$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Effectiveness of color-manipulation
Using these techniques, various degrees of color manipulation are effective, including concealing colors completely or reducing or enhancing their intensity. This is evident from both photographs and measurements of spectral reflectance (Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4). Here we show color-manipulated male Habronattus pyrrithrix compared to natural red-faced males. Spectral properties were measured using a UV-VIS spectrophotometer (see Table of Materials) that can precisely measure colored areas as small as 1mm in diameter. Measurements were taken relative to a diffuse reflectance white standard (see Table of Materials).
On rare occasions (5 out of 108 males painted with black eyeliner 1 (see Table of Materials) on their face), the water-soluble eyeliner began to wear off the spiders' faces after a week or two. This was not observed for the other brand of eyeliner (eyeliner 2; see Table of Materials). In both cases, spider's cages were sprayed with water three to five times per week. Different conditions of maintenance may affect the wear of water-based paint. The enamel paint was still intact for all manipulated males (n=221), even for those still alive after 6 months.
Potential toxicity of the color manipulation
One should avoid getting paint on the spiders' eyes so as not to obstruct their vision, nor on their chelicerae, mouth parts and other orifices, and possibly other soft body parts to prevent possible ingestion and poisoning. One should also be careful with painting joints or parts that contain sensory hairs (such as the legs and pedipalps) so as not to restrict their mobility or sensory system. However, if such color manipulations on these body regions are necessary, or if there is any doubt about the possibility of subtle negative effects, it is then best to apply paints to individuals in all treatment categories. This way, one would avoid unintentionally manipulating the sensory systems of individuals in ways that might be biased against one of the treatments only. For instance, in an experiment using males manipulated shown in Figure 4, the aim was to increase and decrease the number of red patches displayed by males during courtship. Since some males would get their natural red faces concealed with gray enamel paint (to decrease the amount of red displayed), the other males for which we wanted to maintain a red face were painted red over their naturally red face with the same product as the gray-faced males. Similarly, since we wanted to add red patches to the pedipalp on certain males to increase the amount of red color patches displayed, gray paint was used to cover the pedipalp of other males so that all males would be painted on this sensitive area (see Figure 4). Although preferable, this strategy may not always be feasible. For instance, in another experiment, the red coloration was removed by using a black eyeliner giving the same spectral property as the underlying cuticle of the male, while leaving the other male colors intact and natural (Figure 2). In this case, for natural looking males, the same amount of eyeliner was applied to the area on the top of their carapace just behind their anterior median eyes (an area that is not clearly visible to females), to control for potential odor or overall toxicity of the product. However, the location where the paint is applied may affect spiders differently. Therefore, to assess subtle differences in the way or the location where the paint was applied may have on the integrity of the spider, the behavior of both types of males in a context that was relevant to our hypotheses (relative to mate choice and sexual cannibalism) was compared. Males were put two-by-two in the presence of a female, and we compared their delay to become active, their delay to courting, and the total duration they spent courting with general linear mixed effect models (using the function lmer with the R package lme443 in R version 3.5.244 with the female identity as a random effect, and using the maximum likelihood criterion to obtain p-values). In this case, all comparisons reveal no differences between treatments (see Table 1) and it was therefore concluded that we did not introduce a bias in favor of one or the other treatment category.
In either case, when having very similar treatment categories (Figure 4), or only sham treated individuals (Figure 2 and Figure 3), researchers should assess how their model species are affected by the paint they use and ensure that they still behave in a similar and ecologically relevant manner. One could record data to assess the possible effects of toxicity as much as possible, for instance by comparing activity rates between treated and unmanipulated individuals. Our spiders painted with enamel paint like in Figure 4 were compared to unmanipulated males in an otherwise identical context. Specifically, males were introduced singly to a female cage and their delay to leave the vial, delay to courting and courting rate (prior to copulation, and prior to being attacked or cannibalized) were compared. No differences were found (when using similar linear mixed effect models as above) and we therefore concluded that our painted males behaved naturally (Table 2).
Finally, it is important to note that any spiders in the experiments (usually females) that cannibalized color-manipulated males never appeared to suffer from negative effects. Spiders digest their prey externally, usually leaving the painted areas of the cuticle behind. However, if adapting this method for other systems where color-manipulated animals will be consumed, one should assess the potential risks of toxicity.

