Advertisement

Oecologia

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Body size mediates the relationship between spider (Arachnida: Araneae) assemblage composition and prey consumption rate: results of a mesocosm experiment in the Yukon, Canada

  • Shaun TurneyEmail author
  • Chris M. Buddle
Community ecology – original research

Abstract

Many ecological assemblages are undergoing rapid changes in composition and diversity, and changes at one trophic level can have direct and cascading effects on other trophic levels. Prey consumption typically increases with predator diversity due to niche complementarity and sampling effects. However, the effect of functional traits and interactions between predator species mean that the relationship is far from simple. In July 2016, we performed a series of experiments in the Yukon, Canada, to investigate the relationship between spider assemblage composition and prey consumption, with a focus on the wolf spider Pardosa lapponica (Thorell 1872). We carried out feeding trials, in which P. lapponica and other spider species were offered potential prey, as well as mesocosm experiments, in which we varied spider assemblage composition within small enclosures. We confirmed that P. lapponica is a generalist consumer, individual consumption rate increased with spider body size, and that intraguild predation is present. We found that prey consumption was greatest in the least diverse assemblage but consumption did increase with predator functional trait variation and biomass. The best model of prey consumption included predator assemblage composition, variation in body mass, biomass, and all interactions. The body size of a spider affects its trophic niche, energy requirements, and its interactions with other spiders. As a result, body size mediates the relationship between spider assemblage composition and prey consumption. A deeper understanding of the relationships between traits and functions will allow us to better predict the effect of species loss or gain on ecosystem functions.

Keywords

Arthropod Community Ecosystem function Predator Tundra 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Eric Ste-Marie for his assistance in the field and Gregor Fussmann and his graduate students for their helpful feedback on early drafts. This project was possible due to funding from the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada: A Discovery Grant and Northern Research Supplement to CMB and a Postgraduate Scholarship-Doctoral to ST. It was further supported by the W. Garfield Weston Award for Northern Research (Doctoral) from the Canadian Northern Studies Trust. We thank the Tr’ondek Hwech’in First Nation for allowing us to carry out our research on their land.

Author contribution statement

ST and CMB conceived the ideas and designed the methodology; ST collected and analysed the data and led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Data accessibility

Data (Online Resource files 1-3) are available on Dryad (link to be added here).

Ethical approval

This research was permitted under the Yukon Scientists and Explorer’s Act, License Number: 16-28SandE. Research activity within Tombstone Territorial Park (Sites 1 and 2) was permitted by a Research and Education Park Permit, Permit Number 15-RE-TP-02. Additionally, permission was sought and granted from the Tr’ondek Hwech’in First Nation. All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

442_2019_4346_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (xlsx 26 kb)
442_2019_4346_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (xlsx 18 kb)
442_2019_4346_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (xlsx 11 kb)

References

  1. Aarssen LW (1997) High productivity in grassland ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive species. Oikos 80:183–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balfour RA, Buddle CM, Rypstra AL, Walker SE, Marshall SD (2003) Ontogenetic shifts in competitive interactions and intra-guild predation between two wolf spider species. Ecological Entomology 28:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton K (2017) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.40.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn. Accessed Sept 2017
  4. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butchart SH, Walpole M, Collen B, Van Strien A, Scharlemann JP, Almond RE, Carpenter RE (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J Appl Ecol 48:1079–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Kinzig AP (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalcraft DR, Resetarits WJ (2003) Predator identity and ecological impacts: functional redundancy or functional diversity? Ecology 84:2407–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crutzen PJ, Steffen W (2003) How long have we been in the Anthropocene era? Clim Change 61:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devictor V, Mouillot D, Meynard C, Jiguet F, Thuiller W, Mouquet N (2010) Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol Lett 13:1030–1040Google Scholar
  11. Dondale CD, Redner JH, Marusik YM (1997) Spiders (Araneae) of the Yukon. In: Danks HV, Downes JA (eds) Insects of the Yukon. Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), Ottawa, pp 73–113Google Scholar
  12. Duffy JE, Cardinale BJ, France KE, McIntyre PB, Thébault E, Loreau M (2007) The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic complexity. Ecol Lett 10:522–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, Marquis RJ (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faraway JJ (2016) Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finke DL, Denno RF (2005) Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades. Ecol Lett 8:1299–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flynn DF, Mirotchnick N, Jain M, Palmer MI, Naeem S (2011) Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity–ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology 92:1573–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foelix RF (1996) Biology of spiders. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford JD, Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: a case study from Arctic Bay, Canada. Glob Environ Change 16:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fornara DA, Tilman D (2008) Plant functional composition influences rates of soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. J Ecol 96:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fossheim M, Primicerio R, Johannesen E, Ingvaldsen RB, Aschan MM, Dolgov AV (2015) Recent warming leads to a rapid borealization of fish communities in the Arctic. Nat Clim Chang 5:673–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An {R} companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks. http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion. Accessed Sept 2017
  22. Gagic V, Bartomeus I, Jonsson T, Taylor A, Winqvist C, Fischer C, Tscharntke T (2015) Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 282:20142620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffin JN, Byrnes JE, Cardinale BJ (2013) Effects of predator richness on prey suppression: a meta-analysis. Ecology 94:2180–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffiths D (1980) Foraging costs and relative prey size. Am Nat 116:743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hautier Y, Tilman D, Isbell F, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Reich PB (2015) Anthropogenic environmental changes affect ecosystem stability via biodiversity. Science 348:336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodge MA (1999) The implications of intraguild predation for the role of spiders in biological control. J Arachnol 27:351–362Google Scholar
  27. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooper DU, Adair EC, Cardinale BJ, Byrnes JE, Hungate BA, Matulich KL, O’Connor MI (2012) A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Høye TT, Hammel JU, Fuchs T, Toft S (2009) Climate change and sexual size dimorphism in an Arctic spider. Biol Lett 5:542–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ives AR, Cardinale BJ, Snyder WE (2005) A synthesis of subdisciplines: predator–prey interactions, and biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8:102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleiber M (1932) Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 11:315–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koltz AM, Classen AT, Wright JP (2018) Warming reverses top-down effects of predators on belowground ecosystem function in Arctic tundra. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(32):E7541–E7549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Letourneau DK, Jedlicka JA, Bothwell SG, Moreno CR (2009) Effects of natural enemy biodiversity on the suppression of arthropod herbivores in terrestrial ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Tilman D (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macfadyen A (1953) Notes on methods for the extraction of small soil arthropods. J Anim Ecol 1:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGuire AD, Anderson LG, Christensen TR, Dallimore S, Guo L, Hayes DJ, Heimann M, Lorenson TD, Macdonald RW, Roulet N (2009) Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change. Ecol Monogr 79:523–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mokany K, Ash J, Roxburgh S (2008) Functional identity is more important than diversity in influencing ecosystem processes in a temperate native grassland. J Ecol 96:884–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murakami Y (1983) Factors determining the prey size of the orb-web spider, Argiope amoena (L. Koch)(Argiopidae). Oecologia 57:72–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naeem S, Duffy JE, Zavaleta E (2012) The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 336:1401–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nakazawa T, Ohba SY, Ushio M (2013) Predator–prey body size relationships when predators can consume prey larger than themselves. Biol Let 9:20121193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nentwig W (1986) Non-webbuilding spiders: prey specialists or generalists? Oecologia 69:571–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nyffeler M (1999) Prey selection of spiders in the field. J Arachnol 27:317–324Google Scholar
  44. Nyffeler M, Benz G (1988) Feeding ecology and predatory importance of wolf spiders (Pardosa spp.; Araneae, Lycosidae) in winter wheat fields. J Appl Entomol 106:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pekár S, Toft S (2015) Trophic specialisation in a predatory group: the case of prey-specialised spiders (Araneae). Biol Rev 90:744–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petchey OL, Gaston KJ (2006) Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol Lett 9:741–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petersen A, Nielsen KT, Christensen CB, Toft S (2010) The advantage of starving: success in cannibalistic encounters among wolf spiders. Behav Ecol 21:1112–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pöyry J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kuussaari M, Saarinen K (2009) Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies. Global Change Biol 15:732–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 20 Jan 2017
  52. Roscher C, Schumacher J, Gubsch M, Lipowsky A, Weigelt A, Buchmann N, Schulze ED (2012) Using plant functional traits to explain diversity–productivity relationships. PLoS One 7:e36760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rypstra AL, Samu F (2005) Size dependent intraguild predation and cannibalism in coexisting wolf spiders (Araneae, Lycosidae). J Arachnol 33:390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanders D, Vogel E, Knop E (2015) Individual and species-specific traits explain niche size and functional role in spiders as generalist predators. J Anim Ecol 84:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scheu S (2001) Plants and generalist predators as links between the below-ground and above-ground system. Basic Appl Ecol 2:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmidt JM, Rypstra AL (2010) Opportunistic predator prefers habitat complexity that exposes prey while reducing cannibalism and intraguild encounters. Oecologia 164:899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmitz OJ (2003) Top predator control of plant biodiversity and productivity in an old-field ecosystem. Ecol Lett 6:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schmitz OJ (2007) Predator diversity and trophic interactions. Ecology 88:2415–2426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmitz OJ, Beckerman AP, O’Brien KM (1997) Behaviorally mediated trophic cascades: effects of predation risk on food web interactions. Ecology 78:1388–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sheridan JA, Bickford D (2011) Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change. Nat Clim Chang 1:401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sitvarin MI, Rypstra AL (2014) The importance of intraguild predation in predicting emergent multiple predator effects. Ecology 95:2936–2945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Soliveres S, Van Der Plas F, Manning P, Prati D, Gossner MM, Renner SC, Birkhofer K (2016) Biodiversity at multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 536:456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stewart AL, Wright AF (1995) A new inexpensive suction apparatus for sampling arthropods in grassland. Ecol Entomol 20:98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles JM (2014) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tullgren A (1918) Ein sehr einfacher Ausleseapparat fur terricole Tierfaunen. Z Angew Ent 4:149–150Google Scholar
  66. Turney S, Altshuler I, Whyte LG, Buddle CM (2018) Macroinvertebrate and soil prokaryote communities in the forest–tundra ecotone of the Subarctic Yukon. Polar Biol 41:1619–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Verdolin JL (2006) Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilby A, Villareal SC, Lan LP, Heong KL, Thomas MB (2005) Functional benefits of predator species diversity depend on prey identity. Ecol Entomol 30:497–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wirta HK, Weingartner E, Hambäck PA, Roslin T (2015a) Extensive niche overlap among the dominant arthropod predators of the High Arctic. Basic Appl Ecol 16:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wirta HK, Vesterinen EJ, Hambäck PA, Weingartner E, Rasmussen C, Reneerkens J, Roslin T (2015b) Exposing the structure of an Arctic food web. Ecol Evol 5:3842–3856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Woodward G, Hildrew AG (2002) Body-size determinants of niche overlap and intraguild predation within a complex food web. J Anim Ecol 71:1063–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource SciencesMcGill University Macdonald CampusSainte-Anne-de-BellevueCanada

Personalised recommendations