Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ie ag frsucs ti xetdta h ito h mle rdtrseiswl easbe of subset 2003, a be al. will et (Sinclair species networks predator a ecological smaller consume nested to the 2011). to capacity of al. leading the et diet diet, Stouffer influencing the species’s 2005, were predator that al. size larger expected et body Woodward the species is predator only the of If by it at if consumed items Furthermore, expect, types resources, 2011). the resource should of of we 2003). al. number range prey larger et larger al. a wider (Stouffer with kill et resources correlated to (Sinclair be consume ability to species its to sizes greater size, body individuals average the body of larger is individual, the level, ability structure predator as network the the affect of such with may larger patterns factors abundances that the associated structural traits that species directly the the suggest Among of is structure influence level. which network product community conditions the environmental expected the at from and networks to whichecological deviations individuals in proportional interacting These networks is of for 2008). characteristics interaction expected is al. the what et i.e., from (Krishna communities. the deviates randomly, ecological influence generally of interact that networks level factors ecological individuals the how several at have understand of networks may to structure of networks essential The structure is these the it of loss affect against context, species organisation individuals this protect to between The In systems to interactions dif- ecological 2007). or 2013). of of Beckerman robustness breed, Jordano populations and the (Schmitz and to connect affecting fact, potentially (Bascompte that food, implications, networks In locality conservation obtain form important a to 1987). interactions in interactions Ecological (Abram species ecological biodiversity ferent 2005). upon understanding (Thompson rely for enemies species component natural key all a of are individuals species between Interactions Our network. the in Introduction community the modules at connect resources lifestyles and generalist consumers among and interactions size of structure body five the of their affect presence level. traits of the ways by because particular mainly which the resources, favored highlights distinct Boidae, is study on structure family feeding nested the lifestyles the resulting specific of that pattern and trophic indicated network species nestedness, simulations intricate the promoting removal an prey, characterising Species revealed of to by diversity modularity. results higher promoting expected Our predictions on are body these species). feeding predators investigate in (62 species adaptations, community We larger variation snake from specific predators that modularity. Amazonian requires larger favouring hypothesized species-rich consumption a thus we Because resource of resources, predators, network if interaction. of smaller contrast, on of sets by In studies distinct patterns consumed nestedness. theoretical consume structuring prey of and rise the factor Empirical the including key a favors range, a structure. and size resource networks is network wider ecological size shape a of factors body consume emergence which predator the understand suggest to to networks lead is ecological resources solve and to consumers problem between fundamental interactions communities, ecological In Abstract 2021 21, January 2 1 community Coelho snake Daniela Amazonian connecting species-rich in a snakes in large guilds of feeding role the reveal analyses Network nvriaed a Paulo Sao de Universidade S˜ao Paulo de Universidade 1 acoMartins Marcio , 2 n al Guimar˜aes Jr. Paulo and , 1 2 Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ue)o nk pce nwihsaewti oueoelpi uho hi eore,weessnakes whereas resources, their of much in overlap module a within (maximum snake degree) 1 which (the to in network) on species (non-connected feed snake 0 can of from snake dules) range given ( values a modularity Connectance resources (iii) network. ( connectance); food distribu- the connectance degree of in (i) number (ii) recorded analysed: the tually species; network how interactions snake on the across description of we varies the structure analyses is the our the characterise which affects from to tion, description available network metrics detail of four below) level used of (details our We analyses level if sensitivity the verify of to (ii) set that, snakes, 1998); a said include Oliveira Having performed that snakes. and evidence organisms of serpentiform the Martins analyses e.g., (i) (see diet resources, network with of caecilians agreement ecological categories in an and broad characterizing are amphisbaenians, in when they specialized description because are of at al. categories (Ara´ujo snakes networks et Similar level coarse that described individual-based correct these mammals. and not intrinsically for big 1977) no opted are (Cohen and We is webs (Guimar˜aes mammals resources 2020). there food medium fact, of food mammals, study In Our small the 2008). as in insights such resources. to as categories led food snakes coarse approach at by and but use the species level on resource snake species site the between Amazonia described interactions Central We describe a 1998). in Oliveira out A carried and study (Martins matrix long-term snakes interaction a an forest from of derived history resources diet food natural snake their the and analysed snakes We between interactions of structure network structure. snakes’ network