DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7291566
title: Weather modulates spider trophic interactions: the interactive effects of changes in prey community structure, adaptive web building and prey choice - Dataset

description: <strong>Materials and Methods</strong> <em>Fieldwork</em><em> and sample processing</em> Field collection and sample processing has been described previously by Cuff, Tercel, et al., (2022), with the exception of weather variables. Extraction, amplification and sequencing of DNA, and bioinformatic analysis is described by Cuff, Tercel, et al. (2022) and Drake et al. (2022). The resultant sequencing read counts were converted to presence-absence data of each detected prey taxon in each individual spider. <em>Weather data</em> Weather data were taken from publicly available reports from the Cardiff Airport weather station (6.6 km from the study site) via “Wunderground” (Wunderground, 2020) from 1/1/2018 to 17/9/2018 (the last field collection). Weather data were also separately extracted for the week preceding each of the two 2017 collection dates (3/8/2017 to 9/8/2017 and 29/8/2017 to 4/9/2017). Specifically, daily average temperatures (°C), daily average dew point (°C), maximum daily wind speed (mph), daily sea level pressure (Hg) and day length (min; sunrise to sunset) were recorded. Precipitation data were downloaded via the UK Met Office Hadley Centre Observation Data (UK Met Office, 2020) as regional precipitation (mm) for South West England & Wales. Weather data were converted to mean values for seven days preceding the collection of spider samples to correspond with the longevity of DNA in the guts of spiders (Greenstone et al., 2014). <em>Statistical Analysis</em> All analyses were conducted in R v4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2020). To assess how weather affects spider trophic interactions, we analysed dietary changes across weather gradients using multivariate models. To identify whether this was likely to be driven by changes in prey abundance, we assessed the corresponding changes in the prey communities and then used null models to ascertain whether spiders were responding to prey abundance changes through density-independent prey choice. Given the dependence of spiders on webs for foraging, we also compared web height and area over weather gradients to assess whether this may be a component of adaptive foraging. To assess the inter-annual consistency of prey choices in response to weather conditions, we also assessed whether prey preference data could be used to improve the predictive power of null models. For this, we generated null models for 2017 data with prey abundance weighted by prey preferences estimated with the 2018 data. This allowed us to assess the consistency of prey choice under similar conditions, but also provides insight as to whether this framework can be used to predict predator responses to diverse prey communities under dynamic conditions. We detail the specific stages of this analytical framework below. <em>Sampling completeness and diversity assessment</em> To assess the diversity represented by the dietary analysis and the invertebrate community sampling, and the completeness of those datasets, coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation were carried out, and Hill diversity calculated (Chao et al., 2014; Roswell, Dushoff, & Winfree, 2021). This was performed using the ‘iNEXT’ package with species represented by frequency-of-occurrence across samples (Chao et al., 2014; Hsieh et al., 2016; Figures S4 & S6). <em>Relationships between weather, spider trophic interactions and prey community composition</em> Prey species that occurred in only one spider individual were removed before further analyses to prevent outliers skewing the results. Spider trophic interactions were related to temporal and weather variables in multivariate generalized linear models (MGLMs) with a binomial error family (Wang, Naumann, Wright, & Warton, 2012). Trophic interactions were related to temporal variables and their pairwise interactions (including spider genus to account for any confounding effect), weather variables and their pairwise interactions, and weather variables and their interactions with spider genus and time (to account for any confounding effects) in three separate MGLMs. These variables were separated into different models (Temporal model, Weather Interaction model and Confounding effects model) to improve model fit and reduce singularity. Invertebrate communities from suction sampling were related to temporal and weather variables in identically structured MGLMs (excluding the spider genus variable) with a Poisson error family. All MGLMs were fitted using the ‘manyglm’ function in the ‘mvabund’ package (Wang et al., 2012). ‘Temporal model’ independent variables were Julian day (<em>day</em>), mean day length in minutes for the preceding week (<em>day length</em>), spider genus (for dietary models only, to ascertain any effect of spider taxonomic differences on dietary differences over time and day lengths) and all two-way interactions between these variables. ‘Weather interaction model’ independent variables were mean temperature, precipitation, dewpoint, wind speed and pressure for the preceding week, and pairwise interactions between weather variables. ‘Confounding effects’ model independent variables were day (to investigate the interaction between time and weather), spider genus (for dietary models only, to ascertain any effect of spider taxonomic differences on dietary differences over time and day lengths), mean temperature, precipitation, dewpoint, wind speed and pressure for the preceding week, and two-way interactions of each weather variable with day and genus. Trophic interaction and community differences were visualised by non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) using the ‘metaMDS’ function in the ‘vegan’ package (Oksanen et al., 2016) in two dimensions and 999 simulations, with