Males of a Neotropical spider adjust prey‐gift construction but not mate search in response to sperm competition

• Published in: Ethology 2021-08, Vol.127 (8), p.661-668
• Main Authors: Macedo‐Rego, Renato C., Costa‐Schmidt, Luiz Ernesto, Machado, Glauco
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal behavior; Animal reproduction; chemical cues; Competition; Construction; Females; Gifts; Latency; male mate choice; Males; Mate selection; Mathematical models; Mating; nuptial gift; Pheromones; polyandry; Prey; Reproductive effort; reproductive investment; Resource allocation; Risk; scramble competition; Silk; Sperm; Sperm competition; Spiders; Substrates
• ISSN: 0179-1613; 1439-0310
• DOI: 10.1111/eth.13202

In scramble competition mating systems, males do not guard females and females usually mate polyandrously, leading to high levels of sperm competition. Mathematical models predict that males facing sperm competition can either decrease or increase their reproductive effort. To test how male reproductive responses vary according to sperm competition risk, we ran two experiments using the polyandrous gift‐giving spider Paratrechalea ornata. First, we tested whether males prefer substrates containing silk of unmated females than substrates containing silk of once‐mated females, competitor males or without silk. Males spent more time on substrates containing silk of females but showed no preference for unmated females, which indicates that males may optimize mate search by prioritizing substrates containing cues of potential mating partners. The lack of preference for unmated females suggests that males cannot detect female mating status from silk or that the costs of searching preferentially for unmated females are high in the field. Second, we tested whether males adjust prey‐gift construction when facing sperm competition risk. Experimental groups (substrate containing silk of an unmated female and silk of another male vs. substrate containing only silk of an unmated female) did not differ in the frequency of gift construction, latency to gift construction and number of flies added to the gift. However, males facing sperm competition risk constructed gifts with less silk, suggesting the occurrence of a less evident form of male mate choice based on differential allocation of resources to prey‐gift. Additionally, given the trade‐off between investing in prey‐gifts quantity or quality, a lower silk investment should enable males to increase the number of gifts constructed and the number of courted females. Taken together, our results indicate that males detect female and male pheromones on substrate and adjust the construction of prey‐gifts in response to apparent sperm competition risk.