Advertisement

Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 223–231 | Cite as

Aliens among us: nestmate recognition in the social huntsman spider, Delena cancerides

  • E. C. Yip
  • S. Clarke
  • L. S. Rayor
Research Article

Abstract

Unlike all other social spiders, the social huntsman spider, Delena cancerides, has been reported to rapidly respond to non-nestmates with lethal aggression, similar to the behavior of some eusocial insects. We tested for the presence of nestmate recognition in D. cancerides under laboratory conditions by introducing 105 unrelated alien conspecifics into foreign colonies and comparing their behavior to 60 control spiders removed and returned to their natal colony. Spiders demonstrated nestmate recognition by investigating alien spiders far more than nestmates and by resting closer to nestmates than to aliens. Serious attacks or deaths occurred in 23% of all trials; however, aggression was not directed significantly more toward aliens than to nestmates. Most notably, aggression was largely mediated by the adult females (resident or alien), who were most likely to attack or kill other subadult or mature individuals. Young individuals (resident or alien) were largely immune from serious aggression. Spiders recently collected from the field tended to be more aggressive than spiders born and raised in the laboratory, possibly due to blurring of recognition cues related to laboratory husbandry. Our findings support the prediction that nestmate recognition should evolve when there is a benefit to discriminating against non-kin, as in this social spider system where foraging individuals may enter a foreign colony and the colony retreat is a limited resource.

Keywords

Social spiders Nestmate recognition Aggression 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Team Delena members Ariel Zimmerman and Eric Denemark provided expert animal care, Rachel Walsh helped develop the Delena ethogram and collect 2002 data, and Max Bernstein assisted in 2005. Francoise Vermeylen of Cornell University’s Statistical Consulting Unit provided statistical guidance. Dr. Dave Rowell of the Australian National University, Canberra, has been incredibly generous in sharing a spectacular system and his lab. The manuscript has been strengthened by comments by Dr. Thomas Seeley and two anonymous reviewers. Dr. Jeff Scott and Cheryl Leichter graciously provided houseflies for spiderlings. This work was funded by the by Cornell University’s Sage Fellowship (to ECY), and AAAS/NSF Women’s International Scientific Collaboration and President’s Council on Cornell Women grants (to LSR).

