4.5 Article

Exposure to multiple sensory cues as a juvenile affects adult female mate preferences in wolf spiders

Journal

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
Volume 80, Issue 3, Pages 419-426

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.05.027

Keywords

experimental design; mate choice; multimodal communication; plasticity; subadult experience; wolf spider

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [IBN 0239164]
  2. American Arachnological Society
  3. University of Cincinnati Research Council
  4. Wiemen/Wendel/Benedict Student Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Experience is known to influence female mating in a variety of vertebrate animals; however, the effects of experience on mate choice have been less well-studied in invertebrates. In a series of recent studies conducted on spiders, it was shown that females develop preferences for novel, artificially modified male phenotypes when exposed to them as juveniles. However, because Schizocosa wolf spiders are known to respond to multiple sensory cues in mate choice, concerns have been raised about the use of nail polish to modify male visual phenotypes. Here we attempted to repeat the earlier experiment, but address effects of chemical versus visual learning separately, using the wolf spider species Schizocosa rovneri. Results indicate that exposure to novel visual/chemical male phenotypes influenced adult female mate preference for visual and to some extent chemical phenotypes, but in this case, females avoided familiar male phenotypes and preferred those to which they had not been exposed. Our results suggest that female mate preferences may be based on more factors than previously recognized, and that experience may reinforce behavioural isolation of species by increasing avoidance of mating with visually or chemically distinct male phenotypes. (C) 2010 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available