DOCSLIB.ORG

Views of the Subject

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Views of the Subject MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Michael Sitvarin Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy _________________________ Director Ann Rypstra _________________________ Reader Tom Crist _________________________ Reader Brian Keane _________________________ Reader Nancy Solomon _________________________ Graduate School Representative Dave Gorchov ABSTRACT BEHAVIORAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF MULTIPLE INTRAGUILD PREDATORS AND CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PREDATORS, PREY, AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION by Michael I. Sitvarin Prey species sit at a pivotal point in food webs, serving as a connection between predators and energy sources (e.g., plants or detritus). Most prey face multiple predators and must integrate information about predation risk if they are to avoid being consumed. Meanwhile, predators interact with one another and can increase or decrease their combined pressure on prey. By interacting with their prey, predators can indirectly affect ecosystem functions, even without reducing prey population size. The goal of my dissertation was to understand how prey survive in a world with multiple predators and to uncover linkages between predators and the soil food web. I first tested hypotheses about how the wolf spider Pardosa milvina responds to cues from multiple predators (the larger wolf spider Tigrosa helluo and the ground beetle Scarites quadriceps) and how inaccurate information regarding predation threat affects survival. Pardosa were capable of distinguishing between predators and responding adaptively, though prey responses were not optimized when predators were at elevated hunger levels. As a second step, I allowed multiple predators (the wolf spider Rabidosa rabida along with Tigrosa and Scarites) to freely interact with each other and their prey (Pardosa) to test the influence of predator characteristics and the occurrence of intraguild predation on prey survival. Overall, I found support for a predictive framework of emergent multiple predator effects, though intraguild predation events caused significant deviations from model predictions. I also investigated the consumptive and nonconsumptive effects predators can have on their environment, focusing on the detrital food chain. The presence of either Pardosa or their cues impacted CO2 flux and soil nitrogen content as mediated by the detritivore Sinella curviseta, suggesting indirect top-down control of ecosystem function by predators. Finally, I tested the response of Sinella to cues indicating predation risk to determine if changes in detritivore activity linked predators to ecosystem function. Sinella responded innately to necromones but did not alter activity levels in the presence of Pardosa cues, even after a conditioning period. BEHAVIORAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF MULTIPLE INTRAGUILD PREDATORS AND CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PREDATORS, PREY, AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION A DISSERTATION Submitted to the faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Biology by Michael Ian Sitvarin Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2014 Dissertation Director: Ann L. Rypstra TABLE OF CONTENTS General Introduction........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Patchy and Mismatched Cues: How Do Prey Respond To Multiple Predators Representing Different Levels of Risk?................................................................9 Abstract..............................................................................................................................10 Introduction........................................................................................................................11 Methods..............................................................................................................................13 Results................................................................................................................................16 Discussion..........................................................................................................................18 References..........................................................................................................................21 Tables & Figures …...........................................................................................................25 Chapter 2: The Importance of Intraguild Predation in Predicting Emergent Multiple Predator Effects....................................................................................................33 Abstract..............................................................................................................................34 Introduction........................................................................................................................35 Methods..............................................................................................................................37 Results................................................................................................................................41 Discussion..........................................................................................................................43 References..........................................................................................................................48 Tables & Figures …...........................................................................................................54 Chapter 3: Fear of Predation Alters Soil CO2 Flux and Nitrogen Content........................60 Abstract..............................................................................................................................61 Introduction........................................................................................................................62 Methods..............................................................................................................................63 Results................................................................................................................................64 Discussion..........................................................................................................................65 ii References..........................................................................................................................67 Tables & Figures …...........................................................................................................70 Chapter 4: Nonconsumptive Predator-Prey Interactions: Sensitivity of a Detritivore to Cues of Predation Risk........................................................................................74 Abstract..............................................................................................................................75 Introduction........................................................................................................................76 Methods..............................................................................................................................78 Results................................................................................................................................81 Discussion..........................................................................................................................83 References..........................................................................................................................86 Tables & Figures …...........................................................................................................91 General Conclusion and Future Directions....................................................................................99 References........................................................................................................................105 Appendix......................................................................................................................................107 Chapter 1: Supplementary Material.................................................................................108 Chapter 2: Supplementary Material.................................................................................109 Chapter 3: Supplementary Material.................................................................................113 Chapter 4: Supplementary Material.................................................................................129 iii LIST OF TABLES Chapter 1 Table 1. Loading of activities (from Videomex-V software) on principal components. Positive and negative values indicate positive and negative correlations with the principal component, respectively. Magnitudes indicate the strength of correlation between the activity variable and the principal component. Table 2. Effects of treatment (predator cues present in arena), predator hunger level, and their interaction on Pardosa activity. Model degrees of freedom: 7, 150. Table 3. Effects of treatment (predator cues present in arena) and predator hunger level on Pardosa activity. Statistics reported are Cohen's d, 95% confidence intervals, and F-values, degrees of freedom, and p-values from one-way ANOVAs. Treatments are blank (B), cues from Tigrosa (T), and cues from Scarites (S). Symbols between treatment letters indicate relationships based
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Backyard Food
    Suggested Grades: 2nd - 5th BACKYARD FOOD WEB Wildlife Champions at Home Science Experiment 2-LS4-1: Make observations of plants and animals to compare the diversity of life in different habitats. What is a food web? All living things on earth are either producers, consumers or decomposers. Producers are organisms that create their own food through the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is when a living thing uses sunlight, water and nutrients from the soil to create its food. Most plants are producers. Consumers get their energy by eating other living things. Consumers can be either herbivores (eat only plants – like deer), carnivores (eat only meat – like wolves) or omnivores (eat both plants and meat - like humans!) Decomposers are organisms that get their energy by eating dead plants or animals. After a living thing dies, decomposers will break down the body and turn it into nutritious soil for plants to use. Mushrooms, worms and bacteria are all examples of decomposers. A food web is a picture that shows how energy (food) passes through an ecosystem. The easiest way to build a food web is by starting with the producers. Every ecosystem has plants that make their own food through photosynthesis. These plants are eaten by herbivorous consumers. These herbivores are then hunted by carnivorous consumers. Eventually, these carnivores die of illness or old age and become food for decomposers. As decomposers break down the carnivore’s body, they create delicious nutrients in the soil which plants will use to live and grow! When drawing a food web, it is important to show the flow of energy (food) using arrows.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 3 259 263 Mikhailov Alopecosa.P65
