Volatile Scents Preference of Crab Spiders (Ebrechtella Tricuspidata) for Host Flowers

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1537538/v1

Chemical signals are important to all living organisms, especially to plants which don’t have vision or mobility. Plant volatiles participate in the competition between plants, herbivores and predators; meanwhile, the tritrophic interactions promote the evolution of plant volatiles. To our knowledge, spiders are common predators in the interactions, but only few studies have begun to investigate what floral volatiles do to spiders. Here, we used Ebrechtella tricuspidata and their common host flowers (tulips) found in our previous field survey to determine the volatile scent preference of spiders for host flowers. Eight main floral volatile scent compounds of tulips were picked out and tested in dual choice behavioural assays. E. tricuspidata showed a significant avoidance of α-pinene and no preference for limonene, β-ocimene, linalool, benzaldehyde, benzyl-alcohol, methyl-salicylate, or 2-phenylethanol. The results illustrate that facultative flower visitor E. tricuspidata is not popular among some kinds of tulip. This probably represents a typical response: facultative flower visitors cannot tolerate all defensive floral volatile scents. Compared with previous studies, we detect that the same floral volatile scent compound has different effects on different spiders, indicating that floral volatile scent compounds attract and reject spiders with specificity and they evolved for different functions and targets. However, this is a preliminary study on the effects of chemical signals on plant-spider interactions, both chemical and physical signals should be considered in future research.

Spider

Flower volatile scent

Preference

Tulip

Ebrechtella tricuspidata

Tritrophic interaction.

Chemical signals might be the main means of communication in the biosphere, as they participate in life activities of all living organisms (Brunetti et al. 2018). The chemical signals play an important role in both intraspecific and interspecific interactions, such as individual recognition (Cely Ortiz and Tibbetts 2021; Zhang et al. 2021), courtship(Thomas 2011; Xu and Teale 2021), predation and defense (Bairos-Novak et al. 2019; Hettyey et al. 2019; Poulin et al. 2018), especially for the plants, which don’t have vision or mobility. Chemical signals are the invisible players in the plant-insect arms race (Binyameen et al. 2021; Zu et al. 2020). Many plants release volatile scents to attract mutualists (pollinators) (Kumar et al. 2020) or reject antagonists (herbivores) (Bittner et al. 2019; Helms et al. 2013) directly. Plants can also defend against herbivores indirectly using chemical signals to attract predators (Bronstein et al. 2006; Knauer et al. 2018) and parasitoids (Bernasconi Ockroy et al. 2001; Da Silva et al. 2022; Turlings and Erb 2018) of herbivores and change the interactions between predators and herbivores to limit the population growth of herbivores (Kersch-Becker et al. 2017). Meanwhile, some herbivorous insects can overcome the plant chemical defenses and even take advantage of that against predators (Holtz et al. 2019). Previous studies show that plants and animals can interact with each other through animals from the third trophic level, and plant volatiles are involved in various plant-mediated tritrophic interactions within the ecosystem (Binyameen et al. 2021).

Although a plethora of papers on plant-herbivore-carnivore tritrophic interactions is available, there are still many unanswered questions (Hervé et al. 2018). For example, most carnivores of concern were predatory insects, like ants (Heil 2008; Heil and McKey 2003; Kost and Heil 2005), parasitic wasps (Bernasconi Ockroy et al. 2001; De Moraes et al. 1998), and ladybugs (Diehl-Fleig and Diehl 2018), but the mechanism of carnivores other than Insecta, like spiders, is not well explained in the tritrophic interactions, even though spiders are important predators in nature. Most spiders are euryphagous and generalist (Pekár et al. 2018) except for a few species (Liu et al. 2016; Meehan et al. 2009). They appear in various habitats, and there is increasing evidence that spiders are a neglected class of flower-visiting invertebrates (Su et al. 2020b). Studies on nectar feeding behavior and effects of spiders on plants are emerging (Chen et al. 2010; Higginson et al. 2010; Robertson and Maguire 2005; Sanders 2013), but only few studies have begun to investigate what floral volatile scents do to spiders (Junker et al. 2011; Knauer et al. 2018).

Floral volatile scents are complex and diverse (Heil 2008; Knudsen et al. 2006). Knudsen reviewed 1719 floral scent compounds emitted from 991 plant species and found that the compounds belong to 7 major compound classes, the most common single floral compounds are six monoterpenes (limonene, β-ocimene, myrcene, linalool, α-pinene, β-pinene) and four benzenoids (benzaldehyde, methyl-salicylate, benzyl-alcohol, 2-phenylethanol) (Knudsen et al. 2006). Oyama-Okubo and Tsuji analysed the floral scent compounds of 51 tulip cultivars, and the results showed that the main floral scents were five monoterpenoids, four sesquiterpenoids, six benzenoids, and five fatty acid derivatives(Oyama-Okubo and Tsuji 2013).

In our previous field survey, many spiders often appeared on flowers, especially Ebrechtella tricuspidata (Fabricius, 1775) (Thomisidae), and most of them were on tulip flowers (Su et al. 2020b). Two scenarios of how E. tricuspidata locate tulip flowers are possible. On one hand, crab spiders are considered visual hunters (Foelix 2011; Morris and Reader 2016), so E. tricuspidata may choose a site using visual cues, while tulip flowers look like natural shelters and can provide more potential prey (Su et al. 2020a; Su et al. 2020b). On the other hand, crab spiders can detect chemical stimuli (Knauer et al. 2018), so E. tricuspidata may make use of tulips’ floral volatile scents to determine the location of flowers. In the current paper, we picked out eight main floral volatile scent compounds (four monoterpenes: limonene, β-ocimene, linalool, and α-pinene; four benzenoids: benzaldehyde, benzyl-alcohol, methyl-salicylate, and 2-phenylethanol) of tulips, according to literature (Knudsen et al. 2006; Oyama-Okubo and Tsuji 2013), and conducted dual choice behavioral assays to ascertain whether and which floral volatile scent compounds advance E. tricuspidata to tulip flowers, which is helpful in understanding the interaction of plants and spiders and revealing why spiders visit flowers.

Study Species. E. tricuspidata is one of the most common flower-visiting spiders and is widely distributed. We conducted our study by E. tricuspidata collected from Shahu Park in Wuhan City (30° 35′ N, 114° 20′ E), which is close to Hubei University. After collection, we transferred the spiders into individual glass tubes (diameter 2 cm, length 6 cm). The spiders were maintained in a light incubator laboratory under controlled environmental conditions (temperature: 25 ± 1℃; relative humidity: 50%‒70%; light regime: 14 h: 10 h, with lights coming on at 08:00). Every spider was fed with 10 fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) or 2 houseflies (Musca domestica) in turn every 3 days and watered daily. All of the spiders used in the experiments were adult females.

Volatile Scent Compounds. To determine whether and which volatile scent compounds attract E. tricuspidata to tulip flowers, we selected eight main floral volatile scent compounds of tulips based on literature (Knudsen et al. 2006; Oyama-Okubo and Tsuji 2013): four monoterpenes (limonene (5989-54-8), β-ocimene (13877-91-3), linalool (78-70-6), and α-pinene (80-56-8)) and four benzenoids (benzaldehyde (100-52-7), benzyl-alcohol (100-51-6), methyl-salicylate (119-36-8), and 2-phenylethanol (60-12-8)), and conducted dual choice behavioral assays for the eight compounds separately. All compounds were purchased from Shanghai Aladdin Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd. The CAS numbers of compounds are presented in the brackets.

Volatile Scent Compounds Preference Experiment. Dual choice behavioral assays were conducted using a Y-tube olfactometer (Fig. 1). In the olfactometer device, there is a Y-tube (length 10 cm, diameter 1 cm, angle 45°) as the odor arm, control arm, and test arm, two glass tubes (length 10 cm, diameter 2 cm) as the odor chamber and control chamber, two flowmeters (Lzb-3wb, Changzhou Shuanghuan Thermal Instrument Co., Ltd, China) for controlling the airflow rate, and an air pump (Sensen Air Pump, CT-202, China).

Each of the eight scent compounds was tested against an odorless control by the Y-tube olfactometer (n = 30 for each compound). Scent compounds were emitted from filter paper or cotton balls, which were soaked in 7 µL/mL synthetic scent compound solution and subsequently dried for 10 min to reach constant compound emission rates (Knauer et al. 2018), meanwhile, the control filter paper or cotton balls were also soaked in solvent and dried for 10 min. For water-insoluble scent compounds, anhydrous ethanol was used as the solvent.

