BACKGROUND: Divergence in trophic niche between the sexes may function to reduce competition between the sexes ("intersexual niche partitioning hypothesis"), or may be result from differential selection among the sexes on maximizing reproductive output ("sexual selection hypothesis"). The latter may lead to higher energy demands in females driven by fecundity selection, while males invest in mate searching. We tested predictions of the two hypotheses underlying intersexual trophic niche partitioning in a natural population of spiders. Zodarion jozefienae spiders specialize on Messor barbarus ants that are polymorphic in body size and hence comprise potential trophic niches for the spider, making this system well-suited to study intersexual trophic niche partitioning. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Comparative analysis of trophic morphology (the chelicerae) and body size of males, females and juveniles demonstrated highly female biased SSD (Sexual Size Dimorphism) in body size, body weight, and in the size of chelicerae, the latter arising from sex-specific growth patterns in trophic morphology. In the field, female spiders actively selected ant sub-castes that were larger than the average prey size, and larger than ants captured by juveniles and males. Female fecundity was highly positively correlated with female body mass, which reflects foraging success during the adult stage. Females in laboratory experiments preferred the large ant sub-castes and displayed higher capture efficiency. In contrast, males occupied a different trophic niche and showed reduced foraging effort and reduced prey capture and feeding efficiency compared with females and juveniles. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our data indicate that female-biased dimorphism in trophic morphology and body size correlate with sex-specific reproductive strategies. We propose that intersexual trophic niche partitioning is shaped primarily by fecundity selection in females, and results from sex-differences in the route to successful reproduction where females are selected to maximize energy intake and fecundity, while males switch from foraging to invest in mating effort.

Department of Botany and Zoology Faculty of Sciences Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Blanckenhorn WU. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology. 2005;111:977–1016.

Delph LF. Processes that constrain and facilitate the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Am Nat. 2005;166:S1–S4. PubMed

Houston D, Shine R. Sexual dimorphism and niche divergence: feeding habits of the Arafura filesnake. J Anim Ecol. 1993;62:737–748.

Castilla AM, Bauwens D, Llorente GL. Diet composition of the lizard Lacerta lepida in central Spain. J Herpetol. 1991;25:30–36.

Luiselli L, Capula M, Shine R. Reproductive output, costs of reproduction, and ecology of the smooth snake, Coronella austriaca, in the eastern Italian Alps. Oecologia. 1996;106:100–110. PubMed

Shine R. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. Q Rev Biol. 1989;64:419–461. PubMed

Santos X, González-Solis J, Llorente GA. Variation in the diet of the viperine snake Natrix maura in relation to prey availability. Ecography. 2000;23:185–192.

Fairbairn DJ. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1997;28:659–687.

Trivers R. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971. Chicago: Aldine; 1972. pp. 136–179.

Andersson M. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. Sexual Selection.

Serrano-Meneses MA, Szekely T. Sexual size dimoprhism in seabirds: sexual selection, fecundity selection and differential niche-utilisation. Oikos. 2006;113(3):385–394.

Lindsay WRM, Webster MS, Varian CW, Schwabl H. Plumage colour acquisition and behaviour are associated with androgens in a phenotypically plastic bird. Anim Behav. 2009;77(6):1525–1532.

Lindeman PV. Sexual difference in habitat use of Texas map turtles (Emydidae: Graptemys versa) and its relationship to size dimorphism and diet. Can J Zool. 2003;81:1185–1191.

Cox RM, Skelly SL, John-Adler HB. A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual dimorphism in lizards. Evolution. 2008;57(7):1653–1669. PubMed

Slatkin M. Ecological causes of sexual dimorphism. Evolution. 1984;38:622–630. PubMed

Shine R. Sexual dimorphism in snakes. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, editors. Snakes. Ecology and Behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1993. pp. 49–86.

Selander RK. Sexual selection and dimorphism in bird. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971. Chicago: Aldine; 1972. pp. 180–230.

Verwaijen D, Van Damme R, Herrel A. Relationships between head size, bite force, prey handling efficiency and diet in two sympatric lacertid lizards. Funct Ecol. 2002;16:842–850.

Pekár S, Král J, Lubin YD. Natural history and karyotype of some ant-eating zodariid spiders (Araneae, Zodariidae) from Israel. J Arachnol. 2005;33:50–62.

Head G. Selection on fecundity and variation in the degree of sexual size dimorphism among spider species (class Araneae). Evolution. 1995;49:776–781. PubMed

Walker SE, Rypstra AL. Sexual dimorphism in functional response and trophic morphology in Rabidosa rabida (Araneae: Lycosidae). Am Midl Nat. 2001;146:161–170.

Walker SE, Rypstra AL. Sexual dimorphism in trophic morphology and feeding behavior of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) as a result of differences in reproductive roles. Can J Zool. 2002;80:679–688.

Bosmans R. Revision of the genus Zodarion Walckenaer, 1833 in the Iberian peninsula and Balearic islands (Araneae, Zodariidae). Eos. 1994;69(1):115–142.

López JR, Haeger JF. Sequential co-operative load transport in the seed-harvesting ant Messor barbarus. Insectes Soc. 1999;46:1–7.

R Development Core Team. 2007. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria. Available in http://www.R-project.org.

Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS.

Crawley MJ. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. Statistical Computing. An Introduction to Data Analysis using S-Plus.

Badyaev AV. Growing apart: an ontogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. Trends Ecol Evol. 2002;17:369–378.

Suter RB. Determinants of fecundity in Frontinella pyramitela (Araneae, Linyphiidae). J Arachnol. 1990;18:263–269.

Simpson MR. Covariation of spider egg and clutch size: the influence of foraging and parental care. Ecology. 1995;76:795–800.

Martišová M, Bilde T, Pekár S. Sex-specific kleptoparasitic foraging in ant-eating spiders. Anim Behav. 2009;78:1115–1118.

Pollard SD, Beck MW, Dodson GN. Why do male crab spiders drink nectar? Anim Behav. 1995;49:1443–1448.

Schneider JM, Lubin Y. Intersexual conflict in spiders. Oikos. 1998;83:496–506.

Houston AI, Stephens PA, Boyd IL, Harding KC, McNamara JM. Capital or income breeding? A theoretical model of female reproductive strategies. Behav Ecol. 2007;18:241–250.

Brown JS, Kotler BP. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:999–1014.

Promislow DEL, Montgomerie R, Martin TE. Mortality costs of sexual dimorphism in birds. Proc R Soc, Biol Sci. 1992;250:143–150.

Clutton-Brock TH, Isvaran K. Sex differences in ageing in natural populations of vertebrates. Proc R Soc, Biol Sci. 2007;274:3097–3104. PubMed PMC

Liker A, Szekely T. Mortality costs of sexual selection and parental care in natural populations of birds. Evolution. 2005;59:890–897. PubMed

Pollard SD. Consequences of sexual selection on feeding in male jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). J Zool. 1994;234:203–208.

Pekár S. Poor display repertoire, tolerance and kleptobiosis: results of specialization in an ant-eating spider (Araneae, Zodariidae). J Insect Behav. 2004;17(4):555–568.

Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1990. The Ants.

No ontogenetic shift in the realised trophic niche but in Batesian mimicry in an ant-eating spider

An updated perspective on spiders as generalist predators in biological control

David and Goliath: potent venom of an ant-eating spider (Araneae) enables capture of a giant prey

Hymenopteran parasitoids of the ant-eating spider Zodarion styliferum (Simon) (Araneae, Zodariidae)

Selective olfactory attention of a specialised predator to intraspecific chemical signals of its prey