Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1991–1996. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0530

Signal conflict in spider webs driven by predators and prey

T A Blackledge
PMCID: PMC1689482

Abstract

Variation in the sensory physiologies of organisms can bias the receptions of signals, driving the direction of signal evolution. Sensory drive in the evolution of signals may be particularly important for organisms that confront trade-offs in signal design between the need for conspicuousness to allow effective transfer of information and the need for crypsis of the signal to unintended receivers. Several genera of orb-weaving spiders include conspicuous silk designs, stabilimenta, in the centre of their webs. Stabilimenta can be highly visible signals to predators, warning them of the presence of a noxious, sticky silk web. However, stabilimenta can also be used by prey as a signal in avoidance of webs, creating a trade-off in signal visibility. I argue that the derived spectral properties of stabilimentum silk have resulted in part from this conflict. The innate colour preferences of insects, their ability to learn colours, and the spectral properties of flowers all suggest that the reflectance spectra of stabilimenta renders them relatively cryptic to many insect prey, while maintaining their visibility to vertebrate predators.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (149.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Backhaus W. Color opponent coding in the visual system of the honeybee. Vision Res. 1991;31(7-8):1381–1397. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(91)90059-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Basolo A. L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science. 1990 Nov 9;250(4982):808–810. doi: 10.1126/science.250.4982.808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennett A. T., Cuthill I. C. Ultraviolet vision in birds: what is its function? Vision Res. 1994 Jun;34(11):1471–1478. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90149-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernard G. D., Remington C. L. Color vision in Lycaena butterflies: spectral tuning of receptor arrays in relation to behavioral ecology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Apr 1;88(7):2783–2787. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.7.2783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burkhardt D. Birds, berries and UV. A note on some consequences of UV vision in birds. Naturwissenschaften. 1982 Apr;69(4):153–157. doi: 10.1007/BF00364887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chittka L., Beier W., Hertel H., Steinmann E., Menzel R. Opponent colour coding is a universal strategy to evaluate the photoreceptor inputs in Hymenoptera. J Comp Physiol A. 1992 Jun;170(5):545–563. doi: 10.1007/BF00199332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chittka L., Shmida A., Troje N., Menzel R. Ultraviolet as a component of flower reflections, and the colour perception of Hymenoptera. Vision Res. 1994 Jun;34(11):1489–1508. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90151-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark D. L., Uetz G. W. Signal efficacy and the evolution of male dimorphism in the jumping spider, Maevia inclemens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Dec 15;90(24):11954–11957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.24.11954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Eisner T., Nowicki S. Spider web protection through visual advertisement: role of the stabilimentum. Science. 1983 Jan 14;219(4581):185–187. doi: 10.1126/science.219.4581.185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellingson J. M., Fleishman L. J., Loew E. R. Visual pigments and spectral sensitivity of the diurnal gecko Gonatodes albogularis. J Comp Physiol A. 1995 Nov;177(5):559–567. doi: 10.1007/BF00207185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Endler J. A. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1993 May 29;340(1292):215–225. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1993.0060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Endler J. A. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vision Res. 1991;31(3):587–608. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(91)90109-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldsmith T. H. Hummingbirds see near ultraviolet light. Science. 1980 Feb 15;207(4432):786–788. doi: 10.1126/science.7352290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacobs G. H., Neitz J., Deegan J. F., 2nd Retinal receptors in rodents maximally sensitive to ultraviolet light. Nature. 1991 Oct 17;353(6345):655–656. doi: 10.1038/353655a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lehrer M. Spatial vision in the honeybee: the use of different cues in different tasks. Vision Res. 1994 Sep;34(18):2363–2385. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90282-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lehrer M., Wehner R., Srinivasan M. Visual scanning behaviour in honeybees. J Comp Physiol A. 1985 Oct;157(4):405–415. doi: 10.1007/BF00615140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Loew E. R. A third, ultraviolet-sensitive, visual pigment in the Tokay gecko (Gekko gekko). Vision Res. 1994 Jun;34(11):1427–1431. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90143-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Peitsch D., Fietz A., Hertel H., de Souza J., Ventura D. F., Menzel R. The spectral input systems of hymenopteran insects and their receptor-based colour vision. J Comp Physiol A. 1992 Jan;170(1):23–40. doi: 10.1007/BF00190398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES