Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Thomas Hesselberg
 -- 3011 2023-03-14 01:52:52 |
2 format correct
Conner Chen
 Meta information modification 3011 2023-03-15 03:29:21 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Hesselberg, T.; Boyd, K.M.; Styrsky, J.D.; Gálvez, D. Spider–Plant Associations. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42144 (accessed on 17 November 2024).
Hesselberg T, Boyd KM, Styrsky JD, Gálvez D. Spider–Plant Associations. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42144. Accessed November 17, 2024.
Hesselberg, Thomas, Kieran M. Boyd, John D. Styrsky, Dumas Gálvez. "Spider–Plant Associations" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42144 (accessed November 17, 2024).
Hesselberg, T., Boyd, K.M., Styrsky, J.D., & Gálvez, D. (2023, March 14). Spider–Plant Associations. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42144
Hesselberg, Thomas, et al. "Spider–Plant Associations." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 March, 2023.
Spider–Plant Associations
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/insects14030229

Spiders are ubiquitous generalist predators playing an important role in regulating insect populations in many ecosystems. Traditionally they have not been thought to have strong influences on, or interactions with plants. However, this is slowly changing as several species of cursorial spiders have been reported engaging in either herbivory or inhabiting only one, or a handful of related plant species. 

spider–plant interactions swollen thorn acacias carnivorous plants

1. Introduction

Plants are a vital resource for many animals that use them for food, shelter or protection. The best known plant–animal interactions involve insects and include negative interactions, such as herbivory, and positive interactions, such as pollination, and other mutualistic interactions. In many of these interactions, the insect shows specificity in that it only interacts with one, or a couple of plant species. These examples can be tightly co-evolved and include the food-for-protection mutualism between ants and swollen thorn acacias, where a specific species of ant is paired with a specific species of acacia [1], the extreme specificity of fig wasp pollinators to particular fig species hosts [2], and the specialisation of small groups of orchids to one species of bee pollinator, such as the South African guild of orchids (Coryciinae) exclusively relying on the oil-collecting bee (Rediviva peringueyi) for pollination [3].
Insects, as outlined above, and other arthropods, such as herbivorous and mutualistic mites [4], are well known for developing close associations with plants. Spiders, however, are usually thought of as generalist predators that only use vegetation indiscriminately for shelter or as a substrate for their webs. A study on a temperate grassland spider community, for example, showed that while some individual spider species showed a weak preference for a narrow range of host plants, the overwhelming preference was for tall and stable vegetation structures and not individual plant species [5]. Recently, the long-held notion that spiders have limited interactions with the vegetation in their surroundings have been challenged, especially by the surprising discovery that some species of spiders, and the first instars of web-building spiders in particular, rely on nectar, pollen and Beltian bodies as a significant component of their diets [6][7][8]. This prompted a review of spider–plant interactions in general, which revealed associations with plants across a much larger range of spider families than previously thought [9].
Very limited research is available on spiders that construct aerial webs, which predominantly consist of sheet-webs by members of the family Linyphiidae, tangle webs by members of the family Theriididae, and orb webs by members of the families Araneidae and Tetragnathidae. As the function of the webs to some degree depends on the substrate to which they are attached, it could be argued that they are more dependent on the correct choice of plant, and therefore, potentially should be more discerning than cursorial spiders. A relatively newly described species of linyphiid, Laetesia raveni, from Australia appears to exclusively build its webs on two thorny plant species, Calamus muelleri and Solanum inaequilaterum [10]. Similarly, one genus of araneid spiders, Eustala, seems a promising candidate for more in-depth research as several studies show close associations to individual species of acacias in the genus Vachellia [11][12]. These acacia species are in a mutualistic relationship with protective Pseudomyrmex ants, and the Eustala spiders probably associate closely with the acacias to exploit the ant–acacia mutualism for enemy-free space [13].
Another largely unresolved question is how spiders locate and identify their host plants. Insects generally locate their host plants using chemical cues from wind-dispersed plant volatiles [14][15]. In ant–plant associations, ants identify their mutualistic partner by chemical cues emitted from the plant [16]. However, the distance to which they rely on plant volatiles, or random searches for the location of host plants remains unclear. On the one hand, Pheidole minutula used plant volatiles to correctly locate their host plant Maieta guianensis during choice tests over distances of 15 cm in Y-maze experiments in the laboratory [17], while on the other hand, Crematogaster ants recognise their host Macaranga species only by direct contact with chemical compounds on the stem surface of saplings [18]. Spiders are also known to use chemical cues during mating behaviour [19], such as males using cues from silk to locate and evaluate females [20], and they use them to detect potential prey [21]. In addition, there are a few examples of spiders using chemical cues from plants, including two species of crab spiders in the genus Thomisus that were attracted to the clove oil flower fragrance [22] and the nectivorous spider Hibana futilis, which uses plant volatiles to recognise and potentially locate nectar sources [6].

2. Spider–Plant Associations

2.1. Cursorial Spiders

Bromeliads and other rosette-structured plants have a complex, three-dimensional architecture that presents a valuable microhabitat for a number of species [23], particularly members of Salticidae [24][25][26]. The best studied cursorial spider–plant association, and one of the few species-specific examples, is that of the bromeliad specialist Psecas chapoda and Bromelia balansae. Through a series of studies by Romero and Vasconcellos-Neto [27][28][29], P. chapoda was found exclusively on B. balansae across a large geographic range [26] (Table 1). Whilst B. balansae provides P. chapoda with a favourable microhabitat and microclimate, P. chapoda has been reported to contribute to the nutrition of B. balansae through the absorption of nitrogen from spider faeces deposited on the leaves of the bromeliad [30]. Romero et al. [31][32] evidenced that this interaction was indeed mutualistic as the leaves of B. balansae grew larger in the presence of P. chapoda.
Some Thomisidae crab spiders, which have been documented as obligate Nepenthes pitcher-plant dwellers (Table 1), have likewise been reported to assist their host plant with nitrogen acquisition. The specialised leaves of pitcher-plants, which are used to attract, trap, and digest prey [33][34], also provide suitable microhabitats for the crab spiders Misumenops nepenthicola and Thomisus nepenthephilus [34][35]. These spiders feed on visiting insects drawn to the pitcher-plants [34][36], and in some circumstances, the spiders increase pitcher-plant prey consumption by dropping consumed prey remains into the pitchers. Interestingly, two studies by Lim et al. [34], and Lam and Tan [37] concluded that the type of association between crab spiders and pitcher-plants is environmentally context-dependent. Lam and Tan [37] demonstrated that T. nepenthephilus increased the prey capture rates of Nepenthes gracilis, offsetting the nitrogen loss from consumption by T. nepenthephilus, resulting in an overall net gain. However, this benefit only occurs under conditions where prey availability is low and is ultimately lost when prey availability increases, switching from a positively facilitative to a parasitic interaction [37].
Furthermore, a number of spider species have been reported to have unusually close associations with trichome-bearing plants [9][38][39][40][41]. One genus from the Oxyopidae family, Peucetia, dominates such interactions and many species are considered to have strict, and perhaps obligatory, associations with glandular trichome-bearing plants [39][40][42]. Glandular trichomes are hair-like structures believed to have evolved as a direct biotic defence against herbivorous insects [43][44]. The insects and carrion (i.e., dead insects) trapped by the glandular hairs represent an energetically cost-free, accessible food source [45], which attracts arthropod predators, such as spiders, for added protection against herbivory [40][45][46]. In three complementary studies, Morais-Filho and Romero [39][40][47] observed Peucetia flava exclusively in association with Rhyncanthera dichotoma. During the latter study, Morais-Filho and Romero [40] physically removed the glandular trichomes from R. dichotoma and documented fewer Peucetia spiders occupying those plants compared to R. dichotoma with intact trichomes, further demonstrating the strong and potentially obligatory association Peucetia spiders have with glandular trichome-bearing plants [42]. Morais-Filho and Romero [40] reported that P. flava reduced herbivory in the buds and flowers of R. dichotoma and although this interaction did not increase fruit production, it also did not incur any significant costs to R. dichotoma fitness (i.e., through predation of pollinators), signifying a potential protective mutualism. Moreover, a recent study by Sousa-Lopes et al. [45] found that the presence of P. flava on the trichome-bearing Mimosa setosa var. paludosa positively correlated with an increase in trapped prey and carrion.
Spider–plant associations that arise from an exploitable source of food are not uncommon. While some spiders may associate with plants that attract and/or trap insect prey, such as glandular trichome-bearing plants and pitcher-plants, other spiders species seek nutrition from the plant itself. The salticid, Bagheera kiplingi, for example, is exclusively associated with many myrmecophytic acacias [7][48]. These acacias produce Beltian bodies to attract ants that protect the plant, and in return, the ants gain nutritional rewards and refuge [1][7]. The spider exploits this ant–acacia mutualism and consumes the Beltian bodies as its primary food source, which in some cases constitute 90% of its diet [48]. Therefore, it is conceivable that access to a convenient source of prey is another primary driver of spider–plant associations, and perhaps the obligatory associations observed between Peucetia and glandular trichome-bearing plants and Thomisidae and Nepenthes pitcher-plants.
