Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 217–222 | Cite as

Trade-off between pre- and postcopulatory sexual cannibalism in a wolf spider (Araneae, Lycosidae)

  • Shawn M. WilderEmail author
  • Ann L. Rypstra
Original Paper


Sexual cannibalism can occur before, during or after mating. Relatively few experimental studies have examined why there is variation in the timing of sexual cannibalism. We examined the latency and number of attacks required for female spiders to capture male spiders pre- vs. postcopulation. We also examined the effects of female mating status and hunger level on the occurrence of pre- and postcopulatory cannibalism, which reflects the contribution of both relative capture success and female motivation to cannibalize males. Precopulatory cannibalism occurred after a shorter interval and required fewer chases and physical interactions for the female to successfully capture the male than was the case for postcopulatory cannibalism. Virgin females were more likely to engage in postcopulatory rather than precopulatory cannibalism and mated females vice versa. Those virgin females that did engage in precopulatory cannibalism had significantly lower body condition than virgin females engaging in postcopulatory cannibalism. While precopulatory cannibalism occurred more quickly and required fewer attacks by females, it comes at a potential cost of not mating with males. Hence, females are more likely to engage in precopulatory cannibalism if they have already mated or, if virgins, if they have low body condition. These results indicate that the decision of when to cannibalize males is dynamic and depends upon the relative value of a male as a mate versus a meal.


Trade-off Precopulatory Postcopulatory Cannibalism Hogna helluo 



We thank two anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments on a previous draft of this manuscript. We also thank members of the Miami University Spider Lab for collecting and maintaining the spiders used in these experiments. Funding was provided by the Department of Zoology at Miami University and by the National Science Foundation grant DBI-0216947 to A.L.R.


  1. Arnqvist G, Henriksson S (1997) Sexual cannibalism in the fishing spider and a model for the evolution of sexual cannibalism based on genetic constraints. Evol Ecol 11:255–273Google Scholar
  2. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry KL, Holwell GI, Herberstein ME (2009) Female praying mantids use sexual cannibalism as a foraging strategy to increase fecundity. Behav Ecol 19:710–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonduriansky R (2001) The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev 76:305–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elgar MA (1992) Sexual cannibalism in spiders and other invertebrates. In: Elgar MA, Crespi BJ (eds) Cannibalism: ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 128–55Google Scholar
  6. Elgar MA, Schneider JM (2004) The evolutionary significance of sexual cannibalism. Adv Stud Behav 34:135–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaskett AC (2007) Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, function and structures. Biol Rev 82:27–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green AJ (2001) Mass/length residuals: measures of body condition or generators of spurious results? Ecology 82:1473–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hebets EA (2003) Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13390–13395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jakob EM, Marshall SD, Uetz GW (1996) Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos 77:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson JC (2005) Cohabitation of juvenile females with mature males promotes sexual cannibalism in fishing spiders. Behav Ecol 16:269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson JC, Sih A (2005) Precopulatory sexual cannibalism in fishing spiders (Dolomedes triton): a role for behavioral syndromes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kotiaho J (1999) Estimating fitness: comparison of body condition indices revisited. Oikos 87:399–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lelito JP, Brown WD (2008) Mate attraction by females in a sexually cannibalistic praying mantis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marshall SD, Pavuk DM, Rypstra AL (2002) A comparative study of phenology and daily activity patterns in the wolf spiders Pardosa milvina and Hogna helluo in soybean agroecosystems in southwestern Ohio (Araneae, Lycosidae). J Arachnol 30:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maxwell MR, Barry KL, Johns PM (2010) Examinations of female pheromone use in two praying mantids, Stagmomantis limbata and Tenodera aridifolia sinensis (Mantodea: Mantidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 103:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moya-Laraño J, Macías-Ordóñez R, Blackenhorn WU, Fernández-Montraveta C (2008) Analysing body condition: mass, volume or density? J Anim Ecol 77:1099–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newman JA, Elgar MA (1991) Sexual cannibalism in orb-weaving spiders: an economic model. Am Nat 138:1372–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Persons MH, Uetz GW (2005) Sexual cannibalism and mate choice decisions in wolf spiders: influences of male size and secondary sexual characters. Anim Behav 69:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Persons MH, Walker SE, Rypstra AL, Marshall SD (2001) Wolf spider predator avoidance tactics and survival in the presence of diet-associated predator cues (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav 61:43–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prenter J, MacNeil C, Elwood RW (2006) Sexual cannibalism and mate choice. Anim Behav 71:481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pruden AJ, Uetz GW (2004) Assessment of potential predation costs of male decoration and courtship display in wolf spiders using video digitization and playback. J Insect Behav 17:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 81:749–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rowe L, Arnqvist G, Sih A, Krupa JJ (1994) Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol Evol 9:289–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Zinner B, Millar JS, Hickling GJ (2005) Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology 86:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomas ML (2011) Detection of female mating status using chemical signals and cues. Biol Rev 86:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2007) Male control of copulation duration in a wolf spider (Araneae, Lycosidae). Behaviour 144:471–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2008a) Sexual size dimorphism predicts sexual cannibalism in spiders. Am Nat 172:431–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2008b) Prior encounters with the opposite sex affect male and female mating behavior in a wolf spider (Araneae, Lycosidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1813–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL, Elgar MA (2009) The importance of ecological and phylogenetic conditions for the occurrence and frequency of sexual cannibalism. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Center for Animal BehaviorMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, Center for Animal BehaviorMiami UniversityHamiltonUSA
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations