bright idea

I hate it when pop science articles write headlines like "study confirms". Why can't we just use "study concludes"? It's a subtle but important distinction that treats science as the ever-evolving process it is instead of an activity booklet where you get a stamp for every new science you complete. The article is fascinating, though. Here's the full conclusion:

Our field experiment showed that firefly signals significantly enhanced prey interception and attraction rates. We therefore conclude that a build-up of signalling fireflies in spider webs attracts other fireflies, the consequence of which is enhanced foraging efficacy for the spiders. By handling fireflies in this unique way, the spiders effectively utilize the firefly's signal for its own ends. Such conspecific signal utilization is rare in nature as it often comes at prohibitive costs. The sit-and-wait foraging behaviour of [Psechrus] clavis along with its habit of foraging primarily at night, nevertheless, seemed to effectively mitigate much of the costs.

Our findings highlight a novel interaction where firefly signals, initially evolved for sexual communication, indirectly benefit spiders by enhancing prey availability. This suggests there may be an evolutionary compromise where spiders tolerate signalling fireflies as they subsequently benefit the spider.

This reminds me of a post a year ago about orb weaver Araneus ventricosus also using fireflies as bait. I thought this would be a follow-up, but they're talking about a different species here.