The dual choice behavioral assays were carried out at 22 ± 2 ℃. The sample and the control filter paper or cotton balls were put in the odor and control chambers, respectively. A spider was randomly selected and put into the end of the test arm then we turned on the air pump at 150 mL/min for 10 min. After that, we started the trial by removing the breathable metal screen for the spider to make the choice to move to the odor arm or the control arm freely. The time the spider spent getting into the odor or control arm (hereafter ‘choosing time’) was recorded. If the spider stayed in the odor or control arm for at least 60 second after arriving, we regarded the spider made a choice. We ended the trial if the spider did not get into either arm within 5 min; pervious experiments showed that spiders would not move to any arm if they did not make a choice within 5 min. During the experiment, spiders should not be disturbed, otherwise they would show nervous immobility and escape behavior. We replaced it with another individual randomly if the spider was disturbed.

Every spider was used once at most. After each choice by a spider, the Y-tube olfactometer was disassembled and cleaned with 80% ethanol and water, and the positions were exchanged in the next trail.

Statistical Analyses. SPSS 20 was used for all data analyses. We analyzed the preference choice results using chi-square goodness of fit test. The expected value was 1:1. As for the choosing time, we used the Shapiro-Wilk test to analyze the normality for each compound and control. Student's t-test was used to analyze the data with normal distribution, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the data that were not normally distributed. Statistical analyses charts were made using the software GraphPad Prism 7.

In the dual choice behavioral assays, eight main floral volatile scent compounds of tulips were used to study the preference of E. tricuspidata. The results showed that E. tricuspidata had no preference for three monoterpenes compounds, limonene (chi-square test, x² = 0.429, df = 1, P = 0.513), β-ocimene (chi-square test, x² = 0.250, df = 1, P = 0.617), and linalool (chi-square test, x² = 0, df = 1, P = 1), but avoided α-pinene significantly (chi-square test, x² = 8.333, df = 1, P = 0.004) (Fig. 2, Table 1). At the same time, E. tricuspidata had no preference for all four benzenoids compounds, benzaldehyde (chi-square test, x² = 2.333, df = 1, P = 0.127), methyl-salicylate (chi-square test, x² = 3.267, df = 1, P = 0.071), benzyl-alcohol (chi-square test, x² = 2.000, df = 1, P = 0.157), and 2-phenylethanol (chi-square test, x² = 0.222, df = 1, P = 0.637) (Fig. 3, Table 1).

Table 1

P values (χ² value) of spider preference choice for different floral volatile scent compounds (*chi-square test*)
Compound	Degree of freedom	χ² value	P value
limonene	1	0.429	0.513
β-ocimene	1	0.250	0.617
linalool	1	0	1
α-pinene	1	8.333	0.004
benzaldehyde	1	2.333	0.127
methyl-salicylate	1	3.267	0.071
benzyl-alcohol	1	2.0	0.157
2-phenylethanol	1	0.222	0.637
Numbers in bold refer to significant P value

On the other hand, the choosing time was normal except that of α-pinene because only one spider chose α-pinene, so it was not applicable for normal distribution. In the dual choice behavioral assays, there was no significant difference in the choosing time between each compound and control (Table 2).

Table 2

Choosing time of spider on different floral volatile scent compounds and control
Compound	Trail	Mean ± SE (s)	Normality test	P value
limonene	limonene	159.0 ± 26.4	0.832	0.411
limonene	control	130.5 ± 21.7	0.481	0.411
β-ocimene	β-ocimene	145.9 ± 23.2	0.599	0.480
β-ocimene	control	117.3 ± 33.3	0.454	0.480
linalool	linalool	159.6 ± 19.9	0.519	0.641
linalool	control	176.7 ± 30.1	0.383	0.641
α-pinene	α-pinene	237	—	0.228
α-pinene	control	172.1 ± 14.6	0.296	0.228
benzaldehyde	benzaldehyde	191.3 ± 26.6	0.985	0.637
benzaldehyde	control	175.4 ± 19.2	0.565	0.637
methyl-salicylate	methyl-salicylate	97.8 ± 24.9	0.880	0.949
methyl-salicylate	control	106.4 ± 24.6	0.039	0.949
benzyl-alcohol	benzyl-alcohol	158.2 ± 19.8	0.368	0.618
benzyl-alcohol	control	177.5 ± 37.0	0.810	0.618
2-phenylethanol	2-phenylethanol	184.8 ± 33.6	0.257	0.766
2-phenylethanol	control	171.9 ± 26.9	0.899	0.766

Spiders are an important kind of predator in the terrestrial ecosystem. They can distinguish the favorable hunting sites using some information, such as the availability of prey, predation risk, and competition. Chemical signals are considered to be very important for spiders to obtain information, which may be the first communication measure in spiders (Foelix 2011). Crab spiders can sense chemical signals from flowers to identify the quality of flowers (Heiling et al. 2004) and find a hunting site with more potential prey (Knauer et al. 2018).

