(ISSN 0161-8202) Journal of ARACHNOLOGY PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ARACHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 37 2009 NUMBER 3 THE JOURNAL OF ARACHNOLOGY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: James E. Carrel, University of Missouri-Columbia MANAGING EDITOR: Douglass H. Morse, Brown University SUBJECT EDITORS: Ecology — Stano Pekar, Masaryk University; Systematics — Mark Harvey, Western Aus- tralian Museum and Ingi Agnarsson, University of Puerto Rico; Behavior — Linden Higgins, University of Vermont; Morphology and Physiology — Jeffrey Shuitz, University of Maryland EDITORIAL BOARD: Alan Cady, Miami University (Ohio); Jonathan Coddington, Smithsonian Institution; William Eberhard, Universidad de Costa Rica; Rosemary Gillespie, University of California, Berkeley; Charles Griswold, California Academy of Sciences; Marshal Hedin, San Diego State University; Herbert Levi, Harvard University; Brent Opell, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University; Norman Platnick, American Museum of Natural History; Ann Rypstra, Miami University (Ohio); Paul Selden, University of Kansas; Matthias Schae- fer, Universitet Goettingen (Germany); William Shear, Hampden-Sydney College; Petra Sierwald, Field Mu- seum; I-Min Tso, Tunghai University (Taiwan). The Journal of Arachnology (ISSN 0161-8202), a publication devoted to the study of Arachnida, is published three times each year by The American Arachnological Society. Memberships (yearly): Membership is open to all those interested in Arachnida. Subscriptions to The Journal of Arachnology and American Arachnology (the newsletter), and annual meeting notices, are included with membership in the Society. Regular, $55; Students, $30; Institutional, $125 . Inquiries should be directed to the Membership Secretary (see below). Back Issues: James Carrel, 209 Tucker Hall, Missouri University, Columbia, Missouri 65211-7400 USA. Telephone; (573) 882-3037. Undelivered Issues: Allen Press, Inc., 810 E. 10th Street, P.O. Box 368, Lawrence, Kansas 66044 USA. THE AMERICAN ARACHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY PRESIDENT: Rosemary Gillespie (2009-2011), Environmental Science, Policy & Management, Division of Organisms and Envirironment, University of California, Berkely, CA 94720-3114 USA. PRESIDENT-ELECT: Jonathan Coddington (2009-2011), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012 USA. MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY: Jeffrey W. Shultz (appointed). Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA. TREASURER: Karen Cangialosi, Department of Biology, Keene State College, Keene, NH 03435-2001 USA. SECRETARY: Alan Cady, Dept, of Zoology, Miami University, Middletown, Ohio 45042 USA. ARCHIVIST: Lenny Vincent, Fullerton College, Fullerton, California 92634 USA. DIRECTORS: Matt Persons (2008-2010), Paula Cushing (2009-201 1), Todd Blackledge (2009-2011) PAST DIRECTOR AND PARLIAMENTARIAN: H. Don Cameron (appointed), Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 USA. HONORARY MEMBERS: C.D. Dondale, H.W. Levi, A.F. Millidge. Cover photo: Mating in Semeiochernes armiger (Psudoscorpiones) collected in the Republic of Panama. Photo by Jeanne A. Zeh. Publication date: 17 November 2009 ©This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). NOV :iO ZOU9 s^/BRAR\t§^ 2009. The Journal of Arachnology 37:249-253 Frame-web-choice experiments with stingless bees support the prey-attraction hypothesis for silk decorations in Argiope savignyi Dumas Galvez: Animal Ecology Group, University of Groningen, Biological Center, PO Box 9750 A A Haren, the Netherlands. E-mail: galvezd@gmail.com Abstract. There is controversy about the function of silk stabilimenta, also called silk decorations, on spiders’ webs. Most of the proposed hypotheses have been tested using indirect methods. Protection against predators, advertisement for vertebrates to avoid web damage, and increasing prey attraction are the most popular hypotheses. In this study, I tested the prey attraction hypothesis on the silk decorations of the araneid Argiope savignyi using a trial tunnel built in the field, in which I exposed stingless bees Tetragonisca angiistula to decorated and undecorated webs placed on wooden frames. I carried out two experiments: 1) a three-frame choice, consisting of a frame bearing a decorated web, one bearing an undecorated web and a control frame without web and spider; 2) a two-frame choice, in which the bees were exposed to only two frames consisting of “decorated web vs. control,” “decorated web vs. undecorated web,” and “undecorated web vs. control”. In favor of the prey attraction function, I found that decorated webs intercepted more bees than webs deprived of the decoration or controls with no webs. Argiope savignyi' s decorations might lure prey to the web by UV-reflectance as it has been suggested for other Argiope species. Keywords: Decorated, foraging, stabilimenta, undecorated A wide range of orb-weaving spiders builds silk decorations or stabilimenta on their webs (Araneae: Araneidae, Tetra- gnathidae, Uloboridae; Scharff & Coddington 1997). Five functions have been suggested for these structures: 1) protection against predators, 2) advertisement to vertebrates so as to avoid web damage, 3) prey attraction, 4) stabilization of the web, and 5) a source of shade. Most work has focused on the first three hypotheses (Herberstein et al. 2000; Bruce 2006). However, after more than 100 years of research, no consensus about the functionality of decorations has yet been reached, and a variety of methods have been applied producing contradictory outcomes. In support of functions 1 and 2, decorations on the web of Argiope aurantia Lucas 1833 reduced predatory attacks by mud-dauber wasps and web damage by birds; simultaneously, web visibility to prey was increased and prey capture rates declined. Hence, a cost associated with decoration construction was suggested (Blackledge & Wenzel 1999). A different study with A. aurantia, on the other hand supported Function 3, that decorated webs attracted more prey although they were compared with undecorated webs of A. trifasciata (Forsskal 1775) (Tso 1998a). For A. appensa (Walckenaer 1842), no differences in foraging success were found between decorated and undecorated webs. In support of Function 3, Bruce et al. (2001) and Seah & Li (2001) found that decorated webs of A. keyserlingi Karsch 1878 and A. versicolor (Doleschall 1859) attracted more prey; however, decorations also attracted predators, in opposition to Function 1. Researchers have concluded that there is a trade-off in foraging strategies, since decorated webs are often smaller than undecorated webs (Hauber 1998). The traditional perception that the spider web is an undetectable trap has changed drastically since the idea that web decorations might attract prey by UV reflectance was suggested (Craig & Bernard 1990). The prey-attraction hypothesis (Function 3) states that the presence of decorations increases the foraging success of the spiders. Such an outcome has been proposed for various species of the genus Argiope: A. aetherea Thorell 1881 (Elgar et al. 1996), A. trifasciata (Tso 1996), A. aurantia (Blackledge & Wenzel 1999), A. versicolor (Li et al. 2004; Li 2005), A. argentata (Fabricius 1775) (Craig & Bernard 1990; Craig et al. 2001), A. keyserlingi Karsch 1878 (Herberstein 2000; Bruce et al. 2001), A. aemula (Walckenaer 1842) (Cheng & Tso 2007); as well as for Octonoha sybotkles (Uloboridae) (Bdsenberg & Strand 1906) (Watanabe 1999), Araneus eburnus (Keyserling 1886) (Bruce et al. 2004), and some other species (Herberstein et al. 2000; Bruce 2006). An important aspect to be considered when testing the prey- attraction hypothesis is the interference of web-size: decorated webs, usually smaller than undecorated ones, might attract more prey due to their decoration. Undecorated webs, however, are usually bigger and hence prey-capturing success might be increased due to the larger area. Therefore, the suggested trade-off in foraging strategies and energetic costs remains speculative. For that reason, an appropriate tech- nique to eliminate the influence of web size, when decorated and undecorated webs are compared, has been manual removal of the decorations (Bruce et al. 2001, 2004). I tested the prey-attraction hypothesis for the poorly studied Neotropical spider Argiope savignyi Levi 1968 using a new method that consisted of a trial tunnel combined with decoration removal and prey manipulation. The tunnel is placed in the field, which can mimic natural visual conditions in which spiders and preys are found. Many studies have tested the hypothesis in laboratory conditions (e.g., Y-choice experiments), which might not reproduce natural conditions. As well, the influence of web size can be eliminated while the prey capture history of the spiders, which has an essential effect on the decoration behavior (Craig et al. 2001), can be controlled. If the web decoration functions to attract prey, then I expected that decorated webs would intercept more bees than the undecorated webs and empty control frames. 249 250 THE JOURNAL OF ARACHNOLOGY METHODS Site. — This study was carried out from 18 July to 4 August 2007 at La Selva Biological Station, Heredia, Costa Rica (10°26'N, 83°59'W), a 1550-ha reserve in the Atlantic lowlands with an annual average rainfall of 4000 mm. See Sanford et al. (1994) for more details about the station. Animals. — Argiope savignyi is an aerial web weaving spider that decorates its web with zigzags of silk laid in a variety of designs that include silk discs (juveniles) or one to four arms of a cross (adults). Some webs lack decorations (Nentwig & Rogg 1988). This species is common at La Selva (Rovner 1989; Timm & Losilla 2007). 