Abstract
Forest canopies maintain a high proportion of arthropod diversity. The drivers that structure these communities, however, are poorly understood. Therefore, integrative research connecting tree species identity and environmental stand properties with taxonomic and functional community composition of canopy arthropods is required. In this study, we investigated how the taxonomic, functional and trophic composition of arboreal spider communities is affected by tree species composition and associated differences in canopy structure and prey availability in temperate forests. We sampled canopy spiders as well as their potential prey using insecticidal fogging in monospecific and mixed stands of native European beech, native Norway spruce and non-native Douglas fir. Trophic metrics were obtained from stable isotope analysis and structural canopy properties were assessed with mobile laser scanning. Monospecific native spruce stands promoted local canopy spider abundance and diversity, but native beech and beech–conifer mixtures had the highest diversity at landscape scale. Spider community composition differed between monospecific stands, with broadleaf–conifer mixtures mitigating these differences. Irrespective of tree species identity, spider abundance, taxonomic diversity, functional richness and isotopic richness increased in structurally heterogeneous canopies with high prey abundances, but functional evenness and trophic divergence decreased. Our study shows that canopy spiders are differentially affected by tree species identity, canopy structure and prey availability. Broadleaf–conifer mixtures mitigated negative effects of (non-native) conifers, but positive mixture effects were only evident at the landscape scale. Structurally heterogeneous canopies promoted the dominance of only specific trait clusters. This indicates that intermediate heterogeneity might result in high stability of ecological communities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Forests are important safeguards of biodiversity in times of global biodiversity loss (Seibold et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2019). Yet, arthropods as the most diverse group of eukaryotes (Stork 2018) are on the decline in forest ecosystems (Seibold et al. 2019; Staab et al. 2023). Much of this arthropod diversity depends on forest canopies as habitats (Nakamura et al. 2017), but because tree canopies are hard to access, their associated biodiversity remains understudied, especially in temperate forests (Ulyshen 2011; Floren et al. 2022). Compared to the more intensively studied forest floor and subcanopy (see Burrascano et al. 2021), where stand characteristics such as canopy openness and herb cover play key roles in structuring arthropod communities (Ziesche and Roth 2008; Kriegel et al. 2021), canopy arthropods are commonly more directly affected by tree species identity (Pedley et al. 2014; Floren et al. 2022).
Diversification of tree communities can increase associated biodiversity of forests and improve forest adaptability to changing environments (Wagner et al. 2014; Ampoorter et al. 2020). Especially broadleaf–conifer mixtures have commonly been reported to show positive mixture effects due to their phylogenetic differences resulting in complementary functional effects (Schwarz and Bauhus 2019; Haberstroh and Werner 2022). In Central Europe, the naturally dominating broadleaved beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and fast-growing Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.) as an economically important tree, are promising candidates for such mixtures (Pretzsch et al. 2012). Further, non-native tree species are increasingly considered for climate change-adapted management (Thurm and Pretzsch 2016). Particularly, the Northern American Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco) is broadly considered as suitable for Central Europe (Thomas et al. 2022). However, non-native tree species could potentially threaten local biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Tallamy et al. 2021), calling for research on ecological consequences (Schmid et al. 2014; Thomas et al. 2022).
Previously, broadleaf–conifer mixtures were often shown to mitigate rather than promote arthropod diversity (Barsoum et al. 2014; Oxbrough et al. 2016; Matevski and Schuldt 2023). Non-native trees were reported to have negative effects mostly on diversity and abundance of herbivorous arthropods (Tallamy et al. 2021; Berthelot et al. 2023). It is expected that non-native trees host no or few specialist arthropods in their new range (Roques et al. 2006), and as generalists are less efficient in their use of resources compared to specialists, the same resources may sustain less individuals (García et al. 2018). Yet, negative effects of non-native trees were less evident for predatory arthropods when only considering abundances and taxonomic diversity (Oxbrough et al. 2016; Matevski and Schuldt 2023), whereas expanding the scope to functional divergence and trophic complexity unraveled negative effects (Wildermuth et al. 2023; Matevski and Schuldt 2023). However, most studies to date have focused on lower forest strata, especially the forest floor, and the effects of non-native trees on canopy fauna are still little understood (Gossner and Ammer 2006).
While for herbivorous canopy arthropods, tree species identity and non-nativeness with their specific resources are major drivers for diversity and abundance (Leidinger et al. 2021; Tallamy et al. 2021), arboreal predators such as spiders are expected to rely more on canopy structure and general food availability (Korenko et al. 2011). Surprisingly, tree species identity often has stronger effects on arthropod predator community composition than local stand structure or prey availability (Mupepele et al. 2014). Nonetheless, structural heterogeneity of forest stands is known to generally increase abundance and diversity of associated arthropods (Müller et al. 2018; Rappa et al. 2023), e.g., due to increasing availability and diversity of habitats and resources via higher space filling (Müller et al. 2018). However, the effects of canopy structure have so far mostly been investigated for impacts on taxonomic arthropod community composition (Heidrich et al. 2020; Ramos et al. 2022). Better linking of tree identity and canopy properties with arthropods and their ecological role requires information on functional community composition and trophic interactions (Haddad et al. 2009; Cadotte et al. 2011).
Canopy structural heterogeneity is assumed to play a particularly important role for spiders (Araneae), as they rely on available structures for web attachment or shelter (Halaj et al. 2000; Korenko et al. 2011; Butz et al. 2023). Conifers in particular feature beneficial fine-scale structures and high prey abundances, increasing spider abundances compared to broadleaved trees (Ozanne 1999; Korenko et al. 2011). Arthropod predators such as spiders are important links in food webs, providing pest control by an estimated extent greater than that provided by birds, while being an important food source for birds themselves (Nyffeler et al. 2018). In Europe, 25–30% of the spider fauna is associated with forests (Blick et al. 2019). Yet, canopy-associated spiders are sparsely studied, although up to 40% of forest spider species live predominantly in the canopy (Otto and Floren 2007). The key ecological role of spiders therefore calls for increased consideration of canopy spiders and their functioning for our basic ecological understanding and applications such as nature conservation and forest management (Pedley et al. 2016; Milano et al. 2021). In their functioning as top-down control agents, spider trophic niches are a particularly important proxy for trophic interactions, with broader feeding niches and more complex trophic interactions possibly increasing the resilience of the whole system (Poisot et al. 2013; Michalko and Pekár 2016). Stable isotope analysis is a method that has become increasingly popular to study trophic interactions (Potapov et al. 2019). Natural isotope ratios of 13C/12C (δ13C) and 15N/14N (δ15N) reflect trophic positions and dietary sources (Post 2002). In animal tissue, δ13C and δ15N differ depending on the food sources: 13C concentrations differ between basal carbon sources (e.g., leaves, detritus or microbes), and 15N is enriched at each trophic level (Post 2002). Therefore, dual analysis of δ13C and δ15N allows to determine animal trophic niches (Potapov et al. 2019). Previous research has shown that the trophic niches of ground-dwelling spiders can be altered and simplified by admixture of broadleaved forests with non-native conifers, while conifers generally promote spider isotopic richness (Wildermuth et al. 2023).
