Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Do social spiders cooperate in predator defense and foraging without a web?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nearly all social spiders spin prey-capture webs, and many of the benefits proposed for sociality in spiders, such as cooperative prey capture and reduced silk costs, appear to depend on a mutually shared web. The social huntsman spider, Delena cancerides (Sparassidae), forms colonies under bark with no capture web, yet these spiders remain in tightly associated, long-lasting groups. To investigate how the absence of the web may or may not constrain social evolution in spiders, we observed D. cancerides colonies in the field and laboratory for possible cooperative defense and foraging benefits. We observed spiders’ responses to three types of potential predators and to prey that were introduced into retreats. We recorded all natural prey capture over 447 h both inside and outside the retreats of field colonies. The colony’s sole adult female was the primary defender of the colony and captured most prey introduced into the retreat. She shared prey with younger juveniles about half the time but never with older subadults. Spiders of all ages individually captured and consumed the vast majority of prey outside the retreat. Young spiders benefited directly from maternal defense and prey sharing in the retreat. However, active cooperation was rare, and older spiders gained no foraging benefit by remaining in their natal colony. D. cancerides does not share many of the benefits of group living described in other web-building social spiders. We discuss other reasons why this species has evolved group living.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avilés L (1994) Social behavior in a web-building lynx spider, Tapinillus sp. (Araneae: Oxyopidae. Biol J Linn Soc 52:163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avilés L (1997) Causes and consequences of cooperation and permanent-sociality in spiders. In: Choe J, Crespi B (eds) The evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 476–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird RW, Dill LM (1996) Ecological and social determinants of groups size in transient killer whales. Behav Ecol 7:408–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackledge TA, Scharff N, Coddington JA, Szüts T, Wenzel JW, Hayashi CY, Agnarsson I (2009) Reconstructing web evolution and spider diversification in the molecular era. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:5229–5234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein DT, Armitage KB (1999) Cooperative breeding in marmots. Oikos 84:369–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brach V (1976) Subsocial behavior in the funnel-web wolf spider Sosippus floridanus (Araneae: Lycosidae). Fla Entomol 59:225–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breed MD, Guzmán-Novoa E, Hunt GJ (2004) Defensive behavior of honey bees: organization, genetics, and comparisons with other bees. Ann Rev Entomol 49:271–298

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess JW (1976) Social spiders. Sci Am 234:101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buskirk RE (1981) Sociality in the Arachnida. In: Herman HR (ed) Social insects, vol. 2. Academic, New York, pp 281–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Creel S (1997) Cooperative hunting and group size: assumptions and currencies. Anim Behav 54:1319–1324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Creel S, Creel NM (1995) Communal hunting and pack size in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Anim Behav 50:1325–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias DO, Hebets EA, Hoy RR, Mason AC (2005) Seismic signals are crucial for male mating success in a visual specialist jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Anim Behav 69:931–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emlen ST (1982) The evolution of helping. I. An ecological constraints model. Am Nat 119:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans TA (1995) Two new species of social crab spiders of the genus Diaea from eastern Australia, their natural history and distribution. In: Harvey MS (ed) Australasian spiders and their relatives: papers honouring Barbara York Main. Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement 52. Western Australian Museum, Perth, pp 151–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans TA (1998) Factors influencing the evolution of social behaviour in Australian crab spiders (Araneae: Thomisidae). Biol J Linn Soc 63:205–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank SA (2003) Perspective: repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution 57:693–705

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskett AC (2007) Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions. Biol Rev 82:27–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1980) The evolutionary biology of constraint. Daedalus 109:39–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hebets A, Uetz GW (1999) Female responses to isolated signals from multimodal male courtship displays in the wolf spider genus Schizocosa (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav 57:865–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henschel JR (1998) Predation on social and solitary individuals of the spider Stegodyphus dumicola (Araneae, Eresidae). J Arachnol 26:61–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst DB (1989) Revision of the genus Pediana Simon Heteropodidae Araneae in Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum (Adelaide) 23:113–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst DB (1993) Revision of the genus Isopedella Koch Heteropodidae Araneae in Australia. Invertebr Taxon 7:33–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge MA, Uetz GW (1992) Antipredator benefits of single- and mixed-species grouping by Nephila clavipes (L.) (Ananeae: Tetragnathidae). J Arachnol 20:212–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Honěk A, Martinková Z, Pekár S (2007) Aggregation characteristics of three species of Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) at hibernation sites. Eur J Entomol 104:51–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones TC, Parker PG (2002) Delayed juvenile dispersal benefits both mother and offspring in the cooperative spider Anelosimus studiosus (Araneae: Theridiidae). Behav Ecol 13:142–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappes JJ Jr (2008) Cavity number and use by other species as correlates of group size in red-cockaded woodpeckers. Wilson J Ornithol 120:181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komdeur J (1992) Importance of habitat saturation and territory quality for evolution of cooperative breeding in the Seychelles warbler. Nature 358:493–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krafft B, Pasquet A (1991) Synchronized and rhythmical activity during the prey capture in the social spider Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Insect Soc 38:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Ruxton G (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubin Y, Bilde T (2007) The evolution of sociality in spiders. Adv Stud Behav 37:83–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macedonia JM, Evans CS (1993) Variation among mammalian alarm calls and systems and the problem of meaning in animal signals. Ethology 93:177–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main BY (1962) Spiders of Australia: a guide to their identification with brief notes on the natural history of common forms. Jacaranda, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • Main BY (1988) The biology of a social thomisid spider. Aust Entomol Soc Misc Publ 5:55–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer C, Caro TM (1997) Foraging costs in social carnivores. Anim Behav 54:1317–1318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Packer C, Scheel D, Pusey A (1990) Why lions form groups: food is not enough. Am Nat 136:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platnick NI (2011) The world spider catalog, version 11.5. American Museum of Natural History. Available at http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/INTRO1.html

  • Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1990) Trade-offs in foraging success and predation risk with spatial position in colonial spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell DM, Avilés L (1995) Sociality in a bark-dwelling huntsman spider from Australia, Delena cancerides Walckenaer (Araneae: Sparassidae). Insect Soc 42:287–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rypstra AL (1993) Prey size, social competition and the development of reproductive division of labor in social spider groups. Am Nat 142:868–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sage RD (1982) Wet and dry-weight estimates of insects and spiders based on length. Am Midl Nat 108:407–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schradin C, Kӧnig B, Pillay N (2010) Reproductive competition favours solitary living while ecological constrains impose group living in African striped mice. J Anim Ecol 79:515–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seibt U, Wickler W (1988) Why do “family spiders”, Stegodyphus (Eresidae) live in colonies? J Arachnol 16:193–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Shear WA (1970) The evolution of social phenomena in spiders. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 1:65–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Uetz GW (1988) Risk sensitivity and foraging in colonial spiders. In: Slobodchikoff CN (ed) The ecology of social behavior. Academic, San Diego, pp 353–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Uetz GW (1989) The “ricochet effect” and prey capture in colonial spiders. Oecologia 81:154–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Uetz GW, Hieber CS (1997) Colonial web-building spiders: balancing the costs and benefits of group living. In: Choe J, Crespi B (eds) The evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 458–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollrath F, Windsor D (1983) Subsocial and social Anelosimus: a comparison, especially of nest defense. In: Eberhard WG, Lubin YD, Robinson BC (eds) Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Arachnology, Panama 1983. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 295–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI (1986) Prey availability increases less quickly than nest size in the social spider Stegodyphus mimosarum. Behaviour 97:213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse MEA, Lubin Y (2005) The function of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case. Biol Rev 80:347–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong MYL (2009) Ecological constraints and benefits of philopatry promote group living in a social but non-cooperatively breeding fish. Proc R Soc B 277:353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yip EC, Powers KS, Avilés L (2008) Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:11818–11822

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yip EC, Clarke S, Rayor LS (2009) Aliens among us: nestmate recognition in the social huntsman spider, Delena cancerides. Insect Soc 56:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorzinski JL, Vehrencamp SL (2009) The effect of predator type and danger level on the mob calls of the American crow. Condor 111:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the Australian–American Fulbright Association and from The National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship. Dr. David Rowell, of the Australian National University, has been exceptionally generous in sharing his knowledge, laboratory, and system. We thank the administrative and technical staff of the Research School of Biology, Evolution, Ecology, and Genetics at ANU for their gracious accommodation. We thank Dr. Thomas D. Seeley and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on improving the manuscript. Thanks to Dr. Ajay Narendra for identifying bulldog ants and David Hirst for identifying solitary huntsman. Leo Stellwag helped in retreat window construction. Jenna DeNicola fed and maintained captive spiders at Cornell University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric C. Yip.

Additional information

Communicated by M. Elgar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yip, E.C., Rayor, L.S. Do social spiders cooperate in predator defense and foraging without a web?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 1935–1947 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1203-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1203-5

Keywords

Navigation