IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v16y2005i2p377-382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safer sex with feeding females: sexual conflict in a cannibalistic spider

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Fromhage
  • Jutta M. Schneider

Abstract

Mating strategies are to a large degree shaped by conflicts between the sexes, causing a rapid antagonistic coevolution of traits involved in reproduction. The view that sexual cannibalism represents a form of sexual conflict leads to the prediction of male traits that facilitate escape from cannibalistic females. A variety of traits have been suggested to serve this function in spiders, where sexual cannibalism is comparatively common. Empirical evidence, however, is virtually absent. Here we show experimentally that opportunistic mating with feeding females, which has been reported from several species of orb-weaving spiders, greatly reduces the risk of cannibalism and injury for males in the spider Nephila fenestrata. This has direct consequences for a male's fertilization success because surviving males can reduce the female's remating probability by guarding her against rivals. Although copulation with previously mated females sometimes appears to be mechanically impossible, second males that do copulate can expect to fertilize on average 64% of a female's eggs. Our results support the view that opportunistic mating may have evolved as a male tactic in a context of sexual conflict over sexual cannibalism. Copyright 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Fromhage & Jutta M. Schneider, 2005. "Safer sex with feeding females: sexual conflict in a cannibalistic spider," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(2), pages 377-382, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:377-382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/ari011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:377-382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.