Another potential driver of host plant selectivity in spiders could be crypsis (i.e., camouflage), whereby a spider may exhibit a preferential affinity for a substrate (e.g., flower, bark, and moss) that matches their body colouration/morphology, rendering them undetectable to potential predators or unsuspecting prey. Cryptic colouration is particularly well studied in Thomisidae crab spiders, which, in sit-and-wait predators, increases foraging success [49][50][51]. Certain species will preferentially select flowers, upon which they forage, that match their body colouration (i.e., background-matching) to avoid detection by pollinators and other visiting insects [41][49][52]. Moreover, there are some spider species that are also capable of changing their body colouration to match their chosen background, or in this instance, host plant. Such examples include the crab spiders Misumena vatia and Thomisus onustus that typically alternate between white and yellow [50][53]. It is evident that cryptic species will select specific substrates to ensure successful camouflage. However, there is a paucity of information to discern whether cryptic colouration is a resultant factor in specific spider–plant associations. Most crab spiders appear to be generalists, selecting a number of plant species that suit their needs.
From the examples provided above, it is particularly apparent that Psecas chapoda facultatively relies on the microhabitat created by B. balansae for foraging, mating, and oviposition, as observed by Romero and Vasconcellos-Neto [28][29], and as a refuge and nursery site that can offer protection from predators and desiccation [28][29][54][55]. Omena and Romero [56] inferred that this extreme fidelity was related to microhabitat structure, and observations by Romero and Vasconcellos-Neto [28][55] affirmed this after finding that P. chapoda seldom colonised bromeliads in forest habitats as leaves would often obstruct the rosette, hindering any use of the microhabitat. Likewise, some studies have reported that Peucetia spiders preferentially select larger plants as they offer more sites to forage and refuge, and attract and trap more insect prey [45][57]. Prey, and other sources of nutrients, are also key determinants, especially in terms of exploitable sources of food. In summary, it can be inferred that it is the availability of certain exploitable resources, together with a microhabitat structure and plant morphology that complements the ecological requirements, foraging the strategies and behavioural preferences of a spider [9][23][56][58][59][60][61], which are the primary factors that drive specific spider–plant associations.
Table 1. The most prominent cursorial spider–plant associations. With information on the spider and host plant family and species, information on the association, and the location(s) where said interaction was documented.
Spider Family Spider Species Plant Family Plant Species Association Region Source
Oxyopidae Peucetia flava Asteraceae Trichogoniopsis adenantha Facultative mutualism; reduced herbivores. Southeast Brazil Romero et al. [46]
Melastomataceae Rhyncanthera
dichotoma		 Commensalism/facultative mutualism; protection and significantly reduced herbivory after rainy season. Southeast Brazil Morais-Filho and Romero [39][40][47]
Solanaceae Solanum thomasiifolium Facultative mutualism; likely protection. Southeast Brazil Jacobucci et al. [57]
Fabaceae Mimosa setosa var. paludosa Facultative mutualism; reduced exophytic herbivory, but not endophytic herbivory. Southeast Brazil Sousa-Lopes et al. [45]
Peucetia
rubrolineata		 Asteraceae Trichogoniopsis adenantha Facultative mutualism; suppressed herbivory. Southeast Brazil Romero et al. [46]
Peucetia viridans Euphorbia-ceae Cnidoscolus
aconitifolius		 Preference/Unknown Southeast Mexico Arango et al. [62]
Croton
ciliatoglandulifer		 Preference/Unknown West Mexico Corcuera et al. [63]
Salticidae Bagheera kiplingi Fabaceae Vachellia spp. (myrmecophytes) Exploitative/Commensalism Southeast Mexico, Northwest Costa Rica Meehan et al. [7]
Evarcha
culicivora		 Euphorbia-ceae Ricinus
communis		 Unknown/Commensalism West Kenya Cross [64]
Lantana camara Unknown/Commensalism West Kenya Cross [64]
Pelegrina
tillandsiae		 Bromeliaceae Tillandsia
usneoides		 Obligate commensalism; strict association, but no reported costs or benefits. Southeast USA Young and Lockley [24]
Psecas chapoda Bromeliaceae Bromelia
balansae		 Facultative mutualism; the spider aids in nitrogen acquisition. Northeast Bolivia, Northeast Paraguay, South Brazil, Central-West Brazil Romero [26]; Romero and Vasconcellos-Neto [29];
Romero et al. [31]; Omena and Romero [56]
Sparrasidae Delena melanochelis Myrtaceae Eucalyptus nitens Unknown/Commensalism Australia Agnarsson and Rayor [65]
E.
