Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 753–766

Draglines and Assessment of Fighting Ability in Cannibalistic Jumping Spiders

  • Robert J. Clark
  • Robert R. Jackson
  • Joseph R. Waas
Article

Abstract

The frequency of injury and death during female-female aggression varies in the jumping spider genus Portia, with interactions being more violent (likely to end in death or injury of one of the combatants) in P. labiata (from Sri Lanka) than in another two species (P. fimbriata from Australia and P. schultzi from Kenya). To investigate the role of draglines in the assessment of fighting ability, two types of tests were carried out: 1) dragline discrimination and 2) mirror image response (Portia's reaction to mirror images is comparable to interaction with conspecific rivals). For both types of testing, triplets of equal-size conspecific females were used: one female (the “test spider”) was exposed to draglines of two equal-size conspecific females they had not encountered before (“donor spiders”). The fighting abilities of donor spiders were determined directly by staging intraspecific contests between them. In dragline-discrimination tests (spider placed in petri dish containing draglines from two conspecific females with different fighting ability), females of P. labiata, but not the other two species, avoided draglines of the superior fighter (i.e., they spent the majority of their time on draglines of donor spiders with lesser fighting ability). For mirror-image testing, the test spider was placed in a petri dish containing a mirror and draglines. Each test spider was tested on two successive days, with donor draglines in the two tests coming from conspecific females with different fighting ability. In these tests, females of P. labiata (but not the other two species) spent less time embracing (each spider pressing its forelegs, palps and front of body against the other spider) and more time in a part of the petri dish where view of the mirror was obstructed when on the draglines of donor spiders with greater fighting ability than when on the other conspecific's draglines. Findings from this study suggest that P. labiata females use signpost cues associated with draglines to assess the relative fighting abilities of unknown opponents.

