Does silk mediate chemical communication between the sexes in a nuptial feeding spider?

  • Michelle Beyer
  • Tomer Joseph Czaczkes
  • Cristina TuniEmail author
Original Article


Chemical signals play a crucial role in reproduction as a means for locating mates and/or gaining information about their quality, ultimately affecting mating system dynamics and mate choice. In spiders, one of the potential sources of chemical signalling is silk. However, while female silk is known to attract mates and/or elicit courtship, due to sex-specific roles in mate searching, male silk-related signals are often neglected. In the hunting spider Pisaura mirabilis (Pisauridae), both sexes leave silk draglines during movements while males additionally use silk to wrap nuptial gifts (food donations to females at mating). We explored the potential for both silk types (draglines and gift silk) to release signals and tested the hypothesis that chemical compounds bound to gifts’ silk serve to elicit female attraction. We conducted behavioural choice assays for dragline and gift silk, and their putative transmission mode (airborne or contact) by testing (i) male and female attraction towards draglines of the opposite sex and (ii) female attraction towards gift silk. Whereas males were attracted to female draglines (contact cues), females did not respond to male silk of any type. We suggest that females use draglines for advertisement to secure copulation and foraging of nuptial gifts. If these signals ease male mate searching, attractive male draglines are unnecessary. Overall, males may not invest in chemical stimulation but rather exploit female foraging interests through gift giving. Alternatively, they may release signals that prime other female sexual behaviours or towards which females may have evolved resistance.

Significance statement

Animals commonly use chemical signals to communicate during reproduction, and spiders have the potential to release such signals from their silk. We investigated whether two silk types, draglines released during movements and silk covering male nuptial gifts (prey offered to females at mating) are attractive to the opposite sex in a hunting spider. While males were attracted to female draglines, females did not respond to male silk of any type. Females may be using silk to advertise themselves to secure matings and food through reception of nuptial gifts. If males can successfully locate females, attracting females through draglines may be unnecessary. The finding that males do not release attractant signals in the silk cover of their nuptial gifts further suggests that rather than attempting to increase their attractiveness by using chemical stimulation, males may be uniquely exploiting females’ interest in food through gift giving behaviour.


Silk Sexual selection Chemical signals Nuptial gifts 



We thank Patricia Velado Lobato for assistance in data collection and Federico Cappa for constructive contribution to the experimental design and comments on the manuscript.

Author contribution

CT conceived the study, MB and TC designed the experiments, MB collected the data, TC analysed the data and CT led the writing of the manuscript with all authors contributing relevantly to the draft and giving final approval for publication.

Supplementary material

265_2018_2454_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 28 kb)


