Vibratory communication in the jumping spider Phidippus clarus: Polyandry, male courtship signals, and mating success

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1308-1314

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

female mating status; honest indicator; jumping spiders; mate choice; Phidippus; polyandry; sexual selection; substrate borne vibrations

Indexed keywords

COPULATION; COURTSHIP; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; POLYANDRY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL; SPIDER; THRESHOLD; VIBRATION;

ARANEAE; PHIDIPPUS; PHIDIPPUS CLARUS; SALTICIDAE;

EID: 78649346445     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq150     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Alatalo RV, Kotiaho JS, Mappes J, Parri S. 1998. Mate choice for offspring performance: major benefits or minor costs? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 265:2297-2301.
2. Alexander RD. 1961. Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour. 17:130-223.
3. Andersson M. 1982. Sexual selection, natural-selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 17:375-393.
4. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
5. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav. 60:145-164.
6. Barth FG. 2002. A spider's world: senses and behavior. Berlin (Germany): Springer-Verlag.
7. Baurecht D, Barth FG. 1992. Vibratory communication in spiders .1. Representation of male courtship signals by female vibration receptor. J Comp Physiol A. 171:231-243.
8. Baurecht D, Barth FG. 1993. Vibratory communication in spiders .2. Representation of parameters contained in synthetic male courtship signals by female vibration receptor. J Comp Physiol A. 173:309-319.
9. Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ. 2000. Signal variation and call preferences for whine frequency in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 49:62-66.
10. Burk T. 1982. Evolutionary significance of predation on sexually signaling males. Fla Entomol. 65:90-104.
11. Byers J, Hebets E, Podos J. 2010. Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Anim Behav. 79:771-778.
12. Cocroft RB, Rodriguez RL. 2005. The behavioral ecology of insect vibrational communication. Bioscience. 55:323-334.
13. Cross FR, Jackson RR, Pollard SD, Walker MW. 2007. Cross-modality effects during male-male interactions of jumping spiders. Behav Processes. 75:290-296.
14. Delaney KJ, Roberts AJ, Uetz GW. 2007. Male signalling behavior and sexual selection in a wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae): a test for dual functions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 62:67-75.
15. Dierkes S, Barth FG. 1995. Mechanism of signal production in the vibratory communication of the wandering spider Cupiennius getazi (Arachnida, Araneae). J Comp Physiol A. 176:31-44.
16. Eberhard WG. 2004. Why study spider sex: special traits of spiders facilitate studies of sperm competition and cryptic female choice. J Arachnol. 32:545-556.
17. Eberhard WG, Guzmangomez S, Catley KM. 1993. Correlation between spermathecal morphology and mating systems in spiders. Biol J Linn Soc. 50:197-209.
18. Edwards GB. 2004. Revision of the jumping spiders of the genus Phidippus (Araneae: Salticidae). Occasional Papers of the Florida State CollectionofArthropods. Gainesville (FL): Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Divisionof Plant Industry, and The Center for Systematic Entomology. 11:1-156.
19. Elgar MA. 1998. Sperm competition and sexual selection in spiders and other arachnids. In: Birkhead TR, Moller AP, editors. Sperm competition and sexual selection. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 307-339.
20. Elias DO, Hebets EA, Hoy RR. 2006a. Female preference for complex/novel signals in a spider. Behav Ecol. 17:765-771.
21. Elias DO, Hebets EA, Hoy RR, Maddison WP, Mason AC. 2006b. Regional song differences in sky-island populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold. J Arachnol. 34:566-577.
22. Elias DO, Hebets EA, Hoy RR, Mason AC. 2005. Seismic signals are crucial for male mating success in a visual specialist jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Anim Behav. 69:931-938.
23. Elias DO, Kasumovic MM, Punzalan D, Andrade MCB, Mason AC. 2008. Assessment during aggressive contests between male jumping spiders. Anim Behav. 76:901-910.
24. Elias DO, Lee N, Hebets EA, Mason AC. 2006c. Seismic signal production in a wolf spider: parallel versus serial multi-component signals. J Exp Biol. 209:1074-1084.
25. Elias DO, Mason AC, Maddison WP, Hoy RR. 2003. Seismic signals in a courting male jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). J Exp Biol. 206:4029-4039.
26. Elias DO, Sivalinghem S, Mason AC, Andrade MCB, Kasumovic MM. Forthcoming 2010. Vibratory communication in the jumping spider Phidippus clarus: substrate-borne courtship signals are important for male mating success. Ethology. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010 .01815.x.
