Effects of Nest‐Site Availability on Male–Male Competition and the Foraging Costs of Egg Attendance in an Arachnid With Exclusive Paternal Care

Laís A. Grossel,Rachel M. Werneck,Glauco Machado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13511

2024-10-09

Ethology

Abstract:This study examined how nest site availability affects male competition and foraging costs in a Neotreopical harvestman. Field data show that larger males are more likely to hold nests, but this was not replicated in laboratory experiments where nest opening size likely influenced defensibility. Smaller openings decreased the impact of body size in nest ownership. Additionally, males exhibited filial cannibalism to compensate for reduced foraging during paternal care. Overall, the study highlights the importance of extrinsic factors, such as nest size, in male competition and parental strategies. Natural cavities are monopolizable resources used as nest sites across many species exhibiting exclusive male care. However, our understanding of how the availability of this type of reproductive site influences male–male competition and the foraging costs associated with parental care is limited and based on studies of fish. The harvestman Magnispina neptunus offers the opportunity to explore these questions in invertebrates because males defend natural cavities used as oviposition sites and provide exclusive parental care. We hypothesized that low nest availability would increase male–male competition and the foraging costs of egg attendance. To test this hypothesis, we collected observational data in the field and conducted a laboratory experiment with two groups, low and high nest availability. Field data indicate natural cavity scarcity, as only 50% of the males were nest holders. Larger males were more likely to hold nests in the field, but body size did not predict nest ownership in the laboratory. In the field, nests with openings smaller than average were equally occupied by small and large males, while nests with openings larger than average were occupied almost exclusively by large males. The nest opening in the laboratory experiment was adjusted to be equal to the average found in the field, which may have increased nest defensibility, regardless of male size. Thus, prior residency may outweigh body size in determining nest possession. Because nest owners seem to have an advantage over intruders, the costs of abandoning a nest are likely high. This may explain why the frequency of nest takeovers and foraging outside the nests did not differ between experimental groups. In conclusion, although underexplored in empirical studies, external factors, such as the opening size of cavities defended by males of many species with resource‐defense mating systems, may play a key role in the defensibility of nest sites.

zoology,behavioral sciences