Costs and benefits of group living for pholcid spiderlings: losing food, saving silk

Jakob, Elizabeth M.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80908-x

Cited by 76 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…gaps between trees, Lubin, 1974). The presence of common web attachments saves on silk production and lowers the foraging costs of web building and web maintenance (Philoponella oweni, Smith, 1982 Function of spider societies Jakob, 1991;Gastercantha minax, Lloyd & Elgar, 1997). Colonial spiders are thus foraging societies whose function is to enhance individual growth by means of group hunting.…”

Section: Spider Groups As Foraging Protective and Reproductive Smentioning

confidence: 99%

The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many models have been advanced to suggest how different expressions of sociality have evolved and are maintained. However these models ignore the function of groups for the particular species in question. Here we present a new perspective on sociality where the function of the group takes a central role. We argue that sociality may have primarily a reproductive, protective, or foraging function, depending on whether it enhances the reproductive, protective or foraging aspect of the animal's life (sociality may serve a mixture of these functions). Different functions can potentially cause the development of the same social behaviour. By identifying which function influences a particular social behaviour we can determine how that social behaviour will change with changing conditions, and which models are most pertinent. To test our approach we examined spider sociality, which has often been seen as the poor cousin to insect sociality. By using our approach we found that the group characteristics of eusocial insects is largely governed by the reproductive function of their groups, while the group characteristics of social spiders is largely governed by the foraging function of the group. This means that models relevant to insects may not be relevant to spiders. It also explains why eusocial insects have developed a strict caste system while spider societies are more egalitarian. We also used our approach to explain the differences between different types of spider groups. For example, differences in the characteristics of colonial and kleptoparasitic groups can be explained by differences in foraging methods, while differences between colonial and cooperative spiders can be explained by the role of the reproductive function in the formation of cooperative spider groups. Although the interactions within cooperative spider colonies are largely those of a foraging society, demographic traits and colony dynamics are strongly influenced by the reproductive function. We argue that functional explanations help to understand the social structure of spider groups and therefore the evolutionary potential for speciation in social spiders.

show abstract

Section: Spider Groups As Foraging Protective and Reproductive Smentioning

confidence: 99%

The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The largest energetic expenditures for spiders are in the locomotor activity and energy output associated with web building (reviewed in Venner et al 2003). These costs can be substantial: in the pholcid Holocnemus pluchei, the calories in a web represent 4 days of foraging (Jakob 1991). The dense weaving and complex structure of the webs of F. communis are likely to require at least as many calories to construct as do the more delicate and simple webs of H. pluchei.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Web-building spiders may potentially compete for several different resources, including web sites (Riechert 1979;Harwood and Obrycki 2005), prey (reviewed in Wise 1993) and sometimes webs themselves (Eichenberger et al 2009;Hoffmaster 1986;Jakob 1991Jakob , 2004. Losing webs to competitors is likely to have fitness consequences, as webs are necessary for prey capture and are energetically costly to produce (e.g., Jakob 1991;Pasquet et al 1999;Herberstein et al 2000;Venner et al 2003Venner et al , 2006.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Losing webs to competitors is likely to have fitness consequences, as webs are necessary for prey capture and are energetically costly to produce (e.g., Jakob 1991;Pasquet et al 1999;Herberstein et al 2000;Venner et al 2003Venner et al , 2006. In the most extreme instances, web takeovers also result in the usurper preying upon the host spider (Toft 1988;Perkins et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competitive interactions between a native spider (Frontinella communis, Araneae: Linyphiidae) and an invasive spider (Linyphia triangularis, Araneae: Linyphiidae)

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are numerous reports of spiders that have become established outside of their native ranges, but few studies examine their impact on native spiders. We examined the effect of the European hammock spider Linyphia triangularis (Araneae, Linyphiidae) on the native bowl-and-doily spider Frontinella communis (Araneae, Linyphiidae) in Acadia National Park, Maine, USA. First, we added L. triangularis to established plots of F. communis. Significantly more F. communis abandoned their webs when L. triangularis were added compared to control plots. Second, we tested whether F. communis were deterred from building webs in areas where L. triangularis was established. Significantly fewer F. communis built webs on plots with L. triangularis than on control plots. In both experiments, L. triangularis sometimes took over webs of F. communis or incorporated F. communis webs into their own webs, but F. communis never took over or incorporated L. triangularis webs.Competition between L. triangularis and F. communis for both webs and web sites may contribute to the decline of F. communis.

show abstract

“…This plasticity of behavior parallels the one reported for several tropical species where non-aggressive contacts were related when density of prey increased (Lubin, 1974;Rypstra, 1983Rypstra, , 1985Rypstra, , 1986aUetz, 1986). In species where young may either live alone or share webs with larger conspecifics, cost and benefit studies show that in spiders, the switch from solitary to communal living seems to be easy in light of a reduction of cost for small spiders and an increase of benefits for large ones (Jakob, 1991). In addition, the greater prey capture and feeding efficiency in group-living spiders than in solitary ones could be an argument for the evolution from solitary to group life (Breitwisch, 1989;Rypstra, 1990;Binford and Rypstra, 1992;Schneider, 1996;Lloyd and Elgar, 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships among food and contact signals in experimental group-living young ofTegenaria atrica

Pourié

Trabalon

1999

Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationships between the quantity of diet, and group vs. individual rearing toward ontogenesis on degree of cannibalism and cuticular lipid profile of young Tegenaria atrica Araneae, Agelenidae were studied. Ad libitum diet increases the development rate and decreases cannibalism between conspecifics compared to a reduced diet. Individually reared young on the two diets showed no quantitative differences in cuticular lipid profile, but differences were observed in individual vs. group rearing modes. The ad libitum–fed grouped young spiders had notably increased quantities of palmitic acid, 13,17‐,11,17‐, and 9,17‐dimethylhentriacontane, methyl oleate, and n‐heptatriacontane over the reduced diet, cannibalistic group. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 42:188–197, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Costs and benefits of group living for pholcid spiderlings: losing food, saving silk

Cited by 76 publications

References 17 publications

The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case

The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case

Competitive interactions between a native spider (Frontinella communis, Araneae: Linyphiidae) and an invasive spider (Linyphia triangularis, Araneae: Linyphiidae)

Relationships among food and contact signals in experimental group-living young ofTegenaria atrica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About