Figure 1. Adult male Habronattus pyrrithrix illustrating how tiny their colored body regions are. Photographed by Lyle Buss. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2. Experimental color manipulation used to conceal red facial coloration in Habronattus pyrrithrix. (A) The intact red facial coloration before color manipulation. (B) The facial coloration of the same male after concealing the natural red coloration with black eyeliner 1. (C) Representative reflectance spectra for the natural red face, the natural underlying black cuticle, and the red face painted with black eyeliner 2. Modified from Taylor and McGraw 201339. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3. Experimental color manipulation used to reduce the size and redness of the red facial patch of male Habronattus pyrrithrix. (A) The intact red facial coloration before color manipulation. (B) The facial coloration of the same male after applying diluted black eyeliner (Urban Decay) to the front part of the face, and non-diluted black eyeliner along the edges of the facial patch to reduce the size of the red area. (C) Mean spectral curves of sham-treated control males (n = 21) and color-manipulated males (n = 21), compared with the population mean (n=57) and the 10 drabbest males from a previous study41. Figure reproduced from Taylor et al. 201438. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4. Experimental color manipulation used to modify the color of the red facial patch of male Habronattus pyrrithrix. Habronattus pyrrithrix males painted with (A) red, (B) red and gray, and (C) gray enamel paint over their natural red face and naturally cream-colored pedipalps. (D) Mean spectral curves for unmanipulated males (n = 9), and males with their face covered with red enamel paint (n = 9). By applying a brighter red over the spider's face, we effectively enhanced its red facial coloration. Because enamel paint fully covers the underlying scales, color could also be changed entirely, as is the case with the gray enamel. (E) In this experiment, red and gray enamel paints were chosen to be matched for total brightness (total reflectance over the range of wavelengths visible to these spiders). Differences in the scale of the Y-axes in D and E are due to different techniques (such as distance to the sample and size of areas measured) for measuring color samples on paper (E) vs. direct measurements of colors on the face of the spider (D). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| N | Dependent variable | p | t | Red-faced | ±SE | Black-faced | ±SE | nFID |
| 202b | Male delay to leave dish | 0.35 | -0.93 | 140.0 | 23.9 | 109.8 | 23.9 | 102 |
| 179c | Male delay to court | 0.74 | 0.33 | 983.4 | 127.1 | 1031.0 | 126.5 | 95 |
| 204a | Male courtship effort | 0.52 | 0.63 | 181.2 | 24.4 | 203.0 | 24.4 | 102 |
| 204a | Male courtship effort prior to any attack | 0.41 | 0.68 | 89.0 | 15.7 | 97.5 | 15.7 | 102 |
Table 1. Effect of male face color manipulation on behavior, when painted with black eyeliner vs. sham treated (Figure 2). The structure of each model is given, as well as the mean estimates in seconds (±SE) for each treatment group. N = number of males, p and t = p-value and t-value for the male treatment, nFID = the number of levels in the random effect female identity. aOut of the 104 male tests performed, 102 were successfully recorded, leading to 204 unique males observed. b2 males were cannibalized by the female prior to ever exiting the petri dish. c25 males were cannibalized by the female prior to ever courting the female.
| N | Dependent variable | p | t | Unmanipulated | ±SE | Painted | ±SE |
| 32a | Male delay to leave dish | 0.87 | -0.17 | 380.8 | 143.1 | 345.4 | 152.4 |
| 31b | Male delay to court | 0.93 | -0.09 | 502.6 | 105.8 | 488.1 | 116.6 |
| 31b | Male courtship effort | 0.74 | -0.33 | 2324.3 | 455.0 | 2102.1 | 484.4 |
| 31b | Male courtship effort prior to any attack | 0.68 | 0.42 | 1495.1 | 450.8 | 1770.1 | 479.9 |
Table 2. Effect of male face color manipulation on behavior, when painted with red or gray enamel paint (n = 15, Figure 4) vs. unmanipulated males (n = 17). The structure of each model is given, as well as the mean estimates in seconds (±SE) for each treatment group. N = number of males, p and t = p-value and t-value for the male treatment. a17 unmanipulated males were compared to a subset of all the painted males in our experiment (n = 221). Specifically, they were compared to 15 painted males (5 red (Figure 2A), 5 red and gray (Figure 2B), and 5 gray (Figure 2C)) tested in the same context (in presence of a female) and in the same specific time period. This is important because unmanipulated males were tested towards the end of the experiment (in August and September 2018), which corresponds to the end of their natural breeding season and where males are generally less active. Keeping all these other variables equal allows us to compare the painting treatment without introducing other biases. bOne male (all gray) was cannibalized prior to ever courting the female.