The of the snakes, effect shaping across the the in and use on lifestyle) species resource nested; a snake Methods different of as be of here would patterns role to structure driving the only (referred evaluated the were if use then level, We consumption habitat that characterised species resource expected. expected We the We be in would at resources. specialization modularity 1998). patterns food if network Oliveira their hand, shaping and and other were snakes model (Martins size between a snakes network as body interaction Amazonian use snake the here of of we community communities, structure different well-studied snake the to of and pattern related rich 2017). organisation organise traits trophic a interactions al. trophic the 1983), how understanding et (Greene understand morphological by Alencar to Motivated evolved whole 2000). system 2016, snakes Bonnet prey study and As model their al. (Shine a ingest et snakes structure snakes. make community Klaczko and of species 2015, kill of history 2001, species habits evolutionary to different al. dietary al. and adaptations of et et use, (Martins interactions behavioral habitat Bellini diversity interactions, trophic and 2013, on been interspecific current interactions have traits, the al. ecological ecological Snakes influence of et how effect Alencar snakes. explore the studies Amazonian 2010, on These community studies al. a 2009). in et of system al. Colston organisation et model network Ings (Thompson a 2003, trophic as units the used al. which ecological coevolutionary et through explore and represent mechanism (Krause we potential communities evolutionary may Here, a ecological possible modules providing in thus its instance, persist networks, and ecological For to Networks arise of nested due stability complexity network. 2009). the perfectly interest the increase the much in and al. from 2005) stimulated (modules) deviations et groups have sense, (Ings semi-isolated this structure smaller consequences of In disregard modular formation to 2010). a the predisposed al. enabling with are et related expected, predators food Arim restrictions larger are larger the 1993, to yield, eat pattern Arnold due nutritional usually that 1981, or species expect (Mittelbach can detection, lizard we prey prey larger Thus, handling, which 1968). in prey 1968, Schoener of (see classes, to (Schoener degree species size adaptations lizard the average smaller distinct than lizard and require items to environments may according in the prey resources instance, distributed of For food sets homogeneously 1996). distinct not McDowell of and are Covich consumption resources the food in hand, specialisation other the On ensabprientoki hc nksadrsuc ye eittodsic e fndsadlinks and nodes of set distinct two depict types resource and snakes which in network bipartite a defines A nwihi snake a if which in M ,amaueo h xett hc h ewr sfre ygop (mo- groups by formed is network the which to extent the of measure a ), i C Anolis ed nagvnresource given a on feeds ,wihi h rprino l osbeitrcin ac- interactions possible all of proportion the is which ), 2 . iad fSuhBmn sad iiehbttadthe and habitat divide islands Bimini South of lizards j n eoohrie h matrix The otherwise. zero and Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nlsst xlr o outi h ecito fntokpten ocagsi u aae.W add We dataset. our sensitivity in a changes to performed patterns we network Therefore, of description patterns. the network is of robust how description explore the to affect analysis may modules). are effects both in (modules in Sampling description 0 occurs detailed from used lifestyle 1000 (see range we (no = 2018) modules 1 so, analyses (n to of Sensitivity do al. module lifestyles) pair To et of each a composition (Oksanen in between the modules. R Dissimilarity species in between in snake identical 1). package lifestyles of Appendix vegan on number material in a dissimilarity the Supplementary available of the and index, species preserving analysed lifestyle Bray-Curtis but of of each we the modules, number frequency across in modules Then, observed the species different species the analysed assigning the snake randomly randomisations). we of by in of probability First, reproduced lifestyles number the be 2002, analyses. of module the estimated two given distribution We a using aquatic al. the in prediction an modules. lifestyle true, et given (e.g., this different is specialisation Martins evaluated in this dietary We (see lifestyles of If snake random. degree occupation the be prey). habitat affect not aquatic to to will upon lifestyles related snake rely expect be would we snake can 2017), snakes al. et in Alencar specialisation species. dietary snake structure larger Because network these and of lifestyles presence between the relationship in The higher is nestedness that indicating network, the species that snake expect a should of removal the after nestedness eetdtepoeuefralsaeseisi h ewr n hnw optdacag nnestedness: in change a We computed we nestedness. then of and degree network the the in recomputing jackknife species and a snake used species we all snake ΔΝ nestedness, for a to procedure snake removed the of we species repeated which each in of (data contribution approach network individual (Supplementaryresampling our the analysis understand in to to species prior order this snake log-transformed In each was explore network mass A1). of To the Table body mass in 2 Average species species. body Appendix 2016). of average snake mass material role the al. the body the et of by Feldman and average estimates in consumed mass snake available the body resources hypothesized recorded pre- average We of we between (i.e. number 2), association structure. mass the the model body investigate with null by we correlated structured the prediction, pattern positively by organisation be expected the to than follows nestedness analysed higher interactions senting of network the (e.g, structure the on species network If acting snake in species the processes snake of evolutionary of specialisation or role of ecological The degree of than the evidence larger 2003). shaping modularity is al. those or there et beyond matrices nestedness Bascompte then goes of model (2003) 2, degree that null al. model a organisation 1000 et shows network null generated Bascompte network the We of a modularity by 2 1). If and modularity. expected model Appendix and nestedness null material nestedness of the Supplementary estimate values by degree to its in provided The and benchmark description nestedness). 2008) theoretical detailed (perfect al. a (see et 100 with results (Almeida-Neto to compared degree our network) then nestedness if were (non-nested Team the verify 0 Core characterise 1). to to from (R Appendix analyses used ranges 3.5.1 material sensitivity was version (Supplementary metric of modularity R NODF set compute using The a to performed approach performed were our We analyses modularity. on following dependent of the are exception and the above with the 2018), All 2014). al. was 2005) et the (Guimer`a Amaral algorithm & optimise also annealing simulated to generalists A 1. used modular). the (completely Appendix 1 which material to network) with Supplementary modular the resources in ( of available nestedness used sets are We (iv) metrics with the and interact of overlap; specialists descriptions use the Detailed resource interact. which weak in or pattern no interaction show modules different in ι Ν - Ν = Q B erc endb abr(07,t hrceiemdlrt,wt ausrnigfo (non- 0 from ranging values with modularity, characterise to (2007), Barber by defined metric, ι , nwhich in Q B ΔΝ au.Mdlrt nlsswr efre sn h oua rga (Marquitti program Modular the using performed were analyses Modularity value. N ι ilasm nraigypstv ausa agrsae r eoe rmthe from removed are snakes larger as values positive increasingly assume will stedge fnsens ftecmlt ewr and network complete the of nestedness of degree the is i fbd iei hpn h otiuint etdes we nestedness, to contribution the shaping is size body If . 3 N ,wihcnit fan of consists which ), N i stedge of degree the is Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ) h eut loidctdta hr a osgicn ieec ewe h ewr etdesvalues nestedness network the between difference significant no (Table was values there range that same the removing the indicated after within also Even remained results resources network. connectance The primary the and of reanalysed 1). degree presence and average the resources network on non-primary resources, only all removed based secondary we structure network diet, snake in the difference in a was there and whether assess turtles To cervids), as (such mammals snake fuscus many large rodents by by were comprising consumed consumed resources only (9%), by gymnophiona mammals resources consumed consumed small least food and only the the (16%), alligators, Among anurans Among interactions), all marsupials. resources. of and 11 (24% with lizards interacted were species which network, the of Similarly, insects. as on types, such feed species, also generalist may very earthworms, of consumption namensis the in number species. specialist between same as although interactions the such random with of specialisation, with network number extreme but and a the showed species, for that species per expected indicating snake interactions is Some 0.03), of what = number than p same larger species. the 0.51, connected 51% modules, = most is of the (M modules of modularity each interactions significant the within resources. show of interactions 2-3 subset also average, a network on represent the use, species p Finally, analysed connected 33.14, less = species and (N the the nestedness indicating of categories) snakes, significant interactions 1), by (Table show resource consumed 0.101) also two items = network material snake-resource (C food or Supplementary connectance The of resources; moderate variety one show five most the structure with than from network where more The that, interacted species, with A1). species interacted snake Figure (6.45% snake 1 among Supplementary interactions Appendix (56.45% and many distributed had 1 interactions heterogeneously (Figure species few were few resources had that food A6) 26 them and Figure of species 1 snake Appendix 62 between material interactions 163 recorded and We A3 Figure 1 structure Network Appendix material the (Supplementary and in network A2 degrees Results specific Figure different 1 more with A1). al. Appendix interaction Table and material 4 affect et of A1) (Supplementary Appendix could matrices (Rezende Table network categorization other network 3 specific resource two of less the Appendix described type in resolution: we the taxonomic patterns if Thus, check resources of to patterns. of detection analysis significant network resources. sensitivity removals a secondary the the another of was random influence performed absence there 5,000 we might and whether 2009), with presence resolution calculated the generated we taxonomic in Finally, model network Because nestedness the null networks. The of analysed a calculate nestedness resources. the with the we secondary of between compared Then, of each difference were absence from (1998). and networks resources Oliveira presence two food and according the the secondary Martins in or of in values main available values modularity is which preferences resource and robust in a matrix diet nestedness are if a snake the defined and study two We eventually (2) about described our considered; We considered. only information were in were resources diet. are to resources main reported snake secondary only that the patterns which and in in main resources the resources matrix both a secondary and if (1) of check consumed absence interactions: to of or main matrices presence analysis the are sensitivity considering that when a enough resources performed Amazonia A1). We Table food in 2 localities include consumed. Appendix different often and across 1 diet diet evidence Appendix snake’s on Snake material based the Supplementary regions, on Amazonian 1998; variation other Oliveira, intraspecific from and significant data (Martins using no by is snakes by there resources that of use the to information rpnie anomalus Drepanoides Splmnaymtra pedx2TbeA1). Table 2 Appendix material (Supplementary oalshortulanus Corallus rmrl osm s u eodrl osm iad n nks nteohrhn,w found we hand, other the On snakes. and lizards consume secondarily but fish consume primarily hc neatdwt ih eore and resources eight with interacted which , htrl pneg fsumt etls te pce,sc as such species, Other reptiles. squamate of eggs upon rely that uetsmurinus Eunectes o constrictor Boa .lemniscatus M. and ncohrn nycnue by consumed only onychophorans , n aaadr,wihwr nycnue by consumed only were which salamanders, and , pcae cenchria Epicrates 4 Dipsas p. hc edecuieyo mollusks, on exclusively feed which spp., uetsmurinus Eunectes hc neatdwt i resource six with interacted which , < .1,idctn ht13o the of 1/3 that indicating 0.01), irrshemprichii Micrurus h ags species largest the , irrssuri- Micrurus Atractus Chironius spp., , Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. atwrs nteohrhn,termiigmdlsgopdseiswt aidlfsye n generalist and lifestyles varied with species grouped modules remaining the hand, diets. other as the such the On species, of fossorial earthworms. species grouped arboreal with module two another associated only whereas probably by formed resources, lifestyle was and food 5) as diet certain (number boid marginally on module of as or smallest based consumption such the significant genus groupings the lifestyle, example, all of in For and showed formation specialise lifestyle. diet diet their the that in and Moreover, variety species lifestyle 3 greatest by 4). of module the occurred lifestyles, (Figure combinations but with values particular specific modules species probability with more all of significant associated with in composed were present Modules was values modules lifestyles 3, probability snakes. fact, of We significant Module In distribution marginally the A3). 2). random. or modules, Table (Table significant be food 1 by of not Appendix formation indicated would the material as modules to Supplementary related different the and was the divided lifestyle 1 resources in snake (Table different the of modules if consumption that food the expected different which in six structure, into modular network a presented also network lifestyle The snake the and of removal modularity between the p relationship after null Our 30.23, smaller The a = nestedness. were by the (N values generated recalculate nestedness species and those the snake network than that largest the indicating smaller seven from prediction, be species this seven would any supported species remove in results randomly these species we of which snake removal in largest after model seven nestedness that the expected were we They values outlier value. more the caninus nestedness with Corallus that the species In ( removed recalculated indicating We network R and mass, size. pattern. 0.4, the mass body this body = body explore average by (slope average further and nestedness driven to of nestedness to analysis was removal contribution delta nestedness an greater between performed suggest a correlation have mass positive snakes body a largest average is and there degree structurefact, and between network snakes in correlation non-boid snakes The of for A4 species Figure even different family 1 of hold the Appendix role of consumed material The correlation Supplementary those resources positive (see for a of was that and there number A5). analyses indicated effects, Colubridae and the results correlation phylogenetic family The and for performed the controlling network. mass We partially of the body in species families. families average for snake snake between between mass largest correlation speciose two the body if within the average explored generated Dipsadidae, holds we factors and problem confounding degree this degree the circumvent and by To between biased mass species. be may boid body analysis by average our shared and traits network other the all in by snakes heavier were of pattern set this the to ( Exceptions them of interactions. five hortulanus, resources species, food snake of of largest number number seven the the greater between a R showed association caninus 1.41, snakes Corallus on positive = of a detail species (slope is largest size of the there levels body that average different prediction and with the consumed material even (Supplementary supported hold modular results results and Our analyse Our nested to significantly the metrics A2). networks. Table remained if same check 1 networks the specific to used Appendix all less Similarity, we and the patterns, 0.