Introduction

Traits mediating interactions among species are central in explaining the structure of ecological communities (Wootton 1994; Berlow 1999; Werner and Peacor 2003) and variation in major life-history events (e.g., growth, fecundity, and mortality) within and between species (Thompson 1999). This is particularly the case between predators and prey, because the traits mediating predator–prey interactions such as attack rate and predator avoidance often are key mechanisms structuring ecological communities (Werner and Peacor 2003; Schmitz et al. 2004). Theory predicts that natural selection should act towards stabilizing such dynamics and eventually settling predator–prey interactions to stable predator and prey phenotypes (e.g., Hochberg and Holt 1995, Loeuille 2010, but see Matsuda and Abrams 1994, Abrams 2000). There is, however, ample empirical evidence and theoretical literature showing that phenotypes with an important role in predator–prey interactions often show higher variation both between and within individuals of the same species (Bolnick et al. 2003, 2011; Saloniemi 1993; Doebeli and Koella 1994; Okuyama 2008). This presents an ecological puzzle. How can we explain that variation in traits mediating predator–prey interactions is maintained over the course of evolution? And, in turn, what prevents predator–prey dynamics from reaching a stable equilibrium (Hendry 2016, Chap. 8)?

One possible explanation for the maintenance of such variation is the existence of evolutionary trade-offs involving multiple traits (DeWitt and Langerhans 2003; Langerhans 2007; Peiman and Robinson 2017). For instance, there is a trade-off between foraging ability and reproductive success if predators have limited energy and time to allocate between these two functions (e.g., Yeh et al. 2015; Fan et al. 2009; Lima 1998a, b). The trade-off between foraging effort and predator avoidance should be particularly important in species that attract their prey using lures and are relatively low in the food chain, such as mesopredators (hereafter non-apex predators; Yeh et al. 2015). This is because non-apex predators that attract prey both face greater risk of predation from species higher up in the food chain (that are not the target of lures) by drawing their attention. Although an extensive number of empirical studies have documented prey-attraction strategies in non-apex predators (Box 1), the evolution of lures has received little comprehensive treatment. Attracting prey should come at a cost of increased vulnerability to predators that occupy the same or a higher rank in the food chain (see Magnhagen 1991 and Zuk and Kolluru 1998 for a similar concept in a mating context). Thus, animals using lures might need to balance foraging success with predation risk, both of which increase with the use of more conspicuous lures. Predators using lures might produce conspicuous signals to attract their prey that are, in turn, exploited by their own predators to locate them. This, however, may not always be the case as research on toxicity signals in prey (i.e., aposematism) has claimed that the emergence of conspicuous signals may paradoxically be possible as a result of relaxed predation in early evolutionary phases (Marples et al. 2005; Mappes et al. 2005). The existence of a trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance is, thus, debatable.

In this synthesis, we review the literature on prey-attraction adaptions in spiders (Araneae). This group contains arguably the largest number of species using prey attraction as their main foraging mode. Spiders represent an ideal study group to explore the trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance for three main reasons. First, spiders are predators that are low in the food chain and hence have many potential predators themselves (e.g., vertebrates predators, parasitoid wasps, other spiders; Wise 1993). Second, spiders are a species-rich group with over 51,000 species (World Spider Catalog 2023), exhibiting diverse life-histories and foraging strategies with numerous taxa using prey-attraction strategies. Third, silk usage and web production allow a diversity of structure and extends the foraging potential of this group: spider silk and webs can be used in addition to, or in place of, the spider's own body to attract prey. Using lures made of silk should also be important in reducing mortality due to predation: instead of targeting directly the spider, predators might instead target silk structures, that would, thus, serve as “decoys” and contribute to reduce the spider’s risk of death.

We first provide an overview of prey-attraction strategies in animals, with a particular focus on spiders. We next review the evidence for a trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance in spiders and emphasize the importance of sensory mechanisms that underlie the trade-off. We discuss the potential scenarios governing the evolution of lures and stress the importance of intraspecific variation and phenotypic plasticity in prey-attraction strategies in sha** predator–prey coevolution. Our objective is to provide a first account of the topic, highlight general patterns, and provide directions for future empirical work.

Adaptations to attract prey in spiders

A diversity of spider taxa have developed highly visible phenotypes for attracting prey (Blackledge et al 2011; Walter and Elgar 2012; Chap. 8 in Stevens 2013) through a) the addition of a visual signal to their web, in the form of silk threads or other material (hereafter “web decorations”), b) conspicuous body coloration, or c) attractive volatile chemical compounds and vibratory signals. In this section, we review each of these types of traits.

