DOI: 10.5061/dryad.p8cz8wb0r
title: Association of prey quality with environmental odors in the foraging behavior of Pardosa milvina

description: Modulation of predatory behaviors based on prey profitability can improve
 overall foraging efficiency by allocating energy reserves towards more
 valuable prey. Should the value of prey vary predictably across the
 landscape, predators could also benefit from the utilization of
 environmental cues to inform their foraging decisions. Here we present
 data on context-dependent foraging behaviors of the wolf spider Pardosa
 milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae). Spiders underwent testing during which
 subjects were alternately provided cricket prey coated with either a
 favorable (sucrose) or unfavorable (quinine) solution. Each prey type was
 paired with one of two environmental odors such that one odor was always
 predictive of unfavorable prey and the other was always predictive of
 favorable prey. We found that P. milvina reduced their attacks over time
 while differing significantly in behavior towards the two prey types. The
 rate of non-responses towards the unfavorable prey increased significantly
 over time compared to the favorable prey, suggesting that spiders were
 avoiding the former. Our findings indicate that P. milvina can
 differentiate between environmental odor cues associated with prey type.
 Additionally, we report on a novel prey handling behavior where spiders
 would repeatedly drag unfavorable prey along the arena floor between bouts
 of cheliceral grooming. We propose this behavior may have served to remove
 quinine from the prey.
description: # Association of prey quality with environmental odors in the foraging
 behavior of *Pardosa milvina*
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p8cz8wb0r](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p8cz8wb0r) ## Description of the data and file structure This dataset represents the results of a 16-trial, 25-day long training period in which adult female *Pardosa milvina* (Araneae: Lycosidae) were given one cricket prey (*Gryllodes sigillatus)* treated to be either favorable (with glucose) or unfavorable (with quinine) during each trial. Prey was presented in conjunction with a background odor cue, either peppermint or maple, such that one odor was predictive of favorable prey and the other predictive of unfavorable prey.  The data presented herein details the spiders' responses to the prey during each trial, including attack, rejection, and consumption behaviors as they occurred.  ### Files and variables #### File: Association\_of\_prey\_quality\_with\_environmental\_odors\_in\_Pardosa\_milvina\_-\_raw\_data.xlsx **Description:** The first sheet of the Excel file contains the meta-data information (re-iterated here) needed to interpret the dataset found on the second sheet.  ##### Variables: | Column header: | Data description: | | :----------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Sorting Number | Values used to reorganize the spreadsheet after sorting; not relevant to data analysis | | Spider ID | Unique identifier for each spider | | Training day | The number of days since the spider has been in the training portion of the study (1-25) | | Trial number | Which of the 16 training trials the spider completed (1-16) | | Training Scent | The extract applied to the arena lining for the current trial (peppermint or maple) | | Training Solution | The solution applied to the cricket prey for the current trial (quinine or glucose) | | Association | The favorability of the solution for the trial: favorable (for sucrose) or unfavorable (for quinine) | | Attacked? | Whether or not the spider attacked the cricket during the training round (Y = yes they attacked or N = no they did not attack) | | Latency to attack (s) | The time (in seconds) until the spider attacked the cricket during the trial (NA = the spider never attacked the cricket, otherwise ranges between 0 = the start of the trial and 600 = the end of the trial)   | | Rejected? | Whether or not the spider rejected the cricket during the training round (Y = yes they rejected or N = no they did not reject) | | Latency of rejection (s) | The time (in seconds) until the spider rejected the cricket during the trial (NA = the spider never rejected the cricket, otherwise ranges between 0 = the start of the trial and 600 = the end of the trial)  | | Consumption? | Whether or not the spider consumed the cricket at the end of the training round (Y = yes they consumed or N = no they did not consume) | | Behavior outcome | The ultimate response the spider had towards the cricket during the training round (Consumed = the spider consumed the cricket, Rejected = the spider rejected the cricket, Nothing = the spider neither rejected nor consumed the cricket) | | | **Additional notes:** Spiders sometimes rejected the cricket during the training session but later picked it up again and held it through the transfer back to their housing containers. As such, it's possible spiders have data for rejection while their final behavior outcome was consumption. Some spiders lunged towards the cricket during the training session but missed or otherwise didn't contact the cricket so these trials have attack data but the final behavior outcome was nothing.   |