Skip to main content
Log in

Mating system and mating success of the desert spider Agelenopsis aperta

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

Abstract

Field studies of the desert spider Agelenopsis aperta revealed a primarily monogamous mating system. However polygyny, polyandry and polygynandry were superimposed upon the primary system, with 9% of the marked males and 11% of the marked females in a field population mating more than once. In the laboratory males commonly mated multiply with fertile offspring resulting, while females were less likely than males to mate multiply. Monogamy under field conditions was enforced by two factors: (1) high travel costs to males, and (2) a significant decline in female receptivity after the first mating. Heavy males were more likely to be accepted by females both in the field, and in female choice experiments conducted in the laboratory. Finally, male weight determined the outcome of male-male agonistic interactions over females. One possible explanation for female choice in this system which lacks male parental investment is that females may be using male size as an indicator of future success of their offspring.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock J, Buchmann SL (1985) The significance of post-insemination display by male Centris pallida (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). Z Tierpsychol 68:231–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Austad SN (1984) Evolution of sperm priority patterns in spiders. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 223–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Austad SN (1989) Life extension by dietary restriction in the bowl and doily spider, Frontinella pyramitela. Exp Gerontol 24:83–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson T, Cohn J (1988) Male advantage for egg fertilization in the golden orb-weaving spider (Nephila clavipes). J Comp Psych 102:312–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WE, Vitt LJ (1993) Female mate choice of large male broadheaded skinks. Anim Behav 45:683–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Crews D (1975) Psychobiology of reptilian reproduction. Science 189:1059–1065

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtsinger JW (1991) Sperm competition and the evolution of multiple mating. Am Nat 138:93–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies NB (1991) Mating systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral Ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 253–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies NB, Lundberg A (1984) Food distribution and a variable mating system in the dunnock, Prunella modularis. J Anim Ecol 53:895–912

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewsbury DA (1984) Sperm competition in muroid rodents. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 547–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL (1992) Scramble competition polygyny in the milkweed leaf beetle: combat, mobility and the importance of being there. Behav Ecol 3:32–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL. Rutowski RL (1989) The function of the mating plug in the chalcedon checkerspot butterfly. Anim Behav 38:154–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes JA (1978) Feeding and mating in the insectivorous Ceratopogoninae (Diptera) Mem Entomol Soc Can 104:1–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn PO, Hannon SJ (1991) Intraspecific competition and the maintenance of monogamy in tree swallows. Behav Ecol 2: 258–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection. and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincke OM (1986) Underwater oviposition in a damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) favors male vigilance, and multiple mating by females. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:405–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gering RL (1953) Structure and function of genitalia in some American agelenid spiders. Smithsonian Misc Coll 121:1–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwynne DT (1986) Courtship feeding in katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): Investment in offspring or in obtaining fertilizations? Am Nat 128:342–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday T, Arnold SJ (1987) Multiple mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim Behav 35:939–941

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard RD (1978) The evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catcsbiana. Evolution 32:850–871

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RR (1980) The mating strategy of Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae: Salticidae) 11. Sperm competition and the function of copulation. J Arachnol 8:217–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Joy J, Crews D (1988) Male mating success in red-sided garter snakes: size is not important. Anim Behav 36: 1839–1841

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessel EL (1955) The mating activities of balloon flies. Syst Zoo 4:997–1004

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am Nat 124:309–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Laidlaw HH (1944) Artificial insemination of the queen bee (Apis mellifera L.): morphological basis and results. J Morphol 74: 429–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen T, Shine R, Loman J, Hakansson T (1992) Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 355:440–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Markow TA, Ankney PF (1984) Drosophila males contribute to oogenesis in a multiple mating species. Science 224:302–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks RW, Seager RD, Barr LG (1988) Local ecology and multiple mating in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster. Am Nat 131 (6):918–923

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis A (1991) Large male advantage for access to females: evidence of male-male competition and female discrimination in a territorial salamander. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29: 133–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Riechert SE (1984) A conflicting tendency model of spider agonistic behavior: hybrid-pure line comparisons. Anim Behav 32: 564–578

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1983) Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller A (1990) Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality. Anim Behav 40:1185–1187

    Google Scholar 

  • Nalepa C, Jones S (1991) Evolution of monogamy in termites. Biol Rev 66:83–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletto PF (1991) The relationship between male ornamentation and swimming performance in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:365–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhauser K (1989) Effects of spermatophores on male and female monarch butterfly reproductive success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:237–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge L, Hoffmann A, Jones JS (1987) Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura under field conditions. Anim Behav 35:468–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley M (1988) Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev 63:509–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE (1974) The pattern of local web distribution in a desert spider: mechanisms and seasonal variation. J Anim Ecol 43: 733–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE (1978a) Energy-based territoriality in populations of the desert spider Agelenopsis aperta (Gertsch). Symp Zool Soc Lond 42:211–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE (1978b) Games spiders play: behavioral variability in territorial disputes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:135–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE (1979) Games spiders play 11. Resource assessment strategies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 6:121–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE (1981) The consequences of being territorial: spiders, a case study. Am Nat 117:871–892

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE (1985) Decision problems in multiple goal contexts: spider habitat selection. Z Tierpsychol 70:53–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE, Hays JM (1987) Nutritional ecology of spiders. In: Slansky F, Rodriguez JG (eds) Nutritional ecology of insects, mites, spiders and related invertebrates. Wiley, New York, pp 645–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE, Maynard Smith J (1989) Genetic analyses of two behavioural traits linked to individual fitness in the desert spider, Agelenopsis aperta. Anim Behav 37:624–637

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE, Singer F (in press) Investigation of potential male mate choice in a monogamous spider. Anim Behav

  • Riechert SE, Tracy CR (1975) Thermal balance and prey availability: bases for a model relating web-site characteristics to spider reproductive success. Ecology 56:265–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE, Reeder WG, Allen T (1973) Patterns of spider distribution [Agelenopsis aperta (Gertsch)] in desert grassland and recent lava bed habitats, south-central New Mexico. J Anim Ecol 42:19–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson MH, Robinson B (1980) Comparative studies on the courtship and mating behavior of tropical araneid spiders. Pac Insects Monogr 36:1–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandell M, Liberg O (1992) Roamers and stayers: a model on male mating tactics and mating systems. Am Nat 139:177–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer F, Riechert SE (1994) Tests for sex differences in fitnesslinked traits in the spider, Agelenopsis apertu. J Insect Behav 7:517–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan BK (1989) Mating system variation in Woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousii). Ethology 83:60–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter RB, Parkhill VS (1990) Fitness consequences of prolonged copulation in the bowl and doily spider. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:369–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and paternal investment in insects. Am Nat 110:153–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R (1992) Female preference for the pheromone of males with low fluctuating asymmetry in the Japanese scorpionfly (Panorpa japonica: Mecoptera). Behav Ecol 3:277–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson PJ (1991a) Multiple paternity and first mate sperm precedence in the sierra dome spider, Linyphia litigiosa Keyserfng (Linyphiidae). Anim Behav 41:135–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson PJ (1991b) Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim Behav 41:343–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickler W, Seibt U (1981) Monogamy in crustacea and man. Z Tierpsychol 57:215–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing SR (1988) Cost of mating for female insects: risk of predation in Photinus collustrans (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Am Nat 131:139–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenberger JF (1979) The evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. In: Master P, Vandenburgh J (eds) Handbook of behavioral neurobiology: social behavior and communication. Plenum, New York, pp 271–349

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Communicated by R.F.A. Moritz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Singer, F., Riechert, S.E. Mating system and mating success of the desert spider Agelenopsis aperta . Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36, 313–322 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167792

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167792

Key words

Navigation