No preference for novel mating partners in the polyandrous nuptial-feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae)

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 435-442

  Tuni, Cristina ^a   Bilde, Trine ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Coolidge effect; Direct selection; Genetic benefit; Indirect selection; Mate choice; Material benefit; Nuptial feeding; Nursery web spider; Pisaura mirabilis; Polyandry

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); COPULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FERTILIZATION (REPRODUCTION); GENETIC ANALYSIS; MATE CHOICE; NUPTIAL GIFT; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; PATERNITY; POLYANDRY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RISK FACTOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPIDER; TRADE-OFF;

ARANEAE; MIRABILIS; PISAURA MIRABILIS; PISAURIDAE;

EID: 77955589539     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.05.029     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Andersen T., Bollerup K., Toft S., Bilde T. Why do males of the spider Pisaura mirabilis wrap their nuptial gifts in silk: female preference or male control?. Ethology 2008, 114:775-781.
2. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
3. Archer M.S., Elgar M.A. Female preference for multiple partners: sperm competition in the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus (DeGeer). Animal Behaviour 1999, 58:669-675.
4. Arnqvist G., Kirkpatrick M. The evolution of infidelity in social monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation in females. American Naturalist 2005, 165:S26-S37.
5. Arnqvist G., Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behaviour 2000, 60:145-164.
6. Arnqvist G., Rowe L. Sexual Conflict 2005, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
7. Austad S.N., Thornhill R. Female reproductive variation in a nuptial-feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 1986, 7:48-52.
8. Bateman A.J. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948, 2:349-368.
9. Bateman P.W. Mate preference for novel partners in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Ecological Entomology 1998, 23:473-475.
10. Bilde T., Tuni C., Elsayed R., Pèkar S., Toft S. Death feigning in the face of sexual cannibalism. Biology Letters 2006, 2:23-25.
11. Bilde T., Tuni C., Elsayed R., Pèkar S., Toft S. Nuptial gifts of male spiders: sensory exploitation of the female's maternal care instinct or foraging motivation?. Animal Behaviour 2007, 73:267-273.
12. Bilde T., Friberg U., Maklakov A.A., Fry J.D., Arnqvist G. The genetic architecture of fitness in a seed beetle: assessing the potential for indirect genetic benefits of female choice. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008, 8:295.
13. Birkhead T.R., Møller A.P. Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection 1998, Academic Press, London.
14. Boggs C.L. Male nuptial gifts: phenotypic consequences and evolutionary implications. Insect Reproduction 1995, 215-242. CRC Press, New York. S.R. Leather, J. Hardie (Eds.).
15. Bristowe W.S. The World of Spiders 1958, Collins, London.
16. Chapman T., Liddle L.F., Kalb J.M., Wolfner M.F., Partridge L. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster female is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 1995, 373:241-244.
17. Costa-Schmidt L.E., Carico J.E., Araùjo A.M. Nuptial gifts and sexual behaviour in two species of spider (Araneae, Trechaleidae, Paratrechalea). Naturwissenschaften 2008, 95:731-739.
18. Daly M. Cost of mating. American Naturalist 1978, 112:771-774.
19. D'Ettorre P., Heinze J. Individual recognition in ant queens. Current Biology 2005, 15:2170-2174.
20. Dewsbury D.A. Effects of novelty on copulatory behavior: the Coolidge effect and related phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 1981, 89:464-482.
21. Dewsbury D.A. Ejaculate cost and male choice. American Naturalist 1982, 119:601-610.
22. Drengsgaard I.L., Toft S. Sperm competition in a nuptial feeding spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Behaviour 1999, 136:877-897.
23. Eberhard W.G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice 1996, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
24. Gershman S.N., Sakaluk S.K. No Coolidge effect in decorated crickets. Ethology 2009, 115:774-780.
25. Hansen L.S., Gonzales S.F., Toft S., Bilde T. Thanatosis as an adaptive male mating strategy in the nuptial gift-giving spider Pisaura mirabilis. Behavioral Ecology 2008, 19:546-551.
26. Hosken D.J., Martin O.Y., Born J., Huber F. Sexual conflict in Sepsis cynipsea: female reluctance, fertility and mate choice. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2003, 16:485-490.
27. Huber B.A. Sexual selection research on spiders. Biological Reviews 2005, 80:363-385.
28. Itakura Y. The life history and nuptial feeding of a nursery web spider, Pisaura lama. Insectarium 1993, 30:88-93.
29. Itakura Y. Discovery of nuptial feeding in the spider, Perenethis fascigera (Araneae: Pisauridae). Acta Arachnologica 1998, 47:173-175.
