Social spiders are thought to predominantly receive information about their environment through vibrational cues. Thus, group living introduces the challenge of distinguishing useful vibrational information from the background noise of nestmates. Here we investigate whether spatial proximity between colony-mates may allow social spiders (Stegodyphus dumicola) to reduce background noise that might obstruct vibrational information from prey. To do so, we constructed experimental colonies and measured whether the number of spiders in proximity to one another whilst resting could predict the number of spiders that participated in prey capture. Additionally, we exposed spider colonies to five different simulated vibrational cues mimicking prey to determine which cue types spiders were most responsive to. We found that the number of spiders huddled together prior to foraging trials was positively correlated with the number of spiders participating in collective foraging. Furthermore, colonies responded more quickly to pulsed vibrational cues over other types of vibrational patterns. Together these data reveal that both social interactions and prey cues shape how social sit-and-wait predators experience and respond to their environment.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
N Amir , MEA Whitehouse , Y Lubin (2000) Food consumption rates and competition in a communally feeding social spider, Stegodyphus dumicola (Eresidae). J Arachnol 28:195–200.
L Avilés , J Guevara (2017) Sociality in Spiders. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).
FG Barth (1982) Spiders and vibratory signals: sensory reception and behavioral significance. In: Witt PN , Rovner J (eds) Spider communication: mechanisms and ecological significance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp 67–120.
T Beleyur , DU Bellur , H Somanathan (2015) Long-term behavioural consistency in prey capture but not in web maintenance in a social spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1019–1028.
BL Bradoo (1980) Feeding behaviour and recruitment display in the social spider Stegodyphus sarasinorum Karsch (Araneae, Eresidae). Tijdschr Entomol 123:89–104.
P Chacon , WG Eberhard (1980) Factors affecting numbers and kinds of prey caught in artificial spider webs, with considerations of how orb webs trap prey. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 5:29–38.
S Creel , D Christianson (2008) Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol Evol 23:194–201.
WA Foster , JE Treherne (1981) Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature 293:466–467.
ER Hunt , B Mi , C Fernandez , BM Wong , JN Pruitt , N Pinter-Wollman (2018) Social interactions shape individual and collective personality in social spiders. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285:p.20181366.
ER Hunt , B Mi , R Geremew , C Fernandez , BM Wong , JN Pruitt , N Pinter-Wollman (2019) Resting networks and personality predict attack speed in social spiders. bioRxiv:p.591453.
CN Keiser , CM Wright , JN Pruitt (2015) Warring arthropod societies: Social spider colonies can delay annihilation by predatory ants via reduced apparency and increased group size. Behav Processes 119:14-21.
B Krafft , A Pasquet (1991) Synchronized and rhythmical activity during the prey capture in the social spider Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). Insectes Soc 38:83-90.
KL Laskowski , P Montiglio , JN Pruitt (2016) Individual and group performance suffers from social niche disruption. Am Nat 187.
Y Lubin , T Bilde (2007) The evolution of sociality in spiders. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 37:83–145.
D Mielle (1978) Contribution à l’étude du comportement prédateur et des mécanismes de tolérance dans le genre Tegenaria (Araneae, Agelenidae). In: (Vol 595, No M5). Universite de Nancy I.
AP Modlmeier , NJ Forrester , JN Pruitt (2014a) Habitat structure helps guide the emergence of colony-level personality in social spiders. In, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
AP Modlmeier , KL Laskowski , AE DeMarco , A Coleman , K Zhao , HA Brittingham , DR McDermott , JN Pruitt (2014b) Persistent social interactions beget more pronounced personalities in a desert-dwelling social spider. Biology Letters, pp 2014–19.
GM Najm , A Pe , JN Pruitt , N Pinter-Wollman (2019) Physical and social cues shape nest site preference and prey capture behavior in social spiders.
B Parthasarathy , CH Joshi , SS Kalyadan , H Somanathan (2019) Early ontogenic emergence of personality and its long-term persistence in a social spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73:35.
B Parthasarathy , H Somanathan (2018) A method for accurately estimating social spider numbers without colony damage. The Journal of Arachnology 46:373–376.
