Fish Predation by Semi-Aquatic Spiders: A Global Pattern

Abstract

More than 80 incidences of fish predation by semi-aquatic spiders – observed at the fringes of shallow freshwater streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, swamps, and fens – are reviewed. We provide evidence that fish predation by semi-aquatic spiders is geographically widespread, occurring on all continents except Antarctica. Fish predation by spiders appears to be more common in warmer areas between 40° S and 40° N. The fish captured by spiders, usually ranging from 2–6 cm in length, are among the most common fish taxa occurring in their respective geographic area (e.g., mosquitofish [Gambusia spp.] in the southeastern USA, fish of the order Characiformes in the Neotropics, killifish [Aphyosemion spp.] in Central and West Africa, as well as Australian native fish of the genera Galaxias, Melanotaenia, and Pseudomugil). Naturally occurring fish predation has been witnessed in more than a dozen spider species from the superfamily Lycosoidea (families Pisauridae, Trechaleidae, and Lycosidae), in two species of the superfamily Ctenoidea (family Ctenidae), and in one species of the superfamily Corinnoidea (family Liocranidae). The majority of reports on fish predation by spiders referred to pisaurid spiders of the genera Dolomedes and Nilus (>75% of observed incidences). There is laboratory evidence that spiders from several more families (e.g., the water spider Argyroneta aquatica [Cybaeidae], the intertidal spider Desis marina [Desidae], and the ‘swimming’ huntsman spider Heteropoda natans [Sparassidae]) predate fish as well. Our finding of such a large diversity of spider families being engaged in fish predation is novel. Semi-aquatic spiders captured fish whose body length exceeded the spiders’ body length (the captured fish being, on average, 2.2 times as long as the spiders). Evidence suggests that fish prey might be an occasional prey item of substantial nutritional importance.

Hunting Without a Web: How Lycosoid Spiders Subdue their Prey

“…). There is no need of these climbing tools due to their semi‐aquatic and ground‐dwelling lifestyle (Nyffeler & Pusey ; Lapinski et al. ).…”

Predicting Predatory Outcomes in the Context of Carryover Effects: Interactions between Juvenile Frogs and Spider Predators

“…), and the potential for high densities of spiders around ponds (Graham et al. ; Toledo ; Nyffeler & Pusey ), it is likely that our observed predation events are ecologically relevant for populations of cricket frogs and other amphibians. Furthermore, understanding the role of spiders as predators of amphibians may become increasingly important as habitats are modified by invasive species that can indirectly increase predation by spiders on metamorphic frogs (DeVore & Maerz ).…”

“…). Despite the low probability of capturing prey at the level of the individual, spider predation on frogs (Toledo ) and other vertebrates (Nyffeler & Knörnschild ; Nyffeler & Pusey ) has been widely documented and may represent an important ecological interaction (DeVore & Maerz ).…”

“…), invertebrate predators also present a sizable mortality risk (Toledo ). While primarily insectivorous, spiders are known to consume both aerial and aquatic vertebrates across a wide geographic range (Nyffeler & Knörnschild ; Nyffeler & Pusey ) and may be the most important invertebrate predators of anurans (Toledo ). Wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) can reach high densities in near‐aquatic habitats (Graham et al.…”

Venoms-based discovery of novel modulators of human neuronal α7 and α3* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors

“…Interestingly, M. australianus have strong and large fangs and also potent blockers for vertebrate nAChRs. We could speculate that toxins against nAChRs allowed that the spider could prey on fish, which can be double of its size, tadpoles and insects (Nyffeler and Pusey, 2014). …”