Biomechanical costs and benefits of sit-and-wait foraging traps

Abstract

Abstract Traps are rarely used by animals, despite the plausible benefits of broadening the number and diversity of prey that sit-and-wait foragers might be able to capture. The most well-known trap building sit-and-wait foragers are among the invertebrates, i.e. antlions, wormlions, glow worms, caddisflies, and spiders. A plausible hypothesis for the paucity of trap building by other animals is that biomechanical limitations render them inefficient or ineffective at catching sufficient prey. Here I examined the literature to make a valued judgement about the validity of this hypothesis. It appears that antlion and wormlion pit traps cannot catch and retain the largest prey they might expect to encounter. Arachnacampa glowworm traps are functionally efficient, facilitated by the animal’s bioluminescence. Nevertheless they only function in very moist or humid conditions. Caddisfly traps rely on flowing water to be able to capture their prey. Spiders are exceptional in developing a wide range of prey trapping strategies, from webs with dry adhesives, to sticky orb webs, to modified orb webs, e.g. elongated “ladder” webs, to webs with additional structures, and web aggregations. Some spiders have even redesigned their webs to minimize the high prey escape rates associated with web two dimensionality. These webs nevertheless are constructed and used at specific costs. While hard data across all of the invertebrate predators is lacking, there seems to be credence in the hypothesis that the biomechanical limitations placed on trap functionality can explain their limited use among animals.