References

  1. Anthony C.D. 2003. Kinship influences cannibalism in the wolf spider, Pardosa milvina. J. Insect Behav. 16: 23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avilés L. 1997. Causes and consequences of cooperation and permanent-sociality in spiders. In: The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids (Choe J. and Crespi B., Eds), Cambridge University Press, New York. pp 476–498Google Scholar
  3. Avilés L. and Tufiño P. 1998. Colony size and individual fitness in the social spider Anelosimus eximius. Am. Nat. 152: 403–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beavis A.S., Rowell D.M. and Evans T.A. 2007. Cannibalism and kin recognition in Delena cancerides (Araneae: Sparassidae), a social huntsman spider. J. Zool. 271: 233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilde T. and Lubin Y. 2001. Kin recognition and cannibalism in a subsocial spider. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 959–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilde T., Maklakov A.A., Taylor P.W. and Lubin Y. 2002. State dependent decisions in nest selection by a web-building spider. Anim. Behav. 64: 447–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilde T., Coates K.S., Birkhofer K., Bird T., Maklakov A.A., Lubin Y. and Avilés L. 2007. Survival benefits select for group living in a social spider despite reproductive costs. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 2412–2426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breed M.D., Welch C.K. and Cruz R. 1994. Kin discrimination within honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies: an analysis of the evidence. Behav. Process. 33: 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breed M.D., Garry M.F., Pearce A.M., Hibbard B.E., Bjostad L.B. and Page R.E. 1995. The role of wax comb in honey bee recognition. Anim. Behav. 50: 489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buser P. 2002. Silk attraction: base of group cohesion and collective behaviours in social spiders. C.R. Biol. 325: 1153–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buskirk R. 1981. Sociality in the Arachnida. In: Social Insects, vol. 2 (Hermann H.R., Ed), Academic Press, New York. pp 282–367Google Scholar
  12. Clément J.-L. and Bagnères A.-G. 1998. Nestmate recognition in termites. In: Pheromone Communication in Social Insects (Vander Meer R.K., Breed M.D., Espelie K.E. and Winston M.L., Eds), Westview Press, Boulder CO. pp 126–155Google Scholar
  13. Dahbi A. and Lenoir A. 1998. Nest separation and the dynamics of the Gestalt odor in the polydomous ant Cataglyphis iberica (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42: 349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans T.A. 1995. Two new species of social crab spiders of the genus Diaea from eastern Australia, their natural history and distribution. In: Australasian Spiders and Their Relatives: Papers Honouring Barbara York Main (Harvey M.S., Ed), Records of the Western Australian Museum supplement 52, Western Australian Museum, Perth. pp 151–158Google Scholar
  15. Evans T.A. 1999. Kin recognition in a social spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fadao T., Tingzhen W. and Yajun Z. 2000. Inbreeding avoidance and mate choice in the mandarin vole (Microtus mandarinus). Can. J. Zool. 78: 2119–2125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton W.D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behavior. J. Theor. Biol. 7: 1–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölldobler B. and Wilson E.O. 1990. The Ants. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 732 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes W.G. 2004. The early history of Hamiltonian-based research on kin recognition. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 41: 691–711Google Scholar
  20. Jones T.C. and Parker P.G. 2002. Delayed juvenile dispersal benefits both mother and offspring in the cooperative spider Anelosimus studiosus (Araneae: Theridiidae). Behav. Ecol. 13: 142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lubin Y. and Bilde T. 2007. The evolution of sociality in spiders. Adv. Stud. Behav. 37: 83–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Main B.Y. 1962. Spiders of Australia: a Guide to Their Identification with Brief Notes on the Natural History of Common Forms. Jacaranda Press, Brisbane. 124 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Mateo J.M. 2002. Kin recognition abilities and nepotism as a function of sociality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 269: 721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mateo J.M. 2004. Recognition systems and biological organization: the perception component of social recognition. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 41: 729–745Google Scholar
  25. Obin M.S. 1986. Nestmate recognition cues in laboratory and field colonies of Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 12: 1965–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pasquet A., Trabalon M., Bagnères A.-G. and Leborgne R. 1997. Does group closure exist in the social spider Anelosimus eximius ? Behavioral and chemical approach. Insect. Soc. 44: 159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pearce M.J., Cowie R.H., Pack A.S. and Reavey D. 1990. Intraspecific aggression, colony identity and foraging distances in Sudanese Microtermes spp. (Isoptera: Termitidae: Macrotermitinae). Ecol. Entomol. 15: 71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts J.A., Taylor P.H., Phillip W. and Uetz G.W. 2003. Kinship and food availability influence cannibalism tendency in early-instar wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54: 416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ross N.M. and Gamboa G.T. 1981. Nestmate discrimination in social wasps. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9: 163–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rowell D.M. and Avilés L. 1995. Sociality in a bark-dwelling huntsman spider from Australia, Delena cancerides Walckenaer (Araneae: Sparassidae). Insect. Soc. 42: 287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rypstra A.L. 1989. Foraging success of solitary and aggregated spiders: insights into flock formation. Anim. Behav. 37: 274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seibt U. and Wickler W. 1988a. Interspecific tolerance in social Stegodyphus spiders (Eresidae, Araneae). J. Arachnol. 16: 35–39Google Scholar
  33. Seibt U. and Wickler W. 1988b. Why do “family spiders”, Stegodyphus (Eresidae) live in colonies? J. Arachnol. 16: 193–198Google Scholar
  34. Sharp H.E. and Rowell D.M. 2007. Unprecedented chromosomal diversity and behavior modify linkage patterns and speciation potential: structural heterozygosity in an Australian spider. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 2427–2439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singer T.L. and Espelie K.E. 1992. Social wasps use nest paper hydrocarbons for nestmate recognition. Anim. Behav. 44: 63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strassmann J.E., Seppä P. and Queller D.C. 2000. Absence of within-colony kin discrimination: foundresses of the social wasp, Polistes carolina, do not prefer their own larvae. Naturwissenschaften 87: 266–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tarpy D.R., Gilley D.C. and Seeley T.D. 2004. Levels of selection in a social insect: a review of conflict and cooperation during honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen replacement. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55: 513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uetz G.W. and Hieber C.S. 1997. Colonial web-building spiders: balancing the costs and benefits of group-living. In: The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids (Choe J. and Crespi B., Eds), Cambridge University Press, New York. pp 458–475Google Scholar
  39. van Wilgenburg E., Dang S., Forti A.-L., Koumoudouros T.J., Ly A. and Elgar M.A. 2007. An absence of aggression between non-nestmates in the bull ant Myrmecia nigriceps. Naturwissenschaften 94: 787–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vander Meer R.K. and Morel L. 1998. Nestmate recognition in ants. In: Pheromone Communication in Social Insects (Vander Meer R.K., Breed M.D., Espelie K.E. and Winston M.L., Eds), Westview Press, Boulder CO. pp 79–103Google Scholar
  41. Ward P.I. 1986. Prey availability increases less quickly than nest size in the social spider Stegodyphus mimosarum. Behaviour 97: 213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitehouse M.E.A. and Lubin Y. 2005. The function of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case. Biol. Rev. 80: 347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson E.O. 1971. The Insect Societies. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 548 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel/Switzerland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology, Comstock HallCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations