Abstract
Intraspecific aggregations and colonial structures in orb-weaver spiders can reduce the per capita amount of silk to be spun, allow the use of habitats which are unavailable for solitary species, and increase protection and foraging efficiency. However, conflicts between colony members can occur during web construction, repair, and prey capture, contributing to group dissociation under conditions of low prey availability and/or in specific stages of spider maturation. While small juveniles are benefited by the joint action of many spiders during prey immobilization, older and large individuals are able to capture all available prey by themselves. For those large individuals, interactions with neighbours may compromise the amount of available resources. In this context, we evaluated the frequency of foraging events involving cooperative hunting and conflicts between residents and intruders in very young and older juveniles of Parawixia bistriata, a colonial orb-weaver spider. We recorded foraging behaviour in natural conditions and identified the main groups of insects intercepted at the webs and captured by the spiders. We then used two prey types (Lepidoptera and Orthoptera), with distinct behaviours when intercepted, in an experiment to test the influence of prey type and mass on cooperative and aggressive interactions. Most captures occurred without the participation of other individuals, and the main prey types were small Diptera and Coleoptera. Cooperative behaviour seems to occur especially between young spiderlings, but depending on prey type and size, it also occurs in late instars. The frequency of conflicts was similar in both periods of observation (November and December), with young and older individuals in colonies. Our results indicate that prey type is an important factor determining the frequency of interactions during foraging events in colonies of P. bistriata and that large spiders usually obtain success in conflicts. We suggest that these conflicts over large items may constitute a relevant variable involved in colony dissociation before spiders’ maturation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
There are many benefits for individuals living in groups, including the increase in access to resources due to cooperative foraging (Clark and Mangel 1986; Packer and Ruttan 1988; Ward and Webster 2016), defence against predators, increase in mating opportunities (Majolo et al. 2008), and alloparental care (Guindre-Parker and Rubenstein 2018). Behavioural interactions between individuals within these groups vary in complexity, ranging from interattraction and coordinated movements to avoid predation (Krause and Ruxton 2002) to cooperative hunting involving division of labour with role specialization (Gazda et al. 2005). Within this range, social interactions were previously reported in several taxonomical groups, such as insects, spiders, fishes, birds, and mammals (Brown and Brown 1996; Majolo et al. 2008; Ward and Webster 2016). Nonetheless, group living may also have costs, such as increased interindividual competition, which may become so strong that losses outweigh the advantages of group foraging (Majolo et al. 2008). Thus, group size and intragroup interactions involved in mutual tolerance usually depend on several factors, such as food availability, size of available prey, predation and parasitism pressures, and even specific abiotic conditions (Guevara et al. 2011, Zöttl et al. 2013, Creel et al. 2014, Hoffman and Avilés 2017).
In spider social structures categorized as ‘colonial’, individuals form permanent or long-term aggregations with each spider defending its territory. The interconnection of several individual orb-webs in these colonies may increase individual foraging success due to the ricochet effect (Lubin 1974; Uetz 1989). Furthermore, organization in colonies can facilitate the use of habitats which are not available to solitary individuals (Lubin 1974) and may decrease the per capita amount of silk required for web construction (Lloyd and Elgar 1997). Another potential benefit of colonial organization is the decrease of predation risks (Rayor and Uetz 1990; Uetz and Hieber 1994). This is due to predator warning signs which can be transmitted over interconnected webs (Uetz et al. 2002) and due to the dilution effect in large groups (Uetz and Hieber 1994). Finally, small and young individuals may be greatly favoured by cooperative hunting. Collective prey capture by those individuals may increase prey availability, allowing the immobilization and consumption of large and/or aggressive insects. This advantage may lead to the suppression of agonistic behaviours between group members at least during part of their lives.
The long-lasting maintenance of the collective web structure in colonial spider species, however, may be constrained or compromised by frequent agonistic interactions between individuals. Agonistic interactions within colonial groups usually occur due the lack of space for individual webs or due to competition for particular sites for web construction (Rayor and Uetz 2000; Alves-Costa and Gonzaga 2001; Wenseleers et al. 2013). Furthermore, agonistic interactions between two or multiple individuals may occur during prey capture events (Lubin 1974; Yip et al. 2017), with the outcome usually depending on the body size of the competitors (e.g. Hodge and Uetz 1995). Indeed, spider size (or instars) may have a fundamental role in determining interactions between neighbours in these colonies. Large spiders may be able to catch and subdue large prey without cooperation, actively defending their territories (orb-webs) against the invasion of other group members. Thus, possible advantages of prey monopolization and frequent agonistic interactions when spiders reach the late instars may contribute to colony dissociation, compromising the nutritional benefits of remaining associated with nestmates.
Another important trigger for interactions in colonies is probably the escaping behaviour of insects after being intercepted by web threads. Distinct vibratory patterns produced by insects may result in a distinct number of spiders attracted, probably influencing the frequency of both kinds of interactions, conflicts and cooperation. Flies and moths intercepted in colonial webs of Anelosimus eximius (Keyserling, 1884) (Theridiidae), for example, usually vibrate their wings for a long time after interception, and these movements attract many spiders (Souza et al. 2007). Moths, in addition, often move away from the interception site, promoting intense vibrational stimuli. The displacement occurs because the scales of their wings flake off after the initial contact with the web, covering the glue droplets of adhesive threads (Nentwig 1982, Diaz et al. 2018). Grasshopper nymphs, on the other hand, usually move only their bodies and legs trying to escape. This behaviour produces erratic and non-rhythmical movements with low potential to propagate to nearby webs (Endo 1989, Souza et al. 2007).
The spider Parawixia bistriata (Rengger, 1836) (Araneidae) is a good experimental model for the study of the co-occurrence of cooperation and competition in colonies. It can be categorized as a periodic-social territorial species (Avilés 1997). Individuals remain in groups for most of their lives and disperse as subadults and/or adults. In this study, we describe the occurrence of these interactions during prey capture of young and relatively older individuals. We hypothesise that cooperation will be more frequent in November, among young juveniles, and conflicts will be more frequent in December. We also experimentally tested the effects of two different prey types (Lepidoptera and Orthoptera) of different sizes on the interactions between spiders. Our hypotheses are as follows: (1) Moths will attract more spiders to the interception site and elicit cooperative behaviours, once prey monopolization is almost impossible in situations involving several individuals; (2) grasshoppers will be captured by the resident or attract only the closest neighbour, eliciting more conflicts; (3) heavier prey will attract more spiders during prey capture events; and (4) large spiders will win most conflicts, regardless of residence.
Material and methods
Study area
This study was conducted in the Panga Ecological Station (19°11′40″ S, 48°19′06″ W), a 409 ha reserve covered predominantly by Brazilian savannah (Cerrado sensu stricto), located 30 km south of Uberlândia, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. The region is characterized by a tropical climate with two distinct seasons, a dry winter (from May to September) and a rainy summer (from October to April). Average annual rainfall varies from 1400 to 1700 mm, and monthly temperature varies from 8.5 to 33 °C (average 22.8 °C) (Paiva et al. 2007).
Study species
Parawixia bistriata is a colonial orb-weaving species, which can be found in savannahs and open vegetation biomes in Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina (Levi 1992; World Spider Catalog 2019). The species has an annual life cycle, and juveniles mature from September to March in their natal groups (Sandoval 1987). Juveniles usually construct individual orbicular webs after sunset (Fowler and Gobbi 1988a), and these webs are attached to supporting threads constructed and maintained by several members of a group (Sandoval 1987). Individual webs are defended as exclusive feeding territories. However, as the individual webs are interconnected and vibratory signals of intercepted prey are transmitted between webs, this collective structure favours the occurrence of interactions during prey capture events, especially when the prey intercepted is relatively large (Fowler and Gobbi 1988b; Campón 2007).
Observation of prey interception and capture
We observed segments of the colonies containing more than three spiders with interconnected individual webs, always from 19:00 to 01:00 h, in November and December (rainy season) of 2016 and 2017. We conducted a total of 17 h of observations (8.5 h each year), using 9 colonies (2 in the first year and 7 in the second). Observations were divided in 30-min samples, each one conducted in a different subgroup of spiders. During this time, we recorded prey composition (insect orders) and body size (total length, in mm) of all insects captured by the spiders. We excluded from records all the insects intercepted by the webs but ignored or removed by the spiders. For each capture, we recorded the number of spiders interacting and their behaviour, including aggressive movements (bites, abrupt leg movements, attempts to pull parts or the entire prey away from other individuals) and cooperation (spiders simultaneously biting and/or consuming the prey at the interception site). Lanterns used during all the observations were covered in red cellophane paper to minimize insect attraction. We used Fisher’s exact tests to evaluate whether the frequencies of cooperation and conflict during prey capture vary between months.
Experimental feeding
We carried out a prey offer experiment in January and February 2017 to estimate the frequency of cooperation and agonistic interactions among individuals with neighbouring webs. We conducted the experiment using colonies with subadult individuals of P. bistriata and two orders of insects (Lepidoptera and Orthoptera) as prey items. This experiment was designed to also evaluate the effect of prey mass in the interactions. We collected the insects in the field using active search and a light trap, and these insects were kept in vials and offered to the spiders within 2 days of collection. All insects used were in good conditions when offered to the spiders. We weighted all insects immediately before the experiment using an analytical balance (Shimadzu Model AU, at a precision of 10 μg).
For prey offer, we selected areas of the colonies with at least three individuals with interconnected webs. We marked the individual located in the central web and the two nearest neighbours, using different enamel paint colours, by softly touching their abdomens with a small brush while they were in the centre of their webs. Spiders usually remain motionless during manipulation, only assuming a defensive position by contracting their legs for a few seconds and returning to the normal waiting position shortly afterwards. We placed the insects in the intermediate position between the hub and the edge of the orb. After placing the insect in the web, we recorded the number of spiders that moved to the interception site.
During prey capture, two or more neighbours can cooperate or engage in agonistic interactions to monopolize the insect. In the interactions categorized as cooperative, the spiders attacked prey simultaneously, without showing aggressive behaviours or attempts to move the prey away. We considered interactions between them as conflicts when a direct contact between the spiders involved was observed, leading to prey monopolization by one contestant. These contacts involve mutual touches of legs and/or chelicerae and also attempts to move the prey away from the contestant, usually resulting in prey monopolization by one of the spiders (considered as winner). Losers flee from the web without resources. When conflicts occurred, we collected and weighted all involved individuals after the interactions. After this procedure, we reinserted the spiders in their original position within the colony.
To test whether cooperation and conflicts during prey capture events depended on prey mass and type, two logistic regression mixed-effect models were fitted, exploring the effect of each variable and their possible interactions. Colonies were considered as a random factor in these analyses. In the first model, we considered the probability of cooperation (1 = cooperative capture, 0 = solitary capture or conflict) and in the second the probability of agonistic interactions (1 = direct conflict, 0 = solitary or cooperative capture). When we observed cooperation, the number of spiders capturing (those that moved to the capture site and actively participated in the immobilization process) and the number of spiders feeding on the immobilized prey were used in a linear regression model as a function of prey mass. All statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 3.3.3 (R Development Core Team 2016).
Results
Observation of prey interception and capture
During observations, we recorded the interception of 181 insects (Fig. 1a) of nine orders: Diptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Blattodea, Hymenoptera, Orthoptera, Neuroptera, and Mantodea. Most insects captured were relatively small Diptera and Coleoptera (Fig. 1b). These small items were usually captured by the orb-web resident, without interactions with other spiders. In November, we observed more events of cooperative captures (P = 0.002, Table 1), while the frequency of conflicts did not vary between months (P = 0.587, Table 1) Fig. 2.
Experimental feeding
Insects used in this experiment exhibited distinct behaviours when captured in webs. Moths typically flapped their wings until they were immobilized (see video 1, cooperation), which is why their presence was rapidly detected by neighbouring spiders. Grasshoppers remained motionless or only moved their legs (see video 2, agonistic interaction). Low-mass prey, especially grasshoppers, tangled in the web threads occasionally ceased to move, whereas medium and large prey only stopped moving after the action of one or more spiders.
We offered a total of 78 insects, 39 moths (Mass(g): \( \overline{\mathrm{X}} \) ± SD = 0.376 ± 0.363) and 39 grasshoppers (Mass(g): \( \overline{\mathrm{X}} \) ± SD = 0.345 ± 0.320). Of the 78 capture events, 12 (15%) occurred as a result of cooperative capture. However, 11 of these cooperative captures occurred with moths and only one with grasshoppers, leading to the exclusion of this last group from the analysis in cooperative interactions. The probability of cooperation during capture was affected by moth mass (χ2 = 9.827, df = 1, P = 0.001, Fig. 3). The number of spiders involved in prey capture did not correlate with the mass of moths (F1,9 = 2.278, P = 0.165, R2 = 0.202, b1 = 3.117, SE = 2.065; Fig. 4a). However, the number of spiders taking part in collective feeding after capture was influenced by this variable (F1,9 = 14.046, P = 0.004, R2 = 0.609, b1 = 9.449, SE = 2.521; Fig. 4b).
(MP4 22386kb)
(MP4 22103 kb)
Of the 78 capture events, 27 (34%) produced conflicts between spiders in adjacent webs (18 using grasshoppers and 9 using moths). In moths, the frequencies of conflicts did not correlate with prey mass (Table 2, Fig. 5a); in grasshoppers, however, conflict frequencies were correlated with this variable (Table 2, Fig. 5b). Only 11 conflicts (41%) were won by the residents. The mass asymmetry between the contestants affected the probability of victory (χ2 = 5.206, df = 1, P = 0.022, Fig. 6), with heavier spiders winning 89% of the conflicts.
Discussion
Parawixia bistriata has a relatively unusual type of social structure for spiders, with juveniles cooperating in foraging activities (construction of a communal framework to support the orb webs, prey immobilization, and prey consumption) but maintaining individual territories. Cooperative capture events are dependent on both, prey type and prey mass, being more frequent with moths (and possibly with other insects with similar behaviours when intercepted, such as termites), as they tend to attract more spiders. In such situations, prey monopolization is not possible, and several spiders usually take part in consumption. These cooperative events are especially common among young juveniles. Most insects intercepted by the webs, however, are individually captured and consumed by the residents, and in some cases, the attraction of just one individual, usually from the adjacent web, may result in a conflict over the prey item. Contests between the owners of adjacent webs for intercepted insects are generally won by the heavier spider, and their occurrence also depends on prey type and, at least for grasshoppers, prey mass.
Solitary orb-weaver spiders present a large diversity of foraging strategies, from stenophagy (especially regarding the capture of Diptera and Lepidoptera) (Pekár et al. 2011) to euryphagy (e.g. Murakami 1983; Wise and Barata 1983; Ibarra-Nuñez et al. 2001; Ceballos et al. 2005). There is relatively less information on diet breadth of colonial orb-weavers, but the interconnection of several orbs and the possibility of cooperative interactions among colony members may improve webs efficiency in intercepting and retaining a wide range of prey types and sizes (Uetz 1989) and also the ability of spiders to immobilize and consume large insects (Binford and Rypstra 1992, Masumoto 1998). In the present study, we observed that P. bistriata captured nine orders of insects, with a large variation in prey body size. At least part of this range is probably determined by the occurrence of frequent cooperative interactions, which allows the immobilization of relatively large insects even by young juveniles. Moreover, the wide diet range of P. bistriata is probably influenced by habitat occupation, with individual webs positioned from close to the ground to several meters above. It is possible that positional variability of webs within the colony contributes to the interception of various insects which mostly occur at specific heights (see McReynolds and Polis 1987; McReynolds 2000).