In this study, we investigated how the taxonomic, functional and trophic composition of arboreal spider communities is affected by changes in tree species composition and associated differences in canopy structure and prey availability in temperate forests. A comprehensive sampling of canopy spiders requires elaborate and rarely deployed sampling techniques which enable capturing non-flying as well as flying taxa (Floren 2010; Floren et al. 2022). We therefore used insecticidal fogging to study mixed and monospecific stands of native European beech, native Norway spruce and non-native Douglas fir. The trophic niches of spiders were subsequently analyzed using stable isotope analyses. We assessed structural canopy features with high-resolution mobile laser scanning. We hypothesized that (i) native Norway spruce, but not non-native Douglas fir, promotes spider abundance, biomass, functional richness and isotopic richness compared to European beech. We further hypothesized that (ii) canopy spiders show tree species identity-dependent differences in community composition and trophic niche, and that (iii) broadleaf–conifer mixtures mitigate tree species identity effects. Lastly, we hypothesized that (iv) independent of tree species identity, canopy structural heterogeneity has strong positive effects on spider taxonomic and functional richness.
Methods
Study site
The 20 study plots were located in the managed, temperate Solling forest in Lower Saxony, Germany (N51.666, E9.569; 300 m.a.s.l.; Appendix S1: Fig. S1, Table S1). The climate of the study area is characterized by mean annual temperatures of 7–8 °C and mean annual precipitation between 800 and 950 mm (NIBIS® Kartenserver 2021). The forest is dominated by naturally regenerating European beech (F. sylvatica) and planted Norway spruce (P. abies), with a small proportions of monospecific and admixed stands of planted non-native Douglas fir (P. menziesii). We investigated five stand types: monocultures of European beech, Douglas fir and Norway spruce and the mixtures of European beech with each of the two conifers. We sampled four plots of each stand type resulting in a total of 20 plots. Sampling plots consisted of four to six trees which were fogged. The mean distance between plots was 1066 m (± 619 m; standard error), with a minimum distance of 100 m. Plot locations were chosen outside of protected areas and with consideration of plot accessibility with the fogging machine and low exposure to wind. Across plots, average tree age was 50.3 ± 6.3 years (Appendix S1, Table S1). Plots had equal proportions of trees of the admixed species and low densities of understory vegetation. The canopies in each plot slightly overlapped. Stem densities and tree heights varied due to limited suitable sampling locations. These structural differences, however, were accounted for and analyzed statistically. Due to the small proportion of planted Douglas fir and suitable sampling locations across the forest, Douglas fir plots were located in small patches, surrounded by beech or Norway spruce. The highly targeted fogging sampling, however, ensured exclusive sampling of Douglas fir in these plots.
Arthropod data
Arthropod and leaf sampling
We fogged all plots between May 31 and July 3, 2021 under dry and windless conditions, using the thermal fog generator Swingfog SN 50 (Swingtec, Isny, Deutschland) and 1% natural pyrethrum solution. We chose this sampling time because the active periods of most Central European spider species cover June (Nentwig et al. 2021). The targeted canopy area was effectively fogged for 5–10 min. We placed four white collecting sheets of 2 × 3 m as closely grouped as possible to each plot to collect falling arthropods from the canopy. We raised the collecting sheets on poles to ~ 1 m above ground to prevent ground-associated arthropods from entering (Floren 2010). After each fogging, we waited for 2 h of drop-down time. Using fine brushes, we carefully swept all arthropods per collecting sheet together and stored them in 70% ethanol. We excluded one Douglas fir plot (1.2) from all subsequent analyses due to inadequate fogging. We sampled canopy leaves for the trophic baseline calibration on all plots, using a slingshot and a manual rope chain saw. We cut off one branch from the mid-canopy (~ 15–20 m) in one tree of each tree species per plot.
Identification, functional diversity and prey availability
We identified all adult spiders to species level and derived the mean body lengths of females and males, using established keys and online sources (Appendix S1). Based on these size measurements, we estimated biomasses for all male and female specimens individually, using the linear regression from Penell et al. (2018). Specimens which could not be identified to species level were excluded from our analyses. We assigned all species to their guilds (orb, sheet and space web weavers; ambush, and other hunters) after Cardoso et al. (2011) and derived the phenological length (in months) of active adult spiders from Nentwig et al. (2021). Guild and phenology of activity are key determinants of spider resource use, and therefore of their functional impact (Cardoso et al. 2011).
Using the R package “FD” (Laliberté et al 2014), we calculated the following functional diversity indices based on guild, phenology and mean biomass (Cardoso et al. 2011) at the plot level: unweighted functional richness (FRic) and relative biomass-weighted functional divergence (FDiv) and functional evenness (FEve; Villéger et al. 2008, see Appendix S1 for further explanation). As a proxy for prey availability, we counted Diptera, Hymenoptera and Sternorrhyncha in each sample, which together make up > 90% of spider prey in temperate forests (Nentwig 1985).
Stable isotope analysis
We analyzed the trophic niche structure of spider species comprising the top 80% of abundance per plot, reflecting the dominant community and thus the main functional impact (Krause et al. 2021). Isotopic analysis of carbon and nitrogen ratios (δ13C and δ15N) was conducted by the Centre for Stable Isotope Research Analysis at the University of Göttingen. For detailed description of spider and leaf sample (baseline) preparation and the stable isotope analysis pipeline see Appendix S1. To compensate for variation in the isotopic baseline between plots, we calibrated all spider isotopic ratios with mean δ values of leaves from the respective plot (Lu et al. 2022). Calibrated ratios henceforth are denoted as Δ13C and Δ15N.
We calculated all isotopic metrics of spider communities at the plot level. As one-dimensional isotopic metrics, we included isotopic mean, minimum, maximum and range of Δ13C and Δ15N. Minimum and maximum values can reveal extreme values, indicating unique basal resources, and the isotopic ranges reflect on the breadth of used resources and trophic levels, i.e., the diversity of consumed prey (Krause et al. 2021). Equivalent to the functional diversity indices, multidimensional isotopic metrics included unweighted isotopic richness (IRic) and relative biomass-weighted isotopic divergence (IDiv) and isotopic evenness (IEve). Further, we analyzed the isotopic uniqueness (IUni). These indices are based on Villéger et al. (2008) and were adapted for isotopic values by Cucherousset and Villéger (2015). See Appendix S1 for further explanation of the multidimensional isotopic metrics.
Forest structural data
Within 1 week after arthropod sampling, we scanned each plot with a mobile laser scanner (Zeb-Horizon, Geoslam, Nottingham, UK). Acquiring 300,000 points per second, the scanner has an accuracy of up to 3 cm and a maximum range of 100 m. Holding the scanner in the hand, we moved in a spiral trajectory from the center of the fogging area to the outside, ensuring a buffer of 2 m around the fogged area.
The calculated indices of tree structure were the overall vegetation volume, the mean effective number of vertical canopy layers (ENL), mean horizontal canopy gap area (mean gap area), the coefficient of variation of horizontal canopy gap area per plot (CV gap area), the CV of intra-canopy gap height in the canopy per plot (CV ICG height) and the box dimension as a measure of structural complexity (Seidel 2018). For the quantification of intra-canopy gaps, we adapted the quantification of horizontal gaps for the empty space within the canopy. Structural canopy properties such as vertical layering, gap sizes and three-dimensional complexity are important drivers of forest arthropods, including spiders (Halaj et al. 2000; Heidrich et al. 2020). We initially calculated all structural variables for cropped point clouds of radii from 1 to 12 m from the sampling center, using the R package “LidR” (Roussel et al. 2020). We observed that the stand structural complexity reached an asymptote at 9 m radius on all fogging sites. Therefore, we decided to only consider a radius of 9 m around the center of the fogging area in our analyses. This radius included the sampling area plus an approximate 4 m buffer. For detailed descriptions of the point cloud processing, see Appendix S1.
Statistical analyses
All subsequent statistical analyses were conducted with R 4.2.1 (R Core Team 2022). We used the package “vegan” (Oksanen et al. 2022) to calculate spider species richness, effective number of species and evenness on sample and plot level. We split our analyses into two steps, (i) analyzing stand type effects on spider responses and environmental properties (prey abundance and structural attributes) while integrating total vegetation volume in the model and (ii) analyzing the effects of canopy structural properties and prey availability, while integrating stand type as random effect. We integrated vegetation volume into the stand type analysis to correct for biases by differing sampled tree volumes, as canopy fogging is a highly targeted sampling approach with defined spatial sampling extent (Floren 2010). Including stand type as random effect in (ii) allowed to analyze environmental variables across stand types.
In the modeling step (i), we analyzed all spider responses (abundance, biomass, diversity indices, functional diversity indices, isotopic metrics) and structural stand attributes at the plot level in linear models with stand type and vegetation volume as fixed effects (vegetation volume was not included in the analysis of structural stand attributes). Further, we extended this model for analyses at the sample level (per collecting sheet) to a linear mixed-effects model, with spider abundance, biomass, diversity and prey abundance as response and including plot as random effect, using the R package “lme4” (Bates et al. 2014). We applied pairwise Tukey HSD post hoc tests for stand type comparisons, using the “multcomp” package (Hothorn et al. 2008). In modeling step (ii), we analyzed spider responses at plot level in linear mixed-effects models with structural properties and prey abundance as fixed effects and stand type as random effect. As in (i), we added a sample-level analysis for abundance, biomass and diversity and included plot and stand type as crossed random effects. For further details on model selection and fitting, see Appendix S1.
To investigate the influence of stand type on spider richness at the landscape scale, we used abundance-based rarefaction and short-range extrapolation of the species richness at stand level across plots, and at the level of pooled mixed and monoculture stands across stand types. This approach is based on effective species numbers and allows for robust abundance-weighted diversity estimates for double the sample size (Hsieh et al. 2016). We conducted this analysis for the Hill numbers q = 0, 1 and 2, using the “iNEXT” package (Hsieh et al. 2016). Hill number q = 0 is equivalent to species richness, q = 1 reflects the effective number of species (the exponent of the Shannon diversity) and q = 2 reflects the number of dominant species (inverse Simpson diversity; Hsieh et al. 2016).
To investigate differences in spider community composition at sample and plot scale between stand types, we applied two-dimensional nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS), using the package “vegan” (Oksanen et al. 2022). We used the Morisita–Horn index for distance estimations, which emphasizes dominant species and thus is resistant to undersampling (Magurran and McGill 2011). Using the NMDS axes scores (“envfit” function), structural properties were fitted post hoc to the ordination. Implementing an analysis of similarity (ANOSIM, N = 9999) with post hoc pairwise comparison, using the package “pairwiseAdonis” (Martinez Arbizu 2017), we tested for significant differences in community composition between stand types. To investigate whether individual stand types are characterized by particular spider species, we conducted indicator species analyses, using the package “labdsv” (Roberts 2019) and considered only species with at least ten recorded individuals.
Results
We sampled 815 undamaged adult spider specimens comprising 45 species (Appendix S1, Table S2). They represented five guilds, with most spiders being web weavers: space web (Dictynidae, Theridiidae) and orb web weavers (Araneidae, Tetragnathidae) comprised 79.8% of all individuals (650/815) and 48.9% of all species (22/45). These proportions were similar across stand types (Appendix S1: Table S2). Prey abundances were significantly higher in monospecific spruce (1170 ± 104), beech–spruce mixtures (490 ± 90) and monospecific Douglas fir (1014 ± 341) than in monospecific beech stands (74 ± 6; F(4,13.9) = 3.14, p < 0.001; p < 0.01; p < 0.01). Further, prey abundances were higher in monospecific spruce than in beech–Douglas fir mixtures (330 ± 77; p < 0.05). Structural stand attributes at plot level did not differ significantly between stand types, but in trend structural complexity and vertical layering were highest in spruce, and mean gap area was highest in Douglas fir (Appendix S1: Table S3).
Abundance, taxonomic diversity and community composition
At the sample level (per collecting sheet = local), monospecific spruce stands harbored significantly higher spider abundances (Fig. 1a) and biomass (48.1 mg ± 12.7) than monospecific beech (F(4,12.9) = 3.53, p < 0.005; 3.15 mg ± 0.92, F(4,12.8) = 3.88, p < 0.005). Further, local diversity was significantly higher in monospecific spruce than in monospecific beech (species richness: F(4,12.9) = 2.87, p < 0.05; Fig. 1b; effective number of species: F(4,12.8) = 2.36, p < 0.05; Appendix S1: Table S4). At plot level, spider abundances also were higher in monospecific spruce than in monospecific beech stands, but this difference was only marginally significant (F(4) = 2.88, p = 0.08; Fig. 1c). Spider biomass and diversity did not differ significantly between stand types at the plot level (Fig. 1d, Appendix S1: Table S5).
