Optimal foraging or predator avoidance: why does the Amazon spider Hingstepeira folisecens (Araneae: Araneidae) adopt alternative foraging behaviors?

Rito, Kátia F.; Hanashiro, Fabio Toshiro T.; Peixoto, Paulo Enrique Cardoso; Gonzaga, Marcelo O.

doi:10.1590/s1984-4689zool-20150147

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One obvious reason why orb web spiders may not employ this behaviour for capturing prey (they usually move towards the prey) is that reeling may result in web damage and deformed webs. In an Amazonian orb web spider (Hingstepeira folisecens) that builds a retreat in a leaf placed in the centre of the web, a similar behaviour has been reported (Rito et al, 2016). This spider typically waits for prey in the shelter provided by the leaf.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Reeling in the prey: Fishing behaviour in an orb web spider

Rao

Tapia-McClung

Narendra

2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When an insect is intercepted by a spider web, spiders quickly locate the prey, and run towards it. Once they make contact with the prey, they immobilise the prey and retrieve it to the centre of the web or the retreat for consumption. However, in rare circumstances, the spider can also pull the prey towards itself either while running to the prey or from a stationary position, a behaviour termed as ‘reeling’. Reeling is paradoxical since it can lead to web deformation or damage, thereby jeopardising future foraging success. Reeling may lead to increased retention time for heavier prey or for information acquisition with respect to the prey's identity, especially when these prey can cause damage to either the web or the spider itself. We explored the function of reeling behaviour in a neotropical orb web spider Verrucosa arenata. We show that spiders performed reeling behaviour irrespective whether they were approaching heavy or light prey, but they changed their trajectories of approach. Spiders approached heavier prey slower than light prey and they showed significantly higher frequencies of changes in velocities. We discuss these findings in the context of prey capture strategies and prey recognition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Reeling in the prey: Fishing behaviour in an orb web spider

Rao

Tapia-McClung

Narendra

2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, what is determining such behaviour choice? Rito et al (2016) observed that H. folisecens is more prone to use pulling behaviour when prey are closer to the shelter entrance and pursuing behaviour when prey are far from the shelter. Here, we have offered prey in a fixed position from the (Hingston 1932) (Araneidae) exhibiting a pulling foraging behaviour to catch prey and body condition index (BCIstandardized residuals from a regression of abdomen volume on carapace area) in one region of Central Amazonia, Brazil.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…When a prey falls on the web, spiders may pull the web below the shelter, bringing the prey near the shelter entrance, wrapping up the prey with silk (described as pulling behaviour hereafter). Additionally, spiders can also leave the shelter to approach the prey on the web, wrap it up with silk, moving or not the prey to the shelter (described as pursuing behaviour hereafter) (Rito et al 2016). Pulling behaviour can be a more effective predator-avoiding behaviour because spiders do not leave the shelter during prey capture (Rito et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, spiders can also leave the shelter to approach the prey on the web, wrap it up with silk, moving or not the prey to the shelter (described as pursuing behaviour hereafter) (Rito et al 2016). Pulling behaviour can be a more effective predator-avoiding behaviour because spiders do not leave the shelter during prey capture (Rito et al 2016). However, it would be more costly because, in doing so, spiders destroy most of the web, which needs to be rebuilt after each foraging event (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although riskier, pursuing behaviour would be more effective in prey capture because spiders directly attack the prey after it falls on the web. Additionally, this behaviour allows for more capture events per web built because it usually does not harm the web structure (Rito et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does nutritional status constrain adoption of more costly and less risky foraging behaviour in an Amazonian shelter-building spider?

Moura

Leal

Kloss

2016

Journal of Natural History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual nutritional status may increase marginal foraging costs and potentially drive animal foraging strategies. Here, we investigated how it might affect foraging strategies of the shelter-building spider Hingstepeira folisecens (Hingston 1932) (Araneidae). This spider can catch prey using two strategies with different relative costs: 'pulling' (higher energy expenditure) and 'pursuing' (lower energy expenditure). We conducted experiments by offering prey at a fixed distance from the shelter entrance to investigate if spiders with lower nutritional status would exhibit riskier but less costly foraging behaviours more frequently than spiders with better status. The nutritional status did not affect the foraging behaviours adopted by H. folisecens. Additionally, the frequency of both foraging behaviours was similar. Therefore, our results did not provide any evidence that individual nutritional status is a factor driving the selection of foraging behaviours in H. folisecens. We suggest that the malnourished spiders should adopt additional strategies to compensate for the costs of pulling behaviour, especially when prey is far from the shelter. Furthermore, it is possible that other factors, like relative prey size in relation to web size, can help us to understand the threshold that determines when such individuals must adopt one of two possible behaviours.

show abstract

Glycaemia and albumin glycation rates as fitness mediators in the wild: the case of a long-lived bird

Moreno-Borrallo,

Bize,

Jaramillo-Ortiz

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glucose is a vital metabolic component in the functioning of organisms, but it can also bind to biomolecules through non-enzymatic glycation reactions that result in loss of functions. While the effects of glycation on health have been well demonstrated in biomedical research, little is known about the effects of glycation in wild animals. Here, we studied how plasma glucose levels and albumin glycation rates vary with age and are related to fitness in a relatively hyperglycaemic long-lived bird, the Alpine swift (Tachymarptis melba). We measured plasma glucose and albumin glycation levels before and after reproduction in adult females of known age (2-14 years), showing that, while glucose levels increased in parallel with body mass, albumin glycation rates decreased within this period. Albumin glycation, but not glucose, varies with age, peaking at 5 years, consistently with other age-related parameters previously reported in this species. Interestingly, higher plasma glucose levels before reproduction were related to increased fledging success up to a certain threshold. In addition, in terms of dynamics, females gaining more mass lowered more their glycation levels, while those gaining less mass and lowering the more their glycation levels laid more eggs. Finally, higher body mass and plasma glucose levels after reproduction predicted a higher survival probability to the next season, whereas higher albumin glycation predicted lower survival, although in an age-dependent manner. Our study highlights adult plasma glucose and glycated albumin levels as new potential markers of ageing and fitness that should be further explored in this species.

show abstract

Optimal foraging or predator avoidance: why does the Amazon spider Hingstepeira folisecens (Araneae: Araneidae) adopt alternative foraging behaviors?

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Reeling in the prey: Fishing behaviour in an orb web spider

Reeling in the prey: Fishing behaviour in an orb web spider

Does nutritional status constrain adoption of more costly and less risky foraging behaviour in an Amazonian shelter-building spider?

Glycaemia and albumin glycation rates as fitness mediators in the wild: the case of a long-lived bird

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About