regnans		 Unknown/Commensalism Australia Agnarsson and Rayor [65]
Thomisidae Misumenops
argenteus		 Lamiaceae Hyptis
suaveolens		 Unknown/Commensalism Southeast Brazil Romero and Vasconcellos-Neto [27]
Asteraceae Trichogoniopsis adenantha Facultative mutualism; reduced herbivory Southeast Brazil Romero and Vasconcellos-Neto [27][55]
Misumenops
pallidus		 Orchideaceae Chloraea alpina Commensalism East
Argentina		 Quintero et al. [66]
Ranunculaceae Anemone
multifida		 Commensalism East
Argentina		 Gavini et al. [41]
Misumenops
nepenthicola		 Nepentha-ceae Nepenthes
gracilis		 Unknown/Commensalism North
Borneo		 Karl and Bauer [67]
N.
rafflesiana		 Unknown/Commensalism North
Borneo		 Karl and Bauer [67]
Synaema
marlothi		 Roridulaceae Roridula dentata Obligate kleptoparasitism Southern South
Africa		 Anderson and Midgley [38]; Anderson [68]
Synaema
obscuripes		 Nepentha-ceae Nepenthes madagascariensis Unknown Southeast
Madagascar		 Rembold et al. [36]
Thomisus
nepenthephilus		 Nepentha-ceae Nepenthes
gracilis		 Obligate, conditional facilitative mutualism North
Singapore		 Lim et al. [34]; Lam and Tan [37]

2.2. Web-Building Spiders

Research on web-building spider–plant associations is far less numerous than on their non-web-building counterparts. Currently, there are only a few examples of exclusive spider–plant associations, represented by Eustala (Araneidae) and Laetesia raveni (Linyphiidae). The research on cursorial spider–plant associations indicates that the suitability of a plant as a microhabitat to find shelter or food resources (i.e., prey, carrion or nectar) are the main determinants of host plant selection and subsequent spider–plant associations. This also applies to web-building species, where it is vital to select a web-building site that maximises foraging success [58]. For these sit-and-wait predators this is ultimately dependent on the density of prey [69][70], which as mentioned is a key driver in host plant selection. However, the key driver of foraging success for a web-building spider is the optimal construction of its web; hence, the majority of available research on web-building spiders documents preferential, facultative associations with plants that provide suitable structural features for web construction [48][71][72][73][74].
Two neotropical spider species, the theridiid Latrodectus geometricus and the araneid Alpaida quadrilorata, are both found in association with Paepalanthus bromelioides [73]. This rosette-structured plant provides the spiders with the structural necessities for web construction and may also offer refuge and protection from predators [23][75]. More importantly, P. bromelioides is considered to be a protocarnivorous plant that obtains nutrients from insects with the aid of digestive mutualists, namely L. geometricus and A. quadrilorata [73]. This plant apparently possesses features that attract insect prey, such as leaves that reflect ultraviolet light and a phytotelma (i.e., a water-filled cavity) with specialised fluid that also digests captured prey [73][76]. Similar to the pitcher-plant dwelling Thomisidae crab spiders that forage at the mouth of the pitcher, L. geometricus and A. quadrilorata build their webs above the phytotelma [76], providing easy access to incoming prey. Both spider species capture prey, while discarding carcasses and faeces into the rosette of P. bromelioides effectively, and thereby channelling a more bioavailable form of nitrogen directly to the plant [31]. Nishi et al. [73] observed A. quadrilorata strictly on P. bromelioides within the study area in Morro da Pedreira, Brazil. However, no other research is available to determine how exclusive this association is, and since L. geometricus has been documented on other plant species (e.g., [68]), both should be considered facultative digestive mutualists.
As previously discussed, carnivorous plants present spiders with a suitable microhabitat [34][37]. However, aside from Nishi et al. [73], there are no reports of unequivocal web-building spider associations with carnivorous plants. Cresswell [77] observed an unidentified species of linyphiid occupying the pitcher-plant Sarracenia purpurea as an apparent kleptoparasite. Milne and Waller [78] similarly observed linyphiids interacting with S. purpurea, using the pitchers as substrates to build their horizontal sheet webs. However, Milne and Waller [78] noted that many of the linyphiids constructed their webs at a height similar to the pitchers, implying that this a spatial coincidence rather than an association. The theridiid Theridion decaryi has also been observed inhabiting a different pitcher-plant species, Nepenthes madagascariensis, according to Fage [79]. The available research on these interactions is evidently scarce and ambiguous. However, considering that several other spider species have been found in association with pitcher-plants and other carnivorous plants (Table 1), the possibility that there are species of web-building spiders closely associated with pitcher-plants cannot be ruled out.
