Foraging behaviour in the jumping spider Phidippus audax: bases for selectivity

Abstract

The hunting and feeding behaviour of the jumping spider Phidippus audax was examined in the laboratory under single and multi‐prey conditions. When given the choice, spiders consistently selected insects with high activity levels and crawling velocities. Selection was not correlated with insect length, mass, or length/width ratio. However, cine analysis of single predator‐prey encounters indicated that, at the time of detection, prey size (length and mass) was evaluated by the predator; spiders pursued large insects at significantly slower rates (i.e. more cautiously) than small insects. Prey size also significantly affected handling times. Time invested in handling preferred items was similar whether these were encountered alone or with alternate prey available. However, as predicted by the optimal foraging theory, spiders spent significantly less time feeding on lower ranked items in the presence of alternative prey.

Sequential Analysis Reveals Behavioral Differences Underlying Female-Biased Predation Risk in Stalk-Eyed Flies

“…As a consequence, the predator may interpret the larger male eye span as corresponding to a body larger than the male’s actual size. Although P. audax can readily take down prey larger than themselves, larger prey cause increased caution when approaching, many times resulting in no attack (Freed 2009).…”

Optical cues used in prey identification by a juvenile jumping spider, Yllenus arenarius (Araneae, Salticidae)

“…In several other studies of salticid predation caterpillars were reported to have lower attractiveness than the other prey. In the study of foraging behaviour of P. audax the caterpillars of Spodoptera had one of the lowest values of electivity in comparison to the non-crawling insects (Freed 1984). Lower attractiveness of Trichoplusia caterpillars in comparison to adult fruit flies can also be deduced from the number of captures in the study with inexperienced Phidippus regius (Edwards & Jackson 1994).…”

“…One of the most common examples of such categories are the prey with low or high risks of escape. Prey items from each group were reported to be recognized and differently preyed upon by a number of salticids (Forster 1977(Forster , 1982Freed 1984;Jackson 1988a;Richman & Jackson 1992;Edwards & Jackson 1993, 1994Li et al 1996Li et al , 1999Bear & Hasson 1997;Bartos 2002Bartos , 2007Nelson et al 2005). However, the prey that falls into each category can be morphologically and behaviourally diverse, therefore it is interesting how the spiders categorize such diverse prey.…”

“…There is extensive evidence that predators bias their initial strikes to certain parts of their prey bodies. In various taxonomic groups, including jumping spiders, predators target dorsal areas of their prey close behind the prey head (Cutler 1980;Lubin 1983;Schaller 1972;Freed 1984;Pollard 1990;Bailey 1993;Edwards & Jackson 1993, 1994Foelix 1996;Harland & Jackson 2006). Such target of attack has several important advantages for a spider that uses its venom to immobilize the prey.…”

How predator hunting-modes affect prey behaviour: Capture deterrence inDrosophila melanogaster

“…Jackson, & Blest, 1982;Prete 1999) and are likely incapable of depth perception when 90! their prey item is motionless (Prete, 1999;Freed, 1984). Second, small adult diptera 91!…”