Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T06:01:46.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - How spiders avoid competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

David H. Wise
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

Prey scarcity as a density-independent limiting factor

Accumulating evidence supports the hypothesis that a relative shortage of prey affects growth and fecundity of web-building spiders by acting as a density-independent limiting factor. Thus, though food supply is often limiting, exploitative intraspecific competition is absent or weak. Consequently, exploitative competition for prey between different species of spiders is even less prevalent, given that two species will differ in resource requirements because they are different gene pools. Below I present experimental evidence that interspecific competition among web-building spiders is infrequent because intraspecific competition for prey is a minor interaction.

Old-field orb weavers

Manipulating Argiope densities (Horton & Wise 1983) failed to uncover evidence of substantial intraspecific competition. Some negative intraspecific density effects appeared during the first year of the study (1979). Increasing the density of conspecifics increased the mean web height of both species, but the differences between treatments (33% for A. trifasciata and 74% for A. aurantia) were statistically significant only for the census immediately following the density manipulations. A. aurantia, but not A. trifasciata, had a significantly higher growth rate in plots in which intraspecific density was lower (proportional changes in length over the season were 1.7 and 1.3, respectively). Survival, defined as the net effects of mortality and migration, was significantly density dependent for A. trifasciata when calculated to the last pre-reproductive census (p < 0.05), but was non-significant when calculated to the census 2.5 weeks earlier (F of ANOVA = 0.44).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×