In P. bistriata, cooperation in prey capture seems to depend on the behaviour of intercepted insects. The probability of cooperative capture and the number of spiders attracted during the phases of prey immobilization and feeding were influenced by prey type. Despite the interconnected webs, maintenance of individual orbicular structures is likely to restrict the propagation of vibrations over long distances. Thus, only certain patterns (or intensities) of vibration may attract individuals located in adjacent territories. This may explain the rare occurrence of cooperation in capturing Orthoptera. Although these insects produce strong vibrations with sudden movements of the hind legs, these movements are characterized by lower frequencies, compared with the wing flapping of Diptera or Lepidoptera (Souza et al. 2007). The vibrations of large or medium moths, however, are probably strong enough to be perceived by several spiders on adjacent webs. After immobilization, the movements of spiders feeding on the prey attract other individuals, and their number at this phase depends on prey mass.
The frequency of cooperative prey capture is higher in young juveniles. Three factors may explain this observation: (i) the maturation stage of the spiders, (ii) their size and (iii) the occurrence of flying termites and other relatively large-winged insects in the beginning of the rainy season. First, there is a tendency for greater tolerance for individuals at early developmental stages (e.g. Trabalon et al. 1996). According to Trabalon (2013), in some species, lipid alterations in the cuticle composition occur during the development, followed by an increase in the frequency of agonistic interactions between members of the group (Trabalon 2013). It is possible that this also occurs in P. bistriata, and this characteristic may be important to determine the dispersion of adults. Regarding the size of spiders, individuals in early developmental stages can obtain a greater benefit by participating in collective capture events. Cooperative behaviours may significantly increase the range of available prey and allow immobilization of relatively large insects (Campón 2007). With spider growth, individuals become more efficient in solitary captures, including the immobilization of prey which is larger than the spider, potentially decreasing the value of collective capture. Finally, termites and other large insects (considering the size of young juveniles) are a predictable and abundant resource in the beginning of the rainy season in Brazilian Cerrado (Sandoval 1987). Exploitation of these resources by small spiders probably requires the joint action of several individuals.
In most territorial colonial spiders, prey capture is essentially a solitary activity, and the occurrence of conflicts over intercepted insects seems to be rare (e.g. Lubin 1974). However, the easy access to adjacent webs and possibility of web invasion in P. bistriata seem to promote the occurrence of conflicts over prey monopolization. The higher frequencies of conflicts over Orthoptera than Lepidoptera indicate that these interactions to monopolize prey depend on the number of spiders that are attracted to the capture site. Success in monopolization is only possible when one individual is in competition with one or few others. When a moth attracts a substantial number of neighbouring spiders, it is difficult for any individual, whether resident or invader, to keep others at bay. These observations are in accordance with the ‘resource defense theory’ (see Brown 1964, Grant 1993), which predicts that the likelihood that aggressive interactions will occur is correlated to a resource’s economic defendability. Conflicts involving aggressive behaviours, however, may also be influenced by other variables, such as the occurrence of recurring interactions between the same individuals (Dubois and Giraldeau 2003) and the degree of spatial clumping of resources (Dubois et al. 2003). Those variables were not considered in our experiment, and further studies specifically focused on conflicts are necessary to investigate their effects on the frequency and the outcomes of disputes over prey items in colonies of P. bistriata and other colonial spiders.
