Vibratory communication in the jumping spider phidippus clarus: Substrate-borne courtship signals are important for male mating success

Ethology

Volumn 116, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 990-998

  Elias, Damian O ^a   Sivalinghem, Senthurran ^b,c   Mason, Andrew C ^b   Andrade, Maydianne C B ^b   Kasumovic, Michael M ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Centre for Marine Bio Innovation   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; BREEDING SEASON; COURTSHIP; MALE; MATING SUCCESS; PERTURBATION; SEX RATIO; SIGNAL; SPIDER; SUBSTRATE; VISUAL CUE;

ANIMALIA; ARANEAE; PHIDIPPUS CLARUS; SALTICIDAE;

EID: 77956472620     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01815.x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Ahtiainen J J, Alatalo R V, Kortet R, Rantala M J. A trade-off between sexual signalling and immune function in a natural population of the drumming wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18:985-991.
2. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
3. Barth F G. A Spider's World: Senses and Behavior 2002, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
4. Bro-Jørgensen J. Dynamics of multiple signalling systems: animal communication in a world in flux. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25:292-300.
5. Candolin U. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 2003, 78:575-595.
6. Clutton-Brock T H, Vincent A C J. Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 1991, 351:58-59.
7. Cocroft R B, Rodriguez R L. The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication. Bioscience 2005, 55:323-334.
8. Delaney K J, Roberts J A, Uetz G W. Male signaling behavior and sexual selection in a wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae): a test for dual functions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007, 62:67-75.
9. Edwards G B. Sound production by courting males of Phidippus mystaceus (Araneae: Salticidae). Psyche 1981, 88:199-214.
10. Edwards G B. Revision of the jumping spiders of the genus Phidippus (Araneae: Salticidae). Occasional Papers of the Florida State. Collect. Arthropods 2004, 11:1-156.
11. Elias D O, Mason A C, Maddison W P, Hoy R R. Seismic signals in a courting male jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). J. Exp. Biol. 2003, 206:4029-4039.
12. Elias D O, Hebets E A, Hoy R R, Mason A C. Seismic signals are crucial for male mating success in a visual specialist jumping spider (Araneae:Salticidae). Anim. Behav. 2005, 69:931-938.
13. Elias D O, Hebets E A, Hoy R R. Female preference for complex/novel signals in a spider. Behav. Ecol. 2006a, 17:765-771.
14. Elias D O, Hebets E A, Hoy R R, Maddison W P, Mason A C. Regional song differences in sky-island populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold. J. Arachnol. 2006b, 34:566-577.
15. Elias D O, Land B R, Mason A C, Hoy R R. Measuring and quantifying dynamic visual signals in jumping spiders. J. Comp. Physiol. [A] 2006c, 192:785-797.
16. Elias D O, Lee N, Hebets E A, Mason A C. Seismic signal production in a wolf spider: parallel versus serial multi-component signals. J. Exp. Biol. 2006d, 209:1074-1084.
17. Elias D O, Kasumovic M M, Punzalan D, Andrade M C B, Mason A C. Assessment during aggressive contests between male jumping spiders. Anim. Behav. 2008, 76:901-910.
18. Forster L. Visual communication in jumping spiders (Salticidae). Spider Communication: Mechanisms and Ecological Significance 1982, 161-212. Witt P NRovner J S. eds, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp
19. Gibson J S, Uetz G W. Seismic communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: components of male seismic signals and mating success. Anim. Behav. 2008, 75:1253-1262.
20. Grafen A, Ridley M. A model of mate guarding. J. Theor. Biol. 1983, 102:549-567.
21. Gwynne D T, Dadour I R. A new mechanism of sound production by courting male jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae, Saitis michaelseni Simon). J. Zoolo. 1985, 207:35-42.
22. Hebets E A. Attention-altering signal interactions in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa uetzi. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 16:75-82.
23. Hebets E A. Seismic signal dominance in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa stridulans Stratton 1991. Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:1250-1257.
24. Hebets E A, Papaj D R. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2005, 57:197-214.
25. Hebets E A, Uetz G W. Female responses to isolated signals from multimodal male courtship displays in the wolf spider genus Schizocosa (Aranerae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 1999, 57:865-872.
26. Henry C S. Singing and cryptic speciation in Insects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1994, 9:388-392.
27. Henry C S, Brooks S J, Duelli P, Johnson J B. Discovering the true Chrysoperla carnea (Insecta: Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) using song analysis, morphology, and ecology. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2002, 95:172-191.
28. Hill P S M. Vibrational Communication in Animals 2008, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
29. Hill P S M. How do animals use substrate-borne vibrations as an information source? Naturwissenschaften 2009, 96:1355-1371.
30. Hoefler C D. Male mate choice and size-assortative pairing in a jumping spider, Phidippus clarus. Anim. Behav. 2007, 73:943-954.
31. Hoefler C D. The costs of male courtship and the potential benefits of male choice for large mates in Phidippus clarus (Araneae, Salticidae). J. Arachnol. 2008, 36:210-212.
32. Hoefler C D, Jakob E M. Jumping spiders in space: movement patterns, nest site fidelity and the use of beacons. Anim. Behav. 2006, 71:109-116.
33. Hoefler C D, Carlascio A L, Persons M H, Rypstra A L. Male courtship repeatability and potential indirect genetic benefits in a wolf spider. Anim. Behav. 2009, 78:183-188.
34. Hunt J, Breuker C, Sadowski J, Moore A J. Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22:13-26.
35. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 1994, 48:853-867.
36. Jackson R R. Courtship versitility in the jumping spider, Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae: Salticidae). Anim. Behav. 1977, 25:953-957.
37. Jackson R R. The mating strategy of Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae, Salticidae). J. Arachnol. 1980, 8:241-249.
38. Jackson R R. Relationship between reproductive security and intersexual selection in a jumping spider, Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae: Salticidae). Evolution 1981, 35:601-604.
39. Jackson R R. The behavior of communicating in jumping spiders (Salticidae). Spider Communication: Mechanisms and Ecological Significance 1982, 213-247. Witt P NRovner J S. eds, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp
40. Jackson R R. Use of pheromones by males of Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae, Salticidae) to detect subadult females that are about to molt. J. Arachnol. 1986, 14:137-139.
41. Johnstone R A. Multiple displays in animal communication: 'Backup signals' and 'multiple messages'. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 1996, 351:329-338.
42. Kasumovic M M, Andrade M C B. Male development tracks rapidly shifting sexual versus natural selection pressures. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16:R242-R243.
43. Kasumovic M M, Andrade M C B. A change in competitive context reverses sexual selection on male size. J. Evol. Biol. 2009a, 22:324-333.
44. Kasumovic M M, Andrade M C B. Plasticity in response to demographic variation may help explain continuous phenotypic variation in nature. Ecology 2009b, 90:2287-2296.
45. Kasumovic M M, Bruce M, Andrade M C B, Herberstein M E. Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctuations in sexual selection. Evolution 2008, 62:2316-2325.
46. Kotiaho J S, Alatalo R V, Mappes J, Nielsen M G, Parri S, Rivero A. Energetic costs of size and sexual signalling in a wolf spider. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 1998, 265:2203-2209.
47. Kotiaho J S, Alatalo R V, Mappes J, Parri S. Sexual signalling and viability in a wolf spider (Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata): measurements under laboratory and field conditions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1999, 46:123-128.
48. Land M F, Nilsson D E. Animal Eyes 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford
49. Lindstrom L, Ahtiainen J J, Mappes J, Kotiaho J S, Lyytinen A, Alatalo R V. Negatively condition dependent predation cost of a positively condition dependent sexual signalling. J. Evol. Biol. 2006, 19:649-656.
50. Maddison W P, Stratton G E. A common method of sound production by courting male jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae). J. Arachnol. 1988, 16:267-269.
51. Moller A P, Pomiankowski A. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1993, 32:167-176.
52. Parri S, Alatalo R V, Kotiaho J S, Mappes J. Female choice for male drumming in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Anim. Behav. 1997, 53:305-312.
53. Parri S, Alatalo R V, Kotiaho J S, Mappes J, Rivero A. Sexual selection in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata: female preference for drum duration and pulse rate. Behav. Ecol. 2002, 13:615-621.
54. Partan S R, Marler P. Communication goes multimodal. Science 1999, 283:1272-1273.
55. Partan S R, Marler P. Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. Am. Nat. 2005, 166:231-245.
56. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher runaway process of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 1993, 253:173-181.
57. Ridley M. The Explanation of Organic Diversity: the Comparative Method and Adaptations for Mating 1983, Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon, Oxford
58. Rodriguez R L, Sullivan L M, Snyder R L, Cocroft R B. Host shifts and the beginning of signal divergence. Evolution 2008, 62:12-20.
59. Rowe C. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim. Behav. 1999, 58:921-931.
60. Rowe C, Guilford T. The evolution of multimodal warning displays. Evol. Ecol. 1999, 13:655-671.
61. Shamble P S, Wilgers D J, Swoboda K A, Hebets E A. Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders. Behav. Ecol. 2009, 20:1242-1251.
62. Taylor P W, Roberts J A, Uetz G W. Flexibility in the multi-modal courtship of a wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata. J. Ethol. 2005, 23:71-75.
63. Trivers R L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and The Descent of Man 1972, 136-179. Campbell B. ed, Aldine-Atherton, Aldine, Chicago, pp
64. Uetz G W, Roberts J A. Multisensory cues and multimodal communication in spiders: insights form video/audio playback studies. Brain Behav. Evol. 2002, 59:222-230.
65. Uetz G W, Roberts J A, Taylor P W. Multimodal communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: female response to multimodal versus unimodal signals. Anim. Behav. 2009, 78:299-305.
66. Virant-Doberlet M, Cokl A. Vibrational communication in insects. Neotrop. Entomol. 2004, 33:121-134.