:70–72Google Scholar
  4. Andrade MCB (2003) Risky mate search and male self-sacrifice in redback spiders. Behav Ecol 14:531–538Google Scholar
  5. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Heredity (Edinb) 2:349–368Google Scholar
  6. Birkhead TR (1998) Sperm competition in birds: mechanisms and function. In: Birkhead TR, Moller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, pp 578–622Google Scholar
  7. Bollache L, Cézilly F (2004) Sexual selection on male body size and assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda): field surveys and laboratory experiments. J Zool 264:135–141Google Scholar
  8. Brockmann HJ, Taborsky M (2008) The evolution of alternative reproductive tactics: concepts and questions. In: Oliveira RF, Taborsky M, Brockmann HJ (eds) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 25–51Google Scholar
  9. Brockmann HJ (2008) Alternative reproductive tactics in insects. In: Oliveira RF, Taborsky M, Jane H (eds) Alternative reproductive tactics: an integrative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–224Google Scholar
  10. Burley NT, Hamedani E, Symanski C (2018) Mate choice decision rules: trait synergisms and preference shifts. Ecol Evol 8:2380–2394.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3831 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Busso JP, Davis Rabosky AR (2016) Disruptive selection on male reproductive polymorphism in a jumping spider, Maevia inclemens. Anim Behav 120:1–10Google Scholar
  12. Christenson TE (1984) Alternative reproductive tactics in spiders. Am Zool 24:321–332Google Scholar
  13. Crespi BJ (1989) Causes of assortative mating in arthropods. Anim Behav 38:980–1000Google Scholar
  14. De Young S, Wilgers DJ (2016) The effects of male competition on the expression and success of alternative mating tactics in the wolf spider Rabidosa punctulata. J Arachnol 44:380–387Google Scholar
  15. Edward DA, Chapman T (2011) The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 26:647–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Forstmeier W (2002) Factors contributing to male mating success in the polygynous dusky warbler (Phylloscopus fuscatus). Behaviour 139:1361–1381Google Scholar
  17. Forsyth A, Montgomerie RD (1987) Alternative reproductive tactics in the territorial damselfly Calopteryx maculata: sneaking by older males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:73–81Google Scholar
  18. Ghislandi PG, Pekár S, Matzke M et al (2018) Resource availability, mating opportunity and sexual selection intensity influence the expression of male alternative reproductive tactics. J Evol Biol 31:1035–1046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2008) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212Google Scholar
  20. Gross MR (1991) Evolution of alternative reproductive strategies: frequency-dependent sexual selection in male bluegill sunfish. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 332:59–66Google Scholar
  21. Hoefler CD (2007) Male mate choice and size-assortative pairing in a jumping spider, Phidippus clarus. Anim Behav 73:943–954Google Scholar
  22. Janicke T, Haderer IK, Lajeunesse MJ, Anthes N (2016) Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Sci Adv 2:e1500983–e1500983PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Klug H, Bonsall MB (2014) What are the benefits of parental care? The importance of parental effects on developmental rate. Ecol Evol 4:2330–2351PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Kokko H, Jennions MD (2008) Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kokko H, Johnstone RA (2002) Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 357:319–330Google Scholar
  26. Lackey ACR, Martin MD, Tinghitella RM (2018) Male competition and speciation: expanding our framework for speciation by sexual selection. Curr Zool 64:69–73PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Magrath MJL, Komdeur J (2003) Is male care compromised by additional mating opportunity? Trends Ecol Evol 18:424–430Google Scholar
  28. Marden JH (1989) Bodybuilding dragonflies: costs and benefits of maximizing flight muscle. Physiol Zool 62:505–521Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell DP, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA, Freeman-Gallant CR (2007) Attractive males provide less parental care in two populations of the common yellowthroat. Anim Behav 73:165–170Google Scholar
  30. Moller AP, Thornhill R (1998) Male parental care, differential parental investment by females and sexual selection. Anim Behav 55:1507–1515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Moura RR, Gonzaga MO (2017) Temporal variation in size-assortative mating and male mate choice in a spider with amphisexual care. Sci Nat 104:28Google Scholar
  32. Moura RR, Vasconcellos-Neto J, de Gonzaga MO (2017) Extended male care in Manogea porracea (Araneae: Araneidae): the exceptional case of a spider with amphisexual care. Anim Behav 123:1–9Google Scholar
  33. Neumann R, Schneider JM (2015) Differential investment and size-related mating strategies facilitate extreme size variation in contesting male spiders. Anim Behav 101:107–115Google Scholar
  34. Peixoto PEC, Benson WW (2011) Fat and body mass predict residency status in two tropical satyrine butterflies. Ethology 117:722–730Google Scholar
  35. Queller DC (1997) Why do females care more than males? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 264:1555–1557Google Scholar
  36. R Development Core Team R (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  37. Requena GS, Machado G (2015) Effects of egg attendance on male mating success in a harvestman with exclusive paternal care. Behav Ecol 26:926–935Google Scholar
  38. Rico-Guevara A, Hurme KJ (2018) Intrasexually selected weapons. Biol Rev 94:60–101Google Scholar
  39. Segoli M, Arieli R, Sierwald P et al (2008) Sexual cannibalism in the brown widow spider (Latrodectus geometricus). Ethology 114:279–286Google Scholar
  40. Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  41. Vieira MC, Peixoto PEC (2013) Winners and losers: a meta-analysis of functional determinants of fighting ability in arthropod contests. Funct Ecol 27:305–313Google Scholar
  42. Wright J (1998) Paternity and paternal care. In: Birkhead TR, Moller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, pp 117–145Google Scholar
  43. WSC (2018) World Spider Catalog. Version 19.0. In: Nat. Hist. Museum BernGoogle Scholar
  44. Yip EC, Rayor LS (2014) Maternal care and subsocial behaviour in spiders. Biol Rev 89:427–449PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael R. Moura
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nelson S. Pinto
    • 2
  • João Vasconcellos-Neto
    • 1
  • Marcelo O. Gonzaga
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual de Campinas – UnicampCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de BiologiaFaculdade AraguaiaGoiâniaBrazil
  3. 3.Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil

Personalised recommendations