TM Peake (2005) Eavesdropping in communication networks. In: McGregor P (ed) Animal Communication Networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 13–37.
N Pinter-Wollman , SM Fiore , G Theraulaz (2017a) The impact of architecture on collective behaviour. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1:1–2.
N Pinter-Wollman , CN Keiser , R Wollman , JN Pruitt (2016) The Eeffect of keystone individuals on collective outcomes can be mediated through interactions or behavioral persistence. Am Nat 188:240–252.
N Pinter-Wollman , Brian Mi , JN Pruitt (2017b) Replacing bold individuals has a smaller impact on group performance than replacing shy individuals. Behav Ecol.
KS Powers , L Aviles (2007) The role of prey size and abundance in the geographical distribution of spider sociality. J Anim Ecol 76:995–1003.
JN Pruitt , L Avilés (2017) Social spiders: mildly successful social animals with much untapped research potential. Anim Behav.
JN Pruitt , CM Wright , CN Keiser , AE DeMarco , MM Grobis , N Pinter-Wollman (2016) The Achilles’ heel hypothesis: misinformed keystone individuals impair collective learning and reduce group success. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 283.
JN Pruitt , CM Wright , JLL Lichtenstein , GT Chism , BL McEwen , A Kamath , N Pinter-Wollman (2018) Selection for collective aggressiveness favors social susceptibility in social spiders. Curr Biol 28:100–+.
I Scharf , Y Lubin , O Ovadia (2011) Foraging decisions and behavioural flexibility in trap-building predators: a review. Biological Reviews 86:626–639.
TD Seeley (1982) Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 11:287–293.
U Seibt , W Wickler (1990) The protective function of the compact silk nest of social Stegodyphus spiders (Araneae, Eresidae). Oecologia 82:317-321.
MD Seid , JF Traniello (2006) Age-related repertoire expansion and division of labor in Pheidole dentata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a new perspective on temporal polyethism and behavioral plasticity in ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:631–644.
JE Treherne , WA Foster (1981) Group transmission of predator avoidance behaviour in a marine insect: the Trafalgar effect. Anim Behav, pp 911–917.
MEA Whitehouse , Y Lubin (1999) Competitive foraging in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 58:677-688.
MEA Whitehouse , Y Lubin (2005) The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: spider societies as a test case. Biological Reviews 80:347–361.
CM Wright , CN Keiser , JN Pruitt (2015) Personality and morphology shape task participation, collective foraging and escape behaviour in the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola. Anim Behav 105:47–54.
CM Wright , CN Keiser , JN Pruitt (2016) Colony personality composition alters colony-level plasticity and magnitude of defensive behaviour in a social spider. Animal Behaviour, pp 175–183.
CM Wright , JLL Lichtenstein , GA Montgomery , LP Luscuskie , N Pinter-Wollman , JN Pruitt (2017) Exposure to predators reduces collective foraging aggressiveness and eliminates its relationship with colony personality composition. 71:126.
EC Yip , KS Powers , L Aviles (2008) Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:11818–11822.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1021 | 134 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 49 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 9 | 0 |
Social spiders are thought to predominantly receive information about their environment through vibrational cues. Thus, group living introduces the challenge of distinguishing useful vibrational information from the background noise of nestmates. Here we investigate whether spatial proximity between colony-mates may allow social spiders (Stegodyphus dumicola) to reduce background noise that might obstruct vibrational information from prey. To do so, we constructed experimental colonies and measured whether the number of spiders in proximity to one another whilst resting could predict the number of spiders that participated in prey capture. Additionally, we exposed spider colonies to five different simulated vibrational cues mimicking prey to determine which cue types spiders were most responsive to. We found that the number of spiders huddled together prior to foraging trials was positively correlated with the number of spiders participating in collective foraging. Furthermore, colonies responded more quickly to pulsed vibrational cues over other types of vibrational patterns. Together these data reveal that both social interactions and prey cues shape how social sit-and-wait predators experience and respond to their environment.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1021 | 134 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 49 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 9 | 0 |