Global Patterns of Guild Composition and Functional Diversity of Spiders

The objectives of this work are: (1) to define spider guilds for all extant families worldwide; (2) test if guilds defined at family level are good surrogates of species guilds; (3) compare the taxonomic and guild composition of spider assemblages from different parts of the world; (4) compare the taxonomic and functional diversity of spider assemblages and; (5) relate functional diversity with habitat structure. Data on foraging strategy, prey range, vertical stratification and circadian activity was collected for 108 families. Spider guilds were defined by hierarchical clustering. We searched for inconsistencies between family guild placement and the known guild of each species. Richness and abundance per guild before and after correcting guild placement were compared, as were the proportions of each guild and family between all possible pairs of sites. Functional diversity per site was calculated based on hierarchical clustering. Eight guilds were discriminated: (1) sensing, (2) sheet, (3) space, and (4) orb web weavers; (5) specialists; (6) ambush, (7) ground, and (8) other hunters. Sixteen percent of the species richness corresponding to 11% of all captured individuals was incorrectly attributed to a guild by family surrogacy; however, the correlation of uncorrected vs. corrected guilds was invariably high. The correlation of guild richness or abundances was generally higher than the correlation of family richness or abundances. Functional diversity was not always higher in the tropics than in temperate regions. Families may potentially serve as ecological surrogates for species. Different families may present similar roles in the ecosystems, with replacement of some taxa by other within the same guild. Spiders in tropical regions seem to have higher redundancy of functional roles and/or finer resource partitioning than in temperate regions. Although species and family diversity were higher in the tropics, functional diversity seems to be also influenced by altitude and habitat structure.

[1]  P. Reich,et al.  Diversity and Productivity in a Long-Term Grassland Experiment , 2001, Science.

[2]  Laurel H. Young,et al.  Estimating Spider Species Richness in a Southern Appalachian Cove Hardwood Forest , 1996 .

[3]  Sandra Díaz.  Elevated CO 2 Responsiveness, Interactions at the Community Level and Plant Functional Types , 1995 .

[4]  Pedro Cardoso,et al.  Drivers of diversity in Macaronesian spiders and the role of species extinctions , 2010 .

[5]  Jonathan A Coddington,et al.  Undersampling bias: the null hypothesis for singleton species in tropical arthropod surveys. , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[6]  Colwell,et al.  The mid-domain effect: geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  Nancy Knowlton,et al.  Evolution and the latitudinal diversity gradient: speciation, extinction and biogeography. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[8]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Organization of Contiguous Communities of Amphibians and Reptiles in Thailand , 1977 .

[9]  W. Voigt,et al.  Using functional groups to investigate community response to environmental changes: two grassland case studies , 2007 .

[10]  Owen L. Petchey,et al.  Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[11]  A. Ellison,et al.  Response of a Wetland Vascular Plant Community to Disturbance: A Simulation Study , 1995 .

[12]  F. Chapin,et al.  Biotic Control over the Functioning of Ecosystems , 1997 .

[13]  A. Chao.  Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population , 1984 .

[14]  N. Scharff,et al.  First record of the spider family Symphytognathidae in Europe and description of Anapistula ataecina sp. n. (Araneae) , 2009 .

[15]  D. Mouillot,et al.  Towards a consensus for calculating dendrogram-based functional diversity indices , 2008 .

[16]  Jessie A. Wells,et al.  Land-use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response diversity in plant communities. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[17]  R. B. Root.  The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue‐Gray Gnatcatcher , 1967 .

[18]  J. Stephen Brewer,et al.  Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats , 2000 .

[19]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  Homage to Santa Rosalia or Why Are There So Many Kinds of Animals? , 1959, The American Naturalist.

[20]  Musée royal de l'Afrique centrale,et al.  Spider families of the world , 2006 .

[21]  A. Serrano,et al.  Higher taxa surrogates of spider (Araneae) diversity and their efficiency in conservation , 2004 .

[22]  J. Adams.  The definition and interpretation of guild structure in ecological communities , 1985 .

[23]  P. Cardoso.  Standardization and optimization of arthropod inventories—the case of Iberian spiders , 2009, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[24]  T. Dayan,et al.  Ecological Assembly Rules: Ruling out a community assembly rule: the method of favored states , 1999 .

[25]  J. Macmahon,et al.  Guilds: The Multiple Meanings of a Concept , 1989 .

[26]  C. Gaspar,et al.  Assessing spider species richness and composition in Mediterranean cork oak forests , 2008 .

[27]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  Ecological assembly rules : perspectives, advances, retreats , 1999 .

[28]  H. Mooney,et al.  Convergence Versus Nonconvergence in Mediterranean-Climate Ecosystems , 1978 .

[29]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  On the Measurement of Niche Breadth and Overlap. , 1971, Ecology.

[30]  Jonathan A. Coddington,et al.  Designing and Testing Sampling Protocols to Estimate Biodiversity in Tropical Ecosystems , 1991 .

[31]  D. Simberloff.  The Guild Concept and the Structure of Ecological Communities , 1991 .

[32]  R. Bonney,et al.  GUILD STRUCTURE OF THE HUBBARD BROOK BIRD COMMUNITY: A MULTIVARIATE APPROACH' , 1979 .

[33]  G. Uetz,et al.  GUILD STRUCTURE OF SPIDERS IN MAJOR CROPS , 1999 .

[34]  J. B. Schmidt,et al.  Species richness and composition assessment of spiders in a Mediterranean scrubland , 2009, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[35]  P. Reich,et al.  The Influence of Functional Diversity and Composition on Ecosystem Processes , 1997 .

[36]  A. Bonaldo,et al.  Refining the establishment of guilds in Neotropical spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) , 2009 .

[37]  Fabian M Jaksic,et al.  Objective recognition of guilds: testing for statistically significant species clusters , 2004, Oecologia.

[38]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition , 2002 .

[39]  L. Lawlor,et al.  Guild structure in grasshopper assemblages based on food and microhabitat resources , 1981 .

[40]  J. Wilson.  Guilds, functional types and ecological groups , 1999 .

[41]  Fabian M. Jaksic,et al.  Abuse and Misuse of the Term "Guild" in Ecological Studies , 1981 .

[42]  Gustavo Hormiga,et al.  WHEN TO QUIT? ESTIMATING SPIDER SPECIES RICHNESS IN A NORTHERN EUROPEAN DECIDUOUS FOREST , 2003 .

[43]  W. Shear,et al.  Spiders : webs, behavior, and evolution , 1986 .

[44]  M. Friedel.  Discontinuous change in arid woodland and grassland vegetation along gradients of cattle grazing in central Australia , 1997 .

[45]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges , 2001, Science.

[46]  J. Blondel.  Guilds or functional groups: does it matter? , 2003 .

[47]  J. Coddington,et al.  Inventorying and Estimating Subcanopy Spider Diversity Using Semiquantitative Sampling Methods in an Afromontane Forest , 2002 .

[48]  E. Pianka.  Guild structure in desert lizards , 1980 .

[49]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness , 2001 .

[50]  L. Crespo,et al.  Ad-Hoc vs. Standardized and Optimized Arthropod Diversity Sampling , 2009 .

[51]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[52]  T. R. E. Southwood,et al.  The Guild Composition of Arthropod Communities in Trees , 1982 .

[53]  F. Stuart Chapin,et al.  Plant functional types as predictors of transient responses of arctic vegetation to global change , 1996 .

[54]  George C. Hurtt,et al.  Nonbiological Gradients in Species Richness and a Spurious Rapoport Effect , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[55]  O. Petchey.  On the statistical significance of functional diversity effects , 2004 .

[56]  J. B. Schmidt,et al.  Rapid biodiversity assessment of spiders (Araneae) using semi‐quantitative sampling: a case study in a Mediterranean forest , 2008 .

[57]  Dénes Schmera,et al.  On dendrogram-based measures of functional diversity , 2006 .