In addition, web-building spiders in the genus Stegodyphus (Eresidae) have strong affinities for thorny plants [54][72][80]. A recent study by Rose et al. [54] determined that Stegodyphus dumicola nests occurred more frequently on tall thorny plants and were observed on several different genera. Lubin et al. [80] also found that S. lineatus preferred to inhabit tall, thorny, and even poisonous plants. Thorny plants offer protection against predators (e.g., birds) and reduce the risk of disturbances from large herbivorous animals (e.g., cattle and other browsing/grazing mammals) that can damage or destroy spider webs [54][72][75][80]. Ruch et al. [72] demonstrated that S. tentoriicola, which inhabits both thorny and thornless plants, constructed larger webs when inhabiting thorny plants, and were less likely to relocate, compared to spiders in thornless vegetation. As larger webs are more costly to build, it is evident that thorny plants provide S. tentoriicola, and likely other spider occupants, with favourable microhabitats that enable spiders to invest more energy into building larger webs, increasing their foraging success, whilst receiving refuge and protection from animal-related disturbances [54][72].
Extreme specificity and fidelity toward host plants is evidently not as common among web-building spiders. Many web-building spiders often interact with and inhabit multiple plant species from different families and orders, as described, for example, by Rose et al. [54] and Whitney [71]. A recent study conducted by Cuff et al. [81] in England evaluated the leaf and habitat preferences for oviposition in the candy-striped spiders Enoplognatha ovata and E. latimana in the family Theridiidae. These spiders create a retreat, or nest, for oviposition by rolling a leaf with silk [81]. Enoplognatha appeared to preferentially select the leaves of bramble (Rubus fruticosus), nettle (Urtica dioica), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), and have also been found using fireweed (Chamaenerion angustifolium) for their leaf-roll nests. Plant preferences were not taxon-related, nor was the size and structure of leaves important; however, certain traits, such as the length–width ratio, were thought to influence leaf selection [81]. Cuff et al. [81] even suggested that the spiders could possibly provide a degree of protection from herbivorous insects in a mutualistic association.

References

  1. Janzen, D.H. Coevolution of mutualism between ant and acacias in Central America. Evolution 1966, 20, 249–274.
  2. Weiblen, G.D. How to be a fig wasp. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47, 299–330.
  3. Pauw, A. Floral syndromes accurately predict pollination by a specialized oil-collecting bee (Rediviva peringueyi, Melittidae) in a guild of South African orchids (Coryciinae). Reprod. Biol. 2006, 93, 917–926.
  4. Vacante, V. The Handbook of Mites of Economic Plants: Identification, Bio-Ecology and Control, 1st ed.; CAB International: Oxford, UK, 2016.
  5. Gibson, C.W.; Hambler, C.; Brown, V.K. Changes in spider (Araneae) assemblages in relation to succession and grazing management. J. Appl. Ecol. 1992, 29, 132–142.
  6. Patt, J.M.; Pfannenstiel, R.S. Odor-based recognition of nectar in cursorial spiders. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2008, 127, 801–809.
  7. Meehan, C.J.; Olson, E.J.; Reudink, M.W.; Kyser, T.K.; Curry, R.L. Herbivory in a spider through exploitation of an ant-plant mutualism. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19, 892–893.
  8. Eggs, B.; Sanders, D. Herbivory in spiders: The importance of pollen for orb-weavers. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e82637.
  9. Vasconcellos-Neto, J.; Messas, Y.F.; Souza, H.D.S.; Villanueva-Bonilla, G.A.; Romero, G.Q. Spider-plant interactions: An ecological approach. In Behaviour and Ecology of Spiders: Contributions from the Neotropical Region, 1st ed.; Viera, C., Gonzaga, M.O., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 165–214.
  10. Hormiga, G.; Scharff, N. The strange case of Laetesia raveni n. sp., a green linyphiid spider from Eastern Australia with a preference for thorny plants (Araneae, Linyphiidae). Zootaxa 2014, 3811, 83–94.
  11. Hesselberg, Y.; Triana, E. The web of the acacia orb-spider Eustala illicita (Araneae: Araneidae) with notes on its natural history. J. Arachnol. 2010, 38, 2126.
  12. Garcia, L.C.; Styrsky, J.D. An orb-weaver spider eludes plant-defending acacia ants by hiding in plain sight. Ecol. Entomol. 2013, 28, 190–199.
  13. Styrsky, J.D. An orb-weaver spider exploits an ant–acacia mutualism for enemy-free space. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 276–283.
  14. Bruce, T.J.A.; Wadhams, L.J.; Woodcock, C.M. Insect host location: A volatile situation. Trends Plant Sci. 2005, 10, 269–274.
  15. Wang, H.M.; Bai, P.H.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.M.; Hui, Q.; Zheng, H.X.; Zhang, X.H. Attraction of bruchid beetles Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) to host plant volatiles. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 3035–3044.