In conflicts during prey capture, larger individuals of P. bistriata mostly had an advantage, regardless of whether the prey had been intercepted in their own or in an adjacent web. Conflicts during or after prey capture were previously reported in non-territorial social species; there, the agonistic interactions typically occurred when individuals attempted to move the whole prey item or parts of it to their refuges (e.g. Ward and Enders 1985). Although conflicts are not very common in territorial species (Wise 1983), agonistic interactions can occur more often when prey interception by a particular web is very frequent (Gan et al. 2015). This is in accordance with the results of several studies demonstrating that aggression increases as resources became aggregated in space (Golgberg et al. 2001, Dubois et al. 2003). Regarding the defence of territories, the conflict in spiders is typically won by the larger individual or by the resident, when the competitors are of similar size (Hodge and Uetz 1995, Schuck-Paim 1999). However, the residence status did not seem to have an effect on the outcome of conflicts during prey capture in this study, as even when the competitors were of similar size, residents frequently lost the prey. The reasons for the advantage of the heaviest spiders in contests must be evaluated in a further study focusing specifically on the behaviour routines during agonistic interactions and on the costs for the resident in being removed from its original web.
A final aspect to be considered is the spatial distribution of orbicular webs over the supporting threads (the number of adjacent interconnected webs). This variable may influence the frequency of cooperative and agonistic interactions because close proximity of webs implies a more efficient propagation of vibrational signals and, consequently, attracts individuals to sites of prey interception. This may also explain the higher frequencies of cooperation when individuals were smaller and constructed relatively small webs in close proximity.
Concluding, our study emphasized the importance of prey types and sizes on the frequency of intracolonial interactions in P. bistriata (and possibly other colonial species) and showed that cooperation during foraging activities may be more important to young juveniles, decreasing its frequency in later instars. The advantages of cooperative hunting during the initial instars may be important even for some solitary species (Pekár et al. 2005, Bertani et al. 2008), influencing the range of insect sizes included in their diet and, consequently, food availability. The maintenance of tolerance and cooperative behaviours in later instars probably allowed the establishment of complex societies in spiders. In the case of P. bistriata, however, these advantages are progressively suppressed by the ability of large individuals to capture profitable prey by themselves and to steal prey from their neighbours. Finally, our results indicate that it is also important to consider the behaviour of trapped insects after interception as a promoting factor for interactions.
References
Alves-Costa CP, Gonzaga MO (2001) Prey capture and spatial distribution of Philoponella vittata (Araneae, Uloboridae) in host webs. Ethol Ecol Evol 3:239–246
Avilés L (1997) Causes and consequences of cooperation and permanent sociality in spiders. In: the evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids (eds. J. Choe and B. Crespi). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bertani R, Fukushima C, Martins R (2008) Sociable widow spiders? Evidence of subsociality in Latrodectus Walckenaer, 1805 (Araneae, Theridiidae). J Ethol 26:299–302
Binford G, Rypstra AL (1992) Foraging behavior of the communal spider, Philoponella republicana (Araneae: Uloboridae). J Ins Behav 5:321–335
Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 76:160–169
Brown CR, Brown MB (1996) Coloniality in the cliff swallow: the effect of group size on social behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Campón FF (2007) Group foraging in the colonial spider Parawixia bistriata (Araneidae): effect of resource levels and prey size. Anim Behav 74:1551–1562
Ceballos L, Hénault Y, Legal L (2005) Foraging strategies of Eriophora edax (Araneae, Araneidae): a nocturnal orb-weaving spider. J Arachnol 33:509–515
Clark CW, Mangel M (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor Populat Biol 30:45–75
Creel S, Schuette P, Christianson D (2014) Effects of predation risk on group size, vigilance, and foraging behavior in an African ungulate community. Behav Ecol 25:773–784
Diaz C, Tanikawa A, Miyashita T, Amarpuri G, Jain D, Dhinojwala A, Blackledge TA (2018) Supersaturation with water explains the unusual adhesion of aggregate glue in the webs of the moth-specialist spider, Cyrtarachne akirai. R Soc Open Sci 5:181296 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181296
Dubois F, Giraldeau L-A (2003) The forager’s dilemma: food sharing and food defense as risk-sensitive foraging options. Am Natur 162:768–779
Dubois F, Giraldeau L-A, Grant JWA (2003) Resource defense in a group-foraging context. Behav Ecol 14:2–9
Endo T (1989) How to avoid becoming a prey: predatory encounters between an orb-weaving spider, Araneus pinguis (Karsch) (Araneae: Araneidae) and flying insects. Ecol Res 4:361–371
Fowler HG, Gobbi N (1988a) Communication and synchronized molting in a colonial araneid spider, Eriophora bistriata. Experientia 44:720–722
Fowler HG, Gobbi N (1988b) Cooperative prey capture by an orb-web spider. Naturwissenschaften 75:208–209
Gan W, Liu S, Yang X, Li D, Lei C (2015) Prey interception drives web invasion and spider size determines successful web takeover in nocturnal orb-web spiders. Biol Open 4:326–1329
Gazda SK, Connor RC, Edgar RK, Cox F (2005) A division of labour with role specialization in group-hunting bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off Cedar Key, Florida. Proc Royal Soc B 272:135–140
Goldberg JL, Grant JWA, Lefebvre L (2001) Effects of the temporal predictability and spatial clumping of food on the intensity of competitive aggression in the Zenaida dove. Behav Ecol 12:490–495
Grant JWA (1993) Whether or not to defend? The influence of resource distribution. Mar Behav Physiol 23:137–153
Guevara J, Gonzaga MO, Vasconcellos-Neto J, Avilés L (2011) Sociality and resource use: insights from a community of social spiders in Brazil. Behav Ecol 22:630–638
Guindre-Parker S, Rubenstein R (2018) Multiple benefits of alloparental care in a flutuating environment. R Soc Open Sci 5:172406
Hodge MA, Uetz GW (1995) A comparison of agonistic behaviour of colonial web-building spiders from desert and tropical habitats. Anim Behav 50:963–972
Hoffman CR, Avilés L (2017) Rain, predators, and spider sociality: a manipulative experiment. Behav Ecol 28:589–596
Ibarra-Nuñez G, García JA, López JA, Lachaud JP (2001) Prey analysis in the diet of some ponerine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and web-building spiders (Araneae) in coffee plantations in Chiapas, Mexico. Sociobiology 37:723–756
Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Levi HW (1992) Spiders of the orb-weaver genus Parawixia in America (Araneae: Araneidae). Bull Mus Comp Zool 153:1–46
Lloyd NJ, Elgar M (1997) Costs and benefits of facultative aggregating behaviour in the orb-spinning spider Gasteracantha minax Thorell (Araneae: Araneidae). Austral Ecol 22:256–261
Lubin YD (1974) Adaptive advantages and the evolution of colony formation in Cyrtophora (Araneae: Araneidae). Zool J Linnean Soc 54:321–339
Majolo B, Vizioli AB, Schino G (2008) Costs and benefits of group living in primates: group size effects on behaviour and demography. Anim Behav 76:1235–1247
Masumoto T (1998) Cooperative prey capture in the communal web spider, Philoponella raffrayi (Araneae, Uloboridae). J Arachnol 26:392–396
McReynolds CN (2000) The impact of habitat features on web features and prey capture of Argiope aurantia (Araneae, Araneidae). J Arachnol 28:169–179
McReynolds CN, Polis GA (1987) Ecomorphological factors influencing prey use by two sympatric species of orb-web spiders, Argiope aurantia and Argiope trifasciata (Araneidae). J Arachnol 15:371–383
Murakami Y (1983) Factors determining the prey size of the orb-web spider, Argiope amoena (L. Koch) (Argiopidae). Oecologia 57:72–77
Nentwig W (1982) Why do only certain insects escape from a spider’s web? Oecologia 53:412–417
Packer C, Ruttan L (1988) The evolution of cooperative hunting. Am Natur 132:159–198
Paiva LV, Araújo GM, Pedroni F (2007) Structure and dynamics of a woody plant community of a tropical semi-deciduous seasonal forest in the “Estação Ecológica do Panga”, municipality of Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev Bras Bot 30:365–373
Pekár S, Hrušková M, Lubin Y (2005) Can solitary spiders (Araneae) cooperate in prey capture? J Anim Ecol 74:63–70
Pekár S, Coddington JA, Blackledge TA (2011) Evolution of stenophagy in spiders (Araneae): evidence based on the comparative analysis of spider diets. Evolution 66:776–806
R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (Austria) Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1990) Trade-offs in foraging success and predation risk with spatial position in colonial spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:77–85
Rayor LS, Uetz GW (2000) Age-related sequential web building in the colonial spider Metepeira incrassata (Araneidae): an adaptive spacing strategy. Anim Behav 59:1251-12-59
Sandoval CP (1987) Aspectos da ecologia e socialidade de uma aranha colônia, Eriophora bistriata (Rengger, 1936) (Araneidae). Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Dissertation
Schuck-Paim C (1999) Ecologia comportamental de Nephilengys cruentata (Araneae, Tetragnathidae): uso do espaço. Universidade de São Paulo, Dissertation
Souza ALT, Gonzaga MO, Vasconcellos-Neto J (2007) Prey capture behaviour in the social spider Anelosimus eximius (Araneae: Theridiidae): responses to prey size and type. Ethol 113:856–861
Trabalon M, Bagnères AG, Hartmann N, Vallet AM (1996) Change in cuticular compounds composition during the gregarious period and after dispersal of the young in Tegenaria atrica (Araneae, Agelenidae). Insect Biochem Mol Biol 26:77–84
Trabalon M (2013) Chemical communication and contact cuticular compounds in spiders. In: Spider Ecophysiology (ed. W. Nentwig). Springer, Berlin
Uetz GW (1989) The ricochet effect and prey capture in colonial spiders. Oecologia 81:154–159
Uetz GW, Hieber CS (1994) Group size and predation risk in colonial web-building spiders: analysis of attack abatement mechanisms. Behav Ecol 5:326–333
Uetz GW, Boyle J, Hieber CS, Wilcox RS (2002) Anti-predator benefits of group living in colonial web-building spiders the “early warning” effect. Anim Behav 63:445–452
Ward A, Webster M (2016) Sociality: the behaviour of group-living animals. Springer, Cham
Ward PI, Enders MM (1985) Conflict and cooperation in the group feeding of the social spider Stegodyphus mimosarum. Behaviour 94:167–182
Wenseleers T, Bacon JP, Alves DA, Couvillon MJ, Kärcher M, Nascimento FS, Nogueira-Neto P, Ribeiro M, Robinson EJH, Tofilski A, Ratnieks FLW (2013) Bourgeois behavior and freeloading in the colonial orb web spider Parawixia bistriata (Araneae, Araneidae). Am Nat 182:120–129
Wise DH (1983) Competitive mechanisms in a food-limited species: relative importance of interference and exploitative interactions among labyrinth spiders (Araneae: Araneidae). Oecologia 58:1–9
Wise DH, Barata JL (1983) Prey of two syntopic spiders with diferent web structures. J Arachnol 11:271–281
World Spider Catalog (2019) Version 19.5. Natural History Museum Bern. http://wsc.nmbe.ch. Accessed 26 May 2019
Yip EC, Levy T, Lubin Y (2017) Bad neighbors: hunger and dominance drive spacing and position in an orb-weaving spider colony. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2357-6
Zöttl M, Frommen JG, Taborsky M (2013) Group size adjustment to ecological demand in a cooperative breeder. Proc R Soc B 280:20122772
Funding
This project was supported by Duratex S.A., Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação de Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia dos Hymenoptera Parasitoides da Região Sudeste (HYMPAR/Sudeste - CNPq/CAPES/Fapesp), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (Proc. APQ-02104-14, CRA-30058/12, APQ-03202-13; APQ-02474-15), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (Proc. 311823/2017-3; 403733/2012-0; 445832/2014-2; 465562/2014-0; 441225/2016-0). Camila Vieira was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) Proc. 88882.314749/2019-01.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Quero, A., Zuanon, L.A., Vieira, C. et al. Cooperation and conflicts during prey capture in colonies of the colonial spider Parawixia bistriata (Araneae: Araneidae). acta ethol 23, 79–87 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-020-00342-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-020-00342-x