Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-21T03:54:42.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Microhabitat and spatial complexity predict group size of the whip spider Heterophrynus batesii in Amazonian Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2013

Kenneth James Chapin*
Department of Life, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX 79016, USA
1Postal address: UCLA – Hershey Hall, 612 Charles E. Young Drive East, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7246, USA. Email:


The process by which solitary animals evolve to live in groups is a central question in biology. Conspecifics that compete for patchy resources may evolve incipient social behaviours such as group formation and conspecific tolerance when persistent aggressive interactions reduce resource access. In this investigation, a facultative group living species of whip spider was studied to understand the microhabitat resources that support group formation. Although most species of whip spider are solitary and oftentimes cannibalistic, Heterophrynus batesii sometimes aggregate in small groups at the bases of tree trunks. Twenty-five groups of whip spiders and associated tree buttress microhabitats were surveyed at Tiputini Biodiversity Station bordering Yasuní National Park in Eastern Amazonian Ecuador. Tree buttress complexity, surface area and other microhabitat variables were recorded. Heterophrynus batesii aggregated in groups of 2–8 animals and used large, buttressing, complex trees with more leaf litter relative to those available in the environment. This study showed that large groups of whip spiders require more complex microhabitats than smaller groups that were associated with more variable microhabitat parameters. These microhabitats act as patches of limited resources important for the species, and may have led to the evolution of tolerance and facultative group living.

Short Communication
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



BECK, L. & GÖRKE, K. 1974. Tagesperiodik, Revierverhalten und Beutefang der Geißelspinne Admetus pumilio C.L. Koch im Freiland. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 35:173186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BERGMÜLLER, R., HEG, D. & TABORSKY, M. 2005. Helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid stay and pay or disperse and breed, depending on ecological constraints. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B 272:325331.Google ScholarPubMed
BLOCH, C. & WEISS, L. 2002. Distribution and abundance of the whipspider Phrynus longipes (Arachnida: Amblypigi) in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico: response to natural and anthropogenic disturbance. Caribbean Journal of Science 38:260262.Google Scholar
BROTONS, L., THUILLER, W., ARAUJO, M. B. & HIRZEL, A. H. 2004. Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27:437448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CAMPBELL, D. L. M., WEINER, S. A., STARKS, P. T. & HAUBER, M. E. 2009. Context and control: behavioural ecology experiments in the laboratory. Annales Zoologici Fennici 46:112123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARVALHO, L. S., GOMES, J. O., NECKEL-OLIVEIRA, S. & LO-MAN-HUNG, N. F. 2012. Microhabitat use and intraspecific associations in the whip spider Heterophrynus longicornis (Arachnida: Amblypygi) in forest fragments formed by the Tucurui Dam lake, Para, Brazil. Journal of Natural History 46:12631272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DIAS, S. C. & MACHADO, G. 2006. Microhabitat use by the whip spider Heterophrynus longicornis (Amblypygi, Phrynidae) in central Amazon. Journal of Arachnology 34:540544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GEHRT, S. D. & FRITZELL, E. K. 1998. Resource distribution, female home range dispersion and male spatial interactions: group structure in a solitary carnivore. Animal Behaviour 55:12111227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEBETS, E. A. 2002. Relating the unique sensory system of amblypygids to the ecology and behavior of Phrynus parvulus from Costa Rica (Arachnida, Amblypygi). Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:286295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HIRZEL, A. H., HAUSSER, J., CHESSEL, D. & PERRIN, N. 2002. Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data? Ecology 83:20272036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JAKOB, E. M. 2004. Individual decisions and group dynamics: why pholcid spiders join and leave groups. Animal Behaviour 68:920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOHNSON, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:6571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRAUSE, J. & RUXTON, G. D. 2002. Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 210 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RAO, D., FERNANDEZ, O., CASTAÑEDA-BARBOSA, E. & DÍAZ-FLEISCHER, F. 2011. Reverse positional orientation in a neotropical orb-web spider, Verrucosa arenata. Naturwissenschaften 98:699703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROLOFF, G. J. & KERNOHAN, B. J. 1999. Evaluating reliability of habitat suitability index models. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:973985.Google Scholar
SALOMON, M., VIBERT, S. & BENNETT, R. G. 2010. Habitat use by western black widow spiders (Latrodectus hesperus) in coastal British Columbia: evidence of facultative group living. Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:334346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STARKS, P. T., FISCHER, D. J., WATSON, R. E., MELIKIAN, G. L. & NATH, S. D. 1998. Context-dependent nestmate-discrimination in the paper wasp, Polistes dominulus: a critical test of the optimal acceptance threshold model. Animal Behaviour 56:449458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VALEIX, M., LOVERIDGE, A., DAVIDSON, Z., MADZIKANDA, H., FRITZ, H. & MACDONALD, D. 2010. How key habitat features influence large terrestrial carnivore movements: waterholes and African lions in a semi-arid savanna of north-western Zimbabwe. Landscape Ecology 25:337351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEYGOLDT, P. 1977. Coexistence of two species of whip spiders (Genus Heterophrynus) in the neotropical rain forest (Arachnida, Amblypygi). Oecologia 27:363370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WEYGOLDT, P. 2000. Whip spiders (Chelicerata: Amblypygi): their biology, morphology and systematics. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. 163 pp.Google Scholar
WONG, M. Y. L. 2010. Ecological constraints and benefits of philopatry promote group-living in a social but non-cooperatively breeding fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277:353358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZAR, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. (Fourth edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. 960 pp.Google Scholar