  16. Blatrix, R.; Mayer, V. Communication in ant-plant symbioses. In Plant Communication from an Ecological Perspective: Signaling and Communication in Plants, 1st ed.; Baluška, F., Ninkovic, V., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, Germany, 2010.
  17. Dáttilo, W.F.C.; Izzo, T.J.; Inouye, B.D.; Vasconcelos, H.L.; Bruna, E.M. Recognition of host plant volatiles by Pheidole minutula Mayr (myrmicinae), an Amazonian ant-plant specialist. Biotropica 2009, 41, 642–646.
  18. Inui, Y.; Itioka, T.; Murase, K.; Yamaoka, R.; Itino, T. Chemical recognition of partner plant species by foundress ant queens in Macaranga-Crematogaster myrmecophytism. J. Chem. Ecol. 2001, 27, 2029–2040.
  19. Fischer, A. Chemical communication in spiders—A methodological review. J. Arachnol. 2019, 47, 1–27.
  20. Scott, C.; Gerak, C.; McCann, S.; Gries, G. The role of silk in courtship and chemical communication of the false widow spider, Steatoda grossa (Araneae: Theridiidae). J. Ethol. 2018, 36, 191–197.
  21. Clark, R.J.; Jackson, R.R.; Cutler, B. Chemical cues from ants influence predatory behavior in Harbocestum pulex (Araneae, Salticidae). J. Arachnol. 2000, 28, 309318.
  22. Krell, F.K.; Krämer, F. Chemical attraction of crab spiders (Araneae, Thomisidae) to a flower fragrance component. J. Arachnol. 1998, 26, 117–119.
  23. Rao, D. Habitat selection and dispersal. In Behaviour and Ecology of Spiders: Contributions from the Neotropical Region, 1st ed.; Viera, C., Gonzaga, M.O., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 85–108.
  24. Young, O.P.; Lockley, T.C. Spiders of Spanish moss in the Delta of Mississippi. J. Arachnol. 1989, 17, 143–148.
  25. Romero, G.Q.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. Spatial distribution patterns of jumping spiders associated with terrestrial bromeliads. Biotropica 2004, 36, 596–601.
  26. Romero, G.Q. Geographic range, habitats and host plants of bromeliad-living jumping spider (Salticidae). Biotropica 2006, 38, 522–530.
  27. Romero, G.Q.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. Foraging by the flower-dwelling spider, Misumenops argenteus (Thomisidae), at high prey density sites. J. Nat. Hist. 2004, 38, 1287–1296.
  28. Romero, G.Q.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. Spatial distribution and microhabitat preference of Psecas chapoda (Peckham & Peckham) (Araneae, Salticidae). J. Arachnol. 2005, 33, 124–134.
  29. Romero, G.Q.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. Population dynamics, age structure and sex ratio of the bromeliad-dwelling jumping spider, Psecas chapoda (Salticidae). J. Nat. Hist. 2005, 39, 153–163.
  30. Gonçalves, A.Z.; Mercier, H.; Mazzafera, P.; Romero, G.Q. Spider-fed bromeliads: Seasonal and interspecific variation in plant performance. Ann. Bot. 2011, 107, 1047–1055.
  31. Romero, G.Q.; Mazzafera, P.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J.; Trivelin, P.C.O. Bromeliad-living spiders improve host plant nutrition and growth. Ecology 2006, 87, 803–808.
  32. Romero, G.Q.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J.; Trivelin, P.C.O. Spatial variation in the strength of mutualism between a jumping spider and a terrestrial bromeliad: Evidence from the stable isotope 15N. Acta Oecologica 2008, 33, 380–386.
  33. Thorogood, C.J.; Bauer, U.; Hiscock, S.J. Convergent and divergent evolution in carnivorous pitcher plant traps. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 1035–1041.
  34. Lim, R.J.Y.; Lam, W.N.; Tan, H.T.W. Novel pitcher plant–spider mutualism is dependent upon environmental resource abundance. Oecologia 2018, 188, 791–800.
  35. Choo, J.P.S.; Koh, T.L.; Ng, P.K.L. Pitcher fluid macrofauna: Nematodes and arthropods. In A Guide to the Carnivorous Plants of Singapore, 1st ed.; Tan, H.T.W., Ed.; Singapore Science Centre: Singapore, 1997.
  36. Rembold, K.; Fischer, E.; Striffler, B.F.; Barthlott, W. Crab spider association with the Malagasy pitcher plant Nepenthes madagascariensis. Afr. J. Ecol. 2012, 51, 188–191.
  37. Lam, W.N.; Tan, H.T.W. The crab spider–pitcher plant relationship is a nutritional mutualism that is dependent on prey-resource quality. J. Anim. Ecol. 2019, 88, 102–113.
