DOI: 10.5061/dryad.mpg4f4r9g
title: Data from: Cascading effects of grazing on predatory arthropod and parasitoid densities

description: An important goal in arthropod conservation is to understand how
 arthropods are affected by anthropogenic activities. Livestock graze 29%
 of the land area in the U.S., which can result in both top-down and
 bottom-up effects on ecosystems that are grazed. Grazing often reduces
 species richness and abundance of arthropods; however, these trends depend
 upon context and taxa, making generalization difficult. Grazing can either
 increase or decrease species richness and abundance of arthropods,
 depending on context and taxa, making generalization difficult. The
 impacts of grazing on different taxa may also be indirect, depending upon
 trophic interactions with other members of the community. We propose that
 considering trophic relationships will help clarify the effects of grazing
 on arthropods. Here, we study the effects of grazing by ungulates on
 pompilid wasps (Hemipepsis and Pepsis hawk wasps) and tarantulas
 (Aphonopelma hentzi). We do this by comparing the cover of forbs
 (flowering plants that provide nectar to hawk wasps), and the densities of
 hawk wasps and of tarantula burrows in areas grazed by cattle to areas
 with light grazing by wild ungulates in the shortgrass
 prairie. Grazed areas had lower cover of flowering plants, fewer
 parasitoids, and more tarantulas, while lightly grazed areas had higher
 cover of flowering plants, more parasitoids, and fewer
 tarantulas. We propose that hawk wasp abundance may track floral
 resources, enabling parasitoids to exert strong top-down pressure on
 tarantulas in lightly grazed areas. Thus, grazing may benefit tarantulas
 by reducing the abundance of their parasitoids.
description: We sampled forb cover, wasp densities, and tarantula densities at
 five shortgrass prairie sites in southeastern Colorado, USA (Cook
 & Redente, 1993, Figure 1a), which has a semi-arid, continental
 climate with hot summers and cold winters. Hardy, drought-resistant
 grasses dominate most of the region, which is commonly used for cattle
 grazing. For example, in 2019 was recorded as supporting 452,400 cattle on
 27 million acres (Meyer, 2019).   Our sites were
 located on Southern Plains Land Trust property, which manages the grazing
 levels there. Domestic cattle grazed three of the sites at moderate to
 heavy levels (one head per 30 acres or 0.082 head/hectare, year-round).
 The remaining two lightly grazed sites were not stocked with cattle and
 only grazed by deer (<em>Odocoileus spp.</em>), pronghorn
 (<em>Antilocapra americana</em>), occasional elk
 (<em>Cervus canadensis</em>), and, rarely, escaped cattle.
 Wild cervids occurred in grazed sites as well. Because most of the region
 is grazed, only two lightly grazed areas were available. Grazed and
 lightly grazed sites were similar with respect to topography (i.e., slopes
 and elevations) and climate (i.e., temperature and precipitation)
 (Supplemental).  We visually estimated the percentage
 of forb cover using a wooden quadrat with inner dimensions of 30 cm x 30
 cm. We collected two types of samples: at tarantula burrows and away from
 burrows. For burrow samples, we placed the quadrat over the burrow with
 the entrance in the center of the frame. Estimates of forb cover away from
 burrows were taken every 200 m along the transect while conducting
 Distance sampling.   We analyzed forb cover using the
 lmer and emmean packages in R-studio to perform a linear mixed effect
 model and to calculate the estimated marginal means, respectively. We
 evaluated percent forb cover using grazing level as a fixed effect and
 site as a random effect as follows: 
 <em>Percentage forb cover<sub>Grazing Level∗Observation Type+(1|Site)Percentage forb cover</sub>Grazing Level∗Observation Type+1Site</em> We considered significance P &lt; 0.05 and ensured that our variables met all the assumptions of a linear mixed effect model using a Residuals vs Fitted plot and QQ-plot.  We performed a statistical analysis of hawk wasp and tarantula densities using the interactive program DISTANCE (Royale et al., 1982). We considered differences to be significant if their 95% confidence levels do not overlap (Thompson et al., 1994).  We conducted Distance sampling surveys during the active season for Hemipepsis and Pepsis wasps, between June and August in 2022. We sampled all five sites each month by walking 2000 m transects at each site and recording the perpendicular distances to all observations of hawk wasps. Due to small sample sizes, we combined observations from June, July, and August, and used those data to estimate the density of wasps at each site.  To estimate the density of tarantulas, we surveyed each study site once between June and August of 2021, estimating the densities of burrows used by tarantulas using Distance Sampling (Royale et al., 1982). Distance sampling followed Royale et al. (1982), Thompson et al. (1994), and Miller (2016) and operates on the concept that the further away from a transect an animal is, the more difficult it is to detect. At each site, we walked transects until we identified 60 tarantula burrows. The openings of tarantula burrows are easily distinguished from other small holes by their circular shape, being flush with the ground, and covered by silk. One tarantula occupies each burrow at a time (excluding mothers with new offspring) (Punzo & Henderson, 1999), making burrows an excellent proxy for surveying the animals (Hembree, 2017). We confirmed occupancy by fishing the tarantula to the surface or near the entrance using a blade of grass. If fishing was unsuccessful, burrows were deemed occupied if they showed clear signs of habitation, such as silk coverings, molts, or egg sacs. While false negatives were possible, the distinctive appearance of tarantula burrows minimized this risk. For each burrow, we recorded its perpendicular distance from the transect, diameter, and GPS coordinates. 
description: # Cascading effects of grazing on predatory arthropod and parasitoid
 densities
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.mpg4f4r9g](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.mpg4f4r9g) ## Description of the data and file structure **Overview** This dataset contains ecological sampling data collected in southeastern Colorado, USA, across five shortgrass prairie sites managed by the Southern Plains Land Trust. The data focuses on assessing the relationship between grazing levels and the densities of tarantulas, hawk wasps (Hemipepsis and Pepsis), and forb cover, providing valuable insights into the effects of grazing on shortgrass prairie ecosystems. The shortgrass prairie in this region experiences a semi-arid continental climate, characterized by hot summers and cold winters. The vegetation is dominated by drought-resistant grasses, making it ideal for cattle grazing. Sampling was conducted between 2021 and 2022 as part of an ecological study. **Study Sites and Grazing Levels** * **Grazed Sites**: Three sites were grazed by domestic cattle at moderate to heavy levels (1 head/30 acres or 0.082 head/hectare, year-round). These sites also supported wild cervids, such as deer, pronghorn, and occasional elk. * **Lightly Grazed Sites**: Two sites were not stocked with cattle and were grazed only by wild herbivores. Escaped cattle were rarely observed. All sites were similar in topography (elevation, slopes) and climate (temperature, precipitation). **Data Collection Methods** **1. Forb_and_Tarantula_Data.csv** * **Quadrat Method**: Forb cover was visually estimated using a 30 x 30 cm wooden quadrat. * **Burrow Sampling**: Quadrats were centered over tarantula burrows. * **Non-Burrow Sampling**: Quadrats were placed every 200 m along transects during Distance sampling. * **Analysis**: * Linear mixed-effects model was performed in R-Studio using the `lmer` and `emmeans` packages. * Model formula: `Percentage forb cover ~ Grazing Level * Observation Type + (1|Site)` * Model assumptions were verified using Residuals vs Fitted and QQ-plots. * Significance was defined as P &lt; 0.05. **2. Wasp_survey_data_complete.csv** * **Distance Sampling**: Conducted in June–August 2022 during the wasps' active season. * 2000 m transects were walked monthly at each site. * Perpendicular distances to hawk wasps were recorded. * Observations from all months were combined to estimate site-specific densities using DISTANCE software (Royale et al., 1982). * **Analysis**: * Differences were considered significant if 95% confidence intervals did not overlap. **3. Tarantula Density Sampling** * **Distance Sampling**: Conducted once per site between June and August 2021. * Transects were walked until 60 tarantula burrows were identified. * Burrow occupancy was confirmed by fishing tarantulas using a blade of grass or identifying signs of habitation (e.g., silk coverings, molts, egg sacs). * Perpendicular distances, burrow diameters, and GPS coordinates were recorded. * **Analysis**: DISTANCE software was used to estimate tarantula burrow densities. **Key References** * Cook & Redente (1993): Study area background. * Meyer (2019): Cattle densities in the region. * Royale et al. (1982): Distance sampling methodology. * Thompson et al. (1994): Confidence interval interpretation. * Punzo & Henderson (1999): Tarantula burrow identification. * Hembree (2017): Tarantula burrow proxy for density estimation. * Miller (2016): Updates on Distance sampling techniques. **Usage Notes** * Statistical analyses and data visualization can be reproduced using R-Studio. * Ensure that `lmer`, `emmeans`, and DISTANCE software dependencies are installed before running analyses. This README provides an overview of the dataset, methods, and analysis used in the study. For more detailed information, consult the accompanying supplementary materials. ### Files and variables #### File: Wasp_survey_data_complete.csv **Description:** Survey data for Pepsis wasps. This data is used in density estimates for Pepsis wasps using Distance sampling.  ##### Variables * **Site:** Survey site. * **Transect**: Transect measurement (in meters [m]) for Distance sampling * **Perpendicular**: Perpendicular measurement (in centimeters [cm]) for Distance sampling * **Cluster Size:** Cluster size of wasps observed. * **Flying_Plant_Ground:** Where the observed wasp was seen, either flying, on a plant, or on the ground. * **Vist_Num:** The number of times that site has been surveyd. (ie. 1 = First visit to that survey site, 2 = second visit to that same survey site). * **Length:** Total transect length. * **Grazed1_Ungrazed0:** If the site is grazed or ungrazed ("lightly grazed). Sites that are grazed = 1, ungrazed/lightly grazed sites = 0. #### File: Forb_and_Tarantula_Data.csv **Description:** Survey data for tarantula burrows, control observations, and their ground covering. This data is used in density estimates for tarantula burrows using Distance sampling and for comparisons of ground cover.  ##### Variables * **Site:** Survey site * **LocationType:** If the site is grazed or ungrazed/lightly grazed. Grazed sites = 1, ungrazed/lightly grazed sites = 0. * **ObsCont:** If the recorded point is a burrow observation (1) or a control observation (0). * **Longitutude:** Longitutude of data point in decimal degrees. * **Latitude:** Latitutude of data point in decimal degrees. * **Forb:** Percentage of 30 cm x 30 cm quadrant that is visably assessed to be forbs. * **Grass:** Percentage of 30 cm x 30 cm quadrant that is visably assessed to be grass. * **LooseSoil:** Percentage of 30 cm x 30 cm quadrant that is visably assessed to be loose soil. * **Rock:** Percentage of 30 cm x 30 cm quadrant that is visably assessed to be rock. * **Shrub:** Percentage of 30 cm x 30 cm quadrant that is visably assessed to be shubs. * **Tree:** Percentage of 30 cm x 30 cm quadrant that is visably assessed to be trees. * **TransectDistance:** Measured distance (in meteres [m]) of transect for distance sampling. * **PerpendicularDistance:** Perpendicular distance (in centimeteres [cm]) measured for distance sampling * **Diameter:** Measured diameter (in centimeteres [cm]) of the tarantula burrow. * **Density:** Calculated density of tarantula burrows (burrows per hectacre) for that site. #### Supplemental information The supplemntal file uploaded to Zenodo contains the supplemental tables and figures with their respective legends.