  1. Aisenberg A, Baruffaldi L, González M (2010) Behavioural evidence of male volatile pheromones in the sex-role reversed wolf spiders Allocosa brasiliensis and Allocosa alticeps. Naturwissenschaften 97(1):63–70. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Albo MJ, Costa-Schmidt LE, Costa FG (2009) To feed or to wrap? Female silk cues elicit male nuptial gift construction in a semiaquatic trechaleid spider. J Zool 277(4):284–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albo MJ, Toft S, Bilde T (2011a) Condition dependence of male nuptial gift construction in the spider Pisaura mirabilis (Pisauridae). J Ethol 29(3):473–479. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albo MJ, Winther G, Tuni C, Toft S, Bilde T (2011b) Worthless donations: male deception and female counter play in a nuptial gift-giving spider. BMC Evol Biol 11(1):329. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Albo MJ, Toft S, Bilde T (2012) Female spiders ignore condition-dependent information from nuptial gift wrapping when choosing mates. Anim Behav 84(4):907–912. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Albo MJ, Toft S, Bilde T (2013) Sexual selection, ecology and evolution of nuptial gifts in spiders. Sex Sel Perspect Model Neotrop:183–200Google Scholar
  7. Amundsen T, Forsgren E (2001) Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98(23):13155–13160. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen T, Bollerup K, Toft S, Bilde T (2008) Why do males of the spider Pisaura mirabilis wrap their nuptial gifts in silk: female preference or male control? Ethology 114(8):775–781. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21:296–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2013) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Baruffaldi L, Costa FG, Rodríguez A, González A (2010) Chemical communication in Schizocosa malitiosa: evidence of a female contact sex pheromone and persistence in the field. J Chem Ecol 36(7):759–767. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.Google Scholar
  13. Becker E, Riechert S, Singer F (2005) Male induction of female quiescence/catalepsis during courtship in the spider, Agelenopsis aperta. Behaviour 142(1):57–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bilde T, Tuni C, Elsayed R, Pekar S, Toft S (2007) Nuptial gifts of male spiders: sensory exploitation of the female’s maternal care instinct or foraging motivation? Anim Behav 73(2):267–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., MassachussetsGoogle Scholar
  16. Bristowe WS, Locket GH (1926) The courtship of British lycosid spiders, and its probable significance. Proc Zool Soc 96(1):317–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brum PED, Costa-Schmidt LE, De AAM (2012) It is a matter of taste: chemical signals mediate nuptial gift acceptance in a neotropical spider. Behav Ecol 23(2):442–447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cory A-L, Schneider JM (2016) Old maids have more appeal: effects of age and pheromone source on mate attraction in an orb-web spider. Peer J 4:e1877. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cross FR, Jackson RR (2009) Mate-odour identification by both sexes of Evarcha culicivora, an East African jumping spider. Behav Process 81(1):74–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darwin C (1871) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisner T, Meinwald J (1995) The chemistry of sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci 92(1):50–55. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fromhage L, Jennions M, Kokko H (2016) The evolution of sex roles in mate searching. Evolution (N Y) 70:617–624Google Scholar
  23. Gaskett AC (2007) Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions. 82:27–48Google Scholar
  24. Ghislandi PG, Albo MJ, Tuni C, Bilde T (2014) Evolution of deceit by worthless donations in a nuptial gift-giving spider. Curr Zool 60(1):43–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghislandi PG, Beyer M, Velado P, Tuni C (2017) Silk wrapping of nuptial gifts aids cheating behaviour in male spiders. 28:744–749Google Scholar
  26. Havrilak JA, Shimmel KM, Rypstra AL, Persons MH (2014) Are you paying attention? Female wolf spiders increase dragline silk advertisements when males do not court. 345–352. doi:
  27. Hegdekar BM, Dondale CD (1969) A contact sex pheromone and some response parameters in lycosid spiders. Can J Zool 47(1):1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard RW, Jackson LL, Banse H, Blows MW (2003) Cuticular hydrocarbons of Drosophila birchii and D. serrata: identification and role in mate choice in D. serrata. J Chem Ecol 29(4):961–976. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Huber BA (2005) Sexual selection research on spiders: progress and biases. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 80(03):363–385. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Johansson G, Jones M (2007) The role of chemical communication in mate choice. Biol Rev 82(2):265–289. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones G, Barabas A, Elliott W, Parsons S (2002) Female greater wax moths reduce sexual display behavior in relation to the potential risk of predation by echolocating bats. Behav Ecol 13(3):375–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kasumovic MM, Andrade MCB (2004) Discrimination of airborne pheromones by mate-searching male western black widow spiders (Latrodectus hesperus): species-and population-specific responses. Can J Zool 82(7):1027–1034. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kasumovic MM, Bruce MJ, Herberstein ME, Andrade MCB (2006) Risky mate search and mate preference in the golden orb-web spider (Nephila plumipes). Behav Ecol 18:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lang A (1996) Silk investment in gifts by males of the nuptial feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Behaviour 133(9):697–716. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCartney J, Kokko H, Heller K-G, Gwynne DT (2012) The evolution of sex differences in mate searching when females benefit: new theory and a comparative test. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 279(1731):1225–1232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore PJ, Reagan-Wallin NL, Haynes KF, Moore AJ (1997) Odour conveys status on cockroaches. Nature 389(6646):25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nentwig W, Kuhn-Nentwig L (2013) Spider ecophysiologyGoogle Scholar