1 confirmed the species identity using the taxonomic key for Argiope by Levi (2004). No voucher specimens were collected but some collected from La Selva are available at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Levi 2004). Experimental Design. — Collected individuals of A. savignyi were placed in a large screened cage (7X3X2 m). This cage contained herbaceous vegetation with insects such as Homop- tera, Hymenoptera, Orthoptera, on which the spiders were allowed to forage. In addition, each spider was fed several stingless bees to guarantee that they were satiated, an important factor for inducing the construction of decorations (Craig et al. 2001). A 300 X 120 X 80 cm tunnel, open at both exits, was constructed (Fig. 1). The different web treatments were set up on wooden frames at one end, and a wooden box (40 X 30 X 20 cm) with a nest of the stingless bee Tetragonisca angustula Latreille 1811 was placed in the other end. The frames were put on a 2 X 35 X 120 cm wooden board placed at the exit of the tunnel so that the frames were not in contact with the ground. The exit of the bee nest faced that of the tunnel for the web treatments. Bees could leave the tunnel through the exit containing the frames, which they usually did, or by the other exit. The nest was placed in the tunnel with both exits opened for 48 h before the beginning of the experiment in order to get the bees used to the tunnel and the new nest location. The reason for placing the nest entrance near the tunnel exit was to reduce the stress on the bees, which probably occurs when they are individually manipulated, for instance with CO2 anesthesia (Bruce 2006). With the intention of comparing the two web treatments, I used spiders of similar sizes, and the control frame never contained a spider. The exit of the tunnel where the frames were placed was in front of herbaceous vegetation, and a dark green mesh placed one m from it. 1 performed two experiments with A. savignyi: 1 ) A “Three- frame choice,” consisting of three frames (34.5 X 45.0 cm, or 20 X 20 cm for smaller webs) placed next to each other at the same time and at the same end of the tunnel with different web treatments; one bearing a decorated web, one bearing an undecorated web, and a control without web and spider (Fig. 1) and 2) a two-frame-choice experiment in which the bees were exposed to only two frames placed at the same end of the tunnel and consisting of the following: “decorated web vs. control,” “decorated web vs. undecorated web,” and “undecorated web vs. control.” Small frames (20 X 20 cm) did not cover the entire area of the tunnel’s exit, so I covered the remaining space with cardboard sheets. For the three-frame-choice experiment, I used two spiders per replicate {n = 8, 1 55 bees): one for the decorated web and one for the undecorated web. For the two-frame-choice Figure 1. — Trial tunnel in which the stingless bees were exposed to the different web treatments. The walls and roof of the tunnel are removed in order to reveal the inside. Solid arrows show the two possible trajectories of bees to fly out of the tunnel from the nest (N). The exit bearing the web treatments is represented by A and the opposite exit by B. experiments, I compared “decorated webs versus control” frames for 17 repetitions (175 bees), “undecorated webs versus control” frames for 9 repetitions (86 bees), and “decorated webs versus undecorated webs” for 10 repetitions (100 bees). The three-frame-choice experiment trials lasted approximately 5 to 1 5 min. Bees were allowed to return to the nest except for those that were collected in order to feed the spiders (or caught and consumed by the spider itselQ- Only one trial was carried out per day, which greatly reduces the possibility of avoidance learning by stingless bees (Craig 1994b). Craig (1994b) also proposed that even if bees learn to avoid decorated webs (e.g., in one location), they are unable to generalize a similar response to other decorated webs. The two- and three-frame-choice experiments were carried out in random order. The three sets within the two- frame-choice experiments were randomly assigned as well. All decorations were either cross or linear patterns. Decorations were removed by burning the fine silk lines with heated fine-point forceps while the spider was on the web except on a few occasions when the spider was removed first. The spider was then placed back on the web after the decoration was removed. In some cases, a little damage was done to the web during burning, and in these instances, I used the forceps to produce similar damage to the decorated web. I counted the numbers of bees either being intercepted (including bees caught by spiders) or flying through each frame, and determined the number of bees intercepted per frame. I switched the positions of the frames each time two bees had exited the tunnel or were intercepted in order to avoid any possible bias due to frame position. The frames were placed at the exit of the tunnel only when no bee was either leaving the nest or flying in the tunnel. In cases in which three or more bees accumulated in the web because the spider did not attack them, I removed the three frames and used forceps to remove the bees in order to avoid the possibility that bees caught there would deter more bees from flying into the web. I did not remove the bees if they were captured by the spider or GALVEZ— PREY ATTRACTION FUNCTION OF SILK DECORATIONS 251 4 - •o S 3.5 - T g £ 3 - »- C C is 2.5- ^ 8 § " « O j, ■s I 2 I I 1.5- i (/) X.