    Arthropoda Selecta 22(3): 259263 © ARTHROPODA SELECTA, 2013 Tarentula Sundevall, 1833 and Alopecosa Simon, 1885: a historical account (Aranei: Lycosidae) Tarentula Sundevall, 1833 è Alopecosa Simon, 1885: èñòîðè÷åñêèé îáçîð (Aranei: Lycosidae) K.G. Mikhailov Ê.Ã. Ìèõàéëîâ Zoological Museum MGU, Bolshaya Nikitskaya Str. 6, Moscow 125009 Russia. Çîîëîãè÷åñêèé ìóçåé ÌÃÓ, óë. Áîëüøàÿ Íèêèòñêàÿ, 6, Ìîñêâà 125009 Ðîññèÿ. KEY WORDS: Tarentula, Alopecosa, nomenclature, synonymy, spiders, Lycosidae. ÊËÞ×ÅÂÛÅ ÑËÎÂÀ: Tarentula, Alopecosa, íîìåíêëàòóðà, ñèíîíèìèÿ, ïàóêè, Lycosidae. ABSTRACT. History of Tarentula Sundevall, 1833 genus Lycosa to include the following 11 species (the and Alopecosa Simon, 1885 is reviewed. Validity of current species assignments follow the catalogues by Alopecosa Simon, 1885 is supported. Reimoser [1919], Roewer [1954a], and, especially, Bonnet [1955, 1957, 1959]): ÐÅÇÞÌÅ. Äàí îáçîð èñòîðèè ðîäîâûõ íàçâà- Lycosa Fabrilis [= Alopecosa fabrilis (Clerck, 1758)], íèé Tarentula Sundevall, 1833 è Alopecosa Simon, L. trabalis [= Alopecosa inquilina (Clerck, 1758), male, 1885. Îáîñíîâàíà âàëèäíîñòü íàçâàíèÿ Alopecosa and A. trabalis (Clerck, 1758), female], Simon, 1885. L. vorax?, male [= either Alopecosa trabalis or A. trabalis and A. pulverulenta (Clerck, 1758), according Introduction to different sources], L. nivalis male [= Alopecosa aculeata (Clerck, 1758)], The nomenclatorial problems concerning the ge- L. barbipes [sp.n.] [= Alopecosa barbipes Sundevall, neric names Tarantula Fabricius, 1793, Tarentula Sun- 1833, = A. accentuata (Latreille, 1817)], devall, 1833 and Alopecosa Simon, 1885 have been L. cruciata female [sp.n.] [= Alopecosa barbipes Sun- discussed in the arachnological literature at least twice devall, 1833, = A. accentuata (Latreille, 1817)], [Charitonov, 1931; Bonnet, 1951]. However, the arach- L. pulverulenta [= Alopecosa pulverulenta], nological community seems to have overlooked or ne- L.
    [Show full text]
  • A Protocol for Online Documentation of Spider Biodiversity Inventories Applied to a Mexican Tropical Wet Forest (Araneae, Araneomorphae)
    Zootaxa 4722 (3): 241–269 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2020 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4722.3.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6AC6E70B-6E6A-4D46-9C8A-2260B929E471 A protocol for online documentation of spider biodiversity inventories applied to a Mexican tropical wet forest (Araneae, Araneomorphae) FERNANDO ÁLVAREZ-PADILLA1, 2, M. ANTONIO GALÁN-SÁNCHEZ1 & F. JAVIER SALGUEIRO- SEPÚLVEDA1 1Laboratorio de Aracnología, Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Biología Comparada, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Exterior s/n, Colonia Copilco el Bajo. C. P. 04510. Del. Coyoacán, Ciudad de México, México. E-mail: [email protected] 2Corresponding author Abstract Spider community inventories have relatively well-established standardized collecting protocols. Such protocols set rules for the orderly acquisition of samples to estimate community parameters and to establish comparisons between areas. These methods have been tested worldwide, providing useful data for inventory planning and optimal sampling allocation efforts. The taxonomic counterpart of biodiversity inventories has received considerably less attention. Species lists and their relative abundances are the only link between the community parameters resulting from a biotic inventory and the biology of the species that live there. However, this connection is lost or speculative at best for species only partially identified (e. g., to genus but not to species). This link is particularly important for diverse tropical regions were many taxa are undescribed or little known such as spiders. One approach to this problem has been the development of biodiversity inventory websites that document the morphology of the species with digital images organized as standard views.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione, on Spiders
    Susquehanna University Scholarly Commons Senior Scholars Day Apr 28th, 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione, on Spiders Maya Khanna Susquehanna University Joseph Evans Susquehanna University Matthew Persons Susquehanna University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/ssd Khanna, Maya; Evans, Joseph; and Persons, Matthew, "Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione, on Spiders" (2020). Senior Scholars Day. 34. https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/ssd/2020/posters/34 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Scholars Day by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Effects of Chronic Exposure to the Herbicide, Mesotrione on Spiders Maya Khanna, Joseph Evans, and Matthew Persons Department of Biology, Susquehanna University, PA 17870 Tigrosa helluo Trochosa ruricola Mecaphesa asperata Frontinella pyramitela Tetragnatha laboriosa Hogna lenta Pisaurina mira Abstract Methods All spiders were collected on Table 1. The predicted lethality of mesotrione on each spider species based upon soil association levels and species size. Toxicity is predicted to increase with smaller size and Mesotrione is a widely used agricultural herbicide and is frequently used alone or as an adjuvant for the Susquehanna University’s campus. Each spider was housed in a 473 ml (16oz) greater soil contact. Sample sizes for each species are indicated to the left. A total of 615 herbicides glyphosate and atrazine. The effects of mesotrione are largely untested on beneficial non-target spiders were used in this study. species such as spiders.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Are Producers! Draw the Different Producers Below