jumping spider dragline signpost aggression assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Caldwell, R. L. (1986). The deceptive use of reputation by stomatopods. In Mitchell, R. W., and Thompson, N. S. (eds.), Deception: Perspectives on Human and Nonhuman Deceit, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, R. J., and Jackson, R. R. (1994). Self recognition in a jumping spider: Portia labiata females discriminate between their own draglines and those of conspecifics. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 6: 371–375.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, R. J., and Jackson, R. R. (1995a). Dragline-mediated sex recognition in two species of jumping spiders (Araneae Salticidae), Portia labiata and Portia fimbriata. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 7: 73–77.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, R. J., and Jackson, R. R. (1995b). Araneophagic jumping spiders discriminate between the draglines of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 7: 185–190.Google Scholar
  5. Drickamer, L. C. (1992). Oestrus female house mice discriminate dominant from subordinate males and sons of subordinate males by odour cues. Anim. Behav. 43: 868–870.Google Scholar
  6. Dusenbery, D. B. (1992). Sensory Ecology, Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Enquist, M., and Leimar, O. (1990). The evolution of fatal fighting. Anim. Behav. 39: 1–9.Google Scholar
  8. Enquist, M., Leimar, O., Ljungberg, T., Mallner, Y., and Segerdahl, N. (1990). A test of the sequential assessment game: fighting in the cichlid fish Nannacara anomala. Anim. Behav. 40: 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Faber, D. B., and Baylis, J. R. (1994). Effects of body size on agonistic encounters between male jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). Anim. Behav. 45: 289–299.Google Scholar
  10. Gullan, P. J., and Cranston, P. S. (1994). The Insects: An Outline of Entomology, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  11. Hammerstein, P. (1981). The role of asymmetries in animal conflicts. Anim. Behav. 29: 193–205.Google Scholar
  12. Hasson, O. (1994). Cheating signals. J. Theor. Biol. 167: 223–238.Google Scholar
  13. Huntingford, F. A., and Turner, A. K. (1987). Animal Conflict, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  14. Hurst, J. L. (1990). Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty: communication between females. Anim. Behav. 40: 223–232.Google Scholar
  15. Jackson, R. R. (1982). The biology of Portia fimbriata, a web-building jumping spider (Araneae, Salticidae) from Queensland: intraspecific interactions. J. Zool. Lond. 196: 295–305.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, R. R. (1987). Comparative study of releaser pheromones associated with the silk of jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae). NZ. J. Zool. 14: 1–10.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, R. R. (1992). Eight-legged tricksters: spiders that specialize at catching other spiders. Bio-Science 42: 590–598.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, R. R., and Blest, A. D. (1982a). The biology of Portia fimbriata, a web-building jumping spider (Araneae, Salticidae) from Queensland: utilization of webs and predatory versatility. J. Zool. Lond. 196: 255–293.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, R. R., and Blest, A. D. (1982b). The distances at which a primitive jumping spider, Portia fimbriata, makes visual discriminations. J. Exp. Biol. 97: 441–445.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, R. R., and Cooper, K. J. (1991). The influence of body size and prior residency on the outcome of male-male interactions of Marpissa marina, a New Zealand jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 3: 79–82.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, R. R., and Hallas, S. E. A. (1986). Comparative biology of Portia africana, P. albimana, P. fimbriata, P. labiata, and P. schultzi, araneophagic, web-building jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae): utilization of webs, predatory versatility and intraspecific interactions. NZ. J. Zool. 13: 423–489.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, R. R., and Pollard, S. D. (1990). Intraspecific interactions and the function of courtship in mygalomorph spiders: a study of Porrhothele antipodiana (Araneae: Hexathelidae) and a literature review. NZ. J. Zool. 17: 499–526.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, R. R., and Pollard, S. D. (1996). Predatory behavior of jumping spiders. Ann. Rev. Ent. 41: 287–308.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, R. R., and Pollard, S. D. (1997). Jumping spider mating strategies: sex among cannibals in and out of webs. In: Choe, J., and Crespi, B. (eds.), Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 340–351.Google Scholar
  25. Jackson, R. R., and Wilcox, R. S. (1998). Spider-eating spiders. Amer. Scient. 86: 350–357.Google Scholar
  26. Johnstone, R. A. (1997). The evolution of animal signals. In Krebs, J. R., and Davies, N. B. (eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 4th edition. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 155–178.Google Scholar
  27. Karlson, P., and Butenandt, A. (1959). Pheromones (ectohormones) in insects. Ann. Rev. Ent. 4: 39–58.Google Scholar
  28. Krebs, J. R., and Dawkins, R. (1985). Animal signals: mind reading and manipulation. In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds.), Behavioural Ecology: an Evolutionary Approach, 2nd edition, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 380–402.Google Scholar
  29. Li, D., and Jackson, R. R. (1996). Prey preferences of Portia fimbriata, an araneophagic, web-building jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae) from Queensland. J. Insect. Behav. 9: 613–642.Google Scholar
  30. Li, D., and Jackson, R. R. (1997). Influence of diet on survivorship and growth in Portia fimbriata, an araneophagic jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Can. J. Zool. 75: 1652–1658.Google Scholar
  31. Li, D., Jackson, R. R., and Barrion, A. (1997). Prey preferences of Portia labiata, P. africana and P. schultzi, araneophagic jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) from the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Uganda. NZ. J. Zool. 24: 333–349.Google Scholar
  32. Mathis, A. (1990). Territorial salamanders assess sexual and competitive information using chemical signals. Anim. Behav. 40: 953–962.Google Scholar
  33. Mathis, A., and Simon, R. R. (1994). Size dependent responses of resident male red backed sala-manders to chemical stimuli from conspecifics. Herpetologica 50: 335–344.Google Scholar
  34. Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Do animals convey information about their intentions? J. Theor. Biol. 97: 1–5.Google Scholar
  35. Parker, G. A. (1974). Assessment strategies and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 47: 223–243.Google Scholar
  36. Pollard, S. D., Macnab, A. M., and Jackson, R. R. (1987). Communication with chemicals: pheromones and spiders. In Nentwig, W. (ed.), Ecophysiology of Spiders, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 133–141.Google Scholar
  37. Richman, D. and Jackson, R. R. (1992). A review of the ethology of jumping spiders (Araneae). Bull. Br. Arach. Soc. 9: 33–37.Google Scholar
  38. Rubenstein, D. H., and Hack, M. A. 1992. Horse signals: the sounds and scents of fury. Evol. Ecol. 6: 254–260.Google Scholar
  39. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry, Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  40. Waas, J. R. (1991). The risks and benefits of signaling aggressive motivation: a study of cavedwelling little blue penguins. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29: 139–146.Google Scholar
  41. Watson, P. J. (1990). Female-enhanced male competition determines the first male and principal sire in the spider Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphyidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26: 77–90.Google Scholar
  42. Wells, M. S. (1988). Effects of body size and resource value on fighting behaviour in a jumping spider. Anim. Behav. 36: 321–326.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Clark
    • 1
  • Robert R. Jackson
    • 1
  • Joseph R. Waas
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesWaikato UniversityHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations