Females of a gift-giving spider do not trade sex for food gifts: a consequence of male deception?

Table 1 GLMM and LMM comparing mating effects among groups (well-fed females receiving fly gifts (Well fed-Nutritive gift), well-fed females receiving worthless gifts (Well fed-Worthless gift) and poorly fed females receiving fly gifts (Poorly fed-Nutritive gift))

MATING EFFECTS	N	Fixed effects	Random effects-Female ID
MATING EFFECTS	N	Group	Intercept Std Dev	Age Std Dev	Correlation structure
Frequency of mating	857	X ² _Wald = 5.25, p = 0.06	0.61	0.02	0.10
Latency of acceptance (min)	471	X ² _Wald = 3.70, p = 0.16	0.16	0.01	0.35
Mating duration (min)	471	X ² _Wald = 4.97, p = 0.08	0.53	0.02	0.31
Cannibalism (yes/no)	856	X ² _Wald = 6.75, p = 0.03	1.43	0.06	0.01
Gift stealing	855	X ² _Wald = 15.58, p < 0.001	1.05	0.06	−0.01

In all models, Group was considered as fixed effects, female ID (N = 64) as random effects and female age as covariate. Significant p-values are shown in bold

ISSN: 2730-7182