title: Specialised use of working memory by Portia africana, a spider-eating salticid.
abstract: Using expectancy-violation methods, we investigated the role of working memory in the predatory strategy of Portia africana, a salticid spider from Kenya that preys by preference on other spiders. One of this predator's tactics is to launch opportunistic leaping attacks on to other spiders in their webs. Focussing on this particular tactic, our experiments began with a test spider on a ramp facing a lure (dead prey spider mounted on a cork disc) that could be reached by leaping. After the test spider faced the lure for 30 s, we blocked the test spider's view of the lure by lowering an opaque shutter before the spider leapt. When the shutter was raised 90 s later, either the same lure came into view again (control) or a different lure came into view (experimental: different prey type in same orientation or same prey type in different orientation). We recorded attack frequency (number of test spiders that leapt at the lure) and attack latency (time elapsing between shutter being raised and spiders initiating a leap). Attack latencies in control trials were not significantly different from attack latencies in experimental trials, regardless of whether it was prey type or prey orientation that changed in the experimental trials. However, compared with test spiders in the no-change control trials, significantly fewer test spiders leapt when prey type changed. There was no significant effect on attack frequency when prey orientation changed. These findings suggest that this predator represents prey type independently of prey orientation.
authors: School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand, fiona.r.cross@gmail.com.
authors: Fiona R
authors: FR
authors: Cross
authors: Robert R
authors: RR
authors: Jackson
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D011235:Predatory Behavior; D013112:Spiders / Q000502:physiology
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):111-112
references: 12639691
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Jun;13(6):271-7
references: 19447669
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Feb 20;93(4):1514-7
references: 8643663
references: J Comp Psychol. 1995 Sep;109(3):278-90
references: 7554824
references: Nature. 2001 Apr 19;410(6831):930-3
references: 11309617
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:1-29
references: 21961947
references: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Mar;40(2):138-71
references: 10716876
references: Anim Behav. 1999 Aug;58(2):255-265
references: 10458876
references: Cognition. 1990 Nov;37(1-2):1-22
references: 2269003
references: Anim Cogn. 2013 Jan;16(1):117-25
references: 22945434
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 22;277(1697):3173-8
references: 20504813
references: J Exp Biol. 2009 Jun;212(Pt 12):1869-75
references: 19483005
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):113-118
references: 12639692
references: Annu Rev Entomol. 1996;41:287-308
references: 15012331
references: Science. 1995 Nov 3;270(5237):764-9
references: 7481763
references: Anim Cogn. 2002 Sep;5(3):177-82
references: 12357290
references: Science. 1971 Feb 19;171(3972):701-3
references: 5540314
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):109-111
references: 12639690
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Mar;9(3):118-25
references: 15737820
references: Nature. 1992 Aug 27;358(6389):749-50
references: 1508269
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 1989;40:155-89
references: 2648974