    Name: ______________________________ The Unique Producer Every food chain begins with a producer. Plants are producers. They make their own food, which creates energy for them to grow, reproduce and survive. Being able to make their own food makes them unique; they are the only living things on Earth that can make their own source of food energy. Of course, they require sun, water and air to thrive. Given these three essential ingredients, you will have a healthy plant to begin the food chain. All plants are producers! Draw the different producers below. Apple Tree Rose Bushes Watermelon Grasses Plant Blueberry Flower Fern Daisy Bush List the three essential needs that every producer must have in order to live. © 2009 by Heather Motley Name: ______________________________ Producers can make their own food and energy, but consumers are different. Living things that have to hunt, gather and eat their food are called consumers. Consumers have to eat to gain energy or they will die. There are four types of consumers: omnivores, carnivores, herbivores and decomposers. Herbivores are living things that only eat plants to get the food and energy they need. Animals like whales, elephants, cows, pigs, rabbits, and horses are herbivores. Carnivores are living things that only eat meat. Animals like owls, tigers, sharks and cougars are carnivores. You would not catch a plant in these animals’ mouths. Then, we have the omnivores. Omnivores will eat both plants and animals to get energy. Whichever food source is abundant or available is what they will eat. Animals like the brown bear, dogs, turtles, raccoons and even some people are omnivores.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropods of Elm Fork Preserve
    Arthropods of Elm Fork Preserve Arthropods are characterized by having jointed limbs and exoskeletons. They include a diverse assortment of creatures: Insects, spiders, crustaceans (crayfish, crabs, pill bugs), centipedes and millipedes among others. Column Headings Scientific Name: The phenomenal diversity of arthropods, creates numerous difficulties in the determination of species. Positive identification is often achieved only by specialists using obscure monographs to ‘key out’ a species by examining microscopic differences in anatomy. For our purposes in this survey of the fauna, classification at a lower level of resolution still yields valuable information. For instance, knowing that ant lions belong to the Family, Myrmeleontidae, allows us to quickly look them up on the Internet and be confident we are not being fooled by a common name that may also apply to some other, unrelated something. With the Family name firmly in hand, we may explore the natural history of ant lions without needing to know exactly which species we are viewing. In some instances identification is only readily available at an even higher ranking such as Class. Millipedes are in the Class Diplopoda. There are many Orders (O) of millipedes and they are not easily differentiated so this entry is best left at the rank of Class. A great deal of taxonomic reorganization has been occurring lately with advances in DNA analysis pointing out underlying connections and differences that were previously unrealized. For this reason, all other rankings aside from Family, Genus and Species have been omitted from the interior of the tables since many of these ranks are in a state of flux.
    [Show full text]
  • Predation on Reproducing Wolf Spiders: Access to Information Has Differential Effects on Male and Female Survival
    Animal Behaviour 128 (2017) 165e173 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Animal Behaviour journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anbehav Predation on reproducing wolf spiders: access to information has differential effects on male and female survival * Ann L. Rypstra a, , Chad D. Hoefler b, 1, Matthew H. Persons c, 2 a Department of Biology, Miami University, Hamilton, OH, U.S.A. b Department of Biology, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, U.S.A. c Department of Biology, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA, U.S.A. article info Predation has widespread influences on animal behaviour, and reproductive activities can be particularly Article history: dangerous. Males and females differ in their reactions to sensory stimuli from predators and potential Received 13 September 2016 mates, which affects the risk experienced by each sex. Thus, the information available can cause dif- Initial acceptance 8 November 2016 ferential survival and have profound implications for mating opportunities and population structure. The Final acceptance 24 March 2017 wolf spider, Pardosa milvina, detects and responds in a risk-sensitive manner to chemotactile information from a larger predator, the wolf spider Tigrosa helluo. Male P. milvina use similar chemotactile cues to find MS. number: A16-00806R2 females whereas female P. milvina focus on the visual, and perhaps vibratory, aspects of the male display. Our aim was to document the risk posed by T. helluo predators on P. milvina during reproduction and to Keywords: determine whether augmenting chemotactile information would affect that outcome. In the laboratory, chemical cue we explored the effects of adding predator and/or female cues on the predatory success of T.
