Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 92–100 | Cite as

Cooperative prey capture by young subsocial spiders

I. Functional value
  • Kil Won Kim
  • Bertrand Krafft
  • Jae Chun ChoeEmail author
Original Article


Matriphagous young of a subsocial spider Amaurobius ferox exhibit collective predation during their post-maternal social period. In this paper, we examine functional mechanisms of collective predation by sibling groups. Predation efficiency increased with increasing number of individuals within each group. Solitary or paired individuals were generally unable to capture a 20 mg cricket. In larger groups, more individuals participated and captured the prey more quickly. Some siblings did not take part in paralyzing prey, but later consumed it. The proportion of these profiteers within a group increased with the group size. Presented with prey of different sizes (1, 5, or 40 mg), siblings were most aggressive towards each other when predating on 5 mg prey. Prey of this size could be captured by a single individual and yet were sufficiently large for more than one individual to eat. Siblings were much less aggressive towards one another during the capture of 40 mg prey, which require the assistance of other individuals to capture. By providing the same mass of prey in different numbers of individuals (a single cricket of 40 or 40 mg of first-instar crickets), we tested the influence of cooperation on the post-maternal social period. We found no difference in the development of young during the social period nor the timing of dispersal and the body mass of dispersing individuals. We conclude that the young of this subsocial animal increased predation efficiency by cooperative hunting after the mother's death.


Cooperative prey capture Subsocial spider Adaptive value Amaurobius ferox 



We are grateful to André Horel and Chantal Roland for their advice and experimental help. We also thank Deborah Smith, Robert Srygley and William Eberhard for proving invaluable comments on earlier drafts. This work was supported in part by BK21 Research Fellowship from the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development of Korea. This work complied with the current laws of France