In the current paper, we explored the attraction of eight main floral volatile scent compounds of tulip to E. tricuspidata. Except abominating α-pinene, E. tricuspidata has no significant preference or aversion to limonene, β-Ocimene, linalool, benzaldehyde, methyl-salicylate, benzyl-alcohol, or 2-phenylethanol. This result is not consistent with the previous studies (Heiling et al. 2004; Knauer et al. 2018) or our previous conjecture that floral volatile scents may play an important role in the process of E. tricuspidata visiting flowers. However, floral volatile scents don’t always attract spiders. For example, Pisaura mirabilis (Pisauridae) preferred leaf extracts to floral extracts and avoided substrates with floral scents while Misumena vatia (Thomisidae) had no preference for any of them (Junker et al. 2011). The repellent behavior of E. tricuspidata to α-pinene in our experiments indicates that some floral volatile scent compounds have certain deterrent effect on spiders. There are 5 tulip species with a high content of α-pinene (Oyama-Okubo and Tsuji 2013), and we did find that some varieties of tulip didn’t have the presence of E. tricuspidata during the field observation (Su et al. 2020b). Our experiments and the literature show that the floral volatile scents attract and reject spiders with specificity. Plants need to weigh the net benefit in the presence or absence of spiders because spiders can prey not only on the mutualists (pollinators), but also the antagonists (herbivores) of plants (Knauer et al. 2018). Floral volatile scents can repel or stop some arthropods (Junker and Blüthgen 2010; Willmer et al. 2009); sometimes floral volatile scents can prevent carnivores and herbivores from visiting flowers and attract pollinators at the same time, which can maximize the fitness of plants (Brown 2002; Irwin et al. 2004).

Obligate flower visitors who rely on plant resources can tolerate defensive floral compounds and even use these compounds as cues to find host flowers, while facultative flower visitors can’t (Junker and Blüthgen 2010). As a facultative flower visitor, E. tricuspidata can’t adapt to all host plants, the reason may be that they cannot tolerate some defensive floral volatile scent compounds. Therefore, the repellent behavior of E. tricuspidata to α-pinene probably represents a typical response: facultative flower visitors cannot tolerate all defensive floral scent compounds. There is evidence that facultative flower visitors prefer benzenoids compounds and have a strong avoidance behavior towards monoterpenes compounds (Junker and Blüthgen 2010), however, in our dual choice behavioral assays, E. tricuspidata did not totally behave like that. This probably indicates that the compounds of flowers evolved for different functions and targets. Moreover, plant volatile scent compounds are quite complex (Heil 2008; Knauer et al. 2018), and different tissues and organs release different compounds (Pichersky and Gershenzon 2002). Therefore, we can’t rule out that E. tricuspidata has a preference for the volatile scent compound of tulips, which we didn’t test in the experiments.

Although little is known about the effects of floral volatile scent compounds on spiders and the odor receptors of spiders is inconclusive (Foelix 2011), we are confident that floral volatile scent compounds are essential to spiders, especially to the hunting species. In addition, spiders also use physical signals, such as vision (Nagata et al. 2012) and vibration (Sivalinghem and Mason 2021), along with chemical signals. Despite chemical and physical signals affecting spiders simultaneously in most cases, their effects on spiders used to be studied separately, which may result in our biased understanding of spider behaviors. In the future, both chemical and physical signals should be taken into account when studying spider behaviors, not only in the interaction with plants, but also in predation, defense and courtship.

Authors’ Contributions

YP and QS designed the experiments. ZL and QS ducted the experiments and wrote the manuscript. YZ, YL and YP performed data analysis and revised the manuscript. All authors contributed throughout the manuscript.

Funding The study was funded by the Special Foundation for the National Science and Technology Basic Research Program of China (2018FY100400), State Key Project of Research and Development Plan (2016YFD0200900) and Frontier Projects of Applied Foundation of Wuhan Science and Technology Bureau (2019020701011464).

Data Availability All data are presented in the manuscript.

