ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2020
Males of a sexually cannibalistic spider chemically assess relative female quality.
Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategic pheromone signalling by mate searching females of the sexually cannibalistic spiderRoyal Society open science · 2022Article
- Pheromone communication among sexes of the garden cross spider Araneus diadematus.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMate choice is a taxonomically wide-spread phenomenon, mostly exerted by females although male mate choice occurs as well. While costs and benefits of choosiness have been well studied, the underlying mechanisms are largely unclear. Different models exist, namely best-of-n or threshold rules, based on sequential or simultaneous sampling, which differ in the required cognitive demands. We applied an experimental approach to shed light on the underlying mechanisms of male mate choice in the sexually cannibalistic spider Argiope bruennichi. Males are limited to two copulations and preferentially monopolise large females, while they may leave smaller females after a single copulation and resume mate search. Here, we utilised significant size-differences between females from Northern and Southern populations and presented males with three different-sized females that were matched for origin: all three females originated either from the same Northern European population as the males or from Southern populations where the smallest female was about the same size as the largest Northern female. This allowed testing the hypothesis that males base their mating tactic on a fixed local size threshold. We predicted Northern males to be choosy among Northern females, but to accept all Southern females since they would all be above that threshold.
resultsMales copulated with the first female they encountered, which was independent of her body size. Regardless of the females' origins, males chose a monogynous tactic with the largest female in the trio, while they left the smallest female after one copulation. The same pattern applied to Southern females even though the smallest females in the trio were of a similar size as monopolised Northern females. Since males have poor eyesight and did not actively sample all females, they likely have gained information about relative size differences between females based on volatile chemical cues only.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that male A. bruennichi can assess relative differences in mate quality and adjust their mating tactic to the prevailing conditions (Northern vs. Southern). We reject the presence of a locally-adapted fixed threshold and argue that our results are best explained by an adjustable threshold that was raised under Southern conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.