    [Show full text]
  • Dotted Wolf Spider Rabidosa Punctulata ILLINOIS RANGE
    dotted wolf spider Rabidosa punctulata Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Arthropoda Like all wolf spiders, the dotted wolf spider has four, Class: Chelicerata large eyes in a trapezoid shape on the top of the Order: Araneae carapace. The two median eyes in this group of four are the largest and face forward. The two smaller eyes in Family: Lycosidae this group of four are set behind the two central eyes, ILLINOIS STATUS facing to the side or backwards. In front of these four eyes is a row of four, smaller eyes. Females are about common, native 0.43 to 0.67 inch in total body length. Males are 0.51 to 0.59 inch in total body length. The general body color is light brown. The cephalothorax has an alternating pattern of light- and dark-brown stripes. The abdomen has a dark band in the center that does not show any spots. The underside of the abdomen has numerous brown spots. BEHAVIORS This is a nocturnal species that is found in tall grasses and weeds. Adults are present in the fall of the year with mating in November. Females overwinter and lay eggs in March. The adult female carries her egg sac for 30-40 days before the young emerge. They ride on her back for one to two weeks before leaving to live independently. Wolf spiders have good vision. They perform courtship rituals like waving the legs or palps with making sounds created by vibrating body parts against each other or a surface or object they are near. Wolf spiders generally ILLINOIS RANGE do not build a web but use a dragline of silk for communication.
    [Show full text]
  • Metagenomic Analysis Reveals Rapid Development of Soil Biota on Fresh Volcanic Ash Hokyung Song1, Dorsaf Kerfahi2, Koichi Takahashi3, Sophie L
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Metagenomic analysis reveals rapid development of soil biota on fresh volcanic ash Hokyung Song1, Dorsaf Kerfahi2, Koichi Takahashi3, Sophie L. Nixon1, Binu M. Tripathi4, Hyoki Kim5, Ryunosuke Tateno6* & Jonathan Adams7* Little is known of the earliest stages of soil biota development of volcanic ash, and how rapidly it can proceed. We investigated the potential for soil biota development during the frst 3 years, using outdoor mesocosms of sterile, freshly fallen volcanic ash from the Sakurajima volcano, Japan. Mesocosms were positioned in a range of climates across Japan and compared over 3 years, against the developed soils of surrounding natural ecosystems. DNA was extracted from mesocosms and community composition assessed using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Metagenome sequences were obtained using shotgun metagenome sequencing. While at 12 months there was insufcient DNA for sequencing, by 24 months and 36 months, the ash-soil metagenomes already showed a similar diversity of functional genes to the developed soils, with a similar range of functions. In a surprising contrast with our hypotheses, we found that the developing ash-soil community already showed a similar gene function diversity, phylum diversity and overall relative abundances of kingdoms of life when compared to developed forest soils. The ash mesocosms also did not show any increased relative abundance of genes associated with autotrophy (rbc, coxL), nor increased relative abundance of genes that are associated with acquisition of nutrients from abiotic sources (nifH). Although gene identities and taxonomic afnities in the developing ash-soils are to some extent distinct from the natural vegetation soils, it is surprising that so many of the key components of a soil community develop already by the 24-month stage.
    [Show full text]
  • SHORT COMMUNICATION Field Observations of Simultaneous Double Mating in the Wolf Spider Rabidosa Punctulata (Araneae: Lycosidae)
    2017. Journal of Arachnology 45:231–234 SHORT COMMUNICATION Field observations of simultaneous double mating in the wolf spider Rabidosa punctulata (Araneae: Lycosidae) Matthew H. Persons: Department of Biology, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania 17870, USA; E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Males of many species of spider engage in alternative mating tactics that do not involve pre-mating courtship. Here I report field observations of a novel opportunistic mating tactic of the wolf spider Rabidosa punctulata (Hentz, 1844): simultaneous double mating, whereby males that encounter copulating pairs also mount and achieve inseminations concurrently with the first male. On three separate occasions, female R. punctulata were observed mating with two males simultaneously. Males that mate with already copulating females likely receive multiple fitness benefits. It may allow courtship parasitism of other males while also reducing male agonistic interactions, eliminate the need to court or subdue the female, and reduce pre-mating cannibalism risk. If such behavior is common, it may limit sexual selection acting on male courtship displays by reducing the effectiveness of pre-mating female choice while also increasing sperm competition. Keywords: Polygynandry, lycosid, threesome, satellite male, sperm competition Males of many species of spider engage in alternative or discovered already mounted on the female. Mounting time lasted opportunistic reproductive tactics to maximize fitness under different for 43 minutes and 61 minutes respectively for these mating triads conditions (reviewed in Robinson & Robinson 1980; Christenson between the time of discovery until one of the males dismounted. In 1984). Males may engage in sneak copulations (Elgar & Fahey 1996; both mating triads, males shifted positions until they were each able Schneider et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature's Garbage Collectors
    R3 Nature’s Garbage Collectors You’ve already learned about producers, herbivores, carnivores and omnivores. Take a moment to think or share with a partner: what’s the difference between those types of organisms? You know about carnivores, which are animals that eat other animals. An example is the sea otter. You’ve also learned about herbivores, which only eat plants. Green sea turtles are herbivores. And you’re very familiar with omnivores, animals that eat both animals and plants. You are probably an omnivore! You might already know about producers, too, which make their food from the sun. Plants and algae are examples of producers. Have you ever wondered what happens to all the waste that everything creates? As humans, when we eat, we create waste, like chicken bones and banana peels. Garbage collectors take this waste to landfills. And after our bodies have taken all the energy and vitamins we need from food, we defecate (poop) the leftovers that we can’t use. Our sewerage systems take care of this waste. But what happens in nature? Sea otters and sea turtles don’t have landfills or toilets. Where does their waste go? There are actually organisms in nature that take care of these leftovers and poop. How? Instead of eating fresh animals or plants, these organisms consume waste to get their nutrients. There are three types of these natural garbage collectors -- scavengers, detritivores, and decomposers. You’ve probably already met (and maybe even eaten) a few of them. Scavengers Scavengers are animals that eat dead, decaying animals and plants.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Persons Mercury Content Spiders
    Variation in total mercury content among riparian and non-riparian spider species Hailey Shannon, Derek Wilson, Tara Barbarich, Brian Mangan*, and Matthew Persons Dept. of Biology, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870 *Dept. of Biology, King’s College, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 ABSTRACT Spiders collected and Mercury is a persistent environmental contaminant that primarily originates from coal-fired Spiders prepared power plants but may arise from other sources including uncontrolled mine fires. Variation in Collected spiders were rinsed total mercury uptake and mobilization through the apex arthropod community is poorly identified (N = 672) with water for at least 10 understood. We measured total mercury among ground and web-building spiders at sites along the Susquehanna River near a coal-fired power plant and compared total mercury levels seconds and placed in small to spiders from uncontrolled coal fire burn sites (Centralia, PA and Laurel Run, PA) and Spiders were labeled containers. Spiders reference sites away from the river or point sources of mercury pollution (agricultural fields collected from 6 sites were kept frozen until and headwater streams). We measured total mercury across species, age classes, and sexes from June to analyzed. for several species of ground spider and a web-building spider at these sites. Spiders from November of 2015 mine fire sites had total mercury levels over 2.5 times higher than those in riparian zones and 2016. Tetragnatha elongata Spiders analyzed for Hg adjacent to the power plant and about six times higher than those from agricultural fields or Spiders were sent to King’s riparian zones away from power plants.
    [Show full text]