Code Availability Not applicable.

Additional Declarations for Articles in Life Science Journals That Report the Results of Studies Involving Humans and/or Animals Not applicable.

Ethics Approval All spiders were treated in accordance with the ‘research ethics and animal treatment’ legal requirements of Hubei University.

Consent to Participate Not applicable.

Consent for Publication Not applicable.

Conflicts of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Bairos-Novak KR, Ferrari MC, Chivers DP (2019) A novel alarm signal in aquatic prey: familiar minnows coordinate group defences against predators through chemical disturbance cues. J Anim Ecol 88:1281–1290
Bernasconi Ockroy ML, Turlings TC, Edwards PJ, Fritzsche-Hoballah ME, Ambrosetti L, Bassetti P, Dorn S (2001) Response of natural populations of predators and parasitoids to artificially induced volatile emissions in maize plants (Zea mays L.). Agric For Entomol 3:201–209
Binyameen M, Ali Q, Roy A, Schlyter F (2021) Plant volatiles and their role in insect olfaction. Plant-Pest Interactions: From Molecular Mechanisms to Chemical Ecology. Springer, pp 127–156
Bittner N, Hundacker J, Achotegui-Castells A, Anderbrant O, Hilker M (2019) Defense of Scots pine against sawfly eggs (Diprion pini) is primed by exposure to sawfly sex pheromones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:24668–24675
Bronstein JL, Alarcón R, Geber M (2006) The evolution of plant–insect mutualisms. New Phytol 172:412–428
Brown K (2002) A compromise on floral traits. Science 298:45–46
Brunetti AE, Neto FC, Vera MC, Taboada C, Pavarini D, Bauermeister A, Lopes N (2018) An integrative omics perspective for the analysis of chemical signals in ecological interactions. Chem Soc Rev 47:1574–1591
Cely Ortiz C, Tibbetts EA (2021) Visual and chemical signals provide different information in Polistes fuscatus wasps. Ethology 127:231–237
Chen X, Chen Y, Wu L, Peng Y, Chen J, Liu F (2010) A survey of nectar feeding by spiders in three different habitats. Bull Insectol 63:203–208
Da Silva ITFA, Magalhães DM, Borges M, Laumann RA, De Brito CH, Miranda JE, Blassioli-Moraes MC (2022) Exploitation of herbivore-induced cotton volatiles by the parasitic wasp Bracon vulgaris reveals a dominant chemotactic effect of terpenoids. BioControl:1–14
De Moraes CM, Lewis W, Pare P, Alborn H, Tumlinson J (1998) Herbivore-infested plants selectively attract parasitoids. Nature 393:570–573
Diehl-Fleig E, Diehl E (2018) Interactions among attending ants, brown-citrus aphids, and ladybugs in plants of Citrus sinensis Neotropical. Biology and Conservation 13:161–170
Foelix R (2011) Biology of spiders. OUP USA
Heil M (2008) Indirect defence via. tritrophic Interact New Phytologist 178:41–61
Heil M, McKey D (2003) Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:425–553
Heiling AM, Cheng K, Herberstein ME (2004) Exploitation of floral signals by crab spiders (Thomisus spectabilis, Thomisidae). Behav Ecol 15:321–326
Helms AM, De Moraes CM, Tooker JF, Mescher MC (2013) Exposure of Solidago altissima plants to volatile emissions of an insect antagonist (Eurosta solidaginis) deters subsequent herbivory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:199–204
Hervé MR, Nicolè F, Lê Cao K-A (2018) Multivariate analysis of multiple datasets: a practical guide for chemical ecology. J Chem Ecol 44:215–234
Hettyey A et al (2019) Predator-induced changes in the chemical defence of a vertebrate. J Anim Ecol 88:1925–1935
Higginson AD, Ruxton GD, Skelhorn J (2010) The impact of flower-dwelling predators on host plant reproductive success. Oecologia 164:411–421
Holtz AM, Marinho-Prado JS, Pallini A, Pires AA, Cofler TP, Rocha CM, Pazianotto RAA (2019) Host plant and the predator Podisus nigrispinus: when the defense compounds of the plant affect the third trophic level. Entomol Exp Appl 167:306–312
Irwin RE, Adler LS, Brody AK (2004) The dual role of floral traits: pollinator attraction and plant defense. Ecology 85:1503–1511
Junker RR, Blüthgen N (2010) Floral scents repel facultative flower visitors, but attract obligate ones. Ann Botany 105:777–782