27. Endler JA. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat. 139:S125-S153.
28. Endler JA. 1993. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 340:215-225.
29. Gabor CR, Halliday TR. 1997. Sequential mate choice by multiply mating smooth newts: females become more choosy. Behav Ecol. 8:162-166.
30. Gaskett AC. 2007. Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions. Biol Rev. 82:26-48.
31. Getty T. 2006. Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:83-88.
32. Gibson JS, Uetz GW. 2008. Seismic communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: components of male seismic signals and mating success. Anim Behav. 75:1253-1262.
33. Godin JGJ, McDonough HE. 2003. Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol. 14:194-200.
34. Gray DA. 1997. Female house crickets, Acheta domesticus, prefer the chirps of large males. Anim Behav. 54:1553-1562.
35. Gwynne DT, Dadour IR. 1985. A new mechanism of sound production by courting male jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae, Saitis michaelseni Simon). Zoo Soc Lond. 207:35-42.
36. Hack MA. 1998. The energetics of male mating strategies in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllinae: Gryllidae). J Insect Behav. 11: 853-867.
37. Halliday TR. 1983. The study of mate choice. In: Bateson P, editors. Mate choice. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 3-32.
38. Harland DP, Jackson KR. 2000. Cues by which Portia fimbriata, an araneophagic jumping spider, distinguishes jumping-spider prey from other prey. J Exp Biol. 203:3485-3494.
39. Hebets EA. 2008. Seismic signal dominance in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa stridulans Stratton 1991. Behav Ecol. 19:1250-1257.
40. Hebets EA, Elias DO, Mason AC, Miller GL, Stratton GE. 2008. Substrate-dependent signalling success in the wolf spider, Schizocosa retrorsa. Anim Behav. 75:605-615.
41. Hebets EA, Uetz GW. 1999. Female responses to isolated signals from multimodal male courtship displays in the wolf spider genus Schiz-ocosa (Aranerae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav. 57:865-872.
42. Hill PSM. 2008. Vibrational communication in animals. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
43. Hoefler CD. 2007. Male mate choice and size-assortative pairing in a jumping spider, Phidippus clarus. Anim Behav. 73:943-954.
44. Hoefler CD. 2008. The costs of male courtship and potential benefits of male choice for large mates in Phidippus clarus (Araneae, Salt-icidae). J Arachnol. 36:210-212.
45. Hoefler CD, Carlascio AL, Persons MH, Rypstra AL. 2009. Male courtship repeatability and potential indirect genetic benefits in a wolf spider. Anim Behav. 78:183-188.
46. Hoefler CD, Jakob EM. 2006. Jumping spiders in space: movement patterns, nest site fidelity and the use of beacons. Anim Behav. 71:109-116.
47. Huber BA. 2005. Sexual selection research on spiders: progress and biases. Biol Rev. 80:363-385.
48. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Smith MJ, Bentsen CL, Bussiere LF. 2004. High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Nature. 432:1024-1027.
49. Iwasa Y,Pomiankowski A. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. 2. The handicap principle. Evolution. 45: 1431-1442.
50. Jackson RR. 1977. Courtship versatility in jumping spider, Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae: Salticidae). Anim Behav. 25:953-957.
51. Jackson RR. 1978. Mating strategy of Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae: Salt-icidae) .1. Pursuit time and presistence. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 4:123-132.
52. Jackson RR. 1980. The mating strategy of Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae: Salticidae) .2. Sperm competition and the function of copulation. J Arachnol. 8:217-240.
53. Jackson RR. 1981. Relationship between reproductive security and intersexual selection in a jumping spider Phidippis johnsoni(Araneae: Salticidae). Evolution. 35:601-604.
54. Jennions MD, Moller AP, Petrie M. 2001. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol. 76:3-36.
55. Jennions MD, Petrie M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev. 75:21-64.
56. Kasumovic MM, Elias DO, Punzalan D, Mason AC, Andrade MCB. 2009. Experience affects the outcome of agonistic contests without affecting the selective advantage of size. Anim Behav. 77: 1533-1538.
57. Kotiaho J, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S. 1996. Sexual selection in a wolf spider: male drumming activity, body size, and viability. Evolution. 50:1977-1981.
58. Kotiaho JS. 2000. Testing the assumptions of conditional handicap theory: costs and condition dependence of a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 48:188-194.
59. Kotiaho JS. 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol Rev. 76:365-376.
60. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Nielsen MG, Parri S, Rivero A. 1998. Energetic costs of size and sexual signalling in a wolf spider. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sc. 265:2203-2209.
61. Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S. 1999. Sexual signalling and viability in a wolf spider (Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata): measurements under laboratory and field conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 46:123-128.
62. Land MF. 1985. The morphology and optics of spider eyes. In: Barth FG, babu KS, editors. Neurobiology of arachnids. Heidelberg (Germany): Springer-Verlag. p. 53-78.
63. Lindstrom L, Ahtiainen JJ, Mappes J, Kotiaho JS, Lyytinen A, Alatalo RV. 2006. Negatively condition dependent predation cost of a positively condition dependent sexual signalling. J Evol Biol. 19: 649-656.
64. Maddison WP, Stratton GE. 1988a. A common method of sound production by courting male jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae). J Arachnol. 16:267-269
65. Maddison WP, Stratton GE. 1988b. Sound production and associated morphology in male jumping spiders of the Habronattus agilis species group (Araneae, Salticidae). J Arachnol. 16:199-211.
66. Maklakov AA, Bilde T, Lubin Y. 2003. Vibratory courtship in a web-building spider: signaling quality or stimulating the female? Anim Behav. 66:623-630.
67. Malo AF, Roldan ERS, Garde J, Soler AJ, Gomendio M. 2005. Antlers honestly advertise sperm production and quality. Proc R Soc B. 272:149-157.
68. Mappes J, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Parri S. 1996. Viability costs of condition-dependent sexual male display in a drumming wolf spider. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:785-789.
69. Maynard-Smith J, Harper D. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford (NY): Oxford University Press.
70. Morris MR, Tudor SM, Dubois NS. 2007. Sexually selected signal attracted females before deterring aggression in rival males. Anim Behav. 74:1189-1197.
71. Nelson XJ, Jackson RR, Sune G. 2005. Use of Anopheles specific prey capture behavior by the small juveniles of Evarcha culicivora, a mosquito-eating jumping spider. J Arachnol. 33:541-548.
72. Parri S, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho J, Mappes J. 1997. Female choice for male drumming in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata. Anim Behav. 53:305-312.
73. Parri S, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho JS, Mappes J, Rivero A. 2002. Sexual selection in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata: female preference for drum duration and pulse rate. Behav Ecol. 13:615-621.
74. Pitcher TE, Neff BD, Rodd FH, Rowe L. 2003. Multiple mating and sequential mate choice in guppies: females trade up. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:1623-1629.
75. Pomiankowski A. 1987. The cost of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol. 128:195-218.
76. Rivero A, Alatalo RV, Kotiaho JS, Mappes J, Parri S. 2000. Acoustic signalling in a wolf spider: can signal characteristics predict male quality? Anim Behav. 60:187-194.
77. Rundus AS, Santer RD, Hebets EA. 2010. Multimodal courtship efficacy of Schizocosa retrorsa wolf spider: implication of an additional signal modality. Behav Ecol. 21:701-707.
78. Ryan MJ. 1980. Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science. 209:523-525.
79. Ryan MJ. 1988. Energy, calling, and selection. Am Zool. 28:885-898.
80. Scheffer SJ, Uetz GW, Stratton GE. 1996. Sexual selection, male morphology, and the efficacy of courtship signalling in two wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 38:17-23.
81. Shamble PS, Wilgers DJ, Swoboda KA, Hebets EA. 2009. Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders. Behav Ecol. 20:1242-1251.
82. Simmons LW, Siva-Jothy MT. 1998. Sperm competition in insects: mechanisms and the potential for selection. In: Birkhead TR, Moller AP, editors. Sperm competition and sexual selection. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 341-434.
83. Taigen TL, Wells KD. 1985. Energetics of vocalization by an anuran amphibian (Hyla versicolor). J Comp Physiol B Biochem Syst Environ Physiol. 155:163-170.
84. Uetz GW, Roberts JA. 2002. Multisensory cues and multimodal communication in spiders: insights from video/audio playback studies. Brain Behav Evol. 59:222-230.
85. Uetz GW, Roberts JA, Taylor PW. 2009. Multimodal communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: female response to multimodal versus unimodal signals. Anim Behav. 78:299-305.
86. Uetz GW, Stratton GE. 1982. Acoustic communication and reproductive isolation in spiders. In: Witt PN, Rovner JS, editors. Spider communication: mechanisms and ecological significance. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. p. 123-129.
87. Virant-Doberlet M, Cokl A. 2004. Vibrational communication in insects. Neotrop Entomol. 33:121-134.
88. Witt PN, Rovner JS. 1982. Spider communication: mechanisms and ecological significance. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
89. Zuk M, Kolluru GR. 1998. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q Rev Biol. 73:415-438.