Density‐independent prey choice, taxonomy, life history, and web characteristics determine the diet and biocontrol potential of spiders (Linyphiidae and Lycosidae) in cereal crops

Cuff, Jordan P.; Tercel, Maximillian P. T. G.; Drake, Lorna E.; Vaughan, Ian P.; Bell, James R.; Orozco‐terWengel, Pablo; Müller, Carsten T.; Symondson, William O. C.

doi:10.1002/edn3.272

Cited by 24 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 127 publications

(151 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite evidence existing for the biocontrol potential of many other web‐building spiders (Chapman et al, 2013; Cuff et al, 2021; Vink & Kean, 2013), Michalko et al (2019) found in a global meta‐analysis that web‐building spiders have a poor, often negative effect on pest suppression. Many such spiders also negate their own biocontrol activity through high incidences of intraguild predation (Cuff, Tercel, et al, 2022; Hambäck et al, 2021; Petráková et al, 2016). Assumptions about the biocontrol efficacy of such spiders are thus contentious, so further research should focus on elucidating the trophic ecology of these spiders to ascertain how regular and effective their interactions with pests may be.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Candy‐striped spider leaf and habitat preferences for egg deposition

Cuff

Evans

Porteous

et al. 2022

Agri and Forest Entomology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Candy‐striped spiders (Enoplognatha spp.; Araneae: Theridiidae) are among Britain's commonest theridiid spiders and are potential immigrant biocontrol agents of many pests in arable fields. Though the presence of these spiders in proximity to agriculture is dependent on the availability of suitable leaves for their egg deposition, their preference for different plant species and habitat types has not been fully investigated. Candy‐striped spiders were observed in leaf‐rolls during transect surveys of semi‐natural habitats (hedgerow, woodland and grassland) adjacent to oilseed rape fields at 10 sites across northeast England in August and September 2021. The local plant community was surveyed and compared against the leaves used by candy‐striped spiders via null models. Candy‐striped spiders preferentially deposited their eggs in hedgerow, demonstrating relative avoidance of woodland and grassland. They exhibited preference for bramble, common nettle and hogweed leaves, but also used those of dock, ash and blackthorn. Candy‐striped spiders appeared to preferentially use leaves with roughly equal length and width and avoided longer, narrower leaves irrespective of their total size. The leaves used by candy‐striped spiders are taxonomically broad, but share some morphological commonalities. Candy‐striped spiders exhibit some degree of generalism, regularly utilizing suboptimal leaves in sites lacking their preferences. The availability of preferred plants for these spiders in agriculturally proximate semi‐natural habitat may enhance their possible contribution to biocontrol.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Candy‐striped spider leaf and habitat preferences for egg deposition

Cuff

Evans

Porteous

et al. 2022

Agri and Forest Entomology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This facilitates often non‐invasive detection of a greater dietary diversity than traditional techniques such as hard‐part analysis, even in vertebrate consumers (Jeanniard‐du‐Dot et al., 2017). Even greater, however, is the advance in access to invertebrate dietary information through DNA‐based methods, since most traditional methods are not applicable to the minute gut contents or faeces of invertebrates, especially fluid feeders (Cuff, Tercel, et al., 2021; Cuff, Drake, et al., 2021; Lafage et al., 2019; Pompanon et al., 2012; Symondson, 2002). Since the advent of high‐throughput sequencing, ‘DNA metabarcoding’, the parallel identification of many species using short DNA amplicons, has become an increasingly common and accurate method for the identification of species consumed by a given animal (Clare, 2014; Pompanon et al., 2012).…”

Section: The Value Of Dietary Dna Metabarcoding For Network Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, dietary metabarcoding does theoretically facilitate the merging of complex multilayer networks including many types of interactions across multiple trophic levels, including interactions within trophic levels (i.e. intra‐guild predation; Cuff, Tercel, et al 2021; Hambäck et al., 2021; Parimuchová et al., 2021; Saqib et al., 2021). The evolutionary data inherent to the output of metabarcoding also facilitates the incorporation of phylogenetic data into networks for enhanced evolutionary context and an improved understanding of how eco‐evolutionary processes affect important ecosystem functions such as pollination and parasitism (Derocles, Lunt, et al., 2018; Handley et al., 2011; Kitson et al., 2018; Melián et al., 2018; Segar et al., 2020).…”

Section: Examples Of Dna Metabarcoding In Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overcoming the pitfalls of merging dietary metabarcoding into ecological networks

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction of increasingly detailed species interaction networks is extending the potential applications of network ecology, providing an opportunity to understand complex eco‐evolutionary interactions, ecosystem service provision and the impacts of environmental change on ecosystem functioning. Dietary metabarcoding is a rapidly growing tool increasingly used to construct ecological networks of trophic interactions, enabling the determination of individual animal diets including difficult‐to‐distinguish prey taxa and even for species where traditional dietary analyses are unsuitable (e.g. fluid feeders and small invertebrates). Several challenges, however, surround the use of dietary metabarcoding, especially when metabarcoding‐based interactions are merged with observation‐based species interaction data. We describe the difficulties surrounding the quantification of species interactions, sampling perspective discrepancy (i.e. zoocentric vs. phytocentric sampling), experimental biases, reference database omissions and assumptions regarding direct and indirect consumption events. These problems are not, however, insurmountable. Effective experimental design and data curation with appropriate attention paid to these problems renders the incorporation of dietary metabarcoding into ecological network analysis a powerful tool for the construction of highly resolved networks. Throughout, we discuss how these problems should be addressed when merging data to construct ecological networks.

show abstract

“…The choice of either attempting to silence or potentially being swamped by predator DNA is an insidious one given the financial, practical and experimental implications. The increased adoption of multiprimer (often multimarker, i.e., across multiple genes) metabarcoding (e.g., Batuecas et al, 2022; Cuff, Tercel, et al, 2022; da Silva et al, 2019, 2020; Stenhouse et al, 2021; Tercel et al, 2022) offers the option of using both approaches in synergy, but is by no means a panacea. Multimarker metabarcoding has been more generally suggested as a means of overcoming the issues associated with PCR primer bias (Browett et al, 2021; Cuff, Windsor, et al, 2022; da Silva et al, 2019).…”

Section: Comparing Common Strategies For Overcoming the Predator Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The predator problem and PCR primers in molecular dietary analysis: Swamped or silenced; depth or breadth?

Cuff

Kitson

Hemprich‐Bennett

et al. 2022

Molecular Ecology Resources

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dietary metabarcoding has vastly improved our ability to analyse the diets of animals, but it is hampered by a plethora of technical limitations including potentially reduced data output due to the disproportionate amplification of the DNA of the focal predator, here termed 'the predator problem'. We review the various methods commonly used to overcome this problem, from deeper sequencing to exclusion of predator DNA during PCR, and how they may interfere with increasingly common multi-predator-taxon studies. We suggest that multi-primer approaches with an emphasis on achieving both depth and breadth of prey detections may overcome the issue to some extent, although multi-taxon studies require further consideration, as highlighted by an empirical example. We also review several alternative methods for reducing the This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

show abstract

Density‐independent prey choice, taxonomy, life history, and web characteristics determine the diet and biocontrol potential of spiders (Linyphiidae and Lycosidae) in cereal crops

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 24 publications

References 127 publications

Candy‐striped spider leaf and habitat preferences for egg deposition

Candy‐striped spider leaf and habitat preferences for egg deposition

Overcoming the pitfalls of merging dietary metabarcoding into ecological networks

The predator problem and PCR primers in molecular dietary analysis: Swamped or silenced; depth or breadth?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About