생명과학회지 (Journal of Life Science)

  • 제21권7호
  • /
  • Pages.1009-1015
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 1225-9918(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-3406(eISSN)
한국생명과학회 (Korean Society of Life Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

먹이 종 감각 정보 제공에 따른 긴호랑거미(Argiope bruennichi)의 웹 건축 전략

Web-Building Strategy of a Wasp Spider, Argiope bruennichi, under Sensory Information Emitted by a Prey Species

  • 진우영 (인천대학교 자연과학대학 생명과학부) ;
  • 신현철 (한국교원대학교 제3대학 화학교육과) ;
  • 김길원 (인천대학교 자연과학대학 생명과학부)
  • Jin, Woo-Young (Division of Life Sciences, University of Incheon) ;
  • Shin, Hyun-Chul (Department of Chemistry Education, Korean National University of Education) ;
  • Kim, Kil-Won (Division of Life Sciences, University of Incheon)
  • 투고 : 2011.04.08
  • 심사 : 2011.04.26
  • 발행 : 2011.07.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

거미의 건축물인 웹의 구조는 먹이 포획을 위한 자원의 투자이자 그 자체가 포식 전략이다. 잠재적인 먹이종으로부터 제공되는 감각정보를 바탕으로 포식 전략을 수정하는 개체는 그렇지 못한 개체에 비해 더 높은 적응도를 가질 것이다. 본 연구는 공중에 둥근 웹을 건축하는 긴호랑거미(Argiope bruennichi)를 대상으로 자외선을 인식하는 비행성 곤충인 서양뒤영벌(Bombus terrestris)의 정보를 경험한 개체가 자신의 건축 행동을 수정하는지를 알아보기 위해 수행되었다. 서양뒤영벌(B. terrestris)의 정보를 제공받은 실험군의 개체가 건축한 웹의 구조를 대조군(정보 없음)의 웹과 비교하였다. 본 연구의 가설은 실험군 개체들은 웹과 흰띠줄 건축에 더 많은 투자를 할 것이라는 것이다. 실험 결과는 당초의 가설을 기각했다. 웹과 흰띠줄 건축은 실험군과 대조군 모두에서 전반적으로 감소하는 경향을 나타냈다. 개체는 꽃꿀채집자의 정보에도 불구하고 흰띠줄을 더 길게 만들지도 웹을 확장하지도 않았다.

Web structure of spiders is a foraging strategy as well as an investment to get prey. In order to increase the fitness consequence, spiders change their foraging strategy based on sensory information provided by prey species. We conducted an experiment to demonstrate whether an orb-web building spider, Argiope bruennichi modifies its web-building behavior after experiencing sensory information emitted by a UV recognizing flying insect, Bombus terrestris. To know how the web structure would be modified, we observed web characteristics after providing sensory information of a potential prey species, the bumblebee (experimental group) and compared them to the control group (no information provided). We hypothesized that the spiders of the experimental group would increase investments in their web construction and stabilimentum decoration. The results rejected our hypothesis. Web and stabilimentum constructions decreased in the course of the experiment in both the control group and the experimental group. The individuals did not increase their stabilimentum length and did not extend their web areas, in spite of sensory information given by the nectar collector.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Blackledge, T. A. 1998. Stabilimentum variation and foraging success in Argiope aurantia and Argiope trifasciata (Araneae, Araneidae). J. Zool. Lond 246, 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00128.x
  2. Blackledge, T. A. and J. W. Wenzel. 1999. Do stabilimenta in orb webs attract prey or defend spider? Behav. Ecol. 10, 372-376. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/10.4.372
  3. Bruce, M. J., A. M. Heiling, and M. E. Herberstein. 2004. Web decoration and foraging success in Araneus eburnus (Araneae: Araneidae). Ann. Zool. Fennici 41, 563-575.
  4. Craig, C. L. and G. D. Bernard. 1990. Insect attraction to ultra violet-reflecting spider webs and web decorations. Ecology 71, 616-623. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940315
  5. Dugatkin, L. A. 2009. Principles of animal behavior. W.W. Norton and Company, New York and London.
  6. Daiqin, L. 2005. Spiders that decorate their webs at higher frequency intercept more prey and grow faster. Proc. Biol. Sci. 272, 1753-1757. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3160
  7. Herberstein, M. E. and A. F. Fleisch. 2003. Effect of abiotic factors on the foraging strategy of the orb-web spider Argiope keyserlingi (Araneae: Araneidae). Austral Ecol. 28, 622-628. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.t01-1-01319.x
  8. Horton, C. 1980. A defensive function for the stabilimenta of two orb weaving spider (Araneae: Araneidae). Phyche 87, 13-20.
  9. Kronk, A. E. and S. E. Riechert. 1979. Parameters Affecting the habitat choice of a desert wolf spider, Lycosa santrita. J. Arachnol. 7, 155-166.
  10. Lubin, Y. and J. Henschel. 1996. The influence of food supply on foraging behaviour in a desert spider. Oecologia 105, 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00328792
  11. Morse, D. H. 1999. Choice of hunting site as a consequence of experience in late-instar crab spiders. Oecologia 120, 252-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050855
  12. Morse, D. H. and R. S. Fritz. 1982. Experimental and observational studies of patch choice at different scale by the crab spider Misumena vatia. Ecology 63, 172-182. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937042
  13. Nation, J. L. 2002. Insect physiology and biochemistry. CRC Press.
  14. Opell, B. D. 1990. Material investment and prey capture potential of reduced spider webs. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 375-381.
  15. Pasquet, A., A. Ridwan, and R. Leborgne. 1994. Presence of potential prey affects web building in an orb-weaving spider Zygiella x-notata. Anim. Behav. 47, 477-480. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1066
  16. Persons, M. H. and G. W. Uetz. 1996. The influence of sensory information on patch residence time in wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim. Behav. 51, 1285-1293. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0133
  17. Persons, M. H. and G. W. Uetz. 1998. Presampling sensory information and prey density assessment by wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav. Ecol. 9, 360-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/9.4.360
  18. Raine, N. E. and L. Chittka. 2007. The adaptive significance of sensory bias in a foraging context: floral colour preferences in the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. PLos One 2, e556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000556
  19. Riechert, S. E. 1985. Decisions in multiple goal contexts: habitat selection of the spider, Agelenopsis aperta (Gertsch). Z. Tierpsychol. 70, 53-69.
  20. Rita, H. and G. B. Friedrich. 1983. Vibratory signals: how do the sensory inputs from the eight legs interaction in orientation? J. Comparative Physiol. 152, 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00606241
  21. Stephens, D. W., J. S. Brown, and R. D. Ydenberg. 2007. Foraging: behavior and ecology. pp. 608, University of Chicage Press, Chicago and London.
  22. Systat, 2007. Systat software Inc.
  23. Takeshi, W. 1999. Prey attraction as a possible function of the silk decoration of the uloborid spider Octonobe sybotides. Behav. Ecol. 10, 607-611. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/10.5.607
  24. Tanaka, K. 1989. Energetic cost web construction and its effect on web relocation in the web building spider Agelena limbata. Oecologia 81, 459-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378952
  25. Tso, I. M. 1996. Stabilimentum of the garden spider Argiope trifasciata: a possible prey attractant. Anim. Behav. 52, 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0163
  26. Wise, D. H. and J. L. Barata. 1983. Prey of two synoptic spiders with different web structures. J. Arachnol. 11, 271-281.