Natural Compounds as Spider Repellents: Fact or Myth?

Abstract

Although some spiders are globally invasive, found at high densities, and may be considered pests (particularly those that are toxic to humans), there are few pest management methods based on experimental data. 'Common wisdom' and advertisements on internet websites assert that a number of natural substances repel spiders. We tested whether the three substances cited most frequently (lemon oil, peppermint oil, and chestnut-fruits) effectively repelled female spiders or whether these were myths. We presented each of the putative repellents versus a control in a two-choice assay and tested responses of females of three invasive spider species in two different families: theridiids, Latrodectus geometricus C. L. Koch (Araneae: Theridiidae) and Steatoda grossa C. L. Koch (Araneae: Theridiidae) and the araneid, Araneus diadematus Clerck . Chestnuts (Araneae: Araneidae) and mint oil strongly repelled L. geometricus and A. diadematus. S. grossa was less sensitive to these chemicals but had a slight tendency to avoid chestnuts. However, lemon oil, the substance most likely to be cited as a repellent (over 1,000,000 hits on Google), had no effect on any of these spiders. We conclude that volatiles released by mint oil and chestnuts may be effective in deterring spider settlement in two different families of spiders, but lemon oil as a repellent is a myth.

Full text

1
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Household and Structural Insects
Natural Compounds as Spider Repellents: Fact orMyth?
Andreas Fischer,1,2,3,4 Manfred Ayasse,2 and Maydianne C. B. Andrade3
1Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, 2Institut of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation
Genomics, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany, 3Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, and 4Corresponding author, e-mail: afischer@sfu.ca
Subject Editor: Michael Rust
Received 7 September 2017; Editorial decision 16 November 2017
Abstract
Although some spiders are globally invasive, found at high densities, and may be considered pests (particularly
those that are toxic to humans), there are few pest management methods based on experimental data. ‘Common
wisdom’ and advertisements on internet websites assert that a number of natural substances repel spiders. We
tested whether the three substances cited most frequently (lemon oil, peppermint oil, and chestnut-fruits) effectively
repelled female spiders or whether these were myths. We presented each of the putative repellents versus a control
in a two-choice assay and tested responses of females of three invasive spider species in two different families:
theridiids, Latrodectus geometricus C. L. Koch (Araneae: Theridiidae) and Steatoda grossa C. L. Koch (Araneae:
Theridiidae) and the araneid, Araneus diadematus Clerck . Chestnuts (Araneae: Araneidae) and mint oil strongly
repelled L. geometricus and A. diadematus. S. grossa was less sensitive to these chemicals but had a slight tendency
to avoid chestnuts. However, lemon oil, the substance most likely to be cited as a repellent (over 1,000,000 hits on
Google), had no effect on any of these spiders. We conclude that volatiles released by mint oil and chestnuts may
be effective in deterring spider settlement in two different families of spiders, but lemon oil as a repellent is a myth.
Key words: spider repellent, pest management, essential oil, internet myths, Latrodectus geometricus
Although spiders are critical to terrestrial food webs and can be
important as biocontrol for pest species including mosquitos (Breene
et al. 1988, Jackson and Cross 2015) and agricultural herbivores
(Riechert and Lockley 1984), they may also be a nuisance to humans.
For species that are commonly associated with human habitations,
some species, such as widow spiders in the genus Latrodectus,
are neurotoxic (Vetter and Isbister 2008, Lemelin and Yen 2015).
Several Latrodectus species establish easily in disturbed habitats,
on agricultural crops and vineyards. Mechanical barriers, even if
these deter movement of adult females, do not hinder the inltration
of buildings by Latrodectus spiderlings. Furthermore, at least two
Latrodectus species are invasive, with Latrodectus hasselti Thorell
(native to Australia) established in Japan (Takagi etal. 2015) and
New Zealand (Vink etal. 2011), and Latrodectus geometricus C.L.
Koch (Araneae: Theridiidae) (thought to be native to Africa) found
worldwide, with a currently expanding distribution (Garb et al.
2004, Muslimin etal. 2015). Other genus of spiders often mistaken
for Latrodectus are the very common and closely related to Steatoda
(Isbister and Gray 2003). Most spiders contribute to the control of
insect pests. However, some are able to consume chemically pro-
tected, benecial insects, and may be problematic at high densities
(Sunderland 1999). For example, Araneus diadematus Clerck is
known to consume ladybird beetles, a benecial predator of insect
herbivores (Sloggett 2010). Moreover, while this species is thought
to be native to Europe, it is now found throughout North America,
with indications of relatively recent northern range expansion
(Dondale and Redner 2003, Andrade etal. 2012) and concomitantly
high-density populations (MCB Andrade, personal observations).
Pesticides are commonly used in an attempt to reduce spider
populations. However, water-based (rather than oil-based) pesticides
are almost completely ineffective against the egg sacs of the invasive
species L.geometricus (Vetter etal. 2015). In addition, observations
suggest that pesticides commonly used in the home are largely inef-
fective against adult widow females (MCB Andrade, personal obser-
vations) and other spiders (Riechert and Lockley 1984, Pekár 2012).
While oil-based pesticides may be more effective (Vetter etal. 2015),
they are rarelyused.
A handful of studies have provided information about an alter-
native approach—controlling spider populations in unwanted loca-
tions through chemical repulsion (reviewed in Pekár 2012) or by
triggering dispersal. Cursorial spiders apparently avoid certain fresh
pesticide residues (Pekár and Haddad 2005, Pekár and Beneš 2008,
Evans etal. 2010). Similarly, some cursorial and web-building spe-
cies show increased activity levels when in contact with malathion
(Tietjen and Cady 2007). It is not always clear whether increased
activity would lead to dispersal in nature. However, some spiders
Journal of Economic Entomology, XX(X), 2017, 1–5
doi: 10.1093/jee/tox339
Research article
Copyedited by: OUP
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jee/tox339/4753660
by guest
on 23 December 2017

2
increase dispersal activity in response to natural chemical cues pro-
duced by ants (Mestre etal. 2014).
Latrodectus females are nocturnal and largely sedentary as adults.
Females may move to new areas if their web and refuge is destroyed,
or if their webs are in areas that are unprotable due to low prey
availability, particularly in habitats where conspecics are scarce
(Salomon 2009). Latrodectus females can detect the presence of
conspecics and heterospecics, most likely based on chemical cues
(Salomon 2007), and this can affect their web settlement patterns
(Salomon 2009). Like many spiders (Pruitt etal. 2008, Jones et al.
2011), Latrodectus may huddle (withdraw legs) when disturbed.
Field observations suggest that L.geometricus Koch, 1841 (brown
widows) have a particularly strong huddling response, which often
results in them by dropping out of their webs (MCB Andrade, per-
sonal observations). This may, thus, be an effective predator-avoid-
ance behavior but will also result in females being displaced from
their webs (Jones etal. 2011). Steatoda grossa are relatively poorly
studied Theridiidae (Gerhardt 1924 1926, Gwinner-Hanke 1970)
but Steatoda are sufciently similar to Latrodectus spiders in habitat
preferences, web structure, and morphology (Bellmann 2010) that
they are frequently mistaken for true widows (Isbister and Gray
2003). A. diadematus Clerck, 1757 is a diurnal orb-weaver in the
family Araneidae which sits during the day in the hub of an orb-web.
Like Latrodectus and Steatoda spiders, A.diadematus females are
sedentary as adults (Bellmann 2010) but may move to new areas if
their web is destroyed or site quality is low (Colebourn 1974). When
disturbed, A. diadematus may huddle, run into a refuge, or drop
from theweb.
Here, we examined whether three natural substances, which are
neutral to human health (Craig 1997, Spirling and Daniels 2001,
Komiya etal. 2006, de Vasconcelos etal. 2010) and have minimal
adverse ecological effects, could effectively repel spiders. Spiders pro-
duce and respond to volatile chemicals in a variety of ways as part
of their natural behavior (review: Uhl and Elias 2011; Uhl 2013).
We tested the effect of volatiles released from three substances com-
monly (anecdotally) argued to be effective spider repellents in online
commentaries: chestnuts (the fruit of Castanea sativa), mint oil, and
lemon oil. Anumber of commercial and noncommercial repellent
products or recipes with these active ingredients are advertised on
the internet, but experimental examinations of the efcacy of these
putative repellents is lacking. In this study, we used two-choice la-
boratory olfactometer trials to test the effect of airborne compounds
of these substances on two invasive, cosmopolitan ‘cobweb’-weavers
(family Theridiidae): the neurotoxic brown widow (L.geometricus,
Theridiidae) and the related S. grossa, Theridiidae. We also tested
effects on the nontoxic A.diadematus, an orb-weaver (Araneidae),
which is also invasive and has a more recent history of expansion in
North America.
Methods
Rearing
L. geometricus spiders used in this experiment were the outbred
offspring of individuals collected in Florida (Archbold Biological
Station, December 2011). Spiders were reared at the University of
Toronto Scarborough in a temperature-controlled room at 25°C on
a reversed 12:12 (L:D) h cycle. All the spiders were reared commu-
nally with siblings until the third instar when they were moved to
individual 5×5× 7-cm plastic containers (Amac Plastics, Petaluma,
CA). Spiderlings were fed Drosophila sp. twice per week until the
fth instar when they were fed one Acheta domesticus Linnaeus,
1758 or Gryllodes sigillatus F.Walker, 1869 each week. Date of the
nal moult was recorded. S.grossa was collected as adults within
buildings at Simon Fraser University (Fall 2016)and kept in a tem-
perature-controlled room at 24°C reversed 12:12 (L:D) h cycle. The
spiders were kept individually in 300-ml polyethylene terephthalate
plastic cups with the same diet as for L.geometricus. A.diadematus
were collected as adults in the eld (near Ulm University, early sum-
mer 2015)and reared in a temperature controlled room at 22°C at
Ulm University, Germany. A.diadematus were kept individually in
20×20×7-cm polypropylene plastic containers and their diet was
the same as for the other two species.
For experiments, adult females were chosen randomly from
these laboratory populations. Experiments were conducted at the
University at which the spiders were held.
Y-olfactometer ChoiceTrials
To test responses of spiders to the volatiles released by different sub-
stances, we used a dual-choice experiment. The choice arena was
a custom-made glass Y-tube (1.8-cm inner diameter) with bamboo
sticks running through all three arms to provide substrate on which
spiders could walk (Fig.1). Each spider was introduced to the initial
arm of the Y-tube (12cm) at the start of trials. Each terminal end of
the two decision arms (11cm) contained a volatile stimulus (putative
repellent) or no stimulus (control, Fig.1), and these were separated
from the Y-tube by a screen to prevent spiders from contacting the
stimulus.
The stimulus (or empty control) was placed at the end of each
decision arm in a clear 17×30-cm polyethylene terephthalate plastic
bag, open at both ends (Toppits oven-bags, Minden, Germany). Each
bag was attached at the proximal end to the termination of one de-
cision arm and attached at the distal end to a membrane-pump (DC
12/16K, Fürgut, Aichstetten, Germany) via a Teon-tube. When the
pump was turned on, air was drawn from the experimental room
through the pump and split into two streams, each of which owed
through one stimulus bag and then joined to ow through the ini-
tial arm. The airow was adjusted to 300ml/min on both sides. The
Fig.1. Dual-choice Y-maze with air pump and sample bags used to test the response of female L.geometricus or A.diadematus to one of three putative repellent
volatiles compared to a stimulus-free control. Females were introduced to the initial arm (IA) of the Y-tube, and were considered to have made a choice if they
remained with their entire body length inside a decision arm (DA) for at least 30s.
Journal of Economic Entomology, 2017, Vol. XX, No. XX
Copyedited by: OUP
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jee/tox339/4753660
by guest
on 23 December 2017

3
choice arena was placed on a Styrofoam pad to reduce vibrational
disturbances. Experiments were conducted during the scotophase
under red light for Latrodectus and Steatoda (which are nocturnal)
and during the photophase under a cold-light inspection lamp for
Araneus (which are diurnal). In addition, for Araneus, the decision
arena was covered with a Styrofoam box to reduce visual cues. The
oven bags, screen, and bamboo sticks were replaced after every ex-
periment, while the glass tubes were cleaned (with 70% ethanol and
98% pentane).
Stimulus Substances
We identied the top three substances claimed to be repellent to
spiders in a google.ca search using the keywords ‘natural spider re-
pellent’: lemon oil (1,190,000 hits), peppermint oil (286,000 hits),
and chestnuts (67,300 hits). The hits for the individual substances
were later conrmed using the search terms ‘natural spider repellent
+ treatment-name’ (3 October2016).
Castanea sativa fruits (Chestnuts) were bought in a local super
market (for trials in Canada: Walmart, Scarborough, ON; for trials
in Germany: Rewe, Ulm, BW) and one fruit was placed intact into
the stimulus bag. For every replicate, we used another fruit. To pre-
sent the lemon oil (organic Citrus x limon oil from AuraCacia) and
the peppermint oil (organic Mentha x piperita oil from AuraCacia),
2.5µl of oil was put on a 1cm2 clean lter paper which was placed
into the oven bag before the start of every trial.
ChoiceTrials
Only adult female spiders were used in this experiment. Females
were randomly assigned to a treatment stimulus until there were 15
females assigned per treatment for each species. Each female was
tested only once. To control for lateralization biases, the location of
the putative repellent was switched between the left and right deci-
sion arms between trials.
Before a trial, the female was removed from her cage using for-
ceps, and gently introduced to the initial arm of the Y-tube (~10cm
from the branching point with the decision arms, Fig.1). Females
would usually then begin walking on the bamboo through the initial
arm until they reached the branching point of the two decision arms
(‘point of decision’). If females did not move 2min after introduction
to the arena, a wooden stick was used to lightly tap the female on the
posterior end of the abdomen to trigger movement. In these cases,
the wooden stick was then held inside the initial arm to prevent the
females from exiting via the initial arm. In some cases, females hud-
dled (contracted their legs) and were motionless after introduction to
the initial arm of the Y-tube. If these females remained huddled after
being tapped at 2min, the stick was used to move the spider deeper
into the arena, until the spider rested in the initial arm at the point of
decision, with the wooden stick preventing retreats (Fig.1). For all
trials, the pump was turned on once the female reached the point of
decision by walking, or, if she was huddled, once the female began to
move her legs while in the huddle posture. Females were considered
to have made a choice if the female entered one of the decision arms
and remained with the entire body length within the arm for at least
30s. All trials were terminated after 20min.
Statistics
For each putative repellent within each species, we ran a binomial
test to determine whether there was a signicant difference in the
proportion of females that moved toward the stimulus compared
to the control arm (IBM SPSS version 23, SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL). We also asked whether the likelihood of huddling when rst
introduced to the arena differed between stimuli using Pearson
χ2 tests.
Results and Discussion
L. geometricus females moved into the control arm more than
expected by chance when tested with chestnuts (P=0.007, binom-
inal test; N= 15) and mint oil (P= 0.007, binominal test; N=15;
Fig.2). In the mint oil trials, one female made no choice (remained
in the initial arm). In contrast, females did not avoid lemon oil
(P=1.000, binominal test; N=15; Fig.2).
When L. geometricus females were exposed to chestnuts and
lemon oil, they would typically walk through the Y-tube with no
intervention and without huddling. However, females showed a
strong negative response to mint oil. In total, 12 of the 15 spiders
chose the control arm, 7 of these huddled, and 9 needed to be pushed
to approach the point of decision. Only two spiders chose the mint
oil arm (these did not huddle) and one spider was excluded due to
time out. In 47% of mint oil trials (n=15), females huddled when
introduced to the arena (signicantly more often than with the other
two stimuli: Pearson χ2 test, χ2=17.838; df=2; P<0.001; N=44).
After these females were pushed to the point of decision (still in the
initial arm), and after the pump was turned on, they would typically
rapidly move their legs and all of them then ran into the control
arm. Among the females that did not huddle in response to mint oil
(n=7), and walked without intervention, an avoidance of mint oil
is still clear: 68.2% moved into the control arm (P=0.002, Fisher’s
exact test; N=44).
Fig.2. Proportion of female spiders that chose to move toward a control (empty) arm in a Y-maze olfactometer in which the other arm contained one of three
treatment stimuli anecdotally reported to repel spiders (chestnut: black; lemon oil: gray; or mint oil; white). Asterisks (*) indicate spiders chose control arms
more than expected by chance (P<0.01, binominal test).
