Multimodal communication of wolf spiders on different substrates: evidence for behavioural plasticity

Gordon, Shira D.; Uetz, George W.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.11.003

Cited by 102 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[15][16][17]. Moreover, male Schizocosa wolf spiders have demonstrated flexibility in courtship based on experience and environmental cues [24,25]. Our results show that males alter subsequent courtship display behaviour once exposed to the courtship of others, as has been shown for fiddler crabs (Uca mjoebergi) [12,26] and acoustic displays of bushcrickets (Elephantodeta nobilis) and anurans [27,28].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eavesdropping on communication is widespread among animals, e.g. bystanders observing male–male contests, female mate choice copying and predator detection of prey cues. Some animals also exhibit signal matching, e.g. overlapping of competitors' acoustic signals in aggressive interactions. Fewer studies have examined male eavesdropping on conspecific courtship, although males could increase mating success by attending to others' behaviour and displaying whenever courtship is detected. In this study, we show that field-experienced male Schizocosa ocreata wolf spiders exhibit eavesdropping and signal matching when exposed to video playback of courting male conspecifics. Male spiders had longer bouts of interaction with a courting male stimulus, and more bouts of courtship signalling during and after the presence of a male on the video screen. Rates of courtship (leg tapping) displayed by individual focal males were correlated with the rates of the video exemplar to which they were exposed. These findings suggest male wolf spiders might gain information by eavesdropping on conspecific courtship and adjust performance to match that of rivals. This represents a novel finding, as these behaviours have previously been seen primarily among vertebrates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some birds can almost instantly change their songs when exposed to noise [66,67]. Whether multimodal signals show similar behavioural flexibility in response to multimodal interference is not known [68]. However, anthropogenic pollutants have been shown to have cross-modal impacts on signalling [55,69].…”

Section: (D) Multimodal and Cross-modal Behavioural Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollution going multimodal: the complex impact of the human-altered sensory environment on animal perception and performance

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic sensory pollution is affecting ecosystems worldwide. Human actions generate acoustic noise, emanate artificial light and emit chemical substances. All of these pollutants are known to affect animals. Most studies on anthropogenic pollution address the impact of pollutants in unimodal sensory domains. High levels of anthropogenic noise, for example, have been shown to interfere with acoustic signals and cues. However, animals rely on multiple senses, and pollutants often co-occur. Thus, a full ecological assessment of the impact of anthropogenic activities requires a multimodal approach. We describe how sensory pollutants can co-occur and how covariance among pollutants may differ from natural situations. We review how animals combine information that arrives at their sensory systems through different modalities and outline how sensory conditions can interfere with multimodal perception. Finally, we describe how sensory pollutants can affect the perception, behaviour and endocrinology of animals within and across sensory modalities. We conclude that sensory pollution can affect animals in complex ways due to interactions among sensory stimuli, neural processing and behavioural and endocrinal feedback. We call for more empirical data on covariance among sensory conditions, for instance, data on correlated levels in noise and light pollution. Furthermore, we encourage researchers to test animal responses to a full-factorial set of sensory pollutants in the presence or the absence of ecologically important signals and cues. We realize that such approach is often time and energy consuming, but we think this is the only way to fully understand the multimodal impact of sensory pollution on animal performance and perception.

show abstract

“…Thus, we would expect increased selection pressure from eavesdropping predators on multimodal signals compared with unimodal signals under increased levels of sensory complexity. Multimodal signals allow animals to shift energy between signal components when costs and benefits differ between communication channels [46,50]. Tropical katydids, for example, increase the use of substrate-borne vibrations at the expense of air-borne sounds under full moon light conditions [46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodal cues improve prey localization under complex environmental conditions

Rhebergen¹,

Taylor

Ryan

et al. 2015

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predators often eavesdrop on sexual displays of their prey. These displays can provide multimodal cues that aid predators, but the benefits in attending to them should depend on the environmental sensory conditions under which they forage. We assessed whether bats hunting for frogs use multimodal cues to locate their prey and whether their use varies with ambient conditions. We used a robotic set-up mimicking the sexual display of a male tú ngara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus) to test prey assessment by fringe-lipped bats (Trachops cirrhosus). These predatory bats primarily use sound of the frog's call to find their prey, but the bats also use echolocation cues returning from the frog's dynamically moving vocal sac. In the first experiment, we show that multimodal cues affect attack behaviour: bats made narrower flank attack angles on multimodal trials compared with unimodal trials during which they could only rely on the sound of the frog. In the second experiment, we explored the bat's use of prey cues in an acoustically more complex environment. Tú ngara frogs often form mixed-species choruses with other frogs, including the hourglass frog (Dendropsophus ebraccatus). Using a multi-speaker set-up, we tested bat approaches and attacks on the robofrog under three different levels of acoustic complexity: no calling D. ebraccatus males, two calling D. ebraccatus males and five D. ebraccatus males. We found that bats are more directional in their approach to the robofrog when more D. ebraccatus males were calling. Thus, bats seemed to benefit more from multimodal cues when confronted with increased levels of acoustic complexity in their foraging environments. Our data have important consequences for our understanding of the evolution of multimodal sexual displays as they reveal how environmental conditions can alter the natural selection pressures acting on them.

show abstract

Multimodal communication of wolf spiders on different substrates: evidence for behavioural plasticity

Cited by 102 publications

References 75 publications

Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders

Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders

Pollution going multimodal: the complex impact of the human-altered sensory environment on animal perception and performance

Multimodal cues improve prey localization under complex environmental conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About