Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov 15:5:e4050.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.4050. eCollection 2017.

Fitness implications of sex-specific catch-up growth in Nephila senegalensis, a spider with extreme reversed SSD

Affiliations

Fitness implications of sex-specific catch-up growth in Nephila senegalensis, a spider with extreme reversed SSD

Rainer Neumann et al. PeerJ. .

Abstract

Background: Animal growth is often constrained by unfavourable conditions and divergences from optimal body size can be detrimental to an individual's fitness, particularly in species with determinate growth and a narrow time-frame for life-time reproduction. Growth restriction in early juvenile stages can later be compensated by means of plastic developmental responses, such as adaptive catch-up growth (the compensation of growth deficits through delayed development). Although sex differences regarding the mode and degree of growth compensation have been coherently predicted from sex-specific fitness payoffs, inconsistent results imply a need for further research. We used the African Nephila senegalensis, representing an extreme case of female-biased sexual size dimorphism (SSD), to study fitness implications of sex-specific growth compensation. We predicted effective catch-up growth in early food-restricted females to result in full compensation of growth deficits and a life-time fecundity (LTF) equivalent to unrestricted females. Based on a stronger trade-off between size-related benefits and costs of a delayed maturation, we expected less effective catch-up growth in males.

Methods: We tracked the development of over one thousand spiders in different feeding treatments, e.g., comprising a fixed period of early low feeding conditions followed by unrestricted feeding conditions, permanent unrestricted feeding conditions, or permanent low feeding conditions as a control. In a second experimental section, we assessed female fitness by measuring LTF in a subset of females. In addition, we tested whether compensatory development affected the reproductive lifespan in both sexes and analysed genotype-by-treatment interactions as a potential cause of variation in life-history traits.

Results: Both sexes delayed maturation to counteract early growth restriction, but only females achieved full compensation of adult body size. Female catch-up growth resulted in equivalent LTF compared to unrestricted females. We found significant interactions between experimental treatments and sex as well as between treatments and family lineage, suggesting that family-specific responses contribute to the unusually large variation of life-history traits in Nephila spiders. Our feeding treatments had no effect on the reproductive lifespan in either sex.

Discussion: Our findings are in line with predictions of life-history theory and corroborate strong fecundity selection to result in full female growth compensation. Males showed incomplete growth compensation despite a delayed development, indicating relaxed selection on large size and a stronger trade-off between late maturation and size-related benefits. We suggest that moderate catch-up growth in males is still adaptive as a 'bet-hedging' strategy to disperse unavoidable costs between life-history traits affected by early growth restriction (the duration of development and adult size).

Keywords: Araneae; Araneidae; Compensatory growth; Developmental plasticity; Feeding conditions; Life-history; SSD.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Adaptive catch-up growth in (A) male and (B) female Nephila senegalensis.
Symbols indicate median values for body mass at the beginning of the late-experiment development and body mass at sexual maturation in treatments High-High (blue squares) and Low-High (red triangles). Late-experiment development in the High-High treatment followed four weeks of early high feeding conditions. Late-experiment development in the Low-High treatment followed four weeks of early low feeding conditions. Body mass is given as a proxy of body size (*, indicates significant differences).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effects of feeding treatments on the duration of development and adult size in Nephila senegalensis.
Top row (A, B): Males. Bottom row (C, D): Females. Treatments were High-High (H-H), Low-Low (L-L), High-Low (H-L), and Low-High (L-H).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effects of feeding treatments on life-time fecundity (LTF) in Nephila senegalensis.
The interaction between Treatment and the number of clutches produced explained life-time fecundity in a linear model (adjusted R2 = 0.83). Treatments were High-High (blue), Low-High (red), and Low-Low (green). Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abrams PA, Leimar O, Nylin S, Wiklund C. The effect of flexible growth rates on optimal sizes and development times in a seasonal environment. American Naturalist. 1996;147:381–395. doi: 10.1086/285857. - DOI
    1. Arnold KE, Blount JD, Metcalfe NB, Orr KJ, Adam A, Houston D, Monaghan P. Sex-specific differences in compensation for poor neonatal nutrition in the zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata. Journal of Avian Biology. 2007;38:356–366. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0908-8857.03818.x. - DOI
    1. Barreto RE, Moreira PSA, Carvalho RF. Sex-specific compensatory growth in food-deprived Nile tilapia. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2003;36:477–483. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2003000400009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bauerfeind SS, Fischer K. Effects of food stress and density in different life stages on reproduction in a butterfly. Oikos. 2005;111:514–524. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13888.x. - DOI
    1. Blanckenhorn WU. The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Quarterly Review of Biology. 2000;75:385–407. doi: 10.1086/393620. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources