Economies of scale shape energetics of solitary and group living spiders and their webs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolic scaling, whereby larger individuals use less energy per unit mass than smaller ones, may apply to the combined metabolic rate of group-living organisms as group size increases. Spiders that form groups in high disturbance environments can serve to test the hypothesis that economies of scale benefit social groups. Using solitary and group-living spiders, we tested the hypothesis that spiders exhibit negative allometry between body or colony mass and the standing mass of their webs and whether, and how, such a relationship may contribute to group-living benefits in a cooperative spider. Given the diverse architecture of spider webs—orb, tangle, and sheet-and-tangle, and associated differences in silk content, we first assessed how standing web mass scales with spider mass as a function of web architecture and whether investment in silk differs among web types. As group-living spiders are predominantly found in clades that build the presumably costlier sheet-and-tangle webs, we then asked whether cost-sharing through cooperative web maintenance contributes to a positive energy budget in a social species. We found that larger spiders had a relatively smaller investment in silk per unit mass than smaller ones, but more complex sheet-and-tangle webs contained orders of magnitude more silk than simpler orb or tangle ones. In the group-living species, standing web mass per unit spider mass continued to decline as colony size increased with a similar slope as for unitary spiders. When web maintenance activities were considered, colonies also experienced reduced mass-specific energy expenditure with increasing colony size. Activity savings contributed to a net positive energy balance for medium and large colonies after inputs from the cooperative capture of large prey were accounted for. Economies of scale have been previously demonstrated in animal societies characterized by reproductive and worker castes, but not in relatively egalitarian societies as those of social spiders. Our findings illustrate the universality of scaling laws and how economies of scale may contribute to setting limits on social behaviour and hunting strategies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".