Effects of the herbicide glyphosate on biological attributes of Alpaida veniliae (Araneae, Araneidae), in laboratory

Exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide affects agrobiont predatory arthropod behaviour and long-term survival

“…Thus far, the few existing studies on terrestrial arthropods reveal few lethal effects of exposure to these herbicides (Bramble et al 1997;Giesy et al 2000;Haughton et al 2001a;Lindsay and French 2004;Michalková and Pekár 2009;Benamú et al 2010). However, the increasingly heavy use of these herbicides, facilitated by the introduction of genetically modified resistant crop plants, has contributed to the decline of agrobiont arthropod diversity in recent decades (Cane and Tepedino 2001;Benton et al 2003; Thorbek and Bilde 2004).…”

“…Thus, although there are some potentially important sublethal impacts of these herbicides, not surprisingly their impact seems to vary with exposure modality and the species studied. Nevertheless, all of these authors suggest that further study is required of a broader array of responses in a larger number of species before predictions can be made regarding how the repeated application of glyphosate-based herbicides might be affecting the arthropod community structure and its role in the food web (Schneider et al 2009;Michalková and Pekár 2009;Benamú et al 2010).…”

“…Evidence is emerging that contact with these herbicides affects a variety of aspects of the biology of the predatory arthropods in these managed habitats. For example, recent studies have found detrimental effects of exposure to a glyphosate formulation on the development and reproduction of both the predatory lacewing, Chrysoperla externa (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae), (Schneider et al 2009) and the web spider, Alpaida veniliae (Araneae, Araniedae) (Benamú et al 2010); both species are common in South American agroecosystems. In contrast, in a study of the effects of the residues of a glyphosate herbicide on the predatory, defensive, locomotory, and reproductive behaviour of spiders and beetles common in European agroecosystems, the only response documented was slight shift in beetle activity (Michalková and Pekár 2009).…”

Exploration behaviour and behavioural flexibility in orb-web spiders: A review

“…decorations made of silk or prey remains and debris primarily used to camouflage the spiders or attract prey (Herberstein et al, 2000a;Bruce, 2006;Nakata, 2009;Walter and Elgar, 2012). Further advantages of using orb-web spiders as model organism for cognitive studies include that most orb-web spiders readily built webs in frames under laboratory conditions (Zschokke and Herberstein, 2005) and that they are highly motivated to build webs even under adverse physiological and environmental conditions such as when missing legs (Reed et al, 1965;Pasquet et al, 2011), when under the influence of pesticides and neurotoxic drugs (Witt, 1971;Samu and Vollrath, 1992;Hesselberg and Vollrath, 2004;Benamú et al, 2010;, when exposed to space limitations (Ades, 1986;Vollrath et al, 1997;Barrantes and Eberhard, 2012;Hesselberg, 2013) and when exposed to weightlessness in space (Witt et al, 1977).…”

“…However, it is not always easy to make this distinction. While some changes to orb web geometry are clearly non-adaptive such as those caused by neurotoxins and pesticides (Witt, 1971;Samu and Vollrath, 1992;Hesselberg and Vollrath, 2004;Benamú et al, 2010;, by old age (Anotaux et al, 2012) and by ectoparasites (Eberhard, 2000;Gonzago and Sobzcak, 2011), others are less straightforward. Rotating the frame while spiders are building their webs, for example, results in suboptimal webs probably due to disruption to the gravitational cue (Vollrath, 1986;1988), but at higher rotations webs become more normal suggesting that the spider shifts to rely on centripetal forces instead which confirms the findings of earlier studies that spiders in space apparently can modify their use of gravitational cues (Witt et al, 1977).…”