Species accumulation and extrapolation curves at the landscape scale based on Hill numbers showed that monospecific and mixed beech stands had the highest species diversity, whereas monospecific conifer stands had significantly lower species numbers (Fig. 1e, f). Overall, mixtures tended to have higher spider species numbers than monocultures (non-significant; Fig. 1g, h).
Vegetation volume neither correlated significantly with local and plot-level canopy spider abundance nor diversity. Spider abundance, biomass and species richness correlated positively with structural complexity (box dimension; Fig. 2a), effective number of vegetation layers (ENL), the variability of intra-canopy gap heights (CV ICG height) and prey abundance (Fig. 2b). Box dimension, ENL and CV ICG height further correlated positively with the spider effective number of species (Fig. 2c). Spider species evenness decreased with increasing variation of horizontal canopy gap area and prey availability (Fig. 2d), but increased with mean gap area (Appendix S1: Table S6). At plot level, the patterns were largely the same (Appendix S1: Table S7).
Spider communities at the local scale differed significantly between all monospecific stands, with spruce monocultures also differing from both mixture types (ANOSIM p < 0.05 for all comparisons). While beech–Douglas fir mixtures did not differ significantly from monospecific beech and Douglas fir stands, or from spruce–beech mixtures, the latter differed significantly from monospecific beech and spruce stands (p < 0.05; Appendix S1; Table S8). Box dimension, CV gap area and CV ICG height correlated with spider communities that were characteristic for coniferous stands. Mean gap area correlated with typical Douglas fir communities (Fig. 3, Appendix S1: Table S9). At the plot scale, stress values of the NMDS rose to > 0.25 and no significant differences between stand types could be observed.
The indicator species analysis revealed no significant indicator species in Douglas fir and beech–conifer mixtures. Monospecific beech stands had one marginally significant indicator species (Nigma flavescens (Walckenaer, 1830); p = 0.1) which is a space web weaver. Spruce stands had three significant indicator species (Anelosimus vittatus (C. L. Koch, 1836), Philodromus collinus C. L. Koch, 1835, Platnickina tincta (Walckenaer, 1802); for all p < 0.05), representing two space web weavers and one hunting spider (P. collinus).
Functional diversity
Most functional indices showed non-significant trends between stand types (Fig. 4a, Appendix S1: Table S10). Only spider functional evenness differed significantly between stand types, with higher evenness in monospecific beech than in monospecific spruce stands (F(4) = 4.26, p < 0.05; Fig. 4b).
Spider functional richness (FRic) correlated positively with total vegetation volume, ENL, mean gap area and CV ICG height (Fig. 4c). Further, FRic correlated negatively with CV gap area. Functional evenness (FEve) correlated negatively with CV ICG height (Fig. 4d) and prey abundance, and positively with CV gap area (Appendix S1: Tables S10, S11).
Trophic niches
Mean ∆13C of spiders was significantly higher by 3.01 ‰ in monospecific beech stands compared to monospecific spruce stands (p < 0.01; Fig. 5a), and in trend higher by 2.03 ‰ compared to monospecific Douglas fir stands (F(4) = 5.5, p = 0.12; not significant). Further, minimum and maximum ∆13C of spiders were significantly higher in beech than in spruce stands, with minimum ∆13C also being higher in beech compared to beech–spruce mixtures. In trend, mean spider ∆15N was higher by 2.46 ‰ in monospecific beech stands compared to monospecific spruce stands (F(4) = 2.95, p = 0.11; not significant; Fig. 5b). Multidimensional isotopic metrics of spider trophic niches did not differ significantly between stand types (Appendix S1: Table S12).
No isotopic metric correlated significantly with total vegetation volume. Mean, minimum and maximum ∆13C and ∆15N of spiders correlated negatively with prey abundance (Fig. 5c, d). The ranges of spider ∆13C and ∆15N correlated negatively with CV gap area. Further, range ∆13C of spiders correlated positively with mean gap area and CV ICG height, and isotopic richness (IRic) with CV ICG height (Fig. 6a). In contrast, isotopic divergence (IDiv) of spiders correlated negatively with box dimension (Fig. 6b), but positively with mean gap area (Appendix S1: Table S13).
Discussion
Our results suggest that at local scales, native Norway spruce, but not non-native Douglas fir, promotes canopy spider abundance and diversity. At landscape scale, however, native beech and beech–conifer mixtures showed the highest species turnover and therefore highest overall species richness. Beech–conifer mixtures further mitigated differences in spider community composition between beech and conifer monocultures. These results indicate that broadleaf–conifer mixtures may maintain canopy spider diversity and native communities in European beech forests. Monospecific patches of conifers, however, host distinct spider communities and are only beneficial for spider abundance and diversity locally and only in case of native conifers. Independent of tree species identity, structurally heterogeneous canopies increased spider abundance, diversity, and functional richness, but very high levels of heterogeneity led to dominance of few spider traits (low functional evenness and isotopic divergence). This indicates that intermediate rather than very high heterogeneity might stabilize canopy spider communities via balanced richness and evenness of traits.
Stand type effects on taxonomic, functional and trophic diversity
At the local scale, canopy abundance and diversity were promoted by native spruce compared to native broadleaved beech, but not by non-native Douglas fir (Fig. 1a, b). This supports our first hypothesis that native conifers promote spider abundance and diversity but, opposed to findings on the forest floor (Matevski and Schuldt 2023), non-native conifers do not. We suggest that in the canopy, tree species identity effects are more important (Gossner and Ammer 2006; Floren et al. 2022), while beneficial effects of conifers on generalist predators on the forest floor are strongly linked to general stand characteristics like light availability and herb cover (Ziesche and Roth 2008; Kriegel et al. 2021). However, also in the canopy general positive effects of conifers on spider communities were observed (Ozanne 1999; Korenko et al. 2011).
The question to ask is therefore which tree species identity effects are leading to the lack of positive conifer effects in the canopy of non-native Douglas fir. However, our study only found non-significant trends of higher stand-scale structural complexity and prey availability, and smaller canopy gaps in spruce compared to non-native Douglas fir. Therefore, either unmeasured structural factors may be key drivers of the observed differences in spider communities, or our number of sampling plots was too small to detect stand-scale differences in structure. Possible unmeasured drivers could be differences in microscale structure, such as bark texture or needle density (Halaj et al. 1998; Blick and Gossner 2006), which might reduce suitability or number of structures for web building and shelter (Oxbrough et al. 2005; Korenko et al. 2011). In combination with (non-significant) macroscale structural differences, such as less dense canopies, this may impact overwintering of spiders and their prey organisms, with strongly reduced arthropod abundances in non-native Douglas fir in winter compared to native spruce (Gossner and Utschick 2004). These seasonality effects might also drive the observed low abundances in broadleaved beech, where many arthropods are forced to move to the ground after leaf drop, which will also reduce canopy arthropod numbers in summer (Gil 2009).
Another possible driver of the lack of positive conifer effects in Douglas fir might be the lack of shared evolutionary history with native prey and spider communities (Tallamy et al. 2021). Douglas fir was shown to only host a fraction of its specialized associated arthropods when planted in Europe (Roques et al. 2006), and herbivorous arthropods are generally profoundly reduced and altered in their community composition by non-native plants compared to native plants (Tallamy et al. 2021; Berthelot et al. 2023). While we acknowledge that generalist predators should not be strongly impacted by tree species-specific community composition of their prey, we emphasize that tree-specific spider communities in our and previous studies cannot simply be explained by structure and prey availability (Mupepele et al. 2014). Further, spiders indeed can show prey specialization (García et al. 2018; Mezőfi et al. 2020). In line with this, we did not record any indicator species on Douglas fir, while native spruce hosted three significant indicator species. Yet, these indicator species should theoretically benefit from both conifer species, as Philodromus collinus is generally associated with conifers and the space web weaving indicator species (Anelosimus vittatus, Platnickina tincta) should benefit from the needles of either species to attach their small-scale webs (Halaj et al. 1998; Mupepele et al. 2014). We conclude that tree species identity effects beyond structure and general prey availability may determine that non-native conifers do not support the same local diversity of canopy spiders as native conifers (Pedley et al. 2014). Notably, prey abundances were several times higher in spruce than in native beech, which may indicate that high spider abundances do not necessarily imply improved pest control, but rather reflect high abundances of potential pest species.
Supporting our second hypothesis, tree species identity effects in our study were further underlined by pronounced differences in spider community composition between monospecific stands (Fig. 3). This concurs with previous studies, showing that conifers are associated with different arthropod communities than native broadleaved forests (Pedley et al. 2014; Matevski and Schuldt 2020; Kriegel et al. 2021). In line with this, the indicator species of monospecific beech stands, Nigma flavescens, is a specialized space web weaver, building its nets on leaves of broadleaved trees (Nentwig et al. 2021). Again, this emphasizes that also for generalist species, tree species identity can be a strong driver of community composition and, supported by our indicator species analysis, tree species-specific spiders do exist in the canopy (Mupepele et al. 2014).
In line with our third hypothesis, local differences in species richness and abundance between spruce and beech were mitigated in mixtures of the two tree species (Fig. 1a, b). Further, spider community compositions in mixed stands were intermediate between the respective monospecific stands, mitigating tree species identity effects (Fig. 3). This supports previous studies on the forest floor, reporting mitigating effects of tree species mixtures on generalist predator abundance and diversity (Kriegel et al. 2021; Matevski and Schuldt 2023), indicating averaging trade-off effects (van der Plas et al. 2016). However, while beneficial effects of spruce on spider abundance and diversity became smaller at the plot scale, they reversed at the landscape scale: both conifers markedly showed the lowest diversity, whereas mixed and monospecific beech stands had the highest spider diversity (Fig. 1e, f). When pooling all monospecific and all mixed stands, we even observed a general positive mixture effect at the landscape scale (Fig. 1g, h). This corroborates reports of low spatial arthropod species turnover in conifers (Oxbrough et al. 2016; Matevski and Schuldt 2020) and indicates beneficial effects of tree diversification (Ampoorter et al. 2020; Matevski and Schuldt 2020). Notably, we recorded nine species exclusively in mixed stands, but their low abundances do not allow robust conclusions on their uniqueness to mixtures. Comparing our results on canopy spiders to previous studies on the forest floor suggests that tree species identity and their admixture differentially impact forest floor- and canopy-associated arthropods (Pedley et al. 2016). In conclusion, conservation of canopy arthropod communities in European forests can only be safeguarded when native broadleaves are admixed.
Partially contradicting our first hypothesis, we did not observe significant differences in functional or isotopic richness between stand types (Fig. 4a), suggesting that major canopy spider functional groups can be sustained by all investigated stand types and that the spider communities feed on similar ranges of prey (Michalko et al. 2019). However, spider functional evenness was higher in beech than in spruce stands, indicating that the high abundances in spruce result in only few trait clusters, whereas the few spiders in beech have very different functions (Fig. 4b). This supports findings on the forest floor, showing that monospecific conifer plantations lead to functional homogenization of spiders (Matevski and Schuldt 2023). Further, we found marked differences in the trophic niches of canopy spiders between stand types, with ∆13C and ∆15N being the highest in monospecific beech stands and low in coniferous stands (Fig. 5a, b). Notably, the ∆13C pattern is the same as observed on the forest floor, while ∆15N contrasts patterns of ground-dwelling spiders (Wildermuth et al. 2023). High ∆13C values indicate that the food web is fueled by detrital resources (“detrital shift”; Potapov et al. 2019), whereas low ∆13C values indicate a rather herbivore-fueled food web (Krause et al. 2021; Wildermuth et al. 2023). This suggests that prey organisms in conifer canopies predominantly consume decaying material, microbes and fungi, while prey in beech stands mostly consume living leaves (Pollierer et al. 2023). However, the observed ∆13C patterns may also reflect different feeding strategies of tree species specific herbivore communities, such as the selective use of easy to digest plant compounds with high ∆13C (Pollierer et al. 2023). High ∆15N values in beech stands hint toward an additional trophic level compared to coniferous stands (Scheu and Falca 2000), likely reflecting more pronounced intra-guild predation in beech (Wildermuth et al. 2023). In fact, prey abundances were lowest in beech stands and had a negative relationship with ∆15N (Fig. 5d). Such a top-heavy food web as in beech may be explained by the phenology of deciduous trees, which do not provide resources for herbivores during winter (Pollierer et al. 2023). This also indicates that pest control provided by spiders may be more pronounced in beech than in coniferous stands, even though spiders are more abundant in conifers. Tree species mixtures mitigated these effects, supporting our second hypothesis and consolidating their potential as buffer against potentially negative tree species identity effects.
Habitat heterogeneity and prey availability
Despite not differing significantly between stand types, we identified forest stand structure as a strong driver of spider communities, supporting our fourth hypothesis. Heterogeneous heights of intra-canopy gaps, high vertical layering and structural complexity promoted spider abundance and diversity, coupled with positive effects of prey abundance (Fig. 2a–c). Previous studies suggested that especially non-flying taxa such as spiders benefit from structurally complex environments (Halaj et al. 2000; Ramos et al. 2022). Some studies even reported that canopy structure explains more variance in canopy spider abundance and species richness than prey availability (Halaj et al. 1998; Butz et al. 2023). Structural complexity and vertical vegetation layering promote arthropod abundances and diversity via higher space-filling, which increases total habitat and resource availability (Müller et al. 2018; Knuff et al. 2020; Rappa et al. 2023). However, although canopy gaps are known to be crucial for forest arthropod diversity, previous studies mostly investigated gaps interrupting the canopy (Heidrich et al. 2020; Junggebauer et al. 2021). Yet, the canopy is a three-dimensional habitat, and intra-canopy gaps should be considered, as for instance also removal of low canopy structures will alter the available habitat (Dial et al. 2006). The variation in intra-canopy gap height had a strong positive relationship with multiple spider responses, emphasizing the advantages of assessing canopy structure with high-resolution laser scanning (Müller et al. 2018; Seidel 2018). We propose that variation in intra-canopy gap height promotes vertical availability of hunting grounds, while—in combination with vertical layering—spatial separation of these habitats is assured (Müller et al. 2018; Knuff et al. 2020).
Structurally heterogeneous canopies further promoted spider functional and isotopic richness (Figs. 4c, 6a), suggesting that habitat heterogeneity increases the total trait space via increasing habitat availability and habitat diversity (Stein and Kreft 2015). However, heterogeneous canopies also decreased functional evenness and isotopic divergence, indicating promotion of trait clusters in the functional and trophic niche space respectively (Figs. 4d, 6b). This effect was also coupled with increasing prey availability (Fig. 2d). Further, variability of horizontal gap sizes decreased spider functional richness and isotopic ranges, indicating a limited trophic diversity of consumed prey. This may indicate that high structural complexity promotes functional similarity of spiders via spatial partitioning and increased abundance of prey with high trophic similarity (Müller et al. 2018; Tsang et al. 2023). Yet, this similarity can be mediated by canopy gaps, as we also found an increase in contrasting trophic traits (isotopic divergence) with larger horizontal gap size, and increasing functional evenness with variation in horizontal gap size. This suggests that, although structurally heterogeneous canopies might not increase all functional spider traits evenly, with resource availability promoting dominant traits, canopy gaps and their heterogeneity in size can foster functional dissimilarity. The latter underlines that multiple heterogeneity attributes might have differing relationships with canopy arthropods and that in sum, intermediate habitat heterogeneity might balance positive and negative impacts (Heidrich et al. 2020; Swart et al. 2020). This would also lead to higher ecological stability of communities via even occupation of dissimilar niches (Godoy et al. 2018; Tsang et al. 2023).
Conclusions
Our study shows that canopy spider communities are differentially driven by tree species identity, canopy structure and prey availability. As spider community composition strongly differed depending on tree species identity and species turnover was low in non-native trees, native trees should be of great conservational interest. However, broadleaf–conifer mixtures showed buffering against negative tree species identity effects, while promoting spider diversity at the landscape scale. Monospecific plantations of non-native Douglas fir in Central Europe should therefore not be recommended, but admixtures with native beech potentially promote canopy spider diversity, indicating that they may be a more suitable management option when also considering biodiversity conservation. Structurally heterogeneous canopies and prey availability promoted the richness of spider species and traits, but it also fostered dominance of only few trait clusters. This indicates that heterogeneity-diversity relationships are not just linear positive, and intermediate heterogeneity might result in more stable ecological communities. Our study shows that findings of beneficial conifer effects from the ground stratum cannot be transferred to the canopy—even for generalist predators such as spiders—as tree species identity and intra-canopy structure are intimately linked with canopy spider communities.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Data availability
Data (Wildermuth 2023) are available from GRO.data: https://doi.org/10.25625/UMJIQA.
References
Ampoorter E, Barbaro L, Jactel H et al (2020) Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest-associated taxa in Europe. Oikos 129:133–146
Barsoum N, Fuller L, Ashwood F, Reed K, Bonnet-Lebrun A-S, Leung F (2014) Ground-dwelling spider (Araneae) and carabid beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) community assemblages in mixed and monoculture stands of oak (Quercus robur L./Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). For Ecol Manage 321:29–41
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv:1406.5823 [stat]
Berthelot S, Bauhus J, Dormann CF, Gravel D, Messier C, Nock CA, Paquette A, Reich PB, Fründ J (2023) Exotic tree species have consistently lower herbivore load in a cross- Atlantic tree biodiversity experiment. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.4070
Blick T, Gossner M (2006) Spinnen aus Baumkronen-Klopfproben (Arachnida: Araneae), mit Anmerkungen zu Cinetata gradata (Linyphiidae) und Theridion boesenbergi (Theridiidae). Arachnologische Mitteilungen 31:23–39
Blick T, Buchholz S, Kielhorn K-H, Muster C (2019) Die Waldbindung der Spinnen (Araneae) Deutschlands. In: Waldbindung ausgewählter Tiergruppen Deutschlands, BfN-Skripten. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, pp. 26–56
Burrascano S, Trentanovi G, Paillet Y et al (2021) Handbook of field sampling for multi-taxon biodiversity studies in European forests. Ecol Ind 132:108266
Butz EM, Schmitt LM, Parker JD, Burghardt KT (2023) Positive tree diversity effects on arboreal spider abundance are tied to canopy cover in a forest experiment. Ecology 104:e4116
Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services: functional diversity in ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1079–1087
Cardoso P, Pekár S, Jocqué R, Coddington JA (2011) Global patterns of guild composition and functional diversity of spiders. PLoS ONE 6:e21710
Cucherousset J, Villéger S (2015) Quantifying the multiple facets of isotopic diversity: new metrics for stable isotope ecology. Ecol Ind 56:152–160
Dial RJ, Ellwood MDF, Turner EC, Foster WA (2006) Arthropod abundance, canopy structure, and microclimate in a Bornean Lowland tropical rain forest1. Biotropica 38:643–652
Floren A (2010) Sampling arthropods from the canopy by insecticidal knockdown. Abc Taxa 8:158–172
Floren A, Linsenmair KE, Müller T (2022) Diversity and functional relevance of canopy arthropods in central Europe. Diversity 14:660
García LF, Viera C, Pekár S (2018) Comparison of the capture efficiency, prey processing, and nutrient extraction in a generalist and a specialist spider predator. Sci Nat 105:30
Gil AC (2009) Seasonal dynamics of forest spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) in the temperate zone of the Basque Country and Navarra (northern Spain).
Godoy O, Bartomeus I, Rohr RP, Saavedra S (2018) Towards the integration of niche and network theories. Trends Ecol Evol 33:287–300
Gossner M, Ammer U (2006) The effects of Douglas-fir on tree-specific arthropod communities in mixed species stands with European beech and Norway spruce. Eur J For Res 125:221–235
Gossner M, Utschick H (2004) Douglas fir stands deprive wintering bird species of food resource. In: Kühn I, Klotz S (eds) Biological Invasions: Challenges for Science. Neobiota vol 3, pp 105–122
Haberstroh S, Werner C (2022) The role of species interactions for forest resilience to drought. Plant Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.13415
Haddad NM, Crutsinger GM, Gross K, Haarstad J, Knops JMH, Tilman D (2009) Plant species loss decreases arthropod diversity and shifts trophic structure. Ecol Lett 12:1029–1039
Halaj J, Ross DW, Moldenke AR (1998) Habitat structure and prey availability as predictors of the abundance and community organization of spiders in western oregon forest canopies. J Arachnology 26:203–220
Halaj J, Ross DW, Moldenke AR (2000) Importance of habitat structure to the arthropod food-web in Douglas-fir canopies. Oikos 90:139–152
Heidrich L, Bae S, Levick S, Seibold S et al (2020) Heterogeneity–diversity relationships differ between and within trophic levels in temperate forests. Nat Ecol Evol 4:1204–1212
Hill SLL, Arnell A, Maney C et al (2019) Measuring forest biodiversity status and changes globally. Front For Glob Chang 2:70
Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363
Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A (2016) iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (hill numbers). Methods Ecol Evol 7:1451–1456
Junggebauer A, Hartke TR, Ramos D et al (2021) Changes in diversity and community assembly of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) after rainforest conversion to rubber and oil palm plantations. PeerJ 9:e11012
Knuff AK, Staab M, Frey J, Dormann CF, Asbeck T, Klein A-M (2020) Insect abundance in managed forests benefits from multi-layered vegetation. Basic Appl Ecol 48:124–135
Korenko S, Kula E, Šimon V, Michalková V, Pekár S (2011) Are arboreal spiders associated with particular tree canopies? North-Western J Zool 7:261–269
Krause A, Sandmann D, Potapov A et al (2021) Variation in community-level trophic niches of soil microarthropods with conversion of tropical rainforest into plantation systems as indicated by stable isotopes (15N, 13C). Front Ecol Evol 9:592149
Kriegel P, Matevski D, Schuldt A (2021) Monoculture and mixture-planting of non-native Douglas fir alters species composition, but promotes the diversity of ground beetles in a temperate forest system. Biodivers Conserv 30:1479–1499
Laliberté E, Legendre P, Shipley B (2014) FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R Package Version 1(0–12):1
Leidinger J, Blaschke M, Ehrhardt M et al (2021) Shifting tree species composition affects biodiversity of multiple taxa in Central European forests. For Ecol Manage 498:119552
Lu J, Cordes PH, Maraun M, Scheu S (2022) High consistency of trophic niches in generalist arthropod species (Oribatida, Acari) across soil depth and forest type. Ecol Evol 12:e9572
Magurran AE, McGill BJ (eds) (2011) Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York
Martinez Arbizu P (2017) _pairwiseAdonis: pairwise multilevel comparison using Adonis_. R package version 0.4
Matevski D, Schuldt A (2020) Tree species richness, tree identity and non-native tree proportion affect arboreal spider diversity, abundance and biomass. For Ecol Manag 483:118775
Matevski D, Schuldt A (2023) Non-native Douglas fir promotes epigeal spider density, but has a mixed effect on functional diversity. Biodivers Conserv 32:1233–1250
Mezőfi L, Markó G, Nagy C, Korányi D, Markó V (2020) Beyond polyphagy and opportunism: natural prey of hunting spiders in the canopy of apple trees. PeerJ 8:e9334
Michalko R, Pekár S (2016) Different hunting strategies of generalist predators result in functional differences. Oecologia 181:1187–1197
Michalko R, Pekár S, Entling MH (2019) An updated perspective on spiders as generalist predators in biological control. Oecologia 189:21–36
Milano F, Blick T, Cardoso P, Chatzaki M et al (2021) Spider conservation in Europe: a review. Biol Conserv 256:109020
Müller J, Brandl R, Brändle M et al (2018) LiDAR-derived canopy structure supports the more-individuals hypothesis for arthropod diversity in temperate forests. Oikos 127:814–824
Mupepele A-C, Müller T, Dittrich M, Floren A (2014) Are temperate canopy spiders tree-species specific? PLoS ONE 9:e86571
Nakamura A, Kitching RL, Cao M et al (2017) Forests and their canopies: achievements and horizons in canopy science. Trends Ecol Evol 32:438–451
Nentwig W (1985) Prey analysis of four species of tropical orb-weaving spiders (Araneae: Araneidae) and a comparison with araneids of the temperate zone. Oecologia 66:580–594
Nentwig W, Blick T, Bosmans R, Gloor D, Hänggi A, Kropf C (2021) Spinnen Europas. https://www.araneae.nmbe.ch. Accessed Oct 2021
NIBIS® Kartenserver (2021) Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie und Geologie (LBEG), Hannover. https://nibis.lbeg.de/cardomap3/. Accessed Nov 2021
Nyffeler M, Şekercioğlu ÇH, Whelan CJ (2018) Insectivorous birds consume an estimated 400–500 million tons of prey annually. Sci Nat 105:47
Oksanen J, Simpson G, Blanchet F et al (2022) _vegan: Community Ecology Package_. R package version 2.6–2, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed April 2023
Otto S, Floren A (2007) The spider fauna (Araneae) of tree canopies in the Białowieża Forest. Fragm Faun 50:57–70
Oxbrough AG, Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Giller PS, Smith GF (2005) Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For Ecol Manage 212:171–183
Oxbrough A, García-Tejero S, Spence J, O’Halloran J (2016) Can mixed stands of native and non-native tree species enhance diversity of epigaeic arthropods in plantation forests? For Ecol Manage 367:21–29
Ozanne CMP (1999) A comparison of the canopy arthropod communities of coniferous and broad-leaved trees in the United Kingdom. Selbyana 20:290–298
Pedley SM, Martin RD, Oxbrough A, Irwin S, Kelly TC, O’Halloran J (2014) Commercial spruce plantations support a limited canopy fauna: Evidence from a multi taxa comparison of native and plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 314:172–182
Pedley SM, Oxbrough A, Martin RD, Irwin S, Kelly TC, O’Halloran J (2016) Can ground-based assessments of forest biodiversity reflect the biological condition of canopy assemblages? For Ecol Manage 359:190–198
Penell A, Raub F, Höfer H (2018) Estimating biomass from body size of European spiders based on regression models. J Arachnol 46:413
Poisot T, Mouquet N, Gravel D (2013) Trophic complementarity drives the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationship in food webs. Ecol Lett 16:853–861
Pollierer M, Drescher J, Potapov A et al (2023) Rainforest conversion to plantations fundamentally alters energy fluxes and functions in canopy arthropod food webs. Ecol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14276
Post DM (2002) Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods and assumptions. Ecology 83:16
Potapov AM, Tiunov AV, Scheu S (2019) Uncovering trophic positions and food resources of soil animals using bulk natural stable isotope composition: stable isotopes in soil food web studies. Biol Rev 94:37–59
Pretzsch H, Dieler J, Seifert T, Rötzer T (2012) Climate effects on productivity and resource-use efficiency of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica [L.]) in stands with different spatial mixing patterns. Trees 26:1343–1360
R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed Aug 2022
Ramos D, Hartke TR, Buchori D et al (2022) Rainforest conversion to rubber and oil palm reduces abundance, biomass and diversity of canopy spiders. PeerJ 10:e13898
Rappa NJ, Staab M, Ruppert L-S, Frey J, Bauhus J, Klein A-M (2023) Structural elements enhanced by retention forestry promote forest and non-forest specialist bees and wasps. For Ecol Manage 529:120709
Roberts DW (2019) labdsv: ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R package version 2.0-1. Available from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/labdsv/labdsv.pdf
Roques A, Auger-Rozenberg M-A, Boivin S (2006) A lack of native congeners may limit colonization of introduced conifers by indigenous insects in Europe. Can J For Res 36:299–313
Roussel J-R, Auty D, Coops NC, Tompalski P, Goodbody TRH, Meador AS, Bourdon J-F, De Boissieu F, Achim A (2020) lidR: an R package for analysis of airborne laser scanning (ALS) data. Remote Sens Environ 251:112061
Scheu S, Falca M (2000) The soil food web of two beech forests (Fagus sylvatica ) of contrasting humus type: stable isotope analysis of a macro- and a mesofauna-dominated community. Oecologia 123:285–296
Schmid M, Pautasso M, Holdenrieder O (2014) Ecological consequences of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) cultivation in Europe. Eur J For Res 133:13–29
Schwarz JA, Bauhus J (2019) Benefits of mixtures on growth performance of silver fir (Abies alba) and European Beech (Fagus sylvatica) increase with tree size without reducing drought tolerance. Front for Global Change 2:79
Seibold S, Gossner MM, Simons NK et al (2019) Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574:671–674
Seidel D (2018) A holistic approach to determine tree structural complexity based on laser scanning data and fractal analysis. Ecol Evol 8:128–134
Staab M, Gossner MM, Simons NK et al (2023) Insect decline in forests depends on species’ traits and may be mitigated by management. Commun Biol 6:338
Stein A, Kreft H (2015) Terminology and quantification of environmental heterogeneity in species-richness research: environmental heterogeneity and species richness. Biol Rev 90:815–836
Stork NE (2018) How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth? Annu Rev Entomol 63:31–45
Swart RC, Samways MJ, Roets F (2020) Tree canopy arthropods have idiosyncratic responses to plant ecophysiological traits in a warm temperate forest complex. Sci Rep 10:19905
Tallamy DW, Narango DL, Mitchell AB (2021) Do non-native plants contribute to insect declines? Ecol Entomol 46:729–742
Thomas FM, Rzepecki A, Werner W (2022) Non-native Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in Central Europe: ecology, performance and nature conservation. For Ecol Manage 506:119956
Thurm EA, Pretzsch H (2016) Improved productivity and modified tree morphology of mixed versus pure stands of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with increasing precipitation and age. Ann For Sci 73:1047–1061
Tsang TPN, Ponisio LC, Bonebrake TC (2023) Increasing synchrony opposes stabilizing effects of species richness on terrestrial communities. Divers Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13696
Ulyshen MD (2011) Arthropod vertical stratification in temperate deciduous forests: implications for conservation-oriented management. For Ecol Manage 261:1479–1489
van der Plas F, Manning P, Allan E et al (2016) Jack-of-all-trades effects drive biodiversity–ecosystem multifunctionality relationships in European forests. Nat Commun 7:11109
Villéger S, Mason NWH, Mouillot D (2008) New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89:2290–2301
Wagner S, Nocentini S, Huth F, Hoogstra-Klein M (2014) Forest management approaches for coping with the uncertainty of climate change: trade-offs in service provisioning and adaptability. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06213-190132
Wildermuth B (2023) Canopy spiders: abundance, species ID and isotopic signatures. GRO.data. https://doi.org/10.25625/UMJIQA
Wildermuth B, Fardiansah R, Matevski D, Lu J-Z, Kriegel P, Scheu S, Schuldt A (2023) Conifers and non-native tree species shift trophic niches of generalist arthropod predators in Central European beech forests. BMC Ecol Evol 23:3
Ziesche TM, Roth M (2008) Influence of environmental parameters on small-scale distribution of soil-dwelling spiders in forests: what makes the difference, tree species or microhabitat? For Ecol Manage 255:738–752
Acknowledgements
We thank Christian Ammer and Serena Müller for project organization, and the foresters of the RTG 2300 sites for collaboration. We thank Michael Hohner, Theo Blick, Simeon Indzhow, Tobias Bauer, Alexander Bach and Isabell Scheibert for helping during spider identification. We are grateful for methodological advice from Jochen Drescher and Jens Dyckmans.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under the grant number 316045089/GRK 2300.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AS, DM and BW conceived the ideas and designed the methodology; BW, DM, CD and AP collected the data; BW, CD and AP analyzed the data; BW led the writing of the manuscript; all authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Communicated by Martin Gossner.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wildermuth, B., Dönges, C., Matevski, D. et al. Tree species identity, canopy structure and prey availability differentially affect canopy spider diversity and trophic composition. Oecologia 203, 37–51 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-023-05447-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-023-05447-1