Journal of Economic Entomology, 2017, Vol. XX, No. XX
Copyedited by: OUP
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jee/tox339/4753660
by guest
on 23 December 2017

4
In contrast, S.grossa females made a choice in all the trials with-
out interventions; and no huddling behavior occurred. Moreover,
S.grossa females were equally likely to approach control arms and
treatment arms, regardless of whether the stimulus was mint (e.g.,
P= 0.607, binominal test) or lemon oil (P= 1.000, binominal test;
N=15 for all treatments). There was a tendency of females to show
an elevated negative response to chestnuts (73% chose the control
arm), but this trend not signicant (P=0.118, binominaltest).
A. diadematus females showed very similar responses than
L. geometricus (Fig. 2), avoiding chestnuts (P = 0.007, binomi-
nal test; N= 15) and mint oil (P=0.035, binominal test; N=15)
but showing similar responses to lemon oil and the empty control
(P=0.607, binominal test; N=15). A.diadematus did not huddle at
all during the experiments.
Here, we showed that two of the three substances most commonly
associated with spider-repellent claims on the internet, chestnuts and
mint oil, actually repel L. geometricus and A. diadematus spiders.
S.grossa was not repelled by mint oil but showed a slight tendency
to avoid chestnuts. On the other hand, none of these three spider spe-
cies discriminated lemon oil from an empty control. It was interest-
ing to note that the strongest negative response observed was that of
female L.geometricus to mint oil. This response commonly included
huddling and running, although these behaviors were not seen in
any other treatments or in S. grossa or A. diadematus. It remains
to be determined which chemical compounds found in mint oil and
chestnut elicited these repellence effects. It is interesting to note that
a recent study of the responses of male and female Loxosceles laeta
Nicolet to various synthetic plant odorants (eugenol, eucalyptol,
limonene, isoamyl acetate, and heptanol) found no evidence of avoid-
ance or preference (Calbiague etal. 2017). Nevertheless, our results
suggest that chestnuts could be broadly repellent to female spiders;
we found a consistent effect in two species from two different spider
families and an avoidance tendency in a third species. Conrming this
would require additional tests on a wider range oftaxa.
We see no general ecological reason for spiders to be repelled
by mint oil or chestnuts. However, it is possible that natural com-
pounds present in these stimuli are similar to chemicals with some
ecological relevance for spiders. In our study, we used a relatively
high concentration of the odors tested, which may be linked to the
strong responses we saw, for example, to mint. It would be interesting
to titrate these effects by testing the efcacy of different concentra-
tions. It is known that mint granules are both repellent and toxic
to ants (Appel etal. 2004), while mint oil is repellent and toxic to
cockroaches (Appel etal. 2001). Mint oil and lemon oil were found
to repel mosquitos (Ansari etal. 2000, Ghalandari etal. 2003) and
lemon oil is toxic to stored-product insects (Su etal. 1972). We could
not nd any report of chestnuts as a repellent of invertebrates in the
literature. Targeted application at the correct concentration would
be important for responsible use, since an efcient repellent which is
functional across many different spider genera would not only help
to control pests but could also affect benecial native spider species.
Spiders are important predators that help to control insect pests and
other spider populations. Broadly applied, general spider repellents
could, therefore, have strong negative effects on local ora and fauna.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Andrade lab personnel and particularly Catherine Scott for
her comments and discussions on this work, and Dr. Luciana Baruffaldi
and Andrade lab assistants for rearing Latrodectus spiders for use in this
experiment. Work on L. geometricus was funded by Ulm University travel
grant (to A.F.), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (Discovery grant 72042276 to M.C.B.A.). The authors declare that
they have no conict of interest. The invertebrate spider species used in
this study (L. geometricus and S. grossa) are not protected in Canada and
were collected from invasive populations. A.diadematus is not protected in
Germany. Approval for collection and experiments were not required from
institutional ethics committees or national authorities. Collection sites were
publicly accessible with no permits required. Spiders were not harmed dur-
ing this experiment, all females survived these trials. AF conceived, designed,
and performed the experiments. A.F. and M.C.B.A. analyzed the data. A.F.,
M.A., and M.C.B.A.provided reagents, materials, and spiders. A.F., M.A., and
M.C.B.A.wrote the paper.
ReferencesCited
Andrade, M. C.B., G.Blagoev, B.Hubley, and T.Mason. 2012. Spiders of
Toronto. City of Toronto.
Ansari, M. A., P.Vasudevan, M.Tandon, and R. K.Razdan. 2000. Larvicidal
and mosquito repellent action of peppermint (Mentha piperita) oil.
Bioresour. Technol. 71: 267–271.
Appel, A. G., M. J.Gehret, and M. J.Tanley. 2001. Repellency and toxicity
of mint oil to American and German Cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattidae
and Blattellidae). J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 18: 149–156.
Appel, A. C., M. J.Gehret, and M. J.Tanley. 2004. Repellency and toxicity of
mint oil granules to red imported re ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). j.
Econ. Entomol. 97: 575–580.
Bellmann, H. 2010. Der Kosmos-Spinnenführer. Kosmos, Stuttgart, Germany.
Breene, R. G., M. H.Sweet, and J. K.Olson. 1988. Spider predators of mos-
quito larvae. J. Arachnol. 16: 275–277.
Calbiague, V. M., J.Olivares, E.Olivares, and O.Schmachtenberg. 2017. The
Chilean Recluse Spider (Araneae: Sicariidae) displays behavioral responses
to conspecic odors, but not to several general odorants. J. Med. Entomol.
1–5.
Colebourn, P. H. 1974. The inuence of habitat structure on the distribution of
Araneus diadematus Clerck. J. Anim. Ecol. 43: 401–409.
Craig, W. J. 1997. Phytochemicals: guardians of our health. J. Am. Diet. Assoc.
97: S199–S204.
Dondale, C. D. and J. H.Redner. 2003. The insects and arachnids of Canada,
NRC Res. Press. NRC Research Press.
Evans, S. C., E. M.Shaw, and A. L.Rypstra. 2010. Exposure to a glyphosate-
based herbicide affects agrobiont predatory arthropod behaviour and
long-term survival. Ecotoxicology. 19: 1249–1257.
Garb, J. E., A.González, and R. G.Gillespie. 2004. The black widow spider
genus Latrodectus (Araneae: Theridiidae): phylogeny, biogeography, and
invasion history. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31: 1127–1142.
Gerhardt, U. 1924. Neue Sexualbiologische Spinnenstudien. Zoomorphology.
567–618.
Gerhardt, U. 1926. Weitere Untersuchungen zur Biologie der Spinnen.
Zoomorphology. 6: 1–77.
Ghalandari, R., H. Vatandoost, M. Shayeghi, M. Abolhassani, and
M.Hashemzadeh. 2003. Repellent effect of extracts and essential oils of
Citrus limon (Rutaceae) and Melissa ofcinalis (Labiatae) against main
malaria vector, Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae). Iran. J Publ Heal.
32: 47–52.
Gwinner-Hanke, H. 1970. Zum Verhalten zweier stridulierender Spinnen
Steatoda bipunctata Linne und Teutana grossa Koch (Theridiidae,
Araneae), unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Fortpanzungsverhaltens.
Ethology. 27: 649–678.
Isbister, G. K. and M. R.Gray. 2003. Effects of envenoming by comb-footed
spiders of the genera Steatoda and Achaearanea (family Theridiidae:
Araneae) in Australia. J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 41: 809–819.
Jackson, R. R. and F. R.Cross. 2015. Mosquito-terminator spiders and the
meaning of predatory specialization. J. Arachnol. 43: 123–142.
Jones, T. C., T. S.Akoury, C. K.Hauser, and D.Moore. 2011. Evidence of
circadian rhythm in antipredator behaviour in the orb-weaving spider
Larinioides cornutus. Anim. Behav. 82: 549–555.
Komiya, M., T.Takeuchi, and E.Harada. 2006. Lemon oil vapor causes an
anti-stress effect via modulating the 5-HT and DA activities in mice.
Behav. Brain Res. 172: 240–249.
Journal of Economic Entomology, 2017, Vol. XX, No. XX
Copyedited by: OUP
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jee/tox339/4753660
by guest
on 23 December 2017

5
Lemelin, R. H., and A.Yen. 2015. Human-spider entanglements: understand-
ing and managing the good, the bad, and the venomous. Anthrozoos. 28:
215–228.
Mestre, L., R. Bucher, and M. H. Entling. 2014. Trait-mediated effects
between predators: Ant chemical cues induce spider dispersal. J. Zool.
293: 119–125.
Muslimin, M., J.-J.Wilson, A.-R. M.Ghazali, K. A.Braima, J.Jeffery, F.Wan-
Nor, M. E.Alaa-Eldin, S.-W.Mohd-Zin, W. S. Wan-Yusoff, Y.Norma-
Rashid, et al. 2015. First report of brown widow spider sightings in
Peninsular Malaysia and notes on its global distribution. J. Venom. Anim.
Toxins Incl. Trop. Dis. 21.
Pekár, S. 2012. Spiders (Araneae) in the pesticide world: an ecotoxicological
review. Pest Manag. Sci. 68: 1438–1446.
Pekár, S. and J.Beneš. 2008. Aged pesticide residues are detrimental to agrobi-
ont spiders (Araneae). J. Appl. Entomol. 132: 614–622.
Pekár, S., and C. R.Haddad. 2005. Can agrobiont spiders (Araneae) avoid a
surface with pesticide residues? Pest Manag. Sci. 61: 1179–1185.
Pruitt, J. N., S. E.Riechert, and T. C.Jones. 2008. Behavioural syndromes and
their tness consequences in a socially polymorphic spider, Anelosimus
studiosus. Anim. Behav. 76: 871–879.
Riechert, S. E. and T. C.Lockley. 1984. Spiders as biological control agents.
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 29: 299–320.
Salomon, M. 2007. Western black widow spiders express state-dependent
web-building strategies tailored to the presence of neighbours. Anim.
Behav. 73: 865–875.
Salomon, M. 2009. Social environment and feeding state inuence movement
decisions in a web-building spider. Ethology. 115: 916–927.
Sloggett, J. J. 2010. Predation of ladybird beetles by the orb-web spider
Araneus diadematus. BioControl. 55: 631–638.
Spirling, L. I. and I. R.Daniels. 2001. Botanical perspectives on health pep-
permint: more than just an after-dinner mint. J. R.Soc. Promot. Health.
121: 62–63.
Su, H. C.F., R. D.Speirs, and P. G.Mahany. 1972. Toxicity of citrus oils to several
stored-product insects: laboratory evaluation. J. Econ. Entomol. 65: 438–441.
Sunderland, K. 1999. Mechanisms underlying the effects of spiders on pest
populations. J. Arachnol. 27: 308–316.
Takagi, S., W. Toki, and A.Yoshioka. 2015. Invasion of the redback spider
Latrodectus hasseltii (Araneae: Theridiidae) into human-modied sand
dune ecosystems in Japan. Appl. Entomol. Zool.
Tietjen, W. J. and A. B. Cady. 2007. Sublethal exposure to a neurotoxic
pesticide affects activity rhythms and patterns of four spider species. J.
Arachnol. 35: 396–406.
Uhl, G. 2013. Spider olfaction: attracting, detecting, luring and avoiding, pp.
141–157. In Ecophysiology. Springer, New York.
Uhl, G., and D. Elias. 2011. Communication, pp. 127–189. In Spider
Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
De Vasconcelos, M. C., R. N.Bennett, E. A.Rosa, and J. V.Ferreira-Cardoso.
2010. Composition of European chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) and
association with health effects: fresh and processed products. j. Sci. Food
Agric. 90: 1578–1589.
Vetter, R. S., and G. K.Isbister. 2008. Medical aspects of spider bites. Annu.
Rev. Entomol. 53: 409–429.
Vetter, R. S., C. P.Flanders, and M. K.Rust. 2009. The ability of spiderlings
of the widow spider Latrodectus hesperus (Araneae: Theridiidae) to pass
through different size mesh screen: implications for exclusion from air
intake ducts and greenhouses. J. Econ. Entomol. 102: 1396–1398.
Vetter, R. S., J.Tarango, K. A.Campbell, C. Tham, C. Y.Hayashi, and D.-
H.Choe. 2015. Efcacy of several pesticide products on Brown Widow
spider (Araneae: Theridiidae) egg sacs and their penetration through the
egg sac silk. J. Econ. Entomol. 0: 1–6.
Vink, C. J., J. G.B.Derraik, C. B.Phillips, and P. J.Sirvid. 2011. The invasive
Australian redback spider, Latrodectus hasseltii Thorell 1870 (Araneae:
Theridiidae): current and potential distributions, and likely impacts. Biol.
Invasions. 13: 1003–1019.
Journal of Economic Entomology, 2017, Vol. XX, No. XX
Copyedited by: OUP
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jee/tox339/4753660
by guest
on 23 December 2017