Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 253–260 | Cite as

Feeding habits of lycosid spiders in field habitats

Original Paper


Generalist arthropod predators are potential drivers of population dynamics in a wide variety of ecosystems but their feeding habits are often difficult to reveal as they are small, mobile, and live among dense vegetation or in soils. DNA-based gut-content analysis is a powerful tool that enables studies on arthropod predator–prey interactions. We studied lycosid spiders (Pardosa spp.) in agroecosystems to see if they consumed cereal aphids (Rhopalosiphum padi) and Collembolans at random, i.e., in proportion to their abundance in the field. We also tested if consumption of the target prey items was affected by the presence of alternative food. Spiders were captured in farmers’ fields and their gut-contents screened by PCR with R. padi and Collembola primers. On all sampling occasions, concurrent assessments of total prey availability were carried out. Spider predation rates on R. padi always exceeded 50 %. Spiders also tested positive for Collembola but to a lower and more varying degree. In general, Pardosa did not consume R. padi and Collembolans in relation to their abundance in the field. Aphid predation was much higher than expected whereas consumption of Collembolans was considerably lower. The presence of alternative prey influenced consumption of the aphid. It was concluded that prey consumption by Pardosa spiders generally cannot be assumed to simply mirror prey availability. The spatial distribution of the target prey needs to be considered as well as the abundance, composition, and nutritional content of potential alternative food items.


Predator–prey interactions Pardosa Rhopalosiphum padi Collembola Alternative prey Gut-content analysis 


  1. Agustí N, Shayler SP, Harwood JD, Vaughan IP, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2003) Collembola as alternative prey sustaining spiders in arable ecosystems: prey detection within predators using molecular markers. Mol Ecol 12:3467–3475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckerman AP, Petchey OL, Warren PH (2006) Foraging biology predicts food web complexity. PNAS 103:13745–13749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman EG, Romero SA, Harwood JD (2010) Maximizing collection and minimizing risk: does vacuum suction sampling increase the likelihood for misinterpretation of food web connections. Mol Ecol Resour 10:1023–1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Giles KL, Payton ME, Greenstone MH (2000) Identifying key cereal aphid predators by molecular gut analysis. Mol Ecol 9:1887–1898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiverton PA (1986) Predator density manipulation and its effect on populations of Rhopalosiphum padi (Hom.: Aphididae) in spring barley. Ann Appl Biol 109:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edgar WD (1969) Prey and predators of the wolf spider Lycosa lugubris. J Zool 159:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foelix RF (1996) Biology of spiders, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gagnon AÈ, Doyon J, Heimpel GE, Brodeur J (2011) Prey DNA detection success following digestion by intraguild predators: influence of prey and predator species. Mol Ecol Resour 11:1022–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenstone MH, Szendrei Z, Payton ME, Rowley DL, Coudron TC, Weber DC (2010) Choosing natural enemies for conservation biological control: use of the prey detectability half-life to rank key predators of Colorado potato beetle. Entomol Exp Appl 136:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harwood JD, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2001) Living where the food is: web location in relation to prey availability in winter wheat. J Appl Ecol 38:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harwood JD, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2004) Prey selection by linyphiid spiders: molecular tracking of the effects of alternative prey on rates of aphid consumption in the field. Mol Ecol 13:3549–3560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harwood JD, Bostrom MR, Hladilek EE, Wise DH, Obrycki JJ (2007) An order-specific monoclonal antibody to Diptera reveals the impact of alternative prey on spider feeding behavior in a complex food web. Biol Control 41:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harwood JD, Yoo HJS, Greenstone MH, Rowley DL, O′Neil RJ (2009) Differential impact of adults and nymphs of a generalist predator on an exotic invasive pest demonstrated by molecular gut-content analysis. Biol Invasions 11:895–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hatteland BA, Symondson WOC, King RA, Skage M, Schander C, Solhøy T (2011) Molecular analysis of predation by carabid beetles (Carabidae) on the invasive Iberian slug Arion lusitanicus. Bull Entomol Res 101:675–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopkin SP (1997) Biology of the springtails (Insecta: Collembola). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juen A, Traugott M (2007) Revealing species-specific trophic links in soil food webs: molecular identification of scarab predators. Mol Ecol 16:1545–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King RA, Read DS, Traugott M, Symondson WOC (2008) Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA-based approaches. Mol Ecol 17:947–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King RA, Vaughan JP, Bell JR, Bohan DA, Symondson WOC (2010) Prey choice by carabid beetles feeding on an earthworm community analysed using species- and lineage-specific PCR primers. Mol Ecol 19:1721–1732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King RA, Moreno-Ripoll R, Agustí N, Shayler SP, Bell JR, Bohan DA, Symondson WOC (2011) Multiplex reactions for the molecular detection of predation on pest and nonpest invertebrates in agroecosystems. Mol Ecol Resour 11:370–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruse PD, Toft S, Sunderland KD (2008) Temperature and prey capture: opposite relationships in two predator taxa. Ecol Entomol 33:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuusk A-K, Agustí N (2008) Group-specific primers for DNA-based detection of springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola) within predator gut contents. Mol Ecol Resour 8:678–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuusk A-K, Ekbom B (2010) Lycosid spiders and alternative food: feeding behavior and implications for biological control. Biol Control 55:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuusk A-K, Cassel-Lundhagen A, Kvarnheden A, Ekbom B (2008) Tracking aphid predation by lycosid spiders in spring-sown cereals using PCR-based gut-content analysis. Basic Appl Ecol 9:718–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leather SR, Walters KFA, Dixon AFG (1989) Factors determining the pest status of the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), in Europe: a study and review. Bull Entomol Res 79:345–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marden JH (1989) Bodybuilding dragonflies: costs and benefits of maximizing flight muscle. Physiol Zool 62:505–521Google Scholar
  27. Mayntz D, Raubenheimer D, Salomon M, Toft S, Simpson SJ (2005) Nutrient-specific foraging in invertebrate predators. Science 307:111–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLachlan AJ, Neems RM (1996) Is flight architecture determined by physical constraints or by natural selection? The case of the midge Chironomus plumosus. J Zool 240:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moser SE, Kajita Y, Harwood JD, Obrycki JJ (2011) Evidence for utilization of Diptera in the diet of field-collected coccinellid larvae from an antibody-based detection system. Biol Control 58:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Öberg S, Ekbom B, Bommarco R (2007) Influence of habitat type and surrounding landscape on spider diversity in Swedish agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Öberg S, Cassel-Lundhagen A, Ekbom B (2011) Pollen beetles are consumed by ground- and foliage-dwelling spiders in winter oilseed rape. Entomol Exp Appl 138:256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oelbermann K, Scheu S (2002) Effects of prey type and mixed diets on survival, growth and development of a generalist predator, Pardosa lugubris (Araneae: Lycosidae). Basic Appl Ecol 3:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Östman Ö, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J (2001) Landscape heterogeneity and farming practice influence biological control. Basic Appl Ecol 2:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Östman Ö, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J (2003) Yield increase attributable to aphid predation by ground-living polyphagous natural enemies in spring barley in Sweden. Ecol Econ 45:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Samu F, Szinetár C (2002) On the nature of agrobiont spiders. J Arachnol 30:389–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Samu F, Sziranya A, Kiss B (2003) Foraging in agricultural fields: local sit-and-move strategy scales up to risk-averse habitat use in a wolf spider. Anim Behav 66:939–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmidt MH, Roschewitz I, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2005) Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. J Appl Ecol 42:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmitz OJ (2007) Predator diversity and trophic interactions. Ecology 88:2415–2426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheppard SK, Harwood JD (2005) Advances in molecular ecology: tracking trophic links through predator–prey food-webs. Funct Ecol 19:751–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A, Crespi B, Liu H, Flook P (1994) Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 87:652–701Google Scholar
  41. Sopp PI, Sunderland KD, Coombes DS (1987) Observations on the number of cereal aphids on the soil in relation to aphid density in winter wheat. Ann Appl Biol 111:53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH (2002) Can generalist predators be effective biological control agents? Ann Rev Entomol 47:561–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tahir HM, Butt A (2009) Predatory potential of three hunting spiders inhabiting the rice ecosystems. J Pest Sci 82:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Toft S (1995) Value of the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi as food for cereal spiders. J Appl Ecol 32:552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Toft S (1997) Acquired food aversion of a wolf spider to three cereal aphids: intra- and interspecific effects. Entomophaga 42:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiktelius S (1987) Distribution of Rhopalosiphum padi (Homoptera, Aphididae) on spring barley plants. Ann Appl Biol 110:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiktelius S, Ekbom BS (1985) Aphids in spring sown cereals in central Sweden. Abundance and distribution 1980–1983. Z Ang Entomol 100:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Board of AgricultureJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations