Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:16:15.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dynamics of prey selection by the trap-building predator Gasteracantha hasselti

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2020

Radek Michalko Open the ORCID record for Radek Michalko [Opens in a new window] ,
Ondřej Košulič ,
Venus Saksongmuang ,
Prasit Wongprom ,
Prapinya Siripaiboon  and
Yongyut Trisurat
Radek Michalko*
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 3, Brno613 00, Czech Republic
Ondřej Košulič
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Protection and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 3, Brno613 00, Czech Republic
Venus Saksongmuang
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla90110, Thailand
Prasit Wongprom
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok10900, Thailand
Prapinya Siripaiboon
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Thammasat University, Rangsit, Pathum Thani12121, Thailand
Yongyut Trisurat
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok10900, Thailand
*
Author for correspondence: *Radek Michalko, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prey selection by generalist predators can be highly dynamic depending on the prey community structure. However, the dynamics of prey selection at the stage of prey entrapping are rarely investigated in trap-building predators, probably because their traps have been previously considered to intercept mobile prey proportionally to its availability in environment. Here we investigated the dynamics of prey selection by the orb-weaving spider Gasteracantha hasselti (Araneidae) depending on the composition of the available prey in tropical lowland forests located in north-eastern Thailand. We found that Gasteracantha captured a wide variety of prey but selected, on average, mostly Coleoptera and Diptera. The selectivity of Gasteracantha’s webs for Coleoptera was constant across the changes in overall prey availability and prey composition. The web selectivity for Hemiptera decreased rapidly with increasing relative densities of Hemiptera in the environment. The selectivity for Diptera and Hymenoptera increased and decreased, respectively, with their absolute densities in the environment. The relative selectivity of Gasteracantha’s traps for a particular prey type was driven by the presence and density of the highly selected prey rather than overall prey density. The results show that the selectivity of Gasteracantha’s traps for prey had both fixed and dynamic components and the dynamic component was determined by the relative as well as absolute densities of the particular prey types in the environment.

Keywords

Dietgeneralistorb webspidertrophic niche
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 87 - 93
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Araújo, MS, Bolnick, DI and Layman, CA (2011) The ecological causes of individual specialisation. Ecology Letters 14, 948–958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bambaradeniya, CNB and Edirisinghe, JP (2009) Composition, structure and dynamics of arthropod communities in a rice agro-ecosystem. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 37.Google Scholar
Baudrot, V, Perasso, A, Fritsch, C, Giraudoux, P and Raoul, F (2016) The adaptation of generalist predators’ diet in a multi-prey context: insights from new functional responses. Ecology 97, 1832–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackledge, TA (2011) Prey capture in orb weaving spiders: are we using the best metric? Journal of Arachnology 39, 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackledge, TA, Kuntner, M and Agnarsson, I (2011) The form and function of spider orb webs: evolution from silk to ecosystems. Advances in Insect Physiology 41, 175–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blamires, S, Chao, IC and Tso, IM (2010) Prey type, vibrations and handling interactively influence spider silk expression. Journal of Experimental Biology 213, 3906–3910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blamires, SJ, Chao, YC, Liao, CP and Tso, IM (2011) Multiple prey cues induce foraging flexibility in a trap-building predator. Animal Behaviour 81, 955–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, EJ, Hicks, JW and Bennett, AF (2006) The energetic consequences of dietary specialization in populations of the garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3164–3169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chacon, P and Eberhard, WG (1980). Factors affecting numbers and kinds of prey caught in artificial spider webs, with considerations of how orb webs trap prey. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 5, 29–38.Google Scholar
Chesson, J (1983) The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64, 1297–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, W and Quinn, JL (2010) Attack frequency, attack success and choice of prey group size for two predators with contrasting hunting strategies. Animal Behaviour 80, 643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deeleman-Reinhold, CL (2001) Forest Spiders of South East Asia: With a Revision of the Sac and Ground Spiders. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diehl, E, Mader, VL, Wolters, V and Birkhofer, K (2013) Management intensity and vegetation complexity affect web-building spiders and their prey. Oecologia 173, 579–589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foelix, RF (2011) Biology of Spiders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Futuyma, DJ and Moreno, G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 19, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, KM, Parrella, MP and Julie, PN (1992) Time-efficient use of yellow sticky traps in monitoring insect populations. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, 2263–2269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henaut, Y, Pablo, J, Ibarra-Nuñez, G and Williams, T (2001) Retention, capture and consumption of experimental prey by orb-web weaving spiders in coffee plantations of Southern Mexico. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 98, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heong, KL, Bleih, S and Rubia, EG (1991) Prey preference of the wolf spider, Pardosa pseudoannulata (Boesenberg et Strand). Population Ecology 33, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herberstein, ME and Elgar, MA (1994) Foraging strategies of Eriophora transmarina and Nephila plumipes (Araneae: Araneoidea): nocturnal and diurnal orb-weaving spiders. Australian Journal of Ecology 19, 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, LE (1987) Time budget and prey of Nephila clavipes (Linnaeus) (Araneae, Araneidae) in southern Texas. Journal of Arachnology 15, 401–417.Google Scholar
Huey, RB and Pianka, ER (1981) Ecological consequences of foraging mode. Ecology 62, 991–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jingu, A and Hayashi, F (2018) Pitfall vs fence traps in feeding efficiency of antlion larvae. Journal of Ethology 36, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juillet, JA (1963) A comparison of four types of traps for capturing flying insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology 41, 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klečka, J and Boukal, DS (2013) Foraging and vulnerability traits modify predator–prey body mass allometry: freshwater macroinvertebrates as a case study. Journal of Animal Ecology 8, 1031–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamarre, GP, Hérault, B, Fine, PV, Vedel, V, Lupoli, R, Mesones, I and Baraloto, C (2016) Taxonomic and functional composition of arthropod assemblages across contrasting Amazonian forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 85, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lease, HM and Wolf, BO (2011) Lipid content of terrestrial arthropods in relation to body size phylogeny ontogeny and sex. Physiological Entomology 36, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S, Chen, J, He, X, Hu, J and Yang, X (2014) Trophic cascade of a web-building spider decreases litter decomposition in a tropical forest floor. European Journal of Soil Biology 65, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S, Behm, JE, Chen, J, Fu, S, He, X, Hu, J, Schaefer, D, Gan, J and Yang, X (2016) Functional redundancy dampens the trophic cascade effect of a web-building spider in a tropical forest floor. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 98, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Líznarová, E, Sentenská, L, García, LF, Pekár, S and Viera, C (2013) Local trophic specialisation in a cosmopolitan spider (Araneae). Zoology 116, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludy, C (2007) Prey selection of orb-web spiders (Araneidae) on field margins. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 119, 368–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mader, V, Birkhofer, K, Fiedler, D, Thorn, S, Wolters, V and Diehl, E (2016) Land use at different spatial scales alters the functional role of web-building spiders in arthropod food webs. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 219, 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayntz, D, Raubenheimer, D, Salomon, M, Toft, S and Simpson, SJ (2005) Nutrient-specific foraging in invertebrate predators. Science 307, 111–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McHugh, JV and Liebherr, JK (2009) Coleoptera (Beetles, Weevils, Fireflies). In Resh, VH and Cardé, RT (eds), Encyclopaedia of Insects, 2nd edn. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Merritt, RW, Courtney, GW and Keiper, GB (2009) Diptera (Flies, Mosquitoes, Midges, Gnats). In Resh, VH and Cardé, RT (eds), Encyclopaedia of Insects, 2nd edn. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Michalko, R and Pekár, S (2015) The biocontrol potential of Philodromus (Araneae, Philodromidae) spiders for the suppression of pome fruit orchard pests. Biological Control 82, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalko, R and Pekár, S (2016) Different hunting strategies of generalist predators result in functional differences. Oecologia 181, 1187–1197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michalko, R and Pekár, S (2017) The behavioral type of a top predator drives the short-term dynamic of intraguild predation. American Naturalist 189, 242–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michalko, R, Pekár, S, Dul’a, M and Entling, MH (2019) Global patterns in the biocontrol efficacy of spiders: a meta-analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28, 1366–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miler, K, Yahya, BE and Czarnoleski, M (2018) Different predation efficiencies of trap-building larvae of sympatric antlions and wormlions from the rainforest of Borneo. Ecological Entomology 43, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muma, M (1971) Biological and behavioral notes on Gasteracantha cancriformis (Arachnida: Araneidae). Florida Entomologist 54, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munroe, SEM, Simpfendorfer, CA and Heupel, MR (2014) Defining shark ecological specialisation: concepts, context, and examples. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahas, L, Gonzaga, MO and Del-Claro, K (2012) Emergent impacts of ant and spider interactions: herbivory reduction in a tropical savanna tree. Biotropica 44, 498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nentwig, W (1980) The selective prey of linyphiid-like spiders and of their space webs. Oecologia 45, 236–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nentwig, W (1982) Why do only certain insects escape from a spider’s web? Oecologia 53, 412–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nentwig, W (1985) Prey analysis of four species of tropical orb-weaving spiders (Araneae: Araneidae) and a comparison with araneids of the temperate zone. Oecologia 66, 580–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nentwig, W and Wissel, C (1986) A comparison of prey lengths among spiders. Oecologia 68, 595–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyffeler, M (1999) Prey selection of spiders in the field. Journal of Arachnology 27, 317–324.Google Scholar
Olive, CW (1980) Foraging specialization in orb-weaving spiders. Ecology 61, 1133–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen-Smith, N and Mills, MG (2008) Shifting prey selection generates contrasting herbivore dynamics within a large-mammal predator–prey web. Ecology 89, 1120–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peck, SB and Russell, DR (1976) Life history of the fungus gnat Macrocera nobilis in American caves (Diptera: Mycetophilidae). Canadian Entomologist 108, 1235–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekár, S and Brabec, M (2016) Modern Analysis of Biological Data. 1. Generalized Linear Models in R. Scientia.Google Scholar
Pekár, S and Brabec, M (2018) Generalized estimating equations: a pragmatic and flexible approach to the marginal GLM modelling of correlated data in the behavioural sciences. Ethology 124, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekár, S and Cárdenas, M (2015) Innate prey preference overridden by familiarisation with detrimental prey in a specialised myrmecophagous predator. Science of Nature 102, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekár, S and Toft, S (2015) Trophic specialisation in a predatory group: the case of prey-specialised spiders (Araneae). Biological Reviews 90, 744–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekár, S, Petráková, L, Šedo, O, Korenko, S, and Zdráhal, Z (2018) Trophic niche, capture efficiency and venom profiles of six sympatric ant-eating spider species (Araneae: Zodariidae). Molecular Ecology 27, 1053–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petcharad, B, Miyashita, T, Gale, GA, Sotthibandhu, S and Bumrungsri, S (2016) Spatial patterns and environmental determinants of community composition of web-building spiders in understory across edges between rubber plantations and forests. Journal of Arachnology 44, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilot, M, Jędrzejewski, W, Sidorovich, VE, Meier-Augenstein, W and Hoelzel, AR (2012) Dietary differentiation and the evolution of population genetic structure in a highly mobile carnivore. PLoS ONE 7, e39341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potapov, AM, Klarner, B, Sandmann, D, Widyastuti, R and Scheu, S (2019) Linking size spectrum, energy flux and trophic multifunctionality in soil food webs of tropical land-use systems. Journal of Animal Ecology 88, 1845–1859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rao, D, Cheng, K and Herberstein, ME (2008) Stingless bee response to spider webs is dependent on the context of encounter. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riechert, SE (1991) Prey abundance vs diet breadth in a spider test system. Evolutionary Ecology 5, 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, CP (1994) Plasticity in web design in the spider Parawixia bistriata: a response to variable prey type. Functional Ecology 8, 701–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, I, Lubin, Y and Ovadia, O (2011) Foraging decisions and behavioural flexibility in trap-building predators: a review. Biological Reviews 86, 626–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, JM, Harwood, JD and Rypstra, AL (2012a) Foraging activity of a dominant epigeal predator: molecular evidence for the effect of prey density on consumption. Oikos 121, 1715–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, JM, Sebastian, P, Wilder, SM and Rypstra, AL (2012b) The nutritional content of prey affects the foraging of a generalist arthropod predator. PLoS ONE 7, e49223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigsgaard, L (2007) Early season natural control of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens: the contribution and interaction of two spider species and a predatory bug. Bulletin of Entomological Research 97, 533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefani, V, Pires, TL, Torezan-Silingardi, HM and Del-Claro, K (2015) Beneficial effects of ants and spiders on the reproductive value of Eriotheca gracilipes (Malvaceae) in a tropical savanna. PLoS ONE 10, e0131843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, DW, Brown, JS and Ydenberg, RC (2007) Foraging: Behavior and Ecology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toft, S (1995) Value of the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi as food for cereal spiders. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, 552–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toft, S (1999) Prey choice and spider fitness. Journal of Arachnology 27, 301–307.Google Scholar
Toft, S (2005) The quality of aphids as food for generalist predators: implications for natural control of aphids. European Journal of Entomology 102, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toft, S and Wise, DH (1999) Behavioral and ecophysiological responses of a generalist predator to single- and mixed-species diets of different quality. Oecologia 119, 198–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toft, S, Cuende, E, Olesen, AL, Mathiesen, A, Larsen, MM and Jensen, K (2019) Food and specific macronutrient limitation in an assemblage of predatory beetles. Oikos 128, 1467–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trisurat, Y (2010) Land use and forested landscape changes at Sakaerat Environmental Research Station in Nakhorn Ratchasima province, Thailand. Ekológia 29, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tso, IM, Wu, HC and Hwang, IR (2005) Giant wood spider Nephila pilipes alters silk protein in response to prey variation. Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 1053–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tso, IM, Chiang, SY and Blackledge, TA (2007) Does the giant wood spider Nephila pilipes respond to prey variation by altering web or silk properties? Ethology 113, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uetz, GW (1990) Prey selection in web-building spiders and evolution of prey defenses. Insect defenses. In Evans, DL and Schmidt, JO (eds), Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 93–128.Google Scholar
Vrdoljak, SM and Samways, MJ (2012) Optimising coloured pan traps to survey flower visiting insects. Journal of Insect Conservation 16, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, JB (1975) Food partitioning in net-spinning Trichoptera larvae: Hydropsyche venularis, Cheumatopsyche etrona, and Macronema zebratum (Hydropsychidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 68, 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, DR and Shaw, PW (2008) Evaluation of coloured sticky traps for monitoring beneficial insects in apple orchards. New Zealand Plant Protection 61, 328–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, PH and Lawton, JH (1987) Invertebrate predator-prey body size relationships: an explanation for upper triangular food webs and patterns in food web structure? Oecologia 74, 231–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wongprom, P and Košulič, O (2016) First data on spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) from dry dipterocarp forests of Thailand. Check List 12, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Spider Catalog (2018) World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum, Bern online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 19, accessed on 20.11.2018. doi: 10.24436/2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamanoi, T and Miyashita, T (2005) Foraging strategy of nocturnal orb-web spiders (Araneidae: Neoscona) with special reference to the possibility of beetle specialization by N. punctigera. Acta Arachnologica 54, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, M (1989) Predatory behavior of Gasteracantha mammosa C. Koch (Araneae: Araneidae). Acta Arachnologica 37, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, AF, Hilbe, JM and Ieno, EN (2015) A Beginner’s Guide to GLM and GLMM with R. A Frequentist and Bayesian Perspective for Ecologists. Newburgh: Highland Statistics.Google Scholar