  38. Anderson, B.; Midgely, J.J. It takes two to tango but three is a tangle: Mutualists and cheaters on the carnivorous plant Roridula. Oecologia 2002, 132, 369–373.
  39. Morais-Filho, J.C.; Romero, G.Q. Microhabitat use by Peucetia flava (Oxyopidae) on the glandular plant Rhyncanthera dichotoma (Melastomataceae). J. Arachnol. 2008, 36, 374–378.
  40. Morais-Filho, J.C.; Romero, G.Q. Plant glandular trichomes mediate protective mutualism in a spider–plant system. Ecol. Entomol. 2010, 35, 485–494.
  41. Gavini, S.S.; Quintero, C.; Tadey, M. Ecological role of a flower-dwelling predator in a tri-trophic interaction in northwestern Patagonia. Acta Oecologica 2019, 95, 100–107.
  42. Vasconcellos-Neto, J.; Romero, G.Q.; Santos, A.J.; Dippenaar-Schoeman, A.S. Associations of spiders of the genus Peucetia (Oxyopidae) with plants bearing glandular hairs. Biotropica 2007, 39, 221–226.
  43. Kessler, A.; Baldwin, I.T. Plant responses to insect herbivory: The emerging molecular analysis. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2002, 53, 299–328.
  44. Wagner, G.J.; Wang, E.; Shepherd, R.W. New approaches for studying and exploiting an old protuberance, the plant trichome. Ann. Bot. 2004, 93, 3–11.
  45. Sousa-Lopes, B.; Alves-da-Silva, N.; Alves-Martins, F.; Del-Claro, K. Antiherbivore protection and plant selection by the lynx spider Peucetia flava (Araneae: Oxyopidae) in the Brazilian Cerrado. J. Zool. 2019, 308, 121–127.
  46. Romero, G.Q.; Souza, J.C.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. Anti-herbivore protection by mutualistic spiders and the role of plant glandular trichomes. Ecology 2008, 89, 3105–3115.
  47. Morais-Filho, J.C.; Romero, G.Q. Natural history of Peucetia flava (Araneae, Oxyopidae): Seasonal density fluctuation, phenology and sex ratio on the glandular plant Rhyncanthera dichotoma (Melastomataceae). J. Nat. Hist. 2009, 43, 701–711.
  48. Gómez-Acevedo, S.L. New reports of spiders in three Mexican ant-acacias. Open J. Ecol. 2021, 11, 32–40.
  49. Heiling, A.M.; Chittka, L.; Cheng, K.; Herberstein, M.E. Colouration in crab spiders: Substrate choice and prey attraction. J. Exp. Biol. 2005, 208, 1785–1792.
  50. Llandres, A.L.; Gawryszewski, F.M.; Heiling, A.M.; Herberstein, M.E. The effect of colour variation in predators on the behaviour of pollinators: Australian crab spiders and native bees. Ecol. Entomol. 2011, 36, 72–81.
  51. Théry, M.; Debut, M.; Gomez, D.; Casas, J. Specific color sensitivities of prey and predator explain camouflage in different visual systems. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 16, 25–29.
  52. Su, Q.; Qi, L.; Zhang, W.; Yun, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Peng, Y. Biodiversity survey of flower-visiting spiders based on literature review and field study. Environ. Entomol. 2020, 49, 673–682.
  53. Brechbühl, R.; Casas, J.; Bacher, S. Ineffective crypsis in a crab spider: A prey community perspective. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 2009, 277, 739–746.
  54. Rose, C.; Schramm, A.; Irish, J.; Bilde, T.; Bird, T.L. Host plant availability and nest-site selection of the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola Pocock, 1898 (Eresidae). Insects 2022, 13, 30.
  55. Romero, G.Q.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. The effects of plant structure on the spatial and microspatial distribution of a bromeliad-living jumping spider (Salticidae). J. Anim. Ecol. 2005, 74, 12–21.
  56. Omena, P.M.; Romero, G.Q. Fine-scale microhabitat selection in a bromeliad-dwelling jumping spider (Salticidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2008, 94, 653–662.
  57. Jacobucci, G.B.; Medeiros, L.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J.; Romero, G.Q. Habitat selection and potential antiherbivore effects of Peucetia flava (Oxyopidae) on Solanum thomasiifolium (Solanaceae). J. Arachnol. 2009, 37, 365–367.
  58. Uetz, G.W. Habitat Structure and Spider Foraging. In Habitat Structure, 1st ed.; Bell, S.S., McCoy, E.D., Mushinsky, H.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, Switzerland, 1991; pp. 325–348.
