Stressful environments favor deceptive alternative mating tactics to become dominant.

BACKGROUND: Deceptive alternative mating tactics are commonly maintained at low frequencies within populations because males using them are less competitive and acquire lower fitness than those using dominant tactics. However, the successful invasion of a male deceptive tactic is plausible if deception carries no fitness cost to females. Among populations of the gift-giving spider Paratrechalea ornata, males very often offer females a deceptive worthless gift, rather than a nutritive gift. We tested the degree to which deceptive worthless gifts can occur in natural populations living under divergent environmental conditions (moderate and stressful). We examined the plasticity of morphological and behavioral traits and analyzed the fitness of females in relation to the gift type, also examining the paternity acquired by males offering either gift type. RESULTS: We demonstrated that worthless gifts can become dominant under highly stressful environmental conditions (84-100%). Individuals in such environment reach smaller sizes than those in moderate conditions. We suggest that the size reduction probably favors low metabolic demands in both sexes and may reduce the costs associated with receiving deceptive worthless gifts for females. In contrast, males living under moderate conditions varied the use of the deceptive tactic (0-95%), and worthless gifts negatively influenced female fecundity. Furthermore, male size, rather than gift content, positively impacted paternity success in the moderate but not in the stressful environment. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this is the first empirical evidence that a reversible deceptive tactic can become dominant when the environment becomes harsh and mate choice becomes limited.

Beyond the prey: male spiders highly invest in silk when producing worthless gifts.

In the spider Paratrechalea ornata, males have two gift-giving mating tactics, offering either a nutritive (prey) or a worthless (prey leftovers) silk wrapped gift to females. Both gift types confer similar mating success and duration and afford males a higher success rate than when they offer no gift. If this lack of difference in the reproductive benefits is true, we would expect all males to offer a gift but some males to offer a worthless gift even if prey are available. To test this, we allowed 18 males to court multiple females over five consecutive trials. In each trial, a male was able to produce a nutritive gift (a live housefly) or a worthless gift (mealworm exuviae). We found that, in line with our predictions, 20% of the males produced worthless gifts even when they had the opportunity to produce a nutritive one. However, rather than worthless gifts being a cheap tactic, they were related to a higher investment in silk wrapping. This latter result was replicated for worthless gifts produced in both the presence and absence of a live prey item. We propose that variation in gift-giving tactics likely evolved initially as a conditional strategy related to prey availability and male condition in P. ornata. Selection may then have favoured silk wrapping as a trait involved in female attraction, leading worthless gift-giving to invade.