Prey-capture strategies in sympatric web-building spiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arthropods in several orders use traps to capture prey. Such trap-building predators expend most of their foraging energy prior to any prey contact. Nevertheless, relative investments in trap construction and actual prey capture may vary among trap builders, and they are likely to face a trade-off between building very effective but energetically costly traps and building less effective traps requiring faster reaction times when attacking prey. We analysed this trade-off in a field experiment by comparing the prey capture behaviour of four different sympatric web-building spiders (Araneae: Araneidae, Nephilidae, Tetragnathidae, Theridiidae) with the retention times of five different prey types in the webs of these spiders. Retention times differed greatly among webs and among prey types. The vertical orb webs retained prey longer than the horizontal orb web and the sheet web, and active prey escaped more quickly than less active prey. Among spiders with orb webs, the spider with the web that retained prey for the shortest time was the fastest to capture prey, thus confirming the expected trade-off between building long-retaining webs and attacking slowly versus building short-retaining webs and attacking more rapidly. The sheet web, however, neither retained prey for an appreciable period of time nor facilitated rapid prey capture. We suggest that this low capture effectiveness of sheet webs is compensated by their lower maintenance costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".