  1. Avilés L (1999) Cooperation and non-linear dynamics: an ecological perspective on the evolution of sociality. Evol Ecol Res 1:459–477Google Scholar
  2. Bowden K (1991) The evolution of sociality in the spitting spider, Scytodes fusca (Araneae: Scytodidae) – evidence from observations of intraspecific interactions. J Zool 223:161–172Google Scholar
  3. Brach V (1975) The biology of the social spider Anelosimus eximius (Araneae: Theridiidae). Bull Soc Calif Acad Sci 74:37–41Google Scholar
  4. Cahan SH, Blumstein DT, Sundstroem L, Liebig J, Griffin A (2002) Social trajectories and the evolution of social behavior. Oikos 96:206–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cloudsley-Thompson JL (1955) The life histories of the British cribellate spiders of the genus Ciniflo BL. (Dictynidae). Ann Mag Nat Hist 12:787–794Google Scholar
  6. Crespi J, Choe JC (1997) Explanation and evolution of social systems. In: Choe JC, Crespi B (eds) Evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 499–524Google Scholar
  7. D’Andréa M (1987) Social behavior in spiders (Arachnida, Araneae). Italian J Zool (Monitore Zoologico Italiano) N S Monogr, p 151Google Scholar
  8. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species. J Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Decae AE (1987) Dispersal: ballooning and other mechanisms. In: Nentwig W (ed) Ecophysiology of spiders. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 348–356Google Scholar
  10. Dugatkin LA (1997) Cooperation among animals, an evolutionary perspective. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans TA (1998) Factors influencing the evolution of social behavior in Australian crab spiders (Araneae: Thomisidae). Biol J Linnean Soc 63:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fowler HG (1988) Dispersal of early instars of the mole cricket, Scapteriscus tenuis, as a function of density, food, and pathogens (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae). Entomologia Generalis 13:15–20Google Scholar
  13. Giraldeau LA, Caraco T (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Griswold CE, Meikle TC (1990) Social life in a web. Nat Hist 89:6–10Google Scholar
  15. Gundermann JL, Horel A, Krafft B (1993) Experimental manipulations of social tendencies in the subsocial spider Cœlotes terrestris. Insect Soc 40:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horel A, Krafft B, Aron S (1996) Processus de la socialisation et préadaptation comportementales chez les Araignées sociales. Bull Soc Zool Fr 121:31–37Google Scholar
  17. Jackson RR (1979) Predatory behavior of the social spider Mallos gregalis: is it cooperative? Insect Soc 26:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim KW (1998) L’organization subsociale d’Amaurobius ferox: modèle pour l’étude des phénomènes sociaux chez les araignees. PhD Thesis, University Nancy I, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim KW (2000) Dispersal behavior in a subsocial spider: group conflict and the effect of food availability. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim KW (2001) Social facilitation of synchronized molting behavior in the spider Amaurobius ferox (Araneae, Amaurobiidae). J Insect Behav 14:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim KW, Horel A (1998) Matriphagy in the spider Amaurobius ferox (Araneidae, Amaurobiidae): an example of mother-offspring interactions. Ethology 104:1021–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim KW, Krafft B, Choe JC (2005) Cooperative prey capture by young subsocial spiders: II. Behavioral mechanism. Behav Ecol SociobiolGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim KW, Roland C (2000) Trophic egg-laying in the spider Amaurobius ferox: mother–offspring interactions and functional value. Behav Proc 50:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim KW, Roland C, Horel A (2000) Functional value of matriphagy in the spider Amaurobius ferox. Ethology 106:729–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krafft B (1979) Organisation et evolution des sociétés d’araignées. J Psychol 1:23–51Google Scholar
  26. Krafft B, Horel A, Julita JM (1986) Influence of food supply on the duration of the gregarious phase of a maternal social-spider, Cœlotes terrestris (Araneae, Agelenidae). J Arachnol 14:219–226Google Scholar
  27. Kullmann E (1972) Evolution of social behavior in spiders (Araneae, Eresidae and Theridiidae). Am Zool 12:419–426Google Scholar
  28. Lemasle A (1977) Etude préliminaire á la biologie et á éthologie des araignées du genre Amaurobius. PhD Thesis, University Nancy I, FranceGoogle Scholar
  29. Michener CD (1969) Comparative social behavior in bees. Ann Rev Entomol 14:299–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nentwig W (1985) Social spiders catch larger prey: a study of Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Opell BD (1994) The ability of spider cribellate prey capture thread to hold insects with different surface features. Funct Ecol 8:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Packer C, Ruttan L (1988) The evolution of cooperative hunting. Am Nat 132:159–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plateaux-Quénu C, Horel A, Roland C (1997) A reflection on social evolution in two different groups of arthropods: halictine bees (Hymenoptera) and spiders (Arachnida). Ethol Ecol Evol 9:183–196Google Scholar
  34. Ruttan LM (1990) Experimental manipulation of dispersal in the subsocial spider, Theridion pictum. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:169–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider JM (1995) Survival and growth in groups of a subsocial spider (Stegodyphus lineatus). Insect Soc 42:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider JM (2002) Reproductive state and care giving in Stegodyphus (Araneae: Eresidae) and the implications for the evolution of sociality. Anim Behav 63:649–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sirot E (2000) An evolutionary stable strategy for aggressiveness in feeding group. Behav Ecol 11:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suhm M, Thaler K, Alberti G (1996) Glands in the male palpal organ and the origin of the mating plug in Amaurobius species (Araneae: Amaurobiidae). Zool Anz 234:191–199Google Scholar
  39. Tietjen WJ (1986) Social spider webs, with special references to the web of Mallos gregalis. In: Shear WA (ed) Spiders–webs, behavior and evolution. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 172–206Google Scholar
  40. Vollrath F (1992) Les araignées, leur toiles et leur soies. Pour la Sci 175:84–91Google Scholar
  41. Ward P, Enders MM (1985) Conflict and cooperation in the group feeding of the social spider Stegodyphus mimosarum. Behaviour 94:167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitehouse MEA, Lubin Y (1999) Competitive foraging in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 58:677–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Behavior and Ecology, School of Biological SciencesSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Biologie et Physiologie du ComportementUniversité Nancy IVandoeuvre-lès-Nancy CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations