Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ig Sierra Diego contents gut DNA of by metabarcoding Ctenidae) spider, Araneae: wandering boliviensis; of (Phoneutria diet hyperdiverse potentially a Deciphering ozlzGomez Gonzalez g´ rod ara,RaPdeAmnoQits7 4561Vi˜o iad od,Portugal Conde, do Vair˜ao, Vila 4485-661 7, Quintas Armando Padre Vair˜ao,Agr´ario Rua de 4 Colombia 3 Colombia Ibagu´e Colombia 730001, Ibagu´eHelena, 730001, Helena, Santa de Altos Tolima, 2 del Universidad Ciencias, de Facultad 1 ( spider, Gonz´alez-G´omez contents wandering gut Ram´ırez Sierra of of Diego metabarcoding DNA diet by hyperdiverse Ctenidae) potentially Araneae: the a in records predation Deciphering when used particularly observation be boliviensis, direct P. can using of metabarcoding quantified DNA populations or that distinct established suggest of be we diet these Finally, cannot the availability. populations, field in prey feeds between differences vary local boliviensis not subtle higher P. evaluating does prey a that for preference with 75 prey squamates. suggest associated least that small likely results at Assuming on are with These observed. opportunistically differences boliviensis are and P. trials. differences Orthoptera) of interpopulation experimental taxonomic and diet and Coleoptera operational laboratory known Intersex Lepidoptera, 96 the or (Diptera, to broaden fieldwork invertebrates belonging results on in of records Our predominantly metabarcoding registered prey DNA predator. 234 previously By wandering identified not this boliviensis. and P. taxa for detected of prey found we populations as prey (COI), Colombian the (OTUs), I distant compared units subunit three we and oxidase from approach, of field females c metabarcoding selected the and cytochrome DNA only males and a the fully 1897, of Pickard-Cambridge, using not predators content By O. is gut as F. species exist. the roles boliviensis arachnid diet in many Phoneutria their functional of spider, about their ecology wandering studies trophic the observational of the of laboratory importance fluxes, case nutrient the the and In Despite conservation for understood. diet predators. their land understand to abundant necessity most the are Arachnids Abstract 2020 11, September 4 3 2 1 II eerhCnr nBoiest n eei eore,IBO nvriaed ot,Campus Porto, do Universidade InBIO, Resources, Genetic and Biodiversity in Centre Research CIBIO nvria e Tolima del Universidad available not Affiliation Ibague de Ciencias Universidad de Facultad Tolima del Universidad autdd inisNtrlsyMtmaia,Uiesddd bg´,Crea2 al 7 Ibagu´e 730001, 67, calle 22 Ibagu´e, Carrera de Matem´aticas, Universidad y Naturales Ciencias de Facultad rp eIvsiaio nZoo´a(I) autdd inis nvria e oia lo eSanta de Altos Tolima, del Universidad Ciencias, de Facultad Zoolog´ıa (GIZ), Investigaci´on en de Grupo rp eIvsiaio ilgı clgı eAt´pds(E) oprc´nHitr ev,Hiay Huila Neiva, Corporaci´on Huiltur, Artr´opodos (BEA), Ecolog´ıa de Investigaci´on Biolog´ıa y de Grupo 1 ivn Guevara Giovany , 1,3 unCro Valenzuela-Rojas Carlos Juan , 1 unVlnul Rojas Valenzuela Juan , 1 ivn Guevara Giovany , 1 iaFac Perez Franco Lida , 2 iaMreaFac P´erez Franco Marcela Lida , 4 n alsPaaQuiroga Prada Carlos and , 1 alsFrad rd Quiroga Prada Fernando Carlos , 1 2 revndrMeijden der van Arie , 3 revndrMeijden der van Arie , hnuraboliviensis; Phoneutria 4 1,* 3 Julio , 1,4 ui C´esar Julio , Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nhooei ais n oetvnm(az 04 aezeaRjs ta.21;Vte n Isbister behavior, and defensive Vetter their of 2019; one of al. represents because of et genus America diet Valenzuela-Rojas, This the South 2014; on in (Hazzi records spiders. spiders Recent venom nocturnal potent important 2008). wandering, and medically essentially habits, of are anthropogenic groups they main spiders and euryphagous the America than South mass larger to more selected significantly 2017). genus species the extracting al. stenophagous of Spiders et time, obligatory Michalek, longer cursorial 2018; Pompozzi, significantly that 2016; al. showed a al. et euryphagous et studies for (Garcia, minimize hand, (Garcia, recent could fed other prey prey, the of Indeed, and of item On items prey each 2019). more 2019). of can capture consumption they al. thus al. of must et duration so et and Pompozzi, the prey et shortening body 2011; (Garcia, their by their species al. time than to euryphagous for foraging et smaller in proximity Pekar, prey adaptations than in 2017; select shorter possess much which live al. is spiders, specialists and et time stenophagous Michalek, capture time, the 2018; the handling result, al. spiders, a minimizing As of prey, eating time. case focal foraging (euryphagous) the minimize large broad or In of (stenophagous) which capture narrow 2015). families the develop Toft can spider and 2016; sources some (Pekar food habits in for al. search frequent et their relatively in Nyffeler, Predators (Hazzi be others 2011; among to (Foelix Pisauridae, non- and appears diet rarely 2020). Lycosidae, this Valdez Very Ctenidae, arthropod Theraphosidae, 2014; However, lesser the as 2015). such a to Toft species, 2002). to large-sized supplement and include including, Pusceddu, Pekar a al. arthropods 2011; 1999; as et on Nyffeler al. consumed predominantly Symondson, 2012; et are feeding Wolters Pekar, are carnivores, prey and 2019; Spiders controlling are arthropod (Birkhofer the spiders al. 2020). spiders in all et other role Almost Michalko, al. extent, important 2017; et 2018). an Tscharntke Start, playing al. and 2015; ecosystems, and et (Betz Shubkina terrestrial assemblages, populations in community and are species Severtsov predators structure, interactions prey abundant web predator-prey 2019; most Therefore, food al. the dynamics, 2018). among et central population al. (Portalier, a selection, et is function natural communities Seibold, ecosystem of ecological 2007; driver of Schmitz main structure 1998; a the (Lima shaping ecology in in predators issue of contribution the Understanding INTRODUCTION diet, analysis, evaluating diet molecular for detection. metabarcoding, used content prey observation. gut direct be interaction, using can Predator–prey quantified Keywords: metabarcoding or established DNA of populations be that distinct cannot suggest of field we diet the with Finally, the associated likely in availability. are differences differences prey subtle these local populations, between results higher observed. vary These are not a differences does trials. interpopulation preference and experimental prey Intersex that laboratory squamates. Assuming or small on fieldwork of opportunistically in diet and registered known Orthoptera) taxonomic the previously operational broaden not that 96 results taxa to Our suggest prey belonging predator. 75 records wandering prey least this females 234 at for and identified prey males and as of detected (OTUs), content we units gut (COI), the of I in By subunit found populations exist. oxidase prey Colombian diet spider, the distant their wandering compared three about we the studies approach, from of observational metabarcoding many case laboratory DNA of and a the ecology using field In trophic selected the understood. fluxes, only nutrient fully 1897, and Pickard-Cambridge, not conservation predators for as is diet roles functional species their their understand arachnid of to importance necessity the of Despite the predators. and land abundant most the are Arachnids Colombia. Ibagu´e 730001, Helena, Abstract Santa de Altos Tolima, del Universidad Email: Prada F Carlos Correspondence: [email protected] .boliviensis P. Phoneutria ed rdmnnl nivrerts(itr,Lpdpea oepeaand Coleoptera Lepidoptera, (Diptera, invertebrates on predominantly feeds oual nw s“aaasies r“adrn pdr” r restricted are spiders”, “wandering or spiders” “Banana as known popularly , .boliviensis P. .boliviensis P. ugs hs pdr ryo eea rhoo species arthropod several on prey spiders these suggest 2 .boliviensis, P. yDAmtbroigo h cytochrome the of metabarcoding DNA By . atclrywe rdto eod in records predation when particularly hnuraboliviensis Phoneutria .boliviensis P. Phoneutria, .O. F. with c Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. es b..Frec niiul lvto,tmeaue eaiehmdt n as()wsrecorded JCG-G, was and (g) JCV-R mass h; and 03.00 humidity – what relative 00.00 in (between temperature, done species elevation, was the collection individual, of most each activity However, For of nights. hours” three Obs.). “peak for cardinal the h following Pers. be 04:00 randomly to and by 2020; found night 20:00 reports we one between al. distribution during 500m et collected previous of Valenzuela-Rojas, opportunistically transects the 2015; were on individuals al. adult based et Selected selected (Estrada-Gomez, were July accessibility 2019). and Locations from al. Colombia, et collected Valenzuela-Rojas, in 1). were species (Figure Spiders the 2019 75deg05’37.1”W). for 2deg01’40.5”N, September (Huila; 4deg32’22.3”N, to Oporapa (Tolima; an 10.4”W), 2019 by 75deg41’ distant Ibague 54.7”N, each, 6deg40’ localities and Colombian (Antioquia; three 75deg59’43”W) Barbosa from came km: spiders 300 the of of average males) ten and females (ten individuals of specimens adult Sixty locations for technique and molecular Collection this using study DNA METHODS first of AND the technique MATERIALS is the this through what of knowledge, diet, knowing diet our in beyond the To differences study, detecting intersexual contents. this and gut of interpopulation of objective are the The metabarcoding behavior there understand diet. predatory whether further the and test To study composition to 2014). we venom Hazzi ecology, species, 2015; trophic this among Paraguay,in al. interactions Bolivia, et spider evolutionary across (Estrada-Gomez, wandering spread and Colombia America, ecological the and South of in Brazil, venom ecosystems Ecuador, several the Peru, inhabiting of continent American role the related on and preferences detection feeding boliviensis species the for investigated conventional diets proxy recently from a euryphagous We different as with diets, sequences intrinsically arachnids 2020). DNA polyphagous are short of workflows al. generalist use et metabarcoding of species they (Liu, DNA that analysis multiple in Likewise, the on approaches for identification studies metabar- 2019). invertebrate efficient DNA ecological which al. and of in observation et accurate spiders, work results (Pinol, of most field diet good the by the very investigate of determination Har- to achieving one and taxonomic techniques Sheppard currently molecular of 2020; of is process use al. coding arduous increased et an and (Lafage, to bias analysis led inherent diet has al. methods in The DNA-based et approaches other interactions. 2005). Lafage, over trophic advantages wood 2001; characterizing of for range al. tool valuable a observation, et a possess direct Jackson, is analysis to 2017; content diet gut al. Molecular spider extent et many 2012). of and (Birkhofer, in studies al. complexity analysis its place et field to molecular Pompanon, takes restricts due 2020; and condition digestion impossible analysis, nearly Consequently, This is isotope and gut 2018). 2018). stable whole prosoma the al. the dissecting al. et and throughout et (Macias-Hernandez, body food extending Macias-Hernandez, the the in diverticula of stomach, 2011; only complex parts sucking nutrients (Foelix different highly and ingest legs into esophagus and the branches the digestion into through which external material midgut through types. liquefied prey the prey of their other enters females ingestion than of and Following prey fluids males form. spider pre-digested of liquid and venom the the (geckos) study on between vertebrate same feed prey against this Spiders in effective In more difference 2019). be possible al. to a et found indicate (Valenzuela-Rojas, was on could females Herzig, observations which and 2015; males 2019), laboratory al. between et recent al. (Estrada-Gomez, However, males et reported in Valenzuela-Rojas, been sexes. than have 2002; females in differences al. production Intersexual addition, venom et greater In 2013). is there of al. other that 2019). venom et showed in of (Bucherl, prey al. production genus as the et euryphagous in reported generally (Valenzuela-Rojas, been a anurans likely occasionally and are have reptiles birds mainly and vertebrates, mammals consume also but Vlnul-oa,e l 00 aezeaRjs ta.21) ieydsrbtdsie species spider distributed widely a 2019), al. et Valenzuela-Rojas, 2020; al. et (Valenzuela-Rojas, .boliviensis P. .boliviensis P. Phoneutria. . eeue o N eaacdn fteetr u otns Twenty contents. gut entire the of metabarcoding DNA for used were o xml,eprmnswith experiments example, For .boliviensis P. 3 hwdn ieec npe acceptance prey in difference no showed Phoneutria .nigriventer P. pce,sgetn they suggesting species, .boliviensis P. and .boliviensis P. as was eats, P. Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nodrt o neetmt h oa ed,asadriainwsmd o ahsml pretg of (percentage sample OTUs. each 96 for to made corresponding was obtained, standardization were (Lafage, a sequences cases reads, 105,583 all total of of the total 98% were underestimate a in Numbers) not Index filtering, species to (Barcode with OTU BINs order correlating After Additionally, 97%, database, In 75%. 2020). [?] the at within [?] identity al. order clusters with were et and sequence sequences 90% characteristics those identify c) with to to following and level family of used taxonomic 95%, the microbiota, distribution species intestinal [?] with the geographical with or at removed the sequences genus identified were DNA were to sample which environmental OTUs per correspond to the in reads applied, not corresponded of 2020), number did that total that sequences the OTUs al. of b) 0.01% analysis, et than the fewer applied Lafage, representing were from technique reads 2019; this all for a) criteria units eliminated: exclusion al. standard taxonomic to et operative according filters 256 (Deagle, different individual, OTUs, these each NCBI on for and Based BOLD files FASTQ the (http://www.boldsystems.org) in the Engine identified. used on 2,410,269 Identification were catalogue Based of BOLD (OTUs) the total follows the 2012). a nomenclature (BOLD) using (Federhen Taxon systems filtering, matches databases Data 2007). quality Life closest Hebert After of the and Barcode find the 2020). (Ratnasingham of Leidenfrost to database al. by order sequence et complete proposed in the Liu, protocols against 2020; blasted the were following al. Sequences sample, et by (Leidenfrost, obtained. files al were eliminated FASTQ (Rognes, reads et were final 2.9.1 pair-end Liu In 300pb VSEARCH the and 2019). than using generate Smith al less filtered to and et of were Brandine 2016) sequences Sena length (de chimera a al. 0.11.8 and protocols with et version control sequences FastQC standard Sequences quality using unique following and 1%) 1997). singletons, of (www.aimethods-lab.com) sequencing addition, error al. AIM of expected et company process maximum in a Sang, the The (with done 2007; by reads. was Erickson out the processing and carried obtain trimming (Kress was to the reads 2.7.15 and the Python 2010) of using (Edgar program v11.0.667 custom USEARCH a using 5‘TACAC- done was Once Primer end-merging the blocking of metabarcoding 2013). noSPI The 60 pair Metabarcoding al. primer the DNA and et blocking on Sequencing (Leray, 2018). the performed sequencing using was al. and locations, GCTCTTCCGATCAGGAGTAAACTTCAGGGTGACCAAARAAYCA3‘. et extraction PCR 5‘CAGACGTGT- selected (Macias-Hernandez, for DNA dgHCO1 individ- to three GACGCTCTTCCGATCTTCATTTYCCHCGWATAAAYAAYATAAG3‘ sequences mlCOIntF entire assays and determined, prey the and the preliminary were most from or dgHCO three the conditions prosoma+opisthosoma primers performed yielded (prosoma, these we the metatarsus) body difficult, used and spider’s is We tarsus the gut except of diverticulated ual sampling highly which the determine of dissection Since processing 2020). samples al. and Bioline et assays used (Pentinsaari, and Preliminary conditions animals manufacturer’s most PCRs. under cytochrome of extraction amplify DNA the identification to for TAQ the sequencing kit Plant Tissue for for DNEasy marker (CCDB) Qiagen standard the standard to Barcoding used the the We subjected DNA (COI), to then for submitted gene were were Centre I parts samples subunit Canadian Tissue dissected all the using The 2018). performed of conducted We bench. al. were procedures contamination. et laboratory (Macias-Hernandez, cross procedures sterilized separately prevent and dissection extraction to clean cases, DNA dissection a all each contain on not after In activities do sterilized laboratory they flame 2018). since removed, scissors, were al. and metatarsus) remove and forceps et to (tarsus performed (Macias-Hernandez, legs were the diverticula washes of Laboratory alcohol gut parts Biology were 96% distal the Subsequently, collected the individuals to Later, Colombia). the transported more (Ibague, freezing, and impurities. Ibague three alcohol by of 96% euthanized specimens, University in After the 20 tubes Falcon(c) of technique. the separate metabarcoding in to stored DNA addition were the individuals in of locality, standardization each for At taken S1). Table (Supplementary .boliviensis P. ape a efre ihteIlmn ltom hr h pair- the where platform, Illumina the with performed was samples 4 .boliviensis P. neteefitr were filters these Once . .boliviensis P. c samples oxidase Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. h eaieaudneaayi frasidctsta ewe n aiu f6,8 ed were reads 64,287 Orthoptera, order of the maximum to correspond a reads) and (82,537 78.1% 2 reads, between 105,583 of that total indicates a Of reads (Table OTU. analysis each of content in analysis gut observed a from abundance represented obtained Coleoptera relative sequences (Squamata) while the The Vertebrates of (2), 23.9%, 2% up Hemiptera only (14.6%). made for (2), Orthoptera accounting Diptera species Phasmatodea diet, 1). and occurrence, of the were (17.7%) of of number Lepidoptera orders portion frequency Lepidoptera greatest (20), small represented By (20.8%), the Coleoptera diversely (23), up with (1). less Diptera Dermaptera made orders 10 The included and taxonomic to recovered) Barbosa (2) portion The DNA belonging two (14). Araneae largest prey (for OTUs Orthoptera recovered). the of prey different and contributed DNA (77% one 96 (17) diet Arthropods prey least identified the of We at vertebrate). in (97.9% had represented 1 observed). 57 diet and was filters, the invertebrate prey the (9 of no all orders spider, applying taxonomic Ibague after different one and con- analyzed, and stomach samples spiders 60 prey was 60 the higher the of temperature Of the processing annealing the contained optimal for region metabarcoding. the conditions for Prosoma+Opisthosoma these that locations the used identified that We primers found tent. blocking also We the 48degC. with analyses Preliminary in are (R analysis results correlation (mm). These metabarcoding No size to DNA respectively). prey compared b. 2.82g, and (P= 3.61g) and section (g) of found 2.62 mass S1, (mean were of larger spider Figure differences (mean be fresh Supplementary significant to populations the tend also Barbosa females in zone locality, and sampling summarized with by Oporapa Ibague error), weight the 4.64g. the from from to the standard (P spiders those 1.01 analyzing significant +- that from highly When found (mean weighing We was individuals 0.21g a). 0.027). sexes with +- section 0.17g, the 3.79 +- S1, between 2.25 of Figure mass weigh mass in males a while difference have 6.08g, The to females 1.86 the from that weighing show results Our 3.5.2 2016). version R al. bootstrap in et the (Hsieh, performed using package were determined iNEXT visualizations were the and curves using analyses obtained 2018), richness) All the species Core = for Development replicates. (q0 intervals (R parameter resampling confidence q 1000 the The with means by the 2014). method numbers for Hill’s al. procedures the filtering calculating et of by all (Chao, populations 2016) applying Colombian of al. three after et the result (Hsieh, curves of that each OTUs (i.e., for prey detected of reads) richness ( the binomial Sankeymatic compared also with the populations We created under and were sexes 2020. sexes populations March between interac- and between on intervals reads sex reads accessed prey–spider by confidence of Bipartite diagrams the number (https://statpages.info). network Additionally, Statpages tion of with ratio corroborated 2010). were the (Arend distribution compare 17 obtained to Minitab prey applied potential with of was different diet the the the test and on of goodness-of-fit 2018), data size Core The estimated Development females the S1). ( (R tary with and database mass correlated used bugGuide addition, males was the was In the of spiders adjustment using and 4.0.2. different mass version Bonferroni “coin”, the R the with of package in analysis populations, mass “dplyr” the package and post-hoc the with Wilcoxon with sexes Test Test Kruskal-Wallis a the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney the between using the populations (g) using between mass compared body initially in were differences test To analyses Data sample). per reads 2. 1. aso spiders of Mass RESULTS https://bugguide.net/node/view/15740 Phoneutria hnuraboliviensis Phoneutria a nlzdsprtl ysxadpplto.AChi-square A population. and sex by separately analyzed was 5 .boliviensis P. .boliviensis P. < Brlt 03.TbeSupplemen- Table 2003). (Bartlett ) .1 SplmnayTbeS and S1 Table (Supplementary 0.01) ape rmtetresampled three the from samples 2 003 a bevdbetween observed was =0,003) sn apebsdrarefaction sample-based using http://sankeymatic.com/ ); Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 3i prp n 1i bge ntrso ryrcns,Ooaahdtehgetnme fpe OTUs prey of Barbosa, (Figure number curves in highest rarefaction detected the the were had by 70 Oporapa supported which richness, was which prey of of Barbosa, observed, terms and were In Ibague, OTUs by Ibague. different followed the in individuals, 96 81 in across to and summarized belonging Oporapa is prey in this 83 population 234 of for of by reads reads total network between total A interaction differences the significant reads b. of show section prey–spider that S2, (6,487) test The showed Figure 7.8% goodness-of-fit results Supplementary presented For Chi-square 0,000). Oporapa the 46.9% while (P= hand, Barbosa, (15,513). Orthoptera. (60,537), populations other in 73.4% order 18.8%. 90.3% represents the the presented Barbosa Ibague On order of in and this population Ibague. observed population, the in is each (82,537), 62.5% order for prey reads and per of total Oporapa reads abundance the in relative to in respect The populations with between S2). example, 3. Table difference Figure (Supplementary in greatest Oporapa shown Ibague The in are in (13,829) locality detected 13.1% and Barbosa, prey sample in the per detected reads of prey (24,784) to 23.5% correspond (66,970) and 63.4% analyzed, in reads diet 105,583 of by composition shared the prey–spider are in of the (30) Differences of composition half results prey other 2. These the Figure in identified 1). in while differences (Table were summarized unique, Interpopulation males species is are in sex prey females unique in by different the as network detected 65 in observed and interaction were while prey 2 were species 33), species identified females, (females: prey Thirty-five the in Squamata males: 108 and sexes. of and species 2) both (30) 26 which prey males: Half different (females: of and 60 Orthoptera males. 0 observed, orders identified in (females: We were the Hemiptera in OTUs 0). 17), mainly different males: males: are and interaction differences 96 7 The reads to (females: males. prey–spider Lepidoptera belonging in The 126 prey a. and section Orthoptera. 234 females S2, in of Figure observed total Supplementary those the A them as in reads between summarized marked of differences is significant as proportion present males sex not the they the by are comparing although network while sexes, (20,961), When these the results 25.4% 0,000), between the represent (15,517). hand, orders females (P= 18.8% other taxonomic the represents the other (82,537), On Ibague the order Orthoptera. in order this males. and the in for (61,576) in 82% reads 74.6% with found total was compared represent the sexes females of in the that Squamata between reads us of prey of show by 68.7% case of reads presents the of by that order number in network This a. the double interaction as in section than reads observed, difference S2, more prey–spider greatest were Figure was The The genus Supplementary males S2). the single the in Table in a (Supplementary prey of summarized of males of (75,067) is in orders reads sex 71.1% Hemiptera Exclusive of and or number females females. females the in in in orders, detected detected of most For prey prey sexes between to of males. prey correspond in of (30,516) detected consumption prey 28.9% the analyzed, in identified reads were belonging 105,583 differences flies work, of this species of In two composition the prey were in frequency differences highest Intersexual second the with most preys belonging genus The The the species sampled. to orthopteran sampled. spiders Six OTU spiders 57 the 57 (59). the example, of For Orthoptera in items. and species prey (62) different registered Diptera 96 genus were to the S2 prey belonging Table to as identified, (Supplementary found were reads orders prey all abundant 234 of of genus 60.8% total the represented of A which cricket the (64,287), taxonomic example, reads S2). For seven of Figure of remaining species. and number diet The certain highest the for the in (6,841). reads reads had 6.4% of the dominance with of high 8% Blattodea remaining a and the (7,776) only represent 7.3% orders with Diptera by followed Delia Neoconocephalus hc a rqec f98 falpe Tbe1). (Table prey all of 9.8% of frequency a had which , eefud hc eedtce n4 pdr,rpeetn 92 fall of 19.2% representing spiders, 45 in detected were which found, were .boliviensis P. Neoconocephalus hnuraboliviensis Phoneutria 6 eeosre mn h ieetppltos fthe Of populations. different the among observed were hnuraboliviensis Phoneutria p5(rhpea speeti h ito 32 of diet the in present is (Orthoptera) sp.5 .boliviensis P. oee,orrslsshow results our However, . . Neoconocephalus .boliviensis P. fthe Of . (sp5) Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ht2 o2 pdrpe pce r hrdbtentoo he pdrppltos(al ) h results The show 1). 5. results (Table Figure Our populations in spider summarized (n=19). three is 23.5% or population as with two by identified between Ibague network species shared and interaction the are (n=25) species of Orthoptera species prey–spider 30.1% (n=25) respectively), prey the 35.7% has 28, spider of Barbosa, it and 26 In Oporapa to 20 13). 21 in (n=14, and that while Diptera 24 unique, orders (n=11, are Coleoptera the and prey to 25) related and mainly 17 were (n=17, differences The 4). oee,tesuyb aezeaRjse l Vlnul-oa,e l 00 eotdn atrsof captures no spider. reported this 2020) of diet al. the results, et of our (Valenzuela-Rojas, basis to the According al. as prey. et considered as gut Valenzuela-Rojas be species with by Diptera could spiders 57 one study species the least Diptera of the at example, some However, For has of 2017). them Gonzaga consumption of and frequent Viera (30) 2019; 52.6% the al. identified, of et contents part Valenzuela-Rojas, as 2020; reported that as al. been such show et previously species have results vertebrates vertebrate Our Some invertebrates, to (snake). principally. addition Orthoptera, in and consume, can Lepidoptera Coleoptera, Diptera, orders these capture of their diet with the related strongly in are frequent results most These the 2019). be genus al. et the to (Kennedy, since observed genus importance strategy the were of of order Lepidoptera species in spider and four species Hemiptera of analysis 2019). Diptera, content gut al. spiders coding, of wolf et study the Zhong, recent in 2020; a found In al. also et were 12 (Lafage, results to diet Similar (up the spiders. here of lycosid observed genus different those of the to prey of found results main also tested: similar the as (genera found 2016) Lepidoptera 2020) species al. Lycosidae al. et in et (Hamback, and species) (Lafage, 117 al. al. and et et orders found Hamback, Lafage 2015) spider Arctic. al. of shoreline. for et prey High Baltic particularly (Wirta, main the scarce, the al. in are as et Wirta Lepidoptera Diptera metabarcoding web. and using in aerial Diptera habitats an prey mainly build natural as not in found do we diet that spiders species spider of on number focusing low prey Studies the ctenid study, explain al. our might results). et in This (see (Lafage, primes analyses 2020). content for blocking our prey of al. prey largest use et was as the the (Valenzuela-Rojas, reported noSPI/dgHCO1 to in blocked due results previously pair However, generally were primer 2018). body that the al. showing the et of sample of Macias-Hernandez, Prosoma+Opisthosoma sampling performance 2020; the this the The with procedure that account in spider, showing the into prey the spider. species, studies, taking of of these the content abdomen, samples et In highest of the section (Chapman, the size crushing body 2014). Tetragnathidae different or the al. 2019), in spider 2019), and et compared whole al. sample (Greenstone, al. the et Oxyopidae of et homogenizing Zhong, and 2003; amount either Whitaker, 2020; 2018) was al. 2014; al. Baba extraction et et and of Lafage, (Agusti, Toju al. 2019; Linyphiidae 2010; et the al. (Furlong, al. gut- as et Salticidae molecular (Eitzinger, such on and Lycosidae families based Theridiidae 2018), spider studies spider al. primer small-sized Most the et blocking on family. of Macias-Hernandez, a Ctenidae focused contents developed the have gut we of analyses study, members of nocturnal content this related metabarcoding with In closely animals for phylogenetically 2005). elusive designed and or Harwood specifically direct wandering, and by (noSPI/dgHCO1) small, (Sheppard prey pair and observing ecology predators when food-web between links critical cryptic trophic track especially or to is possible always This not is observation. it studies, ecology trophic In nti ok edtrie iedvriyo oeta ry(pt 0odr n 6seis consumed species) 96 and orders 10 to (up prey potential of diversity wide a wandering large, determined by the we to work, compare this to In difficult therefore and web-building and small 2. 1. .boliviensis P. Pirata itof Diet DISCUSSION ,uigtesm oeua ehiu.Te lofudDpea eitr,Hmnpea and Hymenoptera, Hemiptera, Diptera, found also They technique. molecular same the using ), Hygrolycosa hnuraboliviensis Phoneutria hog N eaacdn nlsso u otns dniyn ryblnigt the to belonging prey identifying contents; gut of analysis metabarcoding DNA through Tetragnatha n nmlil pce of species multiple in and ads prativaga Pardosa .boliviensis P. ulswb ooti t od oee,ti ido pdr svery is spiders of kind this However, food. its obtain to webs builds Phoneutria iia eut eefudi rvossuiso te spider other of studies previous in found were results Similar . olwdb eiotr,Clotr,adHtrpeai the in Heteroptera and Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, by followed Pardosa 7 uhas such , hr itr r lotemi component main the also are Diptera where , ads,Tohs,Hgoyoa Xerolycosa Hygrolycosa, Trochosa, Pardosa, Spinoctenus Anolis .boliviensis P. Tetragnatha p lzr)and (lizard) sp. , ads glacialis Pardosa Ctenus .boliviensis P. it(Valenzuela-Rojas, diet sn N metabar- DNA using and Stenorrhina Phoneutria .boliviensis P. .boliviensis P. oconsume to . are sp . , Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. epooeta tlattrehptee htcudepantepeec fDpeaa ryfor prey a as Diptera of presence the explain could for that preference a) high hypotheses a 2003). three of (Bartlett least observations long our mm at boliviensis to 13 that contrary to is 4 propose which between We itself, species spider small are the which of prey, size Diptera the than larger times that hypothesizing Diptera, of eiotr,Mnoe,Ototr,adPamtda utemr,tede fti pdri hw to shown is spider this of diet natural the the Furthermore, (2020) Phasmatodea. al. and et Valenzuela-Rojas, Orthoptera, 21 to Mantodea, consuming According Lepidoptera, (14%), vertebrates 2020). small of extent, al. lesser diet et a (Valenzuela-Rojas, to and species (86%) different arthropods 2018). of Baba predominantly composed and Toju 2010; al. d) et for (Fenk, are tool field species powerful the spider a many in is because directly metabarcoding community DNA spider secondary limitations, and whole as are and these a Toju work, scavenging, nocturnal, Despite of to this predation, compositions prey). According in prey intra-guild prey’s investigating presented cannibalism, a 2018). systematically those of of Baba DNA including spiders DNA signs Unfortunately, and methods, by (i.e., between (Toju predation barcoding on distinguish out. spiders DNA to preyed ruled by existing designed be directly caught 2018), not cannot hosts are Baba but insect and parasitoids (Toju low, on such Baba parasitizing be whether just would indicate were event cannot or prey alone false Of analysis possible 2001). metabarcoding a Austin that and do possible consider Shewchuk Phoneutria of in we 2013; If samples identified our Calderon-Espinosa prey 1980). within 234 and (Polis Finally, the (Barragan-Contreras them Diptera. insectivores for small as small of number mainly too higher usually the are boliviensis for behavior that account P. cannibalistic prey could possible this from the same, food is the genus explanation collect Another the to of 1994; adults 2012). Hemiptera Mills enables al. of and et Riddick species (Zou, 2008; a insects of detected several al. we of et Similarly, predator Caron, a 2009). 2011; as Linhares al. and et Horenstein Berg, (Battan von insects of different case on the prey in as Coleoptera, spider predatory the found or spider 2013); the al. of et case the in as predators, to seem not ectoparasites c) 2006). did recognizable samples Dubois and easily spider and are our (Gillung Gauld which spiders; Diptera 2000; examined wasps, parasitic the Ichneumonidae (Eberhard of other spider-specific prey of and be eggs/larvae/pupae may hymenopterans study carry parasitoid this in most detected since 2017) Borkent spiders, in insects spiders parasitic on parasitize to known b) 2006). species Dubois well-characterized are and includes Gauld species 2000; Ichneumonidae these (Eberhard only of some samples, However, spider prey. the Similarly, as spider. detected as the were as erroneously such by Hymenoptera were such on detected parasitoids, preyed of we as arthropods species species of reported several Diptera parasitoids the analyses, as of present our most actually in that were ( hypothesis but 3 possible prey only a as detected, interpreted to Diptera support 62 lend the not of does out of analysis, case our (1), the in However, sp. in 2012). as Ozman-Sullivan parasites and Sullivan spider including 2012) Ozman-Sullivan Anisia .boliviensis P. isi rvosstudies previous in Bias itr aohriscs ntede fteprey the of diet the in insects) (another Diptera itr n rHmnpeaa aaie fthe of parasites as Hymenoptera or and Diptera itr sprstso prey of parasites as Diptera Vespula .boliviensis P. Ogcodes Siea,e l 09 or 2019) al. et (Stireman, . .boliviensis P. ry w etl ry( prey reptile two prey, p Psed,e l 08.AogteprstcHmnpeafmle eetdfrom detected families Hymenoptera parasitic the Among 2018). al. et (Pusceddu, sp. p 1 and (1) sp. oad ueie rhsonosrn,bhvo eotdi oesopo pce.This species. scorpion some in reported behavior offspring, own his or juveniles towards nlddidvdaso h resAaee ltoe,Clotr,Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Blattodea, Araneae, orders the of individuals included .boliviensis P. Neoscona narcn bevtoa td ntede of diet the on study observational recent a In : Bcrth,e l 06,mkn hi rdto eairdffiutt observe to difficult behavior predation their making 2016), al. et (Bucaretchi, Tachina .boliviensis P. u nlssdtce h rsneo itr aaiod,a ntecase the in as parasitoids, Diptera of presence the detected analyses Our : Mesochorus p hc ry anyo eitr Xaeh&Bt,21) ealso We 2014). Butt, & (Xaaceph Hemiptera on mainly preys which sp. Ogcodes p 1;seTbe1 ol eprstiso te net.Teeoe it Therefore, insects. other of parasitoids be would 1) Table see (1); sp. Gonatium Anolis ny2 seTbe1 r netpeaoso aaiod;therefore, parasitoids; or predators insect are 1) Table (see 24 only , a rfrnefrlre ry hyietfidpe pt three to up prey identified They prey. larger for preference a has Agonum p Aha,e l 05 rpeaoso ieetisc species insect different of predators or 2005) al. et (Ashfaq, sp. p Kr n itro 08 and 2008) Winterton and (Kerr sp. p and sp. p,wihpesmil nClotr (Tamaddoni-Nezhad, Coleoptera on mainly preys which sp., Phoneutria sp., 8 efudasalnme fpe pce htare that species prey of number small a found We : Stenorrhina lohr lata Aleochara themselves Tachina p)wr eetd hc r reported are which detected, were sp.) , Bembidion .boliviensis P. ept h rqetpeec of presence frequent the Despite : p GlugadBret2017; Borkent and (Gillung sp. Tachina Arma sp., ntefil,de was diet field, the in Saprinus hc sreported is which , p Slia and (Sullivan sp. p,which sp., Anisia P. Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. fpesi eae hni ae 18ad16 epciey.I td nwl pdr,dffrne in differences spiders, wolf on study a In number respectively). lower a 126, found and also We (108 males. males in in detected 71.1% than and females females in in present preys are 28.9% of reads, total the of prey the authors, the to According (Hylidae). frogs and of Sphaerodactylidae) and (Gekkonidae lizards include efudsxa ieecsi iti u nlsso u otnsof contents gut of analysis our in analysis analyses diet our These in for be differences above 2020). can sexual (see al. they character found et but We this weight, (Cordellier, are affect species males body could environment on some in trophic depending that differ location). differential markedly, by found generally a differ we spiders that or however, female suggest shape females; and would and the male size than traits Adult of similar smaller history females of females. in and are life differences some males average (significant and in than on dimorphism ecology behavioral, larger males sexual trophic different morphological, the both a various for that and evidence identified in males), The provides and dimorphic study females traits. Our sexually between sexual mass (McLean, are 2020). secondary arachnids Spiders al. and for et particularly primary (Cordellier, 2018). fragmented, in is differences invertebrates al. marked to et show pertaining females literature dimorphism and sexual males animals, most In females variation the and post-feeding; and 2011; males 84-h genus (234), between to the al. work of Differences up et this cricket sensitivity (Sint, in the high detected (i.e., al. a spider species et prey has per Sint same prey spiders guts). the to of in of according number reads prey high hand, the of the in other detection both the with molecular explain On associated the would prey. biomass which 2015), as highest al. detected the et Diptera that Sint, of mean species could respectively the which Blattodea, and and S2), Diptera Figure in Orthoptera, content and were stomach groups S2 et taxonomic Table abundant (Bista, Supplementary rela- most (see al. the positive prey, et demonstrated of Bista have reads example, of ( studies beetle For the correlation Several species for positive reads. metabarcoding of strong sequencing 2019). DNA proxy a output detected a al. and 2018) as et biomass samples used al. Deagle, species in sometimes input 2018; species is that between of frequency prey presence al. tionships sequence the of et detect although level) (Aizpurua, to abundance, order used abundance relative mostly the their is at than metabarcoding only rather DNA of (identified studies, recent 39,741 species spider. to the 77 only According of of with contents and sequences gut (Colombia (Ratnasingham identifying assigned, the America correctly (BOLD) not in are South Systems were sequences to that Data from lead likelihood the may Life sequences reduces 2020) which arthropod of of June of accessed Barcode representativity number Records; the low Specimen large 9,265,546 the in the and (246,069) 2007), being metabarcoding, barcodes DNA while Hebert using encountered DNA detection are with prey they Additionally, of species advantages that diurnal. the from likelihood mostly all missing the are Despite reducing be diptera fast, while may night, consumed species), at and database. coleopteran species out consumed. small, reference some metabarcoding, carried are diverse all DNA as insects sufficiently were in such these However, they a insects because given 2020). small-sized way, studies other high-throughput previous al. (and a et Diptera in Liu, regions 2019; automated Likewise, tropical 2020; in be al. al. especially presents can metabarcoding et identification, et DNA identification species (Liu, (Barsoum, Diptera. in prey biodiversity of studies of case by high fieldwork the content detection prey observational with in gut the here as a of again in limitations as exemplified analysis sensitivity same was observed of This greater the were studies latter’s 2012). Diptera the the al. of and et be studies captures Pompanon, to observational no the appears results, between metabarcoding our difference DNA to The contrary spider. 2020), this of al. et (Valenzuela-Rojas, al. of boliviensis length P. body the times three than .boliviensis P. a eeaitplpaosde.Hwvr ntesuycnutdb aezeaRjset Valenzuela-Rojas by conducted study the in However, diet. polyphagous generalist a has a agrta h pdr hmef n rdto a o bevdo ryieslarger items prey of observed not was predation and themself, spiders the than larger was .boliviensis P. ol eascae anywt h rce ftegenus the of cricket the with mainly associated be would yiu marinus Gyrinus .boliviensis P. R u eut,a ela h rvosrprs ofimthat confirm reports, previous the as well as results, Our . 2 hrfr,bsdo u nlsso eaieabundance relative of analyses our on based Therefore, . .3 ewe ims nu n edaudneby abundance read and input biomass between 0.83) = 9 Neoconocephalus .boliviensis P. eetdi 75 spider’ 37/57 in detected , u eut hwthat show results Our . .boliviensis P. Neoconocephalus We . Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ffr,a niae ya nrae ubro ryadrascmae ofmls hssget different suggests This time. females. first to the compared for reads here and prey reported of of males are number that species increased evidence an prey than first by Some species the indicated prey as be Colombia. of effort, could range in also wider species a results show this of Our We for ecology behavior. trophic previously feeding the Euryphagous reported of its knowledge confirming approach, the the coding to at contributed them project between This differences the justify between would the CONCLUSIONS observed which to are According S1), differences such Table some factors 2014). level. Supplementary altitude, as trophic well and (see al. as temperature et populations species, humidity, prey (Ramirez-Villegas, eachthe relative certain mountain pressures in of of Andes anthropogenic ranges prey data the the and environmental as of affect such humidity availability could characteristics the temperature, and biogeographical order by populations as by the the influenced influenced in crosses are be especially that turn range populations, may in between populations these differences and between marked population, show differences prey These of mass). capacity. order fresh Orthoptera. prey each of greater of term shows a proportions (in have population The (R spider Ibague. spiders by correlation the and larger clear of counts Oporapa that a size read of be identify body populations relative would not the the of behavior do than et results analysis this reads Eitzinger, more our explain the 2012; However, times could Wolters prey Nevertheless, three that and of or hypothesis (Birkhofer selection two 2016). availability have One the Barbosa their that localities al. from by indicate three et spiders by determined may The that Hamback, followed which be species. diet, 2019; part Diptera the prey good was of al. compose in order where number that be consumed population lowest species may only the most prey species the with the the representing was locality in Ibague it Oporapa, the differences in Furthermore, present was in while Barbosa studied. higher Finally, consumed, populations was in two was Orthoptera. Coleoptera diet other Dermaptera the similar of the order comparing very as species) When the are items prey. of populations many of (number Ibague as type diversity and the twice in the Oporapa exist Barbosa, populations, differences the respectively), among among 81, the and items out 83 prey ruling (70, of without number hunting, the in Although success 2019). greater al. populations ensure of et between could toxicity (Valenzuela-Rojas, Differences The which defensively used the females, 1998). multiple is and in al. by it behavior et than influenced that predatory (Kotiaho, be is males possibility differential reproduce can prey in to also prey certain higher males of but consume in by is range sexes, to females that greater between for capacity hypothesis a differences search the the that active morphological Similarly, supports imply than only which necessarily 2018). smaller not not females, are factors, does al. than males size items et success, Moya-Larano larger reproductive prey results, (McLean, a and as of captured our dimorphism such (Foellmer number In sexual factors, greater carapace differences with many a 2009). or spiders to for have (Crawley attributed selection pedipalps also of others usually as and result is among females such the items capacity structures be food dispersal may specific of hyper-predation, dimorphism variety or size or gut size Body prey of total of 2007). analysis intakes either the of size, Through number in wild. the 2019). the in in difference al. corroborated The et are (Valenzuela-Rojas, findings vertebrates these small metabarcoding, consume by contents to adaptation of capacity an its tendency 1). be (Table as the or females female influence, shown by between wild could have vertebrates differ turn that conditions of venom in consumption show the This the results of example toxicity 2019). Our for and females. diet, al. produced the to et venom in (Valenzuela-Rojas, compared of differences efforts species amount to, was hunting this the it greater in study, as with this sexes such In distances, the factors greater 1999). other travel Uetz addition, and spiders In (Persons wolf females male and that males observed between observed were behavior predatory .boliviensis P. .boliviensis P. ryo etbae.Dffrn tde ne laboratory under studies Different vertebrates. on prey 10 ob uyhgsgvnisgetvrct,a well as voracity, great its given euryphagus a be to 2 .boliviensis P. 003 ewe edcutprpplto and population per count read between =0,003) .boliviensis P. paetyhv rae hunting greater a have apparently sn h N metabar- DNA the using .boliviensis P. .boliviensis P. venom Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. rn 00 iia 7SaitclSfwr;SaeClee A iia.Ic[ogeScholar]. Inc.[Google Minitab. PA: College, State Software; 815-825. 17–Statistical of 27: Minitab niche metabarcoding. 2010. trophic DNA D the from Arend shapes Evidence Agriculture Europe: across 2018. arthropods A 10.1111/mec.14474 Szodoray- pest Alberdi D, multiple doi: MTP, Russo on H, Gilbert preying Rebelo V, bat V, Zrncic Mata a C, V, molecular Ibanez Zhelyazkova as using S, F, Gopalakrishnan Collembola predators P, Paradi Georgiakakis within I, 2003. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.02014.x Budinski detection O, WO doi: prey Aizpurua Symondson 3467-3475. ecosystems: KD, 12: arable Sunderland Ecol IP, Mol in Vaughan spiders markers. JD, sustaining Harwood prey SP, alternative per Shayler reads N, of Agusti 10.5061/dryad.9zw3r22bt abundance doi: Dryad relative files: The input Diversity, REFERENCES statistical Prey and Spider data locality prey, and Phoneutria sample OTUS locations, Sampling manuscript. the of revision Accessibility and Data construction, processing, data draft. draft. methodology, the the Conceptualization on on CF-PQ: comments comments and and review review, collecting, spiders, Spiders the JCV-R: of measures mass collecting, Spiders manuscript. JCG-G: the of review the manuscript. and the of Conceptualization, of A-VDM: review review and analysis, construction, methodology, statistical Conceptualization, analysis, LM-FP: diversity of execution manuscript. methodology, processing, Conceptualization, statistical processing, GG: manuscript. data the spiders, of the revision of and measures construction, mass Tecnologia, collecting, a spiders e Methodology, DS-R: Ciencia a para the Fundacao for CONTRIBUTIONS – approved AUTHORS’ FCT Code through DL57/2016/CP1440/CT0009. Ethical financed number Licencias the was contract de agree Nacional under AvdM in I.P. Autoridad followed 2019, project. were June Recoleccion”, Minciencias’ 07 procedures de above 01003, Marco laboratory to no. “Permiso All (Resolucion Colombian thanks field –ANLA). Ibague the their Ambientales author de by through Chavarro Universidad first schol- Francisco covered the researcher and are to The Loaiza early granted collected Eliana the Cuervo, Specimens by 130780864623). Alexander Tolima assistance. Builes, del Project work Roberto Universidad to (ID la thanks de We project Cientifico to arship. Desarrollo this grateful y Minciencias, are for Investigaciones We (Colciencias-Currently de support research. Innovacion Oficina this financial e supporting Tecnologia for for Ciencia, Tolima Colombia) de of University Administrativo the and Departamento Ibague level, the of species University the the at thank We identify, to spider. order predatory been in necessary this have America, is of not ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS it South impact could addition, in ecological found In the we barcoding and diet DNA corroboration. prey the further with in possible requires studies Diptera and the of findings (Valenzuela- extend differ fraction previous laboratory to results high the these the our and on However, Particularly field based 2020). the diet. anticipated in 2019, the and techniques al., of composition assessment et flexibility diet diet Rojas of and different records using nature a our findings generalist is (comparing previous the there from locality Similarly, confirming the again on requirements. richness), energy depending different taxa ecology on trophic based in difference perhaps small sexes, the between strategies predatory 11 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eSn rnieG mt D21.Flo ihsedFsQ mlto o ult oto fsequencing of control quality for 10.12688/f1000research.21142.1 emulation FastQC doi: high-speed 1874. Falco: 8: 2019. F1000Research vacuum AD 10: Smith data. does Resour G, Ecol Brandine risk: Mol Sena minimizing connections? de web and food collection of 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02857.x Maximizing misinterpretation doi: for 2010. 1023-1033. likelihood Ecological extrapo- the JD and increase studies. Harwood Rarefaction sampling diversity SA, suction species 2014. Romero in AM EG, estimation Ellison Chapman and 10.1890/13-0133.1 RK, sampling Colwell doi: for K, 45-67. framework Ma a 84: EL, monographs numbers: Sander Hill T, genomics. with Hsieh to lation NJ, phenotype from Gotelli spiders: A, in Chao differences Sex 10.1007/s00427-020-00657-6 genus. 2020. doi: N the 155-172. Posnien of G, 230: Uhl species 10.1590/s0101-81752008000400022 JM, Neotropical Schneider doi: M, of Brazil 827-842. Cordellier checklist southern 25: from complete Zoologia species a new de with a Brasileira pseudochrysorrhoa, Revista Aleocharinae), Aleochara Staphylinidae: 2008. J Vertebrates: (Genus (Coleoptera: Klimaszewski Venomous KM, spiders Venoms: Mise Their E, wandering and Caron by Animals Venomous Envenomation 2013. V. 2016. Deulofeu Elsevier. EE, S Buckley 10.1007/978-94-007-6288-6 Hyslop D, W, doi: Bucherl E, Bradley 1-49. biomass Capitani M, 63: accurate Tox Seymour De for Clin. S, R, 10.1111/1755-0998.12888 sequencing Phoneutria). Shokralla shotgun doi: Bertani and M, Resour. F, amplicon Ecol Hajibabaei Bucaretchi of Mol Performance X, samples. Zhou community 2018. invertebrate S K, in Creer Walsh estimation M, of M, Christmas Tang prey diet 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00654.x S, the GR, Liu the doi: and Carvalho identify 100-108. production I, primary 21: to net Bista Biogeography climate, Methods and E, between Ecology 10.1002/ece3.2791 relationship Roubinet Global global 2017. doi: L, The spiders. M 1942-1953. Mestre of 2012. M, 7: Jonsson V Wolters Evol Klapwijk C, K, Ecol PA, Birkhofer Bjorkman Hamback studies. field M, V, terrestrial Gagic Porcel in O, predators JA, Ferlian invertebrate Stenberg P, M, Dalin H, Schroeder conservation Bylund for 495-508. K, fields 21: rice Birkhofer Conservation Indian Insect of in Journal webs spider management. 10.1007/s10841-017-9990-2 and landscape doi: and families local spider considering Enhancing control, 10.1111/j.1365- 2017. biological doi: T necrophagous Tscharntke 395-401. of L, 25: Betz succession Entomol Vet temporal Med and Argentina. central composition Kin in Seasonal carrion Their 2915.2011.00969.x pig & on 2011. Spiders beetles AX predator Insects, and Linhares For M, Information Horenstein & of Battan Images, Canada. Metabarcoding Identification, & detail: States Net: United the 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.023 the in BugGuide. For with doi: is compared 2003. 313-323. devil composition T The 101: stand Bartlett Indicators forest 2019. Ecological to WY biodiversity. response biodiversity of Douglas of measures Y-Q, measure surrogate Ji sensitive J, a provides Forster dimor- arthropods C, Colombia. sexual Bruce in dactyloidae) N, of evaluation (Squamata: Barsoum ventrimaculatus Anolis eat?: 199-208. of Anolis 35: diet do Biologicas the Actualidades in What variation geographic 2013. and ML phism Calderon-Espinosa LA, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2004.11.007 Barragan-Contreras detection. doi: hyperparasitoid for 371-377. primers PCR 32: Ichneumonidae) of Control development spp.(Hymenoptera: Biological and Mesochorus Braconidae) by Hyperparasitism sp.(Hymenoptera: Peristenus 2005. in L Braun M, Erlandson M, Ashfaq 12 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eair otmroi eeomn n rywapn.TeJunlo rcnlg 2 0-1.doi: reproductive habitats, 303-310. 42: Ctenidae): Arachnology of (Araneae: Journal boliviensis The Phoneutria prey-wrapping. of 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1982.tb00363.x and history development Natural postembryonic with 6: behavior, vary Evol 2014. diets Ecol NA spider isotopes. in Hazzi stable subsidies and Spatial analysis cribraria 10.1002/ece3.2536 diet 2016. molecular doi: T Megacopta from Roslin 8431-8439. pest evidence H, Complementary invasive Wirta structure: L, newly Entomol shoreline Dalen Econ the E, J Weingartner of predators. PA, of Hamback Predation complex 10.1603/ec13356 a by doi: cotton 2014. to 947-954. adjacent JS habitats 107: soybean Hu arachnids. in of Plataspidae) PG, enemies (Hemiptera: natural Tillman dipteran 10.1636/joa-s-16-085.1 doi: of MH, doi: review Greenstone a 1-19. 529-564. wings: 45: two Arachnology 31: on of comes Entomology Journal Death The Systematic 2017. Ichneumonidae; CJ Borkent (Hymenoptera: JP, ectoparasitoids. genera Gillung spider of group of Polysphincta revision nutrient the taxonomic and 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2006.00334.x of Phylogeny a processing, 2006. prey Pimplinae): J efficiency, Dubois 10.1007/s00114- capture ID, doi: the Gauld 30. of 105: Naturwissenschaften Comparison predator. spider 2018. specialist 018-1555-z a 29: S and behavior generalist Pekar of a insect in C, strategy of extraction predation Journal Viera The LF, species. prey 2016. Garcia four R against Willemart 10.1007/s10905-016-9578-9 1834) M, (Lucas, Lacava doi: rufipes C, 515-526. Loxosceles Viera spider L, recluse Robledo-Ospina the Entomologia V, Franco crops. 10.1111/eea.12231 rassica L, B doi: Garcia of 128-141. complex pest 153: lepidopteran Applicata molecular a and et size of methods Experimentalis Sex, ecological predation Combining investigate processes. to 2014. MH analysis 71-81. and Greenstone gut-content R, patterns dimorphism: Murtiningsih size doi: DL, spiders: Rowley sexual MJ, in Furlong of dimorphism studies size Evolutionary Sexual roles: D136-143. gender 2007. and J USA. Moya-Larano 40: OUP MW, noc- Foellmer spiders: 10.1007/s00359- a Res of in doi: Biology behavior 957-961. Acids attack 2011. 196: elicit R. Physiol to Foelix Nucleic Behav modality Neural sensory Sens third Neuroethol a A as Physiol database. 010-0575-8 Vision Comp J 2010. Taxonomy A spider. Schmid turnal NCBI T, Hoinkes LM, The Fenk 2012. the 10.1093/nar/gkr1178 from Venom S of 10.3390/tox- Federhen Characterization doi: Partial 2872-2887. 2015. 7: (Basel) CS Toxins ins7082872 Latorre (Aranae:Ctenidae). P, Boliviensis Phoneutria Lanchero Spider LJ, Colombian 28: Munoz arthropod in S, diet. changes Estrada-Gomez stable Assessing environment, 2019. analysis-variable 10.1111/mec.14872 T content Roslin doi: 2460- gut EJ, Vesterinen 266-280. DNA-based 26: T, through Bioinformatics Huotari interactions D, BLAST. Gravel predator-prey than N, faster Abrego B, magnitude Eitzinger 10.1038/35018636 of doi: orders clustering 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 255-256. and doi: 406: Search Nature 2461. larva. 2010. wasp RC a Edgar by Mol manipulation data? Spider 2019. dietary JP to 2000. Eveson reads WG sequence TR, Eberhard 10.1111/mec.14734 convert Kartzinel we doi: EL, should Clare 391-406. How EJ, 28: studies: Vesterinen Ecol metabarcoding LJ, in Clarke DNA JC, with McInnes Counting AC, Thomas BE, Deagle 13 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. pcaie rnohgu rdtr(rna:Pliaia) auwseshfe 8 9-0.doi: 593-603. of 98: adaptations behavioural Naturwissenschaften and morphological Palpimanidae). spiderman: (Araneae: Armoured predator doi: 2011. araneophagous 15-27. Y specialised Lubin Arachnology: a of J, Journal Sobotnik S, spiders. Pekar by 317-324. in Plant-eating Arachnology: predators 2016. of generalist WO Journal Symondson as field. 10.1636/p15-45.1 EJ, the spiders Olson in M, on spiders Nyffeler of perspective selection updated Prey and 1999. An 10.1007/s00442-018-4313-1 specialist M doi: a Nyffeler 2019. 21-36. of 189: MH adaptations Oecologia Entling 10.1002/ece3.2812 trophic control. S, doi: and biological Pekar 2756-2766. efficiency R, 7: Capture e5751. Evol Michalko Ecol 6: 2017. comparison. PeerJ S A orders. Pekar predator: Arachnid L, generalist the Petrakova in O, dimorphism Michalek Sexual 10.1371/journal.pone.0196589 gut 2018. doi: Molecular CA 10.7717/peerj.5751 e0196589. Brassey 2018. doi: 13: RJ, JD One Garwood Harwood PLoS CJ, M, for parts. McLean Arnedo metabarcoding body OS, DNA spider Wangensteen different to V, of guide Tonzo analysis practical content K, A 10.1111/een.12831 Athey doi: 2020. doi: N, CP 25-34. 373-385. Macias-Hernandez Burridge 45: 48: GJ, entomology Jordan Bioscience Ecological doi: SC, ecologists. Baker interactions. entomological LJ, 34. predator-prey Clarke of M, 10: ecology Liu zoology the new in in A effects Frontiers Nonlethal 2013. 10.2307/1313225 contents. RJ 1998. gut Machida SL JT, fish Lima metazoan Boehm reef metabarcoding for V, coral region Ranwez characterizing COI N, mitochondrial 10.1186/1742-9994-10-34 for the Agudelo of application fragment SC, short Mills diversity: a CP, targeting 10.3389/fpls.2020.00287 set Meyer primer doi: Dietary JY, versatile the 287. Yang Analyzing 11: M, 2020. Sci R Leray Wunschiers Plant Front C, Westphal Bee. B, Bumble Brenig of 10.1002/edn3.62 L, Diary Prudnikow doi: metabarcoding S, for 234-243. Bansch primer RM, new 2: A Leidenfrost DNA com- 2020. Environmental gene A 10.1371/journal.pone.0000508 contents. rbcL Erlandsson PA, gut doi: coding Hamback D, spider the e508. Steinke of JP, plants: 2: Cuff land V, One Elbrecht for PLoS 265: D, barcode Lafage Sciences region. DNA Biological spacer global trnH-psbA B: two-locus non-coding Series sexual A the and 2007. London. plements size DL of of Erickson Society costs WJ, Royal Energetic Kress the 1998. of A 10.1098/rspb.1998.0560 Rivero Proceedings S, doi: spider. Parri 2203-2209. wolf MG, Journal a Nielsen Biological J, in amber. Mappes signalling Baltic RV, 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00935.x in Alatalo of doi: Evidence JS, community Kotiaho 9-13. mites? a attack 93: flies in Society parasitic Linnean differentiation Do the niche 2008. of SL trophic 10.1111/1365-2435.13361 Winterton support doi: PH, Kerr 1722-1733. evidence molecular 33: of and isotopes Ecology lines stable Functional webs, multiple spiders. Spider Hawaiian 2019. analysis: RG 10.1017/S095283690100108X Salticidae) Gillespie content H, doi: (Araneae: Krehenwinkel gut J, spiders 25-29. Clavel Jumping JY, 255: Lim Zoology 2001. diversity S, AT Kennedy of species Barrion Journal of G, 10.1111/2041-210X.12613 nectar. extrapolation Edwards on doi: and XJ, feed 1451-1456. rarefaction Nelson that for SD, 7: package Pollard Evolution R RR, and an 10.1016/s0041- Jackson Ecology iNEXT: in Methods doi: 2016. numbers). Brazilian A ill the Chao 1399-1406. (H of K, venom Ma 40: the T, Toxicon in Hsieh variations Intersexual 1891). (Keyserling, 2002. W nigriventer 0101(02)00136-8 Santos Phoneutria dos Ferreira spider R, ’armed’ Ward John V, Herzig 14 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ebl ,CdteM,McvrJ,TonS ulrJ21.TeNcsiyo uttohcApoce in Approaches Multitrophic of 10.1016/j.tree.2018.07.001 Necessity doi: The 754-764. 10.1890/06- 2018. J 33: doi: Muller Evol S, Ecol Thorn Trends 2415-2426. JS, Ecology. MacIvor Community 88: MW, Ecology Cadotte S, interactions. Seibold trophic for and tool diversity biogeography 10.2307/2446155 source Predator and 0937.1 doi: open evolution, 2007. 1120. versatile reticulate OJ phylogeny, 84: a Schmitz DNA Bot VSEARCH: Chloroplast J Am 1997. (Paeoniaceae). 2016. T Paeonia Stuessy F of D, Mahe Crawford T, C, 10.7717/peerj.2584 Sang Quince doi: e2584. B, 23: 4: Nichols Entomology PeerJ T, Environmental metagenomics. Flouri California. T, fifth-instar in of Rognes orchards predators as apple 10.1093/ee/23.5.1338 Carabidae) in doi: (Coleoptera: Tortricidae) carabids 1338-1345. adult (Lepidoptera: of moth Potential ( System 1994. codling NJ Data Mills Life 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x EW, of doi: Riddick Barcode 355-364. The 7: bold: Notes Ecol 2007. Mol PD Journal Hebert change. 10.1016/j.jnc.2014.03.007 S, climate doi: Ratnasingham under 391-404. biodiversity distributions Andean species 22: Tropical Using Conservation of Nature 2014. strategies CA for Arnillas conservation A, designing Jarvis for M, Peralvo models C, Comput Devenish Stat F, Found Cuesta R J, Ramirez-Villegas Computing. German Statistical in for Environment competition ans 2. Language intraspecific Austria A and Vienna, 2018. strategies t Feeding Core 10.1371/journal.pone.0206301 Development 2018. doi: R A e0206301. Satta 13: I, germanica). 10.1111/1365- Floris (Vespula yellowjacket A, doi: Mura 323-334. M, First 33: Pusceddu interactions: Ecology predator–prey Functional of ratios. mechanics size The predator–prey 2019. 2435.13254 predict specialist M physics and Cherif of generalist M, principles of Loreau eating GF, strategies 10.1111/een.12683 Fussmann 10.1111/j.1365- is feeding SM, doi: Distinct Portalier Who doi: 129-139. 2019. 44: S 1931-1950. entomology Pekar 2012. Ecological L, 21: P Petrakova spiders. Ecol LF, Taberlet Garcia Mol SN, G, Pompozzi Jarman sequencing. generation DS, next Brown using desert WO, 294X.2011.05403.x of assessment Symondson population diet natural BE, a 10.1007/BF00302515 what: doi: Deagle of doi: activity F, 25-35. and 407-419. demography Pompanon 7: the Sociobiology 28: on and cannibalism Ecol Ecology of the Behavioral Mol effect of scorpions. The characteristics quantitative. 1980. the be GA and Polis primers can universal metabarcoding spiders of wolf DNA choice in The when cues 10.1111/mec.14776 determine 2019. sensory WOC prey 10.1023/A:1020920024954 mixture Symondson of doi: species MA, use 723-736. Senar the 12: J, in behavior Pinol differences insect sex-based of and Journal Age Lycosidae). 1999. (Araneae: Monitoring. GW Future for Uetz Implications MH, Borisenko spiders Community: Persons B, 10.3390/insects11010046 Vandenbrink prey-specialised Arthropod doi: Arctic CN, of an Sobel 46. of case K, Survey 11: Perez the Barcoding Insects V, DNA Levesque-Beaudin A group: 10.1111/brv.12133 ID, 2020. predatory Hogg doi: A GA, a 744-761. Blagoev in 90: M, Pentinsaari Soc specialisation Philos Trophic Camb Rev 2015. Biol S (Araneae). Toft S, Pekar 10.1007/s00114-011-0804-1 15 http://www.barcodinglife.org) . Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. N eaacdn mrvsifrne ftohceooy LSOe1:e297.di 10.1371/jour- doi: e0219070. 14: One PLoS with analysis ecology. isotope stable trophic Combining of 2019. nal.pone.0219070 inferences NE 53: Pierce improves Pedobiologia DJ, metabarcoding Martins density. SM, presence DNA Salzman prey in CC, predators by Baker generalist MR, affected Whitaker by as control aphid predation 10.1016/j.pedobi.2009.03.001 Cereal complementary doi: doi: 2009. S prey: 41-48. Scheu alternative 409-429. T, belowground Tscharntke Region: C, of 53: Neotropical Thies Entomol the K, from Berg Rev contributions von Annu Spiders: of Ecology and bites. Behaviour spider Springer. 2017. MO. of Gonzaga aspects C, Viera Medical 2008. boliviensis GK Phoneutria 10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093503 10.3390/toxins11110622 Pekar Spider, Isbister Wandering LM, doi: Female RS, Franco and 622. Vetter G, Male 11: Guevara of (Basel) Efficacy JN, Toxins Venom Cortes and Ctenidae). A, Prey (Araneae: Meijden of 2019. der LF Journal Garcia van The S, JC, Ctenidae). Gonzalez-Gomez (Arachnida: JC, boliviensis Valenzuela-Rojas 10.1636/0161-8202-48.1.43 Phoneutria spider, doi: Chemical wandering 43-48. Notes a of 48: 2020. of Journal LF Arachnology habits Garcia G, feeding Patterns. Reinoso-Florez the LM, Global Franco on G, of Guevara JC, Review 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 potential Gonzalez-Gomez A JC, exploring doi: Valenzuela-Rojas for 1689-1699. Predators: 10.1186/s40851-018-0088-9 Vertebrate springtails 53: doi: as Modeling, and 4. and Arthropods insects, 4: Information Lett spiders, 2020. Research: Zoological of J Ecological webs. Valdez metabarcoding food in DNA below-ground Advances and above- 2018. In. between YG linkage mining. Baba text H, and Toju learning validation machine 225-289. and Construction logic-based p. 2013. using Elsevier. DA. biocontrol webs Bohan effective S, food Muggleton be A, of predators Raybould 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145240 GA, generalist Milani doi: A, Can 561-594. Tamaddoni-Nezhad 47: 2002. Entomol Fennica MH Rev Entomologica Greenstone Annu (Lepidoptera: review. KD, agents? literature cunea Sunderland Asia–a Hyphantria WO, and Symondson of Europe 10.33338/ef.7384 in parasitoids and doi: (Diptera) America 181–192-181–192. Tachinid North 23: native its 2012. 10.1016/j.ympev.2018.12.002 in S doi: Arctiidae) Ozman-Sullivan 106358. evolution 139: G, and phylogeny Evol Sullivan Molecular Phylogenet 2019. Mol JK (Diptera). Moulton Tachinidae JD, Am Blaschke world JE, Selection. of O’Hara P, Natural Cerretti Shape 3rd, Stochasticity JO, Stireman Evolutionary 10.1086/707364 and doi: Ecological DNA. 705-716. 2020. of B 195: source non-invasive Gilbert Nat a AE, as Weis faeces D, 10.1186/s12983-015-0096-y Start spiders: Sparing doi: 2015. 3. predation. M 12: Traugott of R, Zool analysis Front Kaufmann PCR-based I, for Thurner 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03018.x methods D, doi: Sint Optimizing 795-801. 2011. M 11: Traugott Resour part R, Ecol northern Kaufmann Mol the L, in Raso mormon) 151-156. D, constrictor 11: Sint (Coluber racer Journal the Herpetological of range. habits its Food predator–prey of 2001. through JD links 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.01041.x Austin trophic CH, doi: tracking Shewchuk 751-762. ecology: molecular 19: in in Ecology predators Advances Functional of 2005. food-webs. role 10.1134/S1062359015070080 J The Harwood doi: S, 1. 633-642. Sheppard individuals: 42: between Bulletin interaction Biology Predator–prey selection. 2015. natural A Shubkina A, Severtsov 16 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. egho h oe ntergtrflcsterltv bnac fec edprOUi ahtaxonomic each in OTU per The read OTU. each each of for abundance analyzed relative reads taxo- of the by number reflects colored the right (bottom, reflects the OTUs left on the species on order boxes boxes dietary the the 10 of of to length length (left) The populations order). or nomic gender the connect 10). Lines = (n S2. CI Figure 95% +- mean indicate Values populations. S1. Figure levels. S2. Table f) Diptera, of e) S1. OTU diet Table Dermaptera, Squamata. the each d) k) of of Coleoptera, Phasmatodea, [?]1% c) abundance j) represent Blattodea, Material reads Orthoptera, that b) the Supplementary samples relative i) connections Araneae, on all Lepidoptera, the a) the in boxes h) reflects only OTUs). Hymenoptera, prey the show lines 234 g) of We of = connecting Hemiptera, order length n order. the taxonomic (total The taxonomic of each species OTU. each width in each each of OTU the diet for of per and the analyzed length prey set, within prey The each data of of order). the number abundance taxonomic in the by relative reflects colored the (bottom, left reflects OTUs right the dietary on to boxes (left) the bootstrap localities the Ibague and by Oporapa obtained (CIs) 5. intervals confidence Figure 95% replications. the 1000 on indicate based Ribbons method (dashed). extrapolated or taxonomic boliviensis each P. for reads 4. of abundance Figure relative the h) represent Hymenoptera, colors different g) order. The Hemiptera, OTUs). population. 234 f) by = individual Diptera, n e) (total 3. species Squamata. Dermaptera, Figure taxonomic each k) d) each of Phasmatodea, of diet Coleoptera, j) diet the Orthoptera, c) the of width i) within the [?]1% Blattodea, relativeLepidoptera, and OTU represent b) the set; each left that data reflects of Araneae, connections the the right abundance in the on a) the samples reads only on boxes all relative show in boxes We the the prey the reflects of of order. of order lines length taxonomic length connecting each The the the in OTU; OTU of order). each per prey taxonomic for each analyzed by of prey abundance colored of (bottom, number OTUs the reflects species dietary to (left) populations and sex 2. by Figure level family and genera 1. Figure species, to identified those locality). to (= corresponds taxa of chi- Number Arma on 1. notes bionomic Table and figures Taxonomic 10.11646/zootaxa.3382.1.4 and 2012. doi: tables H 41-52. of Chen List 3382: X, 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.08.004 Zootaxa Zhang Y, Asopinae). doi: pseudoannulata’s Zhang Pentatomidae: 165-172. Pardosa L, (Fallou)(Hemiptera: 26: Zhang of nensis Sci M, analysis Wang Biol sequencing D, J Next-generation 10.1016/j.baae.2014.11.003 Zou Saudi 2019. doi: habitats. H different 86-92. Yan in 16: B, composition Ecology Wang diet Applied Z, Tan and Basic arthro- W, dominant Zhong Arctic. the among High overlap niche the Extensive of 2015. predators T pod Roslin PA, Hamback E, Weingartner HK, Wirta h eaieaudneo ed e apeadlclt.Tebxso h -xsrpeeteach represent x-axis the on boxes The locality. and sample per reads of abundance relative The ooba oain eetdfrsmln n olcigseiesof specimens collecting and sampling for selected locations Colombian nesxbpriepe–pdrseisitrcinntok ie onc h ae n females and males the connect Lines network. interaction species prey–spider bipartite Intersex lvto,tmeaue eaiehmdt n asdt ntesmldlocalities. sampled the in data mass and humidity relative temperature, Elevation, h ito spider of diet The itof Diet nepplto iatt rysie pce neato ewr.LnscnetteBarbosa, the connect Lines network. interaction species prey–spider bipartite Interpopulation apebsdrrfcincre fpe ihes(0 ntetreClminppltosof populations Colombian three the in (q0) richness prey of curves rarefaction Sample-based iatt rysie ed neato ewr.a nlssb e,b nlssb population. by analysis b) sex, by analysis a) network. interaction reads prey–spider Bipartite oprsno h rs asof mass fresh the of Comparison eoe ytetreclr.Ln ye niaewehretmtsaeitroae (solid) interpolated are estimates whether indicate types Line colors. three the by denoted , .boliviensis P. hnuraboliviensis Phoneutria dnie yDAmtbroig ubro ed tseisadorder and species at reads of Number metabarcoding. DNA by identified .boliviensis P. 17 rmClmi dnie yDAmetabarcoding. DNA by identified Colombia from hwn ieecsbtensxsadbetween and sexes between differences showing hnuraboliviensis Phoneutria . Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. Diptera Dermaptera re pceCutCutCutCutCount Count Count Count Coleoptera Count Specie Blattodea Araneae (-) Order populations. and gender by level family and genera species, of to diet identified the those reads undata of to relative [?]1% corresponds the represent species reflects spider that of lines of connections connecting diet The the the only reads). of 1. Table show 105,583 width We = the n and diet. (total set, the species data within each the OTU in each samples of all abundance in prey of order Helina Helina Helina Fannia Delia platura Delia Corynoneura Chironomus Anisia auricularia Forficula Tribolium Thanatophilus Thanatophilus Saprinus Saprinus Ptinus rufipes Necrobia Entiminae Cyclocephala maxillosus Creophilus Chauliognathus Carpelimus Carabus Carabus Carabus Lucilia Brachygonus Bembidion Aphodius Aleochara Agonum Rhabdoblatta surinamensis Pycnoscelus Periplaneta Periplaneta Blattella Neoscona Gonatium Nyctibora Epilamprinae Epilampra Cryptocercus p461 4 2 4 10 6 4 sp evecta p 211 0028 0 20 0 14 1 62 1 1 0 sp. p 0 1 0 1 0 1 sp. p 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 sp2 sp1 p 0 1 0 1 1 0 sp. p213021 2 0 3 1 2 sp p.011001 0 5 0 1 8 0 0 3 1 1 16 1 0 8 0 1 8 sp3. sp2. sp1. p 811 4013 0 24 1 11 1 48 2 0 2 sp. p 3041603 0 6 1 4 0 13 1 0 1 sp. p 1 0 2 0 1 2 4 2 1 1 3 1 sp2 sp1 p 0 1 0 1 1 0 sp. sp p 0 1 0 1 0 1 sp. castaneum lata hneraboliviensis Phonuetria p1017020114 1 1 0 2 0 7 1 0 1 sp p 0 0 1 1 0 1 sp. sp p 0 2 0 2 0 2 sp. p 0 0 1 1 1 0 sp. p 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 5 0 4 1 1 sp2 sp1 . p 1 0 0 1 1 0 sp. . p 1 0 0 1 1 0 sp. p 1 0 1 2 1 1 sp. p011010 1 0 1 1 0 sp p 0 1 0 1 1 0 sp. p 0 0 1 1 0 1 sp. p 0 1 0 1 0 1 sp. p 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 sp2 sp1 sp . 3346 0 0 4 4 4 3 0 0 13 4 7 4 6 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 Total Ibague Total Oporapa Total Barbosa gender Total Male Female 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 6 5 1 rmClmi dnie yDAmtbroig Number metabarcoding. DNA by identified Colombia from 18 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. Orthoptera Lepidoptera Hymenoptera Hemiptera Vilerna Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus affinis Neoconocephalus Lebinthus saltator Conocephalus Abracris Abracris Abracris Abracris pdpeafrugiperda Spodoptera dorsalis Rosema sequax Pseudaletia Prochoerodes Pero Perissopteryx Mocis fasciolaris Melipotis Lymantria inconspicua Leucania dorsalis Leucania Hypena Gonodonta Elysius includens Chrysodeixis Tachina sp3 Sarcophaga Sarcophaga Sarcophaga Ravinia Polypedilum campestris Pipunculus Phaonia Phaonia Phaonia Ogcodes Lutzomyia Lucilia Arctiinae Agriphila Azteca Draeculacephala Arma Xyleus Vespula Pheidole Mesochorus p 1 1 0 2 1 1 sp. p 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 sp. p 0 0 1 1 1 0 sp. quadraticeps p 1 0 0 1 0 1 sp. p 1 0 0 1 0 1 sp2 p 0 1 0 1 1 0 sp. p 1 0 0 1 0 1 sp. p 1 0 0 1 0 1 sp. p 0 0 1 1 1 0 sp. p 1 0 0 1 1 0 sp. p 1 0 0 1 0 1 sp. p 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 sp3 sp2 sp1 p 1 1 1 25 0 0 1 17 2 1 0 17 0 0 0 1 2 59 3 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 sp4 sp3 sp2 sp1. p 0 0 1 1 0 1 sp4 p 411 6 0 8 3 10 1 24 4 3 1 sp. p 0 0 1 1 0 1 sp. sp p011100 0 1 1 1 0 sp p 1 0 1 2 1 1 sp. p 1 0 1 2 1 1 sp. p 3 2 3 0 1 1 7 3 3 1 4 2 sp2 sp1 p 0 0 1 1 0 1 sp. . p 1 0 0 1 1 0 sp. p 0 0 1 1 1 0 sp. p 0 1 0 1 1 0 sp. p 2 14 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 4 1 2 32 2 4 2 21 2 2 0 1 11 2 0 4 sp5 1 sp4 0 sp3 sp2 sp1 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 2 2 3 Total 1 Ibague Total Oporapa 1 Total Barbosa gender Total Male Female 0 0 1 1 3 0 4 1 1 0 19 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oa 0 2 3 3 07 38 181 81 83 83 70 70 234 234 126 108 Total Squamata Phasmatodea Stenorrhina Anolis Metriophasma Libethra p 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 sp. p 1 1 1 1 7 6 9 8 4 4 sp. p 1 0 0 1 0 1 sp. Oporapa Ibagué Barbosa eaeMl oa edrBroaTtlOoaaTtlIau Total Ibague Total Oporapa Total Barbosa gender Total Male Female 0 0 1 1 0 1 20 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. e) d) c) b) a) Pycnoscelus surinamensis Pipunculus campestris Creophilus maxillosus T Forficula auricularia ribolium castaneum Thanatophilus Thanatophilus Chauliognatus Cyclocephala Sarcophaga Rhabdoblatta Cryptocercus Corynoneura Brachygonus Epilamprinae Sarcophaga Periplaneta Periplaneta sp2.: Polypedilum sp Necrobia rufipes Sarcophaga Chironomus Carpelimus Aleochara Carabus Nyctibora Bembidion Neoscona Gonatium Helina evecta Epilampra Entiminae Delia platura Carabus Saprinus Lutzomyia sp Carabus Phaonia Phaonia Phaonia Aphodius Saprinus sp2: Ogcodes sp Agonum Blattella Lucilia T Helina sp2.:3 Ravinia Helina achina Lucilia Fannia Ptinus Anisia sp Delia sp sp2.:1 sp1.:5 sp1.:1 sp1 sp2.:

sp3.: sp3.: sp. sp3.: sp2.: sp1.: sp2.: lata sp. sp.: sp1. sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.:1 sp1.: sp2: sp.:1 sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.:1 sp.: sp.: sp.: sp1.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: : 1 .: .: .: .: : .: : : 4 : : :

} 21 k) j) i) h) g) f) Neoconocepha Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Chrysodeixis includens Conocephalus saltator Leucania inconspicua Spodotera frugiperda Draeculacephala Azteca quadraticeps Melipotis fasciolaris Pseudaletia sequax Metriophasma Leucania dorsalis: Prochoerodes Rosema dorsalis Mesochorus Stenorrhina Gonodonta sp.: Perissopteryx Abracris Pheidole Abracris lymantria Lebinthus Abracris Abracris Agriphila Hypena Libethra Arctiinae sp.: V V Xyleus lus espula Anolis sp.: Mocis sp ilerna Pero Arma Elysius affinis sp5.: sp3.: sp3.: sp2.: sp4.: sp1.: sp2.: sp4.: sp.: sp4: sp1.: sp.: sp1.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: .: .: .: .: .: .: : .: : .: : Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

Abundance of reads 10 10 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 Females 5 6 7 8 9 O Barbosa Ibagué 10 po ra 1 pa 22 2 3 4 5 Males 6 7 8 9 10 Order Order Order S Blattodea Co Dip Le Orthoptera Phasmatodea Araneae Araneae Araneae Blattodea Co Dermaptera Dip He Hymenoptera Le Orthoptera Phasmatodea Blattodea Co Dip He Hymenoptera Le Orthoptera Phasmatodea S qu qu p p p le le le m m te te te id id id a a op op op iptera iptera r r r mata mata op op op a a a t t t era era era t t t era era era Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

Richness of prey OTUs (± 95% CIs) 25 50 75 0 0 50 Barbosa Number ofindividuals interpolated 23 Ibagué 100 extrapolated Oporapa 150 Posted on Authorea 11 Sep 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159985455.52631670 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. e) d) c) b) a) Pycnoscelus surinamensis Pipunculus campestris Creophilus maxillosus T ribolium castaneum Chauliognathus Forficula auricularia Thanatophilus Thanatophilus Sarcophaga Sarcophaga Brachygonus Sarcophaga Rhabdoblatta Corynoneura Epilamprinae Necrobia rufipes Cryptocercus Chironomus sp Carpelimus Periplaneta Periplaneta Delia platura Cyclocephala.: Polipedium Helina evecta Aleochara lata Bembidion Saprinus sp2 Saprinus Carabus Neoscona Entiminae Lutzomyia Carabus Epilampra Gonatium Carabus Phaonia Aphodius Phaonia Nyctibora Phaonia Agonum Ogcodes Lucilia T Blattella Helina Helina Ravinia achina Ptinus Fannia Anisia Delia Lucilia sp1.: sp2.: sp3.: sp2.: sp1.: sp1.: sp2.: sp2.: sp3.: sp3.: sp1.: sp2.: sp.: sp1.: sp2.: sp2.: sp1.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.:6 sp.: sp1.: 5 sp.:1 sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp2.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: . .: 4 .: .: .: : .: : : : . 24 k) i) h) j) g) f) Neoconocephalus sp5 Neoconocephalus affinis Neoconacephalus Conocephalus saltato Neoconocephalus Chrysodeixis includens Neoconocephalus Neoconocephalus Spodoptera frugiperda Leucania inconspicua Dracuelacephala M e Pseudaletia sequax Melipotis fasciolaris Leucania dorsalis Azteca quadraticeps Prochoerodes Rosema dorsalis Mesochorus Stenorrhina Gonodonta Metriophasma Perissopteryx L Pheidole Lebinthus Abracris Abracris ymantrya Agriphila Abracris Abracris Libethra Arctiinae V Hypena Elysius V Xyleus esputa Anolis ilerna Mocis Arma Pero sp2.: sp3.: sp4.: sp4.: sp1: sp3: sp4.: sp2.: sp.: sp1.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp.: sp. .: r: .: .: .: : : : : : : : :