  59. Wise, D.H. Spiders in Ecological Webs, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993.
  60. Souza, A.L.T.D.; Martins, R.P. Distribution of plant-dwelling spiders: Inflorescences versus vegetative branches. Austral Ecol. 2004, 29, 342–349.
  61. Villanueva-Bonilla, G.A.; Salomão, A.T.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. Trunk structural traits explain habitat use of a tree-dwelling spider (Selenopidae ) in a tropical forest. Acta Oecologica 2017, 85, 108–115.
  62. Arango, A.M.; Rico-Gray, V.; Parra-Tabla, V. Population structure, seasonality, and habitat use by the green lynx spider Peucetia viridans (Oxyopidae) inhabiting Cnidoscolus aconitifolius (Euphorbiaceae). J. Arachnol. 2000, 28, 185–194.
  63. Corcuera, P.; Valverde, P.L.; Jiménez-Salinas, E.; Vite, F.; López-Ortega, G.; Pérez-Hernández, M.A. Distribution of Peucetia viridans (Araneae: Oxyopidae) on Croton ciliatoglandulifer. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 320–327.
  64. Cross, F.R. Attentional Processes in Mosquito-Eating Jumping Spiders: Search Images and Cross-Modality Priming. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand, 2009.
  65. Agnarsson, I.; Rayor, L.S. A molecular phylogeny of the Australian huntsman spiders (Sparassidae, Deleninae): Implications for taxonomy and social behaviour. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 2013, 69, 895–905.
  66. Quintero, C.; Corley, J.C.; Aizen, M.A. Weak trophic links between a crab-spider and the effective pollinators of a rewardless orchid. Acta Oecologia 2015, 62, 32–39.
  67. Karl, I.; Bauer, U. Inside the trap: Biology and behavior of the pitcher-dwelling crab spider, Misumenops nepenthicola. Plants People Planet 2020, 2, 290–293.
  68. Anderson, B. Inferring evolutionary patterns from the biogeographical distributions of mutualists and exploiters. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2006, 89, 541–549.
  69. Tanaka, K. Energetic cost of web construction and its effect on web relocation in the web-building spider Agelena limbata. Oecologia 1989, 81, 459–464.
  70. Chmiel, K.; Herberstein, M.E.; Elgar, M.A. Web damage and feeding experience influence web site tenacity in the orb-web spider Argiope keyserlingi Karsch. Anim. Behav. 2000, 60, 821–826.
  71. Whitney, K.D. Experimental evidence that both parties benefit in a facultative plant-spider mutualism. Ecology 2004, 85, 1642–1650.
  72. Ruch, J.; Heinrich, L.; Bilde, T.; Schneider, J.M. Site selection and foraging in the eresid spider Stegodyphus tentoriicola. J. Insect Behav. 2012, 25, 1–11.
  73. Nishi, A.H.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J.; Romero, G.Q. The role of multiple partners in a digestive mutualism with a protocarnivorous plant. Ann. Bot. 2013, 111, 143–150.
  74. Gómez, J.E.; Lohmiller, J.; Joern, A. Importance of vegetation structure to the assembly of an aerial web-building spider community in North American open grassland. J. Arachnol. 2016, 44, 28–35.
  75. Bomfim, L.D.S.; Bitencourt, J.A.G.; Rodrigues, E.N.L.; Podgaiski, L.R. The role of a rosette-shaped plant (Eryngium horridum, Apiaceae) on grassland spiders along a grazing intensity gradient. Insect Conserv. Divers 2021, 14, 492–503.
  76. Jolivet, P.; Vasconcellos-Neto, J. Convergence chez les plantes carnivores. La Rech. 1993, 24, 456–458.
  77. Cresswell, J.E. Capture rates and composition of insect prey of the pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea. Am. Midl. Nat. 1991, 125, 1–9.
  78. Milne, M.A.; Waller, D.A. Does pitcher plant morphology affect spider residency? Northeast. Nat. 2013, 20, 419–429.
  79. Fage, L. Au sujet de deux araignées nouvelles trouvées dans les urnes de Nepenthes. Treubia 1930, 12, 23–28.
  80. Lubin, Y.; Hennicke, J.; Schneider, J. Settling decisions of dispersing Stegodyphus lineatus (Eresidae) young. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 1998, 44, 217–225.
  81. Cuff, J.P.; Evans, S.A.; Porteous, I.A.; Quiñonez, J.; Evans, D.M. Candy-striped spider leaf and habitat preferences for egg deposition. Agric. For. Entomol. 2022, 24, 422–431.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Biology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Thomas Hesselberg
,
Kieran M. Boyd
,
John D. Styrsky
,
Dumas Gálvez
View Times: 553
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Mar 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback