Skip to main content
Log in

Ineffective nuptial gifts suggest female emancipation from sensory exploitation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Male sensory exploitation of female gustatory pre-existing bias has been proposed for the origin of nuptial gifts in insects and spiders. This sexual trait may have been beneficial to both sexes, giving mating and survival advantages to males and providing nutritional resources for females. However, the evolution of deceptive worthless gifts is against females’ interests and may trigger a co-evolutionary change in females’ preferences. We evaluated females’ preferences for nuptial gifts and the adaptive function of the gift in the spider Trechaleoides keyserlingi. The genus belongs to the understudied Neotropical family Trechaleidae in which nuptial gifts are widespread. The family is composed of only two species, and the gift seems to be absent in the sister species, creating a relevant scenario for understanding co-evolutionary processes. In the laboratory, we found that although males invested more in nuptial gifts when encountering mated females compared to unmated, they had similar mating access and duration than males lacking a gift. We also found an absence of female choice between males offering nutritive and worthless gifts. Few females were aggressive and cannibalized males, and we did not find evidence that the gift protected males from cannibalism. In the field, 50% of the gifts were worthless items. This is congruent with the laboratory findings where males offering worthless gifts seem to better attract females, which we discuss in the context of exploitation of female gustatory bias. We therefore propose that females may have evolved indifference for the gift and that gift-giving in this species represents a currently non-functional remnant of a behaviour.

Significance statement

Nutritive nuptial gifts can exploit female gustatory preferences, with mutual benefits for both sexes: males can increase mating success and survival, while females increase their fecundity. But males can offer worthless gifts leading females to suboptimal matings, and in turn females can evolve indifference for the trait. The spider genus Trechaleoides is ideal to examine this process because gift-giving behaviour is present in one species and absent in the other. We examined females’ preferences for nuptial gifts and its function for males in the gift-giving species T. keyserlingi. We found that males invest in a gift but gain no reproductive advantage, as females were equally likely to mate with them regardless of whether they offered a gift or whether the gift was nutritive or worthless. We propose that females may have changed their preferences and that the gift is a remnant non-functional trait.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Raw data was submitted at Mendeley data; thus, all analyses reported in this article can be reproduced using the data provided (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/sgv43wzr3p/draft?a=5b1d31da-72f9-4692-9a5e-3c6db503987f).

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor F.G. Costa for his unique advice and discussions during more than 10 years before his retirement. We thank A. Albín, F. Baldenegro, M. Carballo, M. Colina, F.G. Costa, S. Fierro, V. Franco-Trecu, M. González, A. Klein, V. Melo-Gonzalez, L. Montes de Oca, A. Olivera, I. Pandulli-Alonso, C. Pavón-Peláez, M. Germil, Silvina Cortés, I. Porto, I. Tomasco, and F. Pérez-Miles for their help in spider collections and Maite Colina, Irene Pandulli-Alonso, and Camila Pavón-Peláez for their constructive comments on the first draft. We thank Sebastián Horta, Daniel Herman, Cesar García, and Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (SNAP) for their support to carry out this research in protected areas of Uruguay. We are grateful to Søren Toft, Matthias Foellmer, and one anonymous reviewer for their fruitful comments on the first draft.

Funding

This work was supported by the Caldeyro-Barcia National Science Award (MJA), PEDECIBA, Uruguay. MJA was supported by postdoctoral fellowship (IIBCE, Uruguay) and Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI), Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación (ANII). MMV was funded by Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC), UdelaR.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MJA conceived the idea. MMV, MCT, and MJA collected the data. MJA and MMV carried out the statistical analyses. MJA and MMV wrote the paper, and all authors critically revised all versions. All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria J. Albo.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

In Uruguay, there is only an institution regulating the use of animals under laboratory conditions (CHEA), but it does not include invertebrates. However, we confirm that this research complied with the standards and procedures for the use of animals and did not include neither cruelty nor risk of endangered populations or species. Additionally, the collections were done in a protected area with the support of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (SNAP), Uruguay.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by E. M. Jakob

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martínez Villar, M., Trillo, M.C. & Albo, M.J. Ineffective nuptial gifts suggest female emancipation from sensory exploitation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 75, 61 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-021-02994-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-021-02994-6

Keywords

Navigation