Jaccard distance for spider diets and Bray-Curtis distance for invertebrate communities. For the dietary NMDS, outliers (n = 21; samples containing rare taxa) obscured variation on one axis and were thus removed to facilitate separation of samples and achieve minimum stress. For visualization of the effect of continuous variables against the NMDS, surf plots were created with scaled coloured contours using the ‘ordisurf’ function in the ‘ggplot’ package (Wickham, 2016). <em>Relationships between web characteristics and weather variables</em> Web area and height were compared against weather and temporal variables using a multivariate linear model (MLM) with the ‘manylm’ command in ‘mvabund’ (Wang et al., 2012). Log-transformed web area and height comprised the multivariate dependent variable, and day, spider genus, temperature, precipitation, dewpoint, wind, pressure and two-way interactions between each of these and day and genus comprised the independent variables. <em>Variation in spider prey choice across weather conditions</em> To separately represent spiders from different weather conditions in prey choice analyses, sample dates for every spider were clustered based on the mean weather conditions (temperature, precipitation, dewpoint, wind and pressure) of the week before collection (7 days, to align approximately with spider gut DNA half-life; Greenstone et al., 2014). Alongside data from 2018 (n = 24 collection dates), two sampling periods from 2017 were included in the clustering to ascertain similarity of weather conditions for additional inter-annual prey choice analyses described below. The clustering process is described in the Supplementary Information of the manuscript. Five clusters were generated: High Pressure (HPR), Hot (HOT), Wet Low Dewpoint (WLD), Dry Windy (DWI), Wet Moderate Dewpoint (WMD), and 2017 (2017 sampling periods). Prey preferences of spiders in each of the weather clusters was analysed using network-based null models in the ‘econullnetr’ package (Vaughan et al., 2018) with the ‘generate_null_net’ command. Consumer nodes in this case represented spiders belonging to each of the weather clusters. Econullnetr generates null models based on prey abundance, represented here by suction sample data, to predict how consumers will forage if based on the abundance of resources alone. These null models are then compared against the observed interactions of consumers (i.e., interactions of spiders within each weather cluster with their prey) to ascertain the extent to which resource choice deviated from random (i.e., density dependence). The trophic network was visualised with the associated prey choice effect sizes using ‘igraph’ (Csardi & Nepusz, 2006) with a circular layout, and as a bipartite network using ‘ggnetwork’ (Briatte, 2021; Wickham, 2016). The normalised degree of each weather cluster node was generated using the ‘bipartite’ package (Dormann, Gruber, & Fruend, 2008) and compared against the normalised degree of the same node in the null network to determine whether spiders were more or less generalist than expected by random. Prior to the prey choice analysis, an hemipteran prey identified no further than order level through dietary analysis was removed due to the inability to pair it to any present prey taxa with certainty. <em>Validating and predicting relationships between years</em> To test how generalisable the results are and the extent to which weather drives prey preferences, we used a measure of prey preference (observed/expected values; observed interaction frequencies divided by interaction frequencies expected by null models) from the above prey choice analysis to assess whether we could more accurately predict observed trophic interactions under similar weather conditions for data from a linked study at the same location in 2017. These additional data represent a subset of the spider taxa analysed above (<em>Tenuiphantes tenuis</em> and <em>Erigone</em> spp.) collected using the same methods by the same researchers and in the same locality (Cuff, Drake, et al., 2021). The similarity in weather conditions between the 2017 study period and each of the five 2018 weather clusters was determined via NMDS of the weather data in two dimensions with Euclidean distance. Centroid coordinates for each 2018 weather cluster and the 2017 data were extracted and pairwise distances calculated between weather clusters: In order, the most proximate weather clusters to the 2017 weather data were HPR (mean Euclidean distance = 8.845), HOT (9.290), WMD (13.626), DWI (13.817) and WLD (18.682; Figure S3). To facilitate comparison between the two years, observed/expected values from the 2018 prey choice models were extracted separately for each of the weather clusters and scaled between 0.1 and 1. For this, 0.1 was used as a minimum since 0 would result in interactions being excluded altogether in the null models, and one as a maximum given the limits of econullnetr but also because this is a multiplier applied to the prey abundances, so greater values would skew prey abundances beyond realistic proportions. Scaling was achieved by the following equation: Missing values (e.g., prey that were absent in certain weather conditions) were represented as 1 to prevent transformation of their abundances in the null models; this treats prey for which data were absent naively, but could increase perceived preferences for them. The scaled values were used to weight the abundance of prey available to the spiders in the 2017 data using the weighting option in econullnetr, whereby values less than 1 proportionally reduce the probability of that taxon being predated in the null models. This effectively redistributes the 2017 relative prey abundance data according to the preference effect sizes generated for each of the 2018 weather clusters. If prey preferences are similar between the 2017 spiders and those from the weather cluster being used to weight the model, the composition of simulated diets should more closely resemble observed diets and fewer significant deviations from the null model should be found. Null models were generated as above (<em>Variation in spider prey choice across weather conditions</em>) but based on the prey availability and trophic interactions from 2017 samples. Three types of model were run: i) a conventional model based on observed prey abundances; ii) a model with prey abundances set to be equal across all prey taxa; and iii) observed prey abundances weighted by prey preferences determined for each of the weather clusters in the 2018 prey choice analysis. A separate model was run for each 2018 weather cluster with abundances weighted by the corresponding scaled observed/expected values. The unweighted conventional model was compared against weighted models to ascertain whether the prey preference weightings from 2018 improved the predictive power of the null models. To compare effect sizes between the unweighted and each other null model for each resource taxon, mean standardised effect size (SES) values were calculated from the paired ‘pre-harvest’ and ‘post-harvest’ data from each model, and paired <em>t</em>-tests were carried out with these between the unweighted and each weighted model. The SES values were plotted for each model and joined between taxa to visualise these paired differences using ‘ggplot’ (Wickham, 2016). Null model-predicted trophic interactions were generated via a modified ‘econullnetr’ function (generate_null_net_indiv) which produces outputs at the individual level to generate simulated diets for individual spiders to compare dietary composition between null model predictions and observed data. These models were run with 2300 simulations to represent 50 simulations per individual spider in the 2017 dataset (n = 46). Null diets were associated with sample IDs by aggregating the 50 simulations per sample and retaining a mean incidence of prey (i.e., mean occurrence across all 50 simulations). A visualisation of the per-sample differences in null model and observed data was generated via NMDS. Mean centroid coordinates for the observed 2017 data and the predicted diets of each model were extracted and the Euclidean distance between the observed data centroid and that of each model was calculated (as above for weather conditions). <strong>References</strong> Briatte, F. (2021). <em>ggnetwork: Geometries to plot networks with ‘ggplot2’</em>. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=ggnetwork Chao, A., Gotelli, N., Hsieh, T., Sander, E., Ma, K., Colwell, R., & Ellison, A. (2014). Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. <em>Ecological Monographs</em>, <em>84</em>(1), 45–67. Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. <em>InterJournal Complex Systems</em>, <em>1695</em>, 1–9. Retrieved from https://igraph.org Cuff, J. P., Drake, L. E., Tercel, M. P. T. G., Stockdale, J. E., Orozco-terWengel, P., Bell, J. R., … Symondson, W. O. C. (2021). Money spider dietary choice in pre- and post-harvest cereal crops using metabarcoding. <em>Ecological Entomology</em>, <em>46</em>(2), 249–261. Cuff, J. P., Tercel, M. P. T. G., Drake, L. E., Vaughan, I. P., Bell, J. R., Orozco-terWengel, P., … Symondson, W. O. C. (2022). Density-independent prey choice, taxonomy, life history and web characteristics determine the diet and biocontrol potential of spiders (Linyphiidae and Lycosidae) in cereal crops. <em>Environmental DNA</em>, <em>4</em>(3), 549–564. Dormann, C. F., Gruber, B., & Fruend, J. (2008). Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks. <em>R News</em>, <em>8</em>(2), 8–11. Drake, L. E., Cuff, J. P., Young, R. E., Marchbank, A., Chadwick, E. A., & Symondson, W. O. C. (2022). An assessment of minimum sequence copy thresholds for identifying and reducing the prevalence of artefacts in dietary metabarcoding data. <em>Methods in Ecology and Evolution</em>, <em>13</em>(3), 694–710. Greenstone, M. H., Payton, M. E., Weber, D. C., & Simmons, A. M. (2014). The detectability half-life in arthropod predator-prey research: what it is, why we need it, how to measure it, and how to use it. <em>Molecular Ecology</em>, <em>23</em>(15), 3799–3813. doi: 10.1111/mec.12552 Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H., & Chao, A. (2016). iNEXT: An R package for interpolation and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). <em>Methods in Ecology and Evolution</em>, <em>7</em>(12), 1451–1456. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., … Wagner, H. (2016). <em>vegan: Community Ecology Package</em>. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan R Core Team. (2020). <em>R: A language and environment for statistical computing</em>. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/ Roswell, M., Dushoff, J., & Winfree, R. (2021). A conceptual guide to measuring species diversity. <em>Oikos</em>, <em>130</em>, 321–338. UK Met Office. (2020). UK Met Office Hadley Centre observation data. Retrieved 1 June 2020, from UK Met Office Hadley Centre observation data website: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/ Vaughan, I. P., Gotelli, N. J., Memmott, J., Pearson, C. E., Woodward, G., & Symondson, W. O. C. (2018). econullnetr: an r package using null models to analyse the structure of ecological networks and identify resource selection. <em>Methods in Ecology and Evolution</em>, <em>9</em>(3), 728–733. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12907 Wang, Y., Naumann, U., Wright, S. T., & Warton, D. I. (2012). mvabund – an R package for model-based analysis of multivariate abundance data. <em>Methods in Ecology and Evolution</em>, <em>3</em>, 471–474. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00190.x Wickham, H. (2016). <em>ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis</em>. Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org Wunderground. (2020). Wunderground: Weather Underground. Retrieved 1 June 2020, from Wunderground website: www.wunderground.com