Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 313–323 | Cite as

Hairy kisses: tactile cheliceral courtship affects female mating decisions in Leucauge mariana (Araneae, Tetragnathidae)

  • Anita AisenbergEmail author
  • Gilbert Barrantes
  • William G. Eberhard
Original Paper

Abstract

Sexual selection is thought to be an important force driving the evolution of sexually dimorphic morphology and behavior, but direct experimental tests of the functions of species-specific details of morphology are rare and usually incomplete. The males of most species of the large spider family Tetragnathidae possess large sexually dimorphic chelicerae that are used when the sexes lock together before and during mating. In Leucauge mariana, the female’s chelicerae clasp those of the male; mating does not begin until the female’s chelicerae seize the male and does not end until they release him. In addition, females contribute material to form genital plugs in the female’s genitalia. Male chelicerae have sexually dimorphic and species-specific setae and ledges in areas that contact the female during cheliceral clasps. We tested the hypothesis that stimuli from these structures trigger mating processes that are controlled by the female which could increase male reproductive success. We reduced or eliminated possible stimulation of the female in two ways: removing male cheliceral setae that contact the female, and removing setae on the female’s chelicerae and endites that are contacted by and could thus be stimulated by the male’s chelicerae and their setae. Both male and female modifications had similar effects that likely reduced the male’s chances of paternity: female receptivity to re-mating increased, copulatory plug formation decreased, and interruptions during copulation became more frequent. As expected under the stimulation hypothesis, blocking female sensory abilities generally had greater effects on these responses than modifying male stimulatory structures.

Keywords

Sexual selection Cryptic female choice Experimental manipulation Cheliceral clasp Leucauge 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación) and Programa de Desarrollo de las Ciencias Básicas (AA), the Vicerrectoría de Investigación of the Universidad de Costa Rica (GB, WGE), and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (WGE) for financial support. The editor and two anonymous reviewers improved the final version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aisenberg A (2009) Male performance and body size affect female remating occurrence in the orb-web spider Leucauge mariana (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). Ethology 115:1127–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aisenberg A, Barrantes G (2011) Sexual behavior, cannibalism and mating plugs as sticky traps in the orb weaver spider Leucauge argyra (Tetragnathidae). Naturwissenschaften 98:605–613Google Scholar
  3. Aisenberg A, Eberhard WG (2009) Female cooperation in plug formation in a spider: effects of male copulatory courtship. Behav Ecol 20(6):1236–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Álvarez-Padilla F, Hormiga G (2011) Morphological and phylogenetic atlas of the orb-weaving spider family Tetragnathidae (Araneae: Araneoidea). Zool J Linnean Soc 162:713–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Basolo A (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumstein DT, Evans CS, Daniel JC (2000) JWatcher. Available from: http://galliform.psy.mq.edu.au/jwatcher/
  10. Briceño RD, Eberhard WG (2009a) Experimental modifications imply a stimulatory function for male tsetse fly genitalia, supporting cryptic female choice theory. J Evol Biol 22:1516–1525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briceño RD, Eberhard WG (2009b) Experimental demonstration of possible cryptic female choice on male tsetse fly genitalia. J Insect Physiol 55:989–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Córdoba-Aguilar A (1999) Male copulatory sensory stimulation induces female ejection of rival sperm in a damselfly. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:779–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Córdoba-Aguilar A (2002) Sensory trap as the mechanism of sexual selection in a damselfly genitalic trait (Insecta: Calopterygidae). Am Nat 160:594–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Córdoba-Aguilar A (2005) Possible coevolution of male and female genital form and function in a calopterygid damselfly. J Evol Biol 18:132–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Danielson-François AM, Bukowski TC (2005) Female mating history influences copulation behavior but not sperm release in the orb-weaving spider Tetragnatha versicolor (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). J Insect Behav 18:131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhard WG (1985) Animal genitalia and evolution. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. Eberhard WG (2001) The functional morphology of species-specific clasping structures on the front legs of male Archisepsis and Palaeosepsis flies (Diptera, Sepsidae). Zool J Linnean Soc 133:335–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eberhard WG (2002) Physical restraint or stimulation? The function(s) of the modified front legs of male Archisepsis diversiformis (Diptera, Sepsidae). J Insect Behav 15:831–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eberhard WG (2009) Postcopulatory sexual selection: Darwin’s omission and its consequences. Proc Nat Sci 106(Suppl 1):10025–10032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eberhard WG (2011) Experiments with genitalia: a commentary. Trends Ecol Evol 26(1):17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eberhard WG, Huber BA (1998) Courtship, copulation and sperm transfer in Leucauge mariana (Araneae, Tetragnathidae) with implications for higher classification. J Arachnol 26:342–368Google Scholar
  23. Eberhard WG, Guzmán‐Gómez S, Catley KM (1993) Correlation between spermathecal morphology and mating systems in spiders. Biol J Linn Soc 50(3):197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eberhard WG, Huber BA, Rodríguez SRL, Briceño RD, Salas I, Rodriguez V (1998) One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52(2):415–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foelix RF (2011) Biology of spiders. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Foellmer MW, Fairbarin DJ (2005) Competing dwarf males: sexual selection in an orb-weaving spider. J Evol Biol 18:629–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingram KK, Laamanen T, Puniamoorthy N, Meier R (2008) Lack of morphological coevolution between male forelegs and female wings in Themira (Sepsidae: Diptera: Insecta). Biol J Linn Soc 93:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraus O (1984) Male spider genitalia: evolutionary changes in structure and function. Verh Naturwiss Ver Hamburg 27:373–382Google Scholar
  29. Leonard J, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2010) The evolution of primary sexual characters in animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Levi HW (1981) The American orb-weaver genera Dolichognatha and Tetragnatha North of Mexico (Araneae: Araneidae, Tetragnathinae). Bull Mus Comp Zool 149:271–318Google Scholar
  31. Méndez V (2004) Comportamiento sexual y dinámica de población en Leucauge mariana (Araneae: Tetragnathidae). MSc thesis, Universidad de Costa Rica, San JoséGoogle Scholar
  32. Méndez V, Eberhard WG, in press. Removal of genital plugs and insemination by males with normal and experimentally modified palps in Leucauge mariana (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). J ArachnolGoogle Scholar
  33. Møller AP (1994) Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Moya-Laraño J, Cabeza M (2003) Bimodality in the body size distribution of Mediterranean tarantula juveniles: Humphreys’ Russian roulette revisited. Rev Ibér Aracnol 7:211–219Google Scholar
  35. Platnick NP (2013) The world spider catalog, version 13.5. 621 http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/INTRO3.html
  36. Polak M, Rashed A (2009) Microscale laser surgery reveals adaptive function of male intromittent genitalia. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1372–1376Google Scholar
  37. R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  38. Rubenstein DR, Hauber ME (2008) Dynamic feedback between phenotype and physiology in sexually selected traits. Trends Ecol Evol 23:655–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Safran RJ, Adelman JS, McGraw KJ, Hau M (2008) Sexual signal exaggeration affects physiological state in male barn swallows. Curr Biol 18:R461–R462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uetz GW, McClintock WJ, Miller D, Smith EI, Cook KK (1996) Limb regeneration and subsequent asymmetry in a male secondary sexual character influences sexual selection in wolf spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anita Aisenberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gilbert Barrantes
    • 2
  • William G. Eberhard
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratorio de Etología, Ecología y EvoluciónInstituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente EstableMontevideoUruguay
  2. 2.Escuela de BiologíaUniversidad de Costa RicaCiudad UniversitariaCosta Rica
  3. 3.Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Department of BiologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations