Leg ornamentation and the efficacy of courtship display in four species of wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae)

By E. Hebets, G. Uetz. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2000

159 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/471ff414f9f93e6094d2168c3c40646ebffb25d2

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. G. Uetz
2. E. Hebets
3. Jeremy S. Gibson
4. J. Roberts
5. Dustin J. Wilgers
6. S. Norton
7. M. Persons
8. G. Stratton

In Genetics

1. G. Uetz
2. E. Hebets
3. Jeremy S. Gibson
4. J. Roberts
5. Dustin J. Wilgers
6. S. Norton
7. M. Persons
8. G. Stratton

Citations in the corpus

• INFLUENCE OF FEEDING REGIME ON BODY SIZE, BODY CONDITION AND A MALE SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTER IN SCHIZOCOSA OCREATA WOLF SPIDERS (ARANEAE, LYCOSIDAE): CONDITION-DEPENDENCE IN A VISUAL SIGNALING TRAIT (2002, background): “Female receptivity is lower when tufts are absent (McClintock & Uetz 1996; Hebets & Uetz 2000), asymmetric (Uetz et al. 1996; Uetz & Smith 1999), or small in size (McClintock & Uetz 1996; Uetz 2000).”
• Preference for male traits in female wolf spiders varies with the choice of available males, female age and reproductive state (2007, background): “These tufts are a secondary sexual trait of males, which may serve as a condition indicator and/or display amplifier (Hebets and Uetz 1999, 2000; Uetz et al. 2002; Uetz 2000; Uetz and Roberts 2002).”
• Mutual Mate Assessment in Wolf Spiders: Differences in the Cues Used by Males and Females (2003, background): “…to perform specific courtship rituals so that females do not treat them as prey (Uetz 1999) and there is considerable evidence that selection has operated on the morphology and behavior of males to be visibly recognizable from a distance (Clark & Uetz 1992; Miller et al. 1998; Hebets & Uetz 2000).”
• Seismic communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: components of male seismic signals and mating success (2008, background): “…fish (McLennan 2003; Smith & van Staaden 2006), amphibians (Narins et al. 2003), insects (Hill 2001; Virant-Doberlet & Cokl 2004) and spiders (Hebets & Uetz 2000; Uetz 2000; Uetz & ndence: G. W. Uetz, Department of Biological Sciences, Univerincinnati, P.O. Box 210006, Cincinnati, OH…”
• EVOLUTION OF ORNAMENTATION AND COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR IN SCHIZOCOSA: INSIGHTS FROM A PHYLOGENY BASED ON MORPHOLOGY (ARANEAE, LYCOSIDAE) (2005, background): “…behavior in Schizocosa wolf spiders have been the focus of studies addressing sexual selection and signal evolution, fluctuating asymmetry and reproductive isolation (Hebets & Uetz 1999, 2000; Uetz et al, 1996, Uetz & Smith 1999; McClintock & Uetz 1996; Scheffer et ah 1996; Hebets 2003, 2005) .”
• Female mate choice based upon male motor performance (2010, background): “Schizocosa wolf spiders are well known for their elaborate courtship dances and associated ornaments (Hebets and Uetz, 2000; Stratton, 2005; Framenau and Hebets, 2007).”
• Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments (2011, background): “, 2010), in the degree of ornamentation (review of genus Schizocosa Stratton, 2005; Framenau and Hebets, 2007), and in the complexity of the visual display (Hebets and Uetz, 2000; Stratton, 2005).”
• MATING FREQUENCY IN SCHIZOCOSA OCREATA (HENTZ) WOLF SPIDERS: EVIDENCE FOR A MATING SYSTEM WITH FEMALE MONANDRY AND MALE POLYGYNY (2005, background): “Males within this genus display considerable variation in foreleg ornamentation as well as courtship communication, and there is evidence of co-evolution between male signals and female sensory design (Hebets & Uetz 1999, 2000).”
• Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses (2004, background): “Similarly in Schizocosa wolf spiders, ornamentation found on the forelegs of males of certain species has been proposed to increase the effectiveness of the leg waving display in eliciting female receptivity (Hebets and Uetz 2000).”
• Sexual dimorphism in trophic morphology and feeding behavior of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) as a result of differences in reproductive roles (2002, background): “…spination and scopular hairs; Rovner 1980), these characters were not chosen because separating the different selective pressures (sexual selection and natural selection) on leg morphology would be difficult, since in many species the legs are used in the courtship display (Hebets and Uetz 2000).”
• Male signaling behavior and sexual selection in a wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae): a test for dual functions (2007, background): “…and has been suggested as either an “amplifier,” increasing efficacy or detectability of their characteristic leg tapping displays, or as a condition indicating the trait itself (McClintock and Uetz 1996; Uetz et al. 1996; Uetz and Smith 1999; Hebets and Uetz 1999, 2000; Uetz et al. 2002).”
• Sexual cannibalism and mate choice decisions in wolf spiders: influence of male size and secondary sexual characters (2005, background): “Wolf spiders are highly biased towards movement cues in their ability to detect prey (Persons & Uetz 1997) and conspecifics (Rovner 1993), and leg tufts may have evolved to increase the efficacy of courtship signals (Hebets & Uetz 2000).”