  38. Nieberding CM, Fischer K, Saastamoinen M, Allen CE, Wallin EA, Hedenström E, Brakefield PM (2012) Cracking the olfactory code of a butterfly: the scent of ageing. Ecol Lett 15(5):415–424. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Prokop P, Maxwell MR (2009) Female feeding and polyandry in the nuptially feeding nursery web spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Naturwissenschaften 96(2):259–265. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Prokop P, Maxwell MR (2012) Gift carrying in the spider Pisaura mirabilis: nuptial gift contents in nature and effects on male running speed and fighting success. Anim Behav 83(6):1395–1399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  42. Rantala MJ, Jokinen I, Kortet R, Vainikka A, Suhonen J (2002) Do pheromones reveal male immunocompetence? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269(1501):1681–1685. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rantala MJ, Kortet R, Kotiaho JS, Vainikka A, Suhonen J (2003) Condition dependence of pheromones and immune function in the grain beetle Tenebrio molitor. Funct Ecol 17(4):534–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhainds M (2010) Female mating failures in insects. Entomol Exp Appl 136(3):211–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts JA, Uetz GW (2005) Information content of female chemical signals in the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata: male discrimination of reproductive state and receptivity. Anim Behav 70(1):217–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roland C, Rovner JS (1983) Chemical and vibratory communication in the aquatic pisaurid spider Dolomedes triton. J Arachnol:77–85Google Scholar
  47. Rypstra AL, Wieg C, Walker SE, Persons MH (2003) Mutual mate assessment in wolf spiders: differences in the cues used by males and females. Ethology 109(4):315–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rypstra AL, Schlosser AM, Sutton PL, Persons MH (2009) Multimodal signalling: the relative importance of chemical and visual cues from females to the behaviour of male wolf spiders (Lycosidae). Anim Behav 77(4):937–947. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schulz S (2004) Semiochemistry of spiders. Adv Insect Chem Ecol 1:110–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Searcy LE, Rypstra AL, Persons MH (1999) Airborne chemical communication in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina. J Chem Ecol 25(11):2527–2533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shi PJ, Hu HSS, Xiao HJ (2013) Logistic regression is a better method of analysis than linear regression of arcsine square root transformed proportional diapause data of Pieris melete (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Fla Entomol 96(3):1183–1185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stålhandske P (2001) Nuptial gift in the spider Pisaura mirabilis maintained by sexual selection. Behav Ecol 12(6):691–697. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stålhandske S (2002) Nuptial gifts of male spiders function as sensory traps. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269(1494):905–908. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stoltz JA, McNeil JN, Andrade MCB (2007) Males assess chemical signals to discriminate just-mated females from virgins in redback spiders. Anim Behav 74(6):1669–1674. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor PW (1998) Dragline-mediated mate-searching in Trite planiceps (Araneae, Salticidae). J Arachnol:330–334Google Scholar
  56. Thomas ML (2011) Detection of female mating status using chemical signals and cues. Biol Rev 86(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomas ML, Simmons LW (2009) Sexual selection on cuticular hydrocarbons in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. BMC Evol Biol 9(1):162. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Toft S, Albo MJ (2015) Optimal numbers of matings: the conditional balance between benefits and costs of mating for females of a nuptial gift-giving spider. J Evol Biol 28(2):457–467. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Toft S, Albo MJ (2016) The shield effect: nuptial gifts protect males against pre-copulatory sexual cannibalism. Biol Lett 12(5):20151082. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Tuni C, Berger-Tal R (2012) Male preference and female cues: males assess female sexual maturity and mating status in a web-building spider. Behav Ecol 23(3):582–587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tuni C, Bilde T (2010) No preference for novel mating partners in the polyandrous nuptial-feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Anim Behav 80(3):435–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tuni C, Albo MJ, Bilde T (2013) Polyandrous females acquire indirect benefits in a nuptial feeding species. J Evol Biol 26(6):1307–1316. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Tuni C, Weber S, Bilde T, Uhl G (2017) Male spiders reduce pre-and postmating sexual investment in response to sperm competition risk. Behav Ecol 28(4):1030–1036. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Umbers KDL, Symonds MRE, Kokko H (2015) The mothematics of female pheromone signaling: strategies for aging virgins. Am Nat 185(3):417–432. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. van Helsdingen PJ (1965) Sexual behaviour of Lepthyphantes leprosus (Ohlert) (Araneida, Linyphiidae), with notes on the function of the genital organs. Zool Meded 41:15–42Google Scholar
  66. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wyatt TD (2003) Pheromones and animal behaviour communication by smell and taste. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wyatt TD (2009) Fifty years of pheromones. Nature 457(7227):262–263. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Xiao Y, Zhang J, Li S (2009) A two-component female-produced pheromone of the spider Pholcus beijingensis. J Chem Ecol 35(7):769–778. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyLudwig Maximilians University of MunichPlanegg-MartinsriedGermany
  2. 2.Institute of ZoologyUniversität RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations