The morphological, physiological, and behavioural traits of organisms are often used as surrogates for actual ecological functions. However, differences in these traits do not necessarily lead to functional differences and/or can be context-dependent. Therefore, it is necessary to explicitly test whether the surrogates have general ecological relevance. To investigate the relationship between the hunting strategies of predators (i.e., how, where, and when they hunt) and their function, we used euryphagous spiders as a model group. We used published data on the diet composition of 76 spider species based on natural prey and laboratory prey acceptance experiments. We computed differences in the position and width of trophic niches among pairs of sympatrically occurring species. Pairs were made at different classification levels, ranked according to the dissimilarity in their hunting strategies: congeners, confamiliars (as phylogenetic proxies for similarity in hunting strategy), species from the same main class of hunting strategy, from the same supra-class, and from different supra-classes. As for niche position computed from the natural prey analyses, species from the same class differed less than species from different classes. A similar pattern was obtained from the laboratory studies, but the congeners differed less than the species from the same classes. Niche widths were most similar among congeners and dissimilar among species from different supra-classes. Functional differences among euryphagous spiders increased continuously with increasing difference in their hunting strategy. The relative frequency of hunting strategies within spider assemblages can, therefore, influence the food webs through hunting strategy-specific predator-prey interactions.

Department of Botany and Zoology Faculty of Sciences Masaryk University Kotlářská 2 611 37 Brno Czech Republic

Department of Forest Ecology Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology Mendel University in Brno Zemědělská 3 613 00 Brno Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Oecologia. 2010 Dec;164(4):899-910 PubMed

Evolution. 2012 Mar;66(3):776-806 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2007 Feb;10(2):146-52 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 7;277(1696):3001-8 PubMed

Science. 2008 Feb 15;319(5865):952-4 PubMed

Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Apr;26(4):183-92 PubMed

PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21710 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2006 Jun;9(6):741-58 PubMed

Am Nat. 2003 Oct;162(4):390-402 PubMed

Naturwissenschaften. 2014 Jul;101(7):533-40 PubMed

Evolution. 2007 Nov;61(11):2480-92 PubMed

Curr Biol. 2007 Oct 23;17(20):R879-80 PubMed

Evolution. 2012 Jun;66(6):1819-32 PubMed

Zoology (Jena). 2013 Feb;116(1):20-6 PubMed

J Anim Ecol. 2015 Jan;84(1):134-42 PubMed

Sci Rep. 2015 Jul 23;5:12396 PubMed

J Anim Ecol. 2006 Jul;75(4):959-66 PubMed

Ecology. 2009 Feb;90(2):300-5 PubMed

J Anim Ecol. 2014 Jan;83(1):214-22 PubMed

Am Nat. 2011 Mar;177(3):389-95 PubMed

Environ Entomol. 2009 Jun;38(3):651-6 PubMed

Ecol Lett. 2011 Sep;14(9):948-58 PubMed

Naturwissenschaften. 2008 Sep;95(9):831-8 PubMed

The World Spider Trait database: a centralized global open repository for curated data on spider traits

An updated perspective on spiders as generalist predators in biological control