Mutual Mate Assessment in Wolf Spiders: Differences in the Cues Used by Males and Females

By A. Rypstra, C. Wieg, S. E. Walker, M. Persons. 2003

108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/043b207f5d3612f2644d6b8f75b22bb06e185740

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

1. E. Hebets
2. Jeremy S. Gibson
3. J. Roberts
4. G. Uetz

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. E. Hebets
2. G. Uetz
3. Jeremy S. Gibson
4. J. Roberts
5. John A. Byers
6. J. Podos
7. P. Carazo
8. Ester Desfilis

In Genetics

1. E. Hebets
2. G. Uetz
3. Jeremy S. Gibson
4. J. Roberts
5. John A. Byers
6. J. Podos
7. Dustin J. Wilgers
8. P. Shamble

Citations in the corpus

• Chemosensory cues allow male Tenebrio molitor beetles to assess the reproductive status of potential mates (2004, background): “Chemical assessment of female reproductive status by males has been reported in spiders (Rypstra et al. 2003) and several insect orders (Diptera: Tompkins & Hall 1981; Scott et al.”
• Information content of female chemical signals in the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata: male discrimination of reproductive state and receptivity (2005, background): “Both conspecific recognition and determination of sexual receptivity may be critical for mating success in potentially cannibalistic species such as spiders, where mistaken identity can be fatal (Bukowski et al. 2001; Rypstra et al. 2003).”
• Seismic communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: components of male seismic signals and mating success (2008, background): “…in agonistic encounters (Rovner 1968; Aspey 1977a, b), species recognition (Stratton & Uetz 1981, 1983, 1986), female stimulation and/or pacification (Maklakov et al. 2003), courtship (Uetz 2000; Barth 2002; Rypstra et al. 2003) and mate choice (Parri et al. 1997, 2002; Rivero et al. 2000).”
• Female mate choice based upon male motor performance (2010, background): “2008), and females prefer to mate with males performing more body shakes and leg raises (Rypstra et al. 2003).”
• Male perception of female mating status: its effect on copulation duration, sperm defence and female fitness (2006, unknown): “(but see Rypstra et al. 2003; Siva-Jothy & Stutt 2003; Carazo et al. 2004).”