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.
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
Albo MJ (2009) Selección sexual y citogenética en arañas donadoras de regalos nupciales (Trechaleidae y Pisauridae). Master Thesis, PEDECIBA. Montevideo, Uruguay
Albo MJ, Costa-Schmidt LE, Costa FG (2009) To feed or to wrap? Female silk cues elicit male nuptial gift construction in a semiaquatic trechaleid spider. J Zool 277:284–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00539.x
Albo MJ, Costa FG (2010) Nuptial gift-giving behaviour and male mating effort in the Neotropical spider Paratrechalea ornata (Trechaleidae). Anim Behav 79:1031–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.01.018
Albo MJ, Franco-Trecu V, Wojciechowski FJ et al (2019) Maintenance of deceptive gifts in a natural spider population: ecological and demographic factors. Behav Ecol 30:993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz040
Albo MJ, Macías-Hernández N, Bilde T, Toft S (2017) Mutual benefit from exploitation of female foraging motivation may account for the early evolution of gifts in spiders. Anim Behav 129:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.05.001
Albo MJ, Melo-González V, Carballo M et al (2014a) Evolution of worthless gifts is favoured by male condition and prey access in spiders. Anim Behav 92:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.03.018
Albo MJ, Toft S, Bilde T (2014b) Sexual selection, ecology, and evolution of nuptial gifts in spiders. In: Macedo R, Machado G (eds) Sexual selection: perspectives and models from the Neotropics. Academic Press. Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and Boston (Massachusetts): Elsevier, pp 183–200
Albo MJ, Winther G, Tuni C et al (2011) Worthless donations: male deception and female counter play in a nuptial gift-giving spider. BMC Evol Biol 11:329. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-329
Andersen T, Bollerup K, Toft S, Bilde T (2008) Why do males of the spider Pisaura mirabilis wrap their nuptial gifts in silk: female preference or male control? Ethology 114:775–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01529.x
Arnqvist G (2006) Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 361:375–386. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1790
Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1446
Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Pricenton Univerisity Press, Princeton
Basolo AL (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808–810. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.250.4982.808
Bilde T, Tuni C, Elsayed R et al (2007) Nuptial gifts of male spiders: sensory exploitation of the female’s maternal care instinct or foraging motivation? Anim Behav 73:267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.05.014
Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2000) Economic models of animal coomunication. Anim Behav 59:259–268. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1330
Bristowe WS (1958) The world of spiders. Collins, London
Brockmann HJ (2001) The evolution of alternative strategies and tactics. Adv Study Behav 30:1–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3454(01)80004-8
Carico JE (2005) Descriptions of two new spider genera of Trechaleidae (Araneae, Lycosoidea) from South America. J Arachnol 33:797–812. https://doi.org/10.1636/h03-71.1
Chapman T (2018) Sexual conflict: mechanisms and emerging themes in resistance biology. Am Nat 192:217–229. https://doi.org/10.1086/698169
Christy JH (1995) Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am Nat 146:171–181. https://doi.org/10.1086/285793
Christy JH, Backwell PRY, Schober U (2003) Interspecific attractiveness of structures built by courting male fiddler crabs: experimental evidence of a sensory trap. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-002-0553-4
Cornwallis CK, Uller T (2010) Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol Evol 25:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.09.008
Costa-Schmidt LE, Carico JE, De Araújo AM (2008) Nuptial gifts and sexual behavior in two species of spider (Araneae, Trechaleidae, Paratrechalea). Naturwissenschaften 95:731–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-008-0379-7
Da Silva ELC, Lapinski W (2012) A new species of Trechalea Thorell, 1869 (Araneae: Lycosoidea: Trechaleidae: Trechaleinae) from Costa Rica, with notes on its natural history and ecology. Zootaxa 64:58–64. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa3563.1.4
Da Silva ELC, Lise AA (2009) New record of nuptial gift observed in Trechalea amazonica. (Araneae, Lycosoidea, Trechaleidae). Rev Peru Biol 16:119–120. https://doi.org/10.15381/rpb.v16i1.185
Darwin C (1871) The descent of man: and selection in relation to sex. London: J. Murray.
Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Elgar MA, Ghaffar N, Read AF (1990) Sexual dimorphism in leg length among orb-weaving spiders: a possible role for sexual cannibalism. J Zool 222:455–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1990.tb04044.x
Endler JA (1995) Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gradients in guppies. Trends Ecol Evol 10:22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)88956-9
Engqvist L, Taborsky M (2015) The evolution of genetic and conditional alternative reproductive tactics. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283:20152945. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2945
Foellmer MW, Fairbairn DJ (2004) Males under attack: sexual cannibalism and its consequences for male morphology and behaviour in an orb-weaving spider. Evol Ecol Res 6:163–181
Fromhage L, Schneider JM (2005) Safer sex with feeding females: sexual conflict in a cannibalistic spider. Behav Ecol 16:377–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari011
Garcia CM, Ramirez E (2005) Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature 434:501–505. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03363
Gaskett AC (2007) Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions. Biol Rev 82:27–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2006.00002.x
Ghislandi PG, Pekár S, Matzke M et al (2018) Resource availability, mating opportunity and sexual selection intensity influence the expression of male alternative reproductive tactics. J Evol Biol 31:1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13284
Gross MR (1996) Tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92–98
Gwynne DT (1984) Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets. Nature 307:361–363. https://doi.org/10.1038/307361a0
Heifetz Y, Tram U, Wolfner MF (2001) Male contributions to egg production: the role of accessory gland products and sperm in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 268:175–180. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1347
Jirotkul M (1999) Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male-male competition in guppies. Anim Behav 58:287–294. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1149
Kessel EL (1955) The mating activities of balloon flies. Syst Zool 4:97–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/2411862
Klein AL, Trillo MC, Albo MJ (2012) Sexual receptivity varies according to female age in a Neotropical nuptial gift-giving spider. J Arachnol 40:138–140. https://doi.org/10.1636/h11-31.1
Kvarnemo C, Ahnesjö I (1996) The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends Ecol Evol 11:404–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10056-2
Lang A (1996) Silk investment in gifts by males of the nuptial feeding spider Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae). Behaviour 133:697–716
Lapinski W, Tschapka M (2009) Erstnachweis von Brautgeschenken bei Trechalea sp . (Trechaleidae, Araneae) in Costa Rica. Arachne 14:4–13
LeBas NR, Hockham LR (2005) An invasion of cheats: the evolution of worthless nuptial gifts. Curr Biol 15:64–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.12.043
Madden JR, Tanner K (2003) Preferences for coloured bower decorations can be explained in a nonsexual context. Anim Behav 65:1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2126
Martínez-Villar M, Germil M, Pavón-Peláez C et al (2020) Empty nuptial gifts: a further step in the evolution of deception in spiders? J Arachnol 48:214–217. https://doi.org/10.1636/0161-8202-48.2.214
Maxwell MR, Prokop P (2018) Fitness effects of nuptial gifts in the spider Pisaura mirabilis: examination under an alternative feeding regime. J Arachnol 46:404–412. https://doi.org/10.1636/joa-s-17-043.1
Moehring AJ, Boughman JW (2019) Veiled preferences and cryptic female choice could underlie the origin of novel sexual traits. Biol Lett 15:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0878
Mokkonen M, Lindstedt C (2015) The evolutionary ecology of deception. Biol Rev 91:1020–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12208
Pandulli-Alonso I, Quaglia A, Albo MJ (2017) Females of a gift-giving spider do not trade sex for food gifts: consequence of male deception? BMC Evol Biol 17:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0953-8
Pavón-Peláez C (2019) Factores intrínsecos y extrínsecos que modelan las tácticas alternativas de apareamiento en una araña con regalo nupcial. Undergraduate Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la Republica. Montevideo, Uruguay. pp: 1-38
Piersma T, Drent J (2003) Phenotypic flexibility and the evolution of organismal design. Trends Ecol Evol 18:228–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00036-3
Preston-Mafham KG (1999) Courtship and mating in Empis (Xanthempis) trigramma Meig., E. tessellata F. and E. (Polyblepharis) opaca F. (Diptera: Empididae) and the possible implications of “cheating” behaviour. J Zool 247:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836999002113
Proctor HC (1991) Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim Behav 42:589–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80242-8
Prokop P, Maxwell MR (2009) Female feeding regime and polyandry in the nuptially feeding nursery web spider, Pisaura mirabilis. Naturwissenschaften 96:259–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-008-0477-6
R Team Core (2019) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found Stat Comput, Vienna
Rengifo L, Albo MJ, Delgado Santa L (2020) The unknown Enna, new species and first record of wrapped nuptial gifts in the genus (Trechaleidae). J Arachnology 48:242-248. https://doi.org/10.1636/JoA-S-20-022
Ryan MJ, Cummings ME (2013) Perceptual biases and mate choice. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 44:437–459. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135901
Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS (1990) Sexual selection for sensory exploiation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66–67
Sakaluk SK (2000) Sensory explotation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:339–343
Sakaluk SK, Avery RL, Weddle CB (2006) Cryptic sexual conflict in gift-giving insects: chasing the chase-away. Am Nat 167:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/498279
Simmons LW, Gwynne DT (1991) The refractory period of female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): sexual conflict over the remating interval? Behav Ecol 2:276–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/2.4.276
Simmons LW, Parker GA (1989) Nuptial feeding in insects: mating effort versus paternal investment. Ethology 81:332–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1989.tb00778.x
Stålhandske P (2001) Nuptial gift in the spider Pisaura mirabilis maintained by sexual selection. Behav Ecol 12:691–697
Stålhandske P (2002) Nuptial gifts of male spiders function as sensory traps. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 269:905–908. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1917
Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and paternal investmen in insects. Am Nat 110:153–163
Toft S, Albo MJ (2015) Optimal numbers of matings: the conditional balance between benefits and costs of mating for females of a nuptial gift-giving spider. J Evol Biol 28:457–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12581
Toft S, Albo MJ (2016) The shield effect: nuptial gifts protect males against pre-copulatory sexual cannibalism. Biol Lett 12:20151082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.1082
Trillo MC, Albo MJ (2019) Another one bites the gift: sexual behaviour in a Trechaleoides species. Arachnology 18:250–252. https://doi.org/10.13156/arac.2019.18.3.250
Trillo MC, Melo-González V, Albo MJ (2014) Silk wrapping of nuptial gifts as visual signal for female attraction in a crepuscular spider. Naturwissenschaften 101:123–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-013-1139-x
Vahed K (1998) The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol Rev 73:43–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1997.tb00025.x
Wiens JJ (2001) Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots. Trends Ecol Evol 16:517–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02217-0
Wolfner MF (1997) Tokens of love: functions and regulation of Drosophila male accessory gland products. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 27:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-1748(96)00084-7
Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3
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
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
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
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-021-02994-6