Web decorations

Many species of spiders, particularly species belonging to the genus Argiope (Herberstein et al. 2000; Cheng et al. 2010; Walter and Elgar 2012), decorate their web with additional threads of silk. These web decorations (also known as stabilimenta) are made of tightly woven silk, shaped into different patterns near the center of the web and the spider (Bruce et al. 2001). Such web decorations are highly visible and do not seem to reinforce the structure of the web (Simon 1864; Eberhard 1990; Herberstein 2000; Starks 2002; Bruce 2006; Théry and Casas 2009; Blackledge et al. 2011). Studies conducted under both natural and laboratory conditions show that web decoration often increase the number of prey drawn in and caught in the web by making the web more attractive (Craig and Bernard 1990; Craig 1991; Craig and Ebert 1994; Tso 1996; Tso 1998a,b; Watanabe 1999; Herberstein 2000; Bruce et al. 2001; Bruce et al. 2004; Cheng and Tso 2007; but see Hauber 1998). Web decorations presumably attract insect prey to the spider web either because they resemble light gaps in the vegetation (Elgar et al. 1996; Ewer 1972) or because their pattern of UV light reflectance mimics that of flowers (Craig and Bernard 1990; Craig 1995; Kiltie 1996). This white structure could in fact reflect many wavelengths and might, thus, be capable of reaching longer distances relative to monochromatic structures: as distance increases, the number of wavelengths that are scattered or absorbed increases and, thus, a more diverse spectrum (i.e., white light) is more likely to be visible from further away (Endler 1992; Manning and Dawkins 1998).

Alternatively, web decorations could help to protect the spider against predators and parasitoids (Marples et al. 2005; Horton 1981; Eisner and Nowicki 1983; Schoener and Spiller 1992; Kerr 1993; Cloudsley-Thompson 1995; Blackledge 1998b; Blackledge and Wenzel 1999; Nakata 2009). Web decorations may conceal the spider (Hingston 1927; Bristowe 1941; Ewer 1972; Eberhard 1973, 1990; Tolbert 1975; Edmunds and Edmunds 1986; Schoener and Spiller 1992; Tan and Li 2009; Wang et al. 2021), make it appear bigger (Hingston 1927; Ewer 1972; Eberhard 1973; Tolbert 1975; Schoener and Spiller 1992; Li and Lee 2004; Uhl 2008), act as a retreat (Blackledge and Wenzel 2001; Walter 2018), or physically shield the spider from attacks (Tolbert 1975; Schoener and Spiller 1992; Blackledge and Wenzel 2001). Web decorations can also prevent parasitoid wasps from identifying and accessing the spider (Blackledge and Wenzel 2001). More generally, web decorations can reduce the risk of damage to the web caused by flying birds by signaling the presence of the web and preventing accidental bird fly-through (Horton, 1980; Eisner and Nowicki 1983; Blackledge and Wenzel 1999). For example, Blackledge and Wenzel (1999) found that webs without decorations were more often damaged by birds.

Nevertheless, it is clear that web decorations often attract prey and increase foraging success (Table 1) and several studies suggest that this might come with an increase in predation risk (Bruce et al. 2001, 2005; Seah and Li 2001; Li and Lee 2004). For example, Li and Lee (2004) found that Argiope spiders were less likely to build and, when they did, built smaller web decorations in response to the presence of olfactory cues from a predator. There is also evidence that predators are able to detect web decorations and memorize their form (Seah and Li 2001). This could ultimately lead to an increase in the risk of predation associated with the use of web decorations.

Table 1 Empirical studies testing for a trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance in spiders
Full size table

Body coloration

Some spiders also exhibit conspicuous body coloration or markings that attract prey (e.g., White 2017; Hauber 2002; Chuang et al. 2007; Tso et al. 2007). For example, body coloration increases foraging success in the golden orb-weaver spider Nephila pilipes and the spotted orb-web spider Neoscona punctigera (Chuang et al. 2007; Chiao et al. 2009; Blamires et al. 2012), the araneomorph spider Psechrus clavis (Lai et al. 2017), and the northern jeweled spider Gasteracantha fornicata (Muma 1971; Hauber 2002; White and Kemp 2016; White 2017). In the genus Gasteracantha, females exhibit bands of bright color, generally white or yellow, that contrast against a black outline and lure prey to the web (Hauber 2002; Rao et al. 2015; White and Kemp 2016; Messas et al. 2021). Likewise, the crab spider Epicadus heterogaster uses its abdomen, which reflects UVs, to attract prey (Vieira et al 2017). The brown huntsman spider Heteropoda venatoria bears a white stripe on its forehead that attracts flying prey at night, such as moths (Zhang et al 2015).