30. Ivy T.M., Weddle C.B., Sakaluk S.K. Females use self-referent cues to avoid mating with previous mates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2005, 272:2475-2478.
31. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews 2000, 75:21-64.
32. Johnstone R.A., Keller L. How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. American Naturalist 2000, 156:368-377.
33. Keller L., Reeve H.K. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Advances in the Study of Behavior 1995, 24:291-315.
34. Kirkpatrick M. Good genes and direct selection in evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 1996, 50:2125-2140.
35. Knell R.J., Webberley K.M. Sexually transmitted disease of insects: distribution, evolution, ecology and host behaviour. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2004, 79:557-581.
36. Koene J.M., Ter Maat A. Coolidge effect in pond snails: male motivation in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2007, 7:212.
37. Lang A. Silk investments in gifts by males of the nuptial feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Behaviour 1996, 133:697-716.
38. Nitzsche R.O.M. 'Brautgeschenk' und Umspinnen der Beute bei Pisaura mirabilis, Dolomedes fimbriatus und Thaumasia uncata (Arachnida, Araneida, Pisauridae). Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins Hamburg 1988, 30:353-393.
39. Otronen M. Repeated copulations as a strategy to maximize fertilization in the fly Dryomyza anilis (Dryomyzidae). Behavioral Ecology 1994, 5:51-56.
40. Ödeen A., Moray C.M. Drosophila melanogaster virgins are more likely to mate with strangers than familiar flies. Naturwissenschaften 2008, 95:253-256.
41. Pilastro A., Scaggiante M., Rasotto M.B. Individual adjustment of sperm expenditure accords with sperm competition theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2002, 99:9913-9915.
42. Pizzari T. Sperm allocation, the Coolidge effect and female polyandry. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2002, 17:456.
43. Pizzari T., Cornwallis C.K., Løvlie H., Jakobsson S., Birkhead T.R. Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature 2003, 426:70-74.
44. Prokop P., Maxwell M.R. Female feeding regime and polyandry in the nuptially feeding nursery web spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Naturwissenschaften 2009, 96:259-265.
45. Reinhold K., Kurtz J., Engqvist L. Cryptic male choice: sperm allocation strategies when female quality varies. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15:201-209.
46. Ridley M. Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 1988, 63:509-549.
47. Simmons L.W. Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects 2001, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
48. Simmons L.W. The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection and offspring viability. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2005, 36:125-146.
49. Simmons L.W., Beveridge M., Wedell N., Tregenza T. Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance by female crickets only revealed by molecular markers. Molecular Ecology 2006, 15:3817-3824.
50. Smith R.L. Repeated copulation and sperm precedence: paternity assurance for a male brooding water bug. Science 1979, 205:1029-1031.
51. Stålhandske P. Nuptial gift in the spider Pisaura mirabilis maintained by sexual selection. Behavioral Ecology 2001, 12:691-697.
52. Steiger S., Franz R., Eggert A.K., Müller J.K. The Coolidge effect, individual recognition and selection for distinctive cuticular signatures in a burying beetle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:1831-1838.
53. Thornhill R. Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behaviour in Bittacus apicalis. American Naturalist 1976, 110:529-548.
54. Thornhill R., Alcock J. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems 1983, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
55. Tietjen W.J., Rovner J.S. Chemical communication in lycosids and other spiders. Spider Communication: Mechanisms and Ecological Significance 1982, 249-279. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. P.N. Witt, J.S. Rovner (Eds.).
56. Tregenza T., Wedell N. Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution 1998, 52:1726-1730.
57. Tregenza T., Wedell N. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 2002, 415:71-73.
58. Vahed K. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biological Reviews 1998, 73:43-78.
59. Wedell N., Gage M.J.G., Parker G.A. Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm limited females. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2002, 17:313-320.
60. Wilson J.R., Kuehn R.E., Beach F.A. Modification in the sexual behavior of male rats produced by changing the stimulus female. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 1963, 56:636-644.
61. Zeh J.A., Zeh D.W. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1996, 263:1711-1717.
62. Zeh J.A., Zeh D.W. The evolution of polyandry II: post copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1997, 264:69-75.
63. Zeh J.A., Newcomer S.D., Zeh D.W. Polyandrous females discriminate against previous mates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1998, 95:13732-13736.