Junker RR, Bretscher S, Dötterl S, Blüthgen N (2011) Phytochemical cues affect hunting-site choices of a nursery web spider (Pisaura mirabilis) but not a crab spider (Misumena vatia). J Arachnology 39:113–117
Kersch-Becker MF, Kessler A, Thaler JS (2017) Plant defences limit herbivore population growth by changing predator-prey interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20171120
Knauer AC, Bakhtiari M, Schiestl FP (2018) Crab spiders impact floral-signal evolution indirectly through removal of florivores. Nat Commun 9:1–10
Knudsen JT, Eriksson R, Gershenzon J, Ståhl B (2006) Diversity and distribution of floral scent. Bot Rev 72:1–120
Kost C, Heil M (2005) Increased availability of extrafloral nectar reduces herbivory in Lima bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae). Basic Appl Ecol 6:237–248
Kumar A, Memo M, Mastinu A (2020) Plant behaviour: An evolutionary response to the environment? Plant Biol 22:961–970
Liu J, May-Collado LJ, Pekár S, Agnarsson I (2016) A revised and dated phylogeny of cobweb spiders (Araneae, Araneoidea, Theridiidae): a predatory Cretaceous lineage diversifying in the era of the ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 94:658–675
Meehan CJ, Olson EJ, Reudink MW, Kyser TK, Curry RL (2009) Herbivory in a spider through exploitation of an ant-plant mutualism. Curr Biol 19:R892–R893
Morris RL, Reader T (2016) Do crab spiders perceive Batesian mimicry in hoverflies? Behav Ecol 27:920–931
Nagata T et al (2012) Depth perception from image defocus in a jumping spider. Science 335:469–471
Oyama-Okubo N, Tsuji T (2013) Analysis of floral scent compounds and classification by scent quality in tulip cultivars. J Japanese Soc Hortic Sci 82:344–353
Pekár S, Líznarová E, Bočánek O, Zdráhal Z (2018) Venom of prey-specialized spiders is more toxic to their preferred prey: A result of prey‐specific toxins. J Anim Ecol 87:1639–1652
Pichersky E, Gershenzon J (2002) The formation and function of plant volatiles: perfumes for pollinator attraction and defense. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:237–243
Poulin RX, Lavoie S, Siegel K, Gaul DA, Weissburg MJ, Kubanek J (2018) Chemical encoding of risk perception and predator detection among estuarine invertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:662–667
Robertson IC, Maguire DK (2005) Crab spiders deter insect visitations to slickspot peppergrass flowers. Oikos 109:577–582
Sanders D (2013) Herbivory in spiders. Spider ecophysiology. Springer, pp 385–391
Sivalinghem S, Mason AC (2021) Vibratory communication in a black widow spider (Latrodectus hesperus): Signal structure and signalling mechanisms. Anim Behav 174:217–235
Su Q, Qi L, Yun Y, Zhang W, Peng Y (2020a) Visual preference of flower-visiting crab spiders (Ebrechtella tricuspidata) for host flowers. Ecol Entomol 45:626–634
Su Q, Qi L, Zhang W, Yun Y, Zhao Y, Peng Y (2020b) Biodiversity survey of flower-visiting spiders based on literature review and field study. Environ Entomol 49:673–682
Thomas ML (2011) Detection of female mating status using chemical signals and cues. Biol Rev 86:1–13
Turlings TC, Erb M (2018) Tritrophic interactions mediated by herbivore-induced plant volatiles: mechanisms, ecological relevance, and application potential. Ann Rev Entomol 63:433–452
Willmer PG et al (2009) Floral volatiles controlling ant behaviour. Funct Ecol 23:888–900
Xu T, Teale SA (2021) Chemical ecology of the Asian longhorn beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis. J Chem Ecol 47:489–503
Zhang C, Sun C, Lucas JR, Gu H, Feng J, Jiang T (2021) Individuality and function of chemical signals during conflict resolution of a mammal. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1509:74–88
Zu P, Boege K, Del-Val E, Schuman MC, Stevenson PC, Zaldivar-Riverón A, Saavedra S (2020) Information arms race explains plant-herbivore chemical communication in ecological communities. Science 368:1377–1381

Volatile Scents Preference of Crab Spiders (Ebrechtella Tricuspidata) for Host Flowers

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods And Materials

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1