Non-visual lures

Spiders also attract prey using non-visual lures, such as chemical and vibratory signals. For example, Bolas spiders of the genus Mastophora attract male moths by producing volatiles that mimic female moth pheromones (Eberhard 1977; Stowe et al. 1987; Haynes et al. 2002; chap. 11 in Nentwig 2013; chap. 8 in Stevens 2013). The St Andrew's cross spider Argiope keyserlingi mists its webs with the amide putrescine, which serves as an allomone that increases the rate of prey capture (Henneken et al. 2017a). The social spider Mallos gregalis attracts flies using the odor produced by yeasts that grow on the carcasses of flies which the spider aggregates in the web (Tietjen et al. 1987). The jum** spiders of the genera Brettus, Cyrba, Gelotia, and Portia prey on other spiders by attacking them on their webs using vibrations that mimic a prey caught in the web (Jackson and Blest 1982; Jackson and Hallas 1986; Jackson 1990a, b, 1992). Outside these examples, non-visual lures such as volatile compounds and vibratory signals are extremely understudied compared to visual ones (i.e., web decorations and conspicuous body coloration). In spiders, only a handful of studies have studied olfactory and tactile lures, with most studies focusing on chemical lures of bolas spiders (Zhu and Haines, 2004; Vereecken and McNeil 2010). Although non-visual lures might be widespread among spider taxa (Uetz and Roberts 2002; Hill and Wessel 2016; Virant-Doberlet et al. 2019), we currently have limited understanding of whether they are common hunting tactics in spiders or if they involve more complex strategies using multimodal mechanisms in combination with chemical and/or vibratory signals.

The trade-off: catching prey versus avoiding predators

There is good evidence that predator foraging behavior and prey anti-predator traits can coevolve (Dawkins and Krebs 1979; Abrams 2000), and that there is often a trade-off between maximizing foraging success and avoiding predation (e.g., Lima 1998a, b; Houston et al. 1993). For example, foraging efficiency decreases under greater risk of predation in back-swimmers (Sih 1980), marmots (Holmes 1984), and chickadees (Lima 1985). Likewise, lures are most likely shaped by both top-down and bottom-up selective pressures, and we should expect to see evidence of a trade-off maximizing prey capture while limiting predation risk (Blackledge 1998a; Yeh et al. 2015; Fan et al. 2009). Past studies in arachnids have investigated this potential trade-off mainly in visual signals, with web decorations being the most documented cases. Interestingly, web decorations can also increase the risk of predation by attracting more insect predators, such as mantids (Bruce et al. 2001) and wasps (Cheng and Tso 2007). This suggests that spiders using web decorations might face a trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance.

There is also some evidence for a trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance in other species using visual signals to attract their prey. For example, Fan et al. (2009) tested the attracting properties of the black and yellow pattern of the orb-web spider Nephila pilipes and showed that yellow coloration attracts both predators and prey. This suggests that the common bright-and-dark coloration could be an optimal phenotype negotiating the trade-off between prey and predator attraction. In contrast to visual lures, we are not aware of any studies reporting similar effects of chemical or vibratory lures attracting predators. It is, therefore, unclear whether non-visual lures could also be constrained by a trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance.

Given that variation in the abundance of resources and predation risk are major evolutionary drivers sha** natural populations (Sih et al. 1985; Lima 1998b; Langerhans 2007), the trade-off between foraging success and predation avoidance might play an important role in maintaining variation in the extent to which spiders build web decorations and express body coloration (Cheng and Tso 2007; Fan et al. 2009). The members of the Argiope genus, for example, sometimes reduce or even stop decorating their web when facing a greater predation risk. In some cases, these spiders rely solely on their body coloration as lure (Cheng and Tso 2007). Part of this variation over time might come from reversible phenotypic plasticity. The expression of lures could be condition dependent: the investment made by individuals into their lures varies with diet or past foraging success (Heberstein et al. 2000). Indeed, Gawryszewski et al. (2012) found that past foraging success was related to color contrast between spiders and their background in the crab spider Thomisus spectabilis.

Although the existence of a trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance is expected and supported by some empirical work, there currently is no clear consensus as to whether lures really are associated with increased costs of predation. Research on sexual selection and aposematism (i.e., signaling mating benefits or toxicity) have debated similar issues and provide useful explanations on how conspicuous signals can evolve and become fixed in populations. In the context of signaling among sexual partners, deploying conspicuous signals should increase detectability by predators (reviewed in Burk 1982; Magnhagen 1991; Zuk and Kolluru 1998; Haynes and Yeargan 1999; Kotiaho 2001) and there should, therefore, be a trade-off between signaling and predator avoidance. Yet there is not always an obvious predation cost associated with sexual signals (White et al. 2022), potentially because more conspicuous individuals tend to also express stronger anti-predator behavior to compensate for their increased visibility to predators (Bernal and Page 2023). This would be the case, for instance, if individuals in better condition or that have access to more resources can invest more in both sexual signals and anti-predator behavior, whereby masking the potential trade-off between signaling and predator avoidance (Van Noordwijk and De Jong 1986).

The presence of a trade-off is even more controversial in the context of aposematism, where toxic prey develop conspicuous visual signal to warn predators of their toxicity. To associate an aposematic prey signal with toxicity, predators have to initially learn by consuming aposematic prey (Guilford 1988). Hence, any new prey variant displaying a conspicuous signal would likely be rapidly purged out of the population before being established (Guilford 1990). This apparent paradox is resolved by empirical studies showing that predators often avoid new prey items as a result of neophobia or dietary conservatism (Mappes et al. 2005; Marples et al. 2005; Crane and Ferrari 2017; White and Umbers 2021). Theoretical work has also suggested that predators might simply avoid conspicuous prey if it means that such prey are more likely to have been encountered by other predators and survived and are, thus, more likely to be toxic (Sherratt 2002). Regardless of the specific explanation, it is clear that in the case of aposematism increased detectability to predators does not necessarily imply increased predation. Nevertheless, it is unlikely to be the case in situations where the prey signals are not intended for predators, but are instead produced to achieve another function such as prey attraction, and are, incidentally, exploited by eavesdrop** predators. Although neophobia and dietary conservatism could enable variants expressing a new prey-attraction phenotype to survive and initially spread in a population, it seems unlikely that this mechanism would allow such variants to become established in the long term, when generations of predators and prey have been sharing the same environment. The reason is because, unlike aposematism where the signal can be reinforced when established because prey are toxic, lures and prey-attraction tactics do not represent a problem for predators that have learned to identify them.

Another reason that could explain the absence of a trade-off is if there is a convergence in the signals attracting prey and warning predators. Spiders may also have developed tactics to avoid predation. For example, signalers in the context of sexual selection often mitigate predator attraction using “private” signals detectable by conspecifics but not by predators (e.g., Endler 1992; Cummings et al. 2003), or by adjusting the timing or location of signaling (Bernal and Page 2023). For example, fireflies use flashing signals instead of constant glow to reduce the risk of predation (Lloyd 1983), while males in Blue-black grassquits tend to display their iridescent plumage in direct sunlight only to maximize conspicuousness and avoid displaying a signal continuously (Sicsú et al. 2013). In the context of prey attraction, it is, thus, possible that spiders modulate the display of lures depending on the risk of predation. Some signals could also achieve two functions: attracting prey and signaling toxicity or unpalatability to predators. This may be the case for Gasteracantha spiders that display a conspicuous body coloration attracting prey while at the same time bearing striking morphological defences. In this species, body coloration could serve as signal to lure prey and as aposematic signal to warn predators (Gawryszewski and Motta 2012; ** force of spider web decoration design. J Exp Biol 213:759–768" href="/article/10.1007/s00442-023-05427-5#ref-CR26" id="ref-link-section-d54805112e1659">2010). In addition to shape, brightness and geometric patterns can contribute to attract prey, such as in the northern jeweled spider G. fornicata (White 2017; White and Kemp 2016).

To successfully attract prey, spiders have to produce lures that are adjusted to the sensory system of their prey. Luring spiders achieve this by taking advantage of pre-existing biases in their prey’s sensory system and preference for particular stimuli (e.g., foraging preferences, White and Kemp 2020; mating behavior, De Serrano et al. 2012). For visual lures to effectively deceive prey, spiders must manipulate multiple visual aspects such as color contrasts, achromatic contrasts, and light reflection (White and Kemp 2016; Chiao et al. 2009). Spiders that mimic flowers to attract pollinators provide an enlightening demonstration of the multiple constraints that prey sensory preferences impose (White and Kemp 2016). In these spiders, the lure mimics the color patterns, shapes, contrasts, luminance, and symmetry of a flower (White and Kemp 2020, 2017; Vieira et al. 2017; Chiao et al. 2009; Cheng et al. 2010). Such an elaborate mimicry enables the crab spider Epicadus heterogaster to successfully attract prey by using its flower-shaped, UV-reflecting abdomen that seems equally attractive to pollinators as real flowers (Vieira et al. 2017).

In turn, the sensory system of local prey and their response to lures evolve as a result of selection exerted by spiders. For example, the Australian native bee Austroplebia australis avoids flowers occupied by local crab spiders, whereas the introduced bee Apis mellifera is unable to discriminate between safe and risky flowers (Heiling and Heberstein 2004). This is likely due to a change in the sensory perceptions and preferences of native bees that have a shared evolutionary history with local crab spiders and, as a result, have been selected to identify and avoid their lures (Heiling and Heberstein 2004). Such coevolutionary dynamics linking prey preference and spider lures have also been documented among Argiope spiders using web decorations, for which the shape presumably evolved from linear to cross-like to meet the symmetry preferences of potential insect prey (Cheng et al. 2010).

The trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance should also be important in sha** the evolution of sensory adaptations. Indirect empirical evidence suggests that conspicuous signals are vulnerable to eavesdrop** from predators because sensory capabilities and preferences of prey and predators often overlaps. For example, in many species of the genus Argiope, such as A. aemula, A. versicolor and A. keyserlingi, web decorations that attract more prey also attract more predators such as wasps, mantises, or other spider predators (Cheng and Tso 2007; Seah and Li 2001; Bruce, Heberstein, and Helgar 2005). In N. pilipes, individuals with brighter coloration are more attractive both to prey insects and to predatory wasps (Fan et al. 2009). We stress here the necessity of considering sensory worlds of both prey and predators, as well as accounting for the fact that lures are multimodal and multicomponent. The review provided by White and Kemp (2015) on the sensory basis of color lures is, to our knowledge, the only attempt to date to incorporate a general sensory framework into the study of lures. This highlights a need for more mechanisms-oriented studies focused on explaining the sensory basis underlying the ability of spiders to produce efficient lures.

Given a plausible trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance, we should expect lures and other traits important to prey attraction to remain suboptimal despite a potential to reach greater attractiveness. Species using prey-attraction strategies might then seek to use lures that cannot be detected by their own predators. We suggest that this may be the case for highly specialized lures, such as the chemical components used by bolas spiders (Eberhard 1977; Stowe et al. 1987; Haynes et al. 2002). These lures, because they are specific to one (or a few) species of prey, are less likely to be detected or at least to attract predators. More generally, we urge future work to jointly address the sensory perceptions of both prey and predators when considering the costs and benefits of lures. In so doing, studies will help determining how attraction of both prey and predators operates and whether mechanisms that are central in signaling, such as learning (Guilford and Dawkins 1991, 1993) or key perceptual and cognitive abilities (Osorio and Vorobyev 2008), underlie sensory perception of spider lures. Meanwhile, prey-attracting spiders provide a useful system for comparative studies testing the possible role of coevolution in the diversification of sensory organs and receptors in signalers and receivers (Endler 1992).

Potential evolutionary outcomes

One possible evolutionary outcome to which predator–prey interactions with lure-using predators may lead is to highly specialized lures. This scenario is generally expected when prey impose selection for morphological or physiological specialization in predators, constraining the predator to an extremely limited range of prey (Pekár and Toft 2015; West-Eberhard 2003; Begon and Townsend 2020). Any new adaptation that increases the predator’s efficiency to catch and consume prey then leads to new adaptations to avoid or escape the predator (Janzen 1980; Thompson 1989). The increased specialization of predators can also favor the coexistence of competing predator species as specialization allows resource partitioning and reduces the magnitude of competition among species (Miller et al. 2005). A particularly illustrative example of specialization in prey-attracting predators are bolas spiders, which attract only a limited number of prey species (Haynes et al. 2002). In theory, predators should often be selected to either become more specialist or more generalist depending on the extent to which capturing one prey species reduces the chance of capturing a different prey species (e.g., Abrams 2006).

In addition to the trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance, traits used for prey-attraction strategies can play a role in other functions and, as such, might be linked to life-history traits. Although this issue has rarely been investigated, there is some evidence that body coloration can affect both prey attraction and sexual selection. For example, white stripes of males of the spider Dolomedes raptor plays a role in both prey attraction and mate choice (Lin et al. 2015). The presence and size of white stripes in males, which depend on body size and presumably reflect resource acquisition during juvenile growth, have a positive effect on both prey attraction and female mating acceptance (Lin et al. 2015). The presence and intensity of the visual signal, such as the white stripes in D. raptor, might reliably indicate quality of potential sexual partners. Alternatively, this signal may have been initially selected for its role in signaling male quality to females and, once evolved, fortuitously contributed to prey attraction. To date, the specific mechanism underlying the origin of dual functions between prey attraction and sexual selection is unknown. Nevertheless, resolving the links between lures and life-history traits, and the subsequent overlaps between prey attraction and other functions, will certainly provide important insights into the evolution of prey-attraction strategies.

The trade-off between prey attraction and predator avoidance places a limit on the detectability of lures by prey. This is established for signals that are used in different contexts, such as in mate attraction and courtship. For example, in the mantis Pseudomantis albofimbriata, the only conspicuous part of this otherwise cryptic species is the achromatic (i.e., shades of gray) brightness of the abdomen of females, which is used as a signal of quality to conspecific males (Barry et al. 2015). This signal is associated with little risk of perception by eavesdrop** predators, and may even improve camouflage through disruptive coloration (Barry et al. 2015). Although spiders can be expected to display the same strategy, spider lures differ from intraspecific reproductive signals in that they do not target conspecific receivers but a wide array of potential prey with different sensory abilities (** the potential trade-off. We have also suggested that the opposing demands imposed by the trade-off can favor variation within populations and the maintenance of polymorphism, polyphenism, or behavioral plasticity. Yet, the trade-off has been the focus of relatively few studies, and we stress the need for more work addressing the occurrence and importance of the trade-off. Prey attraction is a special type of adaptation involving multicomponent signals, trade-offs, and correlational selection, and studying such complex traits would contribute to our understanding of the evolution of multivariate phenotypes in general.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Summary of the main mechanisms constraining the evolution of prey-attraction strategies in spiders

Full size image

There are multiple outstanding questions about prey-attraction strategies that are largely unsolved. First, we know little about the overlap of lures with other life-history traits, such as traits playing a role in reproduction. For example, in species where body coloration plays a role in both sexual selection and prey attraction, there may be opposing selection forces sha** body coloration. Alternatively, body coloration could fulfill the two functions, which seems to be the case with the white coloration in the nocturnal spider Dolomedes raptor (Lin et al. 2015). Second, although previous studies have documented the ecological cost in terms of increased predation, little is known about the physiological and/or energetic cost of producing lures or attracting prey in general. Overall, we should expect metabolic expenditures associated with the production of efficient signals for both prey and predators (e.g., Liao et al. 2019). There is, thus, a need for more studies addressing the cost of prey attraction. We hope to stimulate research on this topic and progress in our understanding of predator–prey interactions and, more generally, interactions among organisms Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Prey attraction strategies in animals. A The deepsea anglerfish Bufoceratias wedli displays a large lure on its back and a smaller one located towards the front (image by Masaki Miya et al. 2010, CC BY 2.0). B The orchid mantis Hymenopus coronatus attracts and captures wild pollinators thanks to its body shape and color (image by Luc Viatour, CC BY 3.0). C The alligator snap** turtle Macrochelys temminckii uses its lingual appendage to imitate a small worm or an insect larva to attract its prey (image by LA Dawson, CC BY 2.5). D The northern jeweled spider Gasteracantha fornicate lures its prey using its conspicuous body coloration (image by Stephanie Levy, CC BY 2.0). E The bolas spider Mastophora phrynosoma lures male moths by producing a chemical mimicking female moth sex pheromone (image by Julie Metz Wetlands, CC BY 2.0). F The orb-web spider Argiope aemula decorates it web with stabilimenta to lure prey (image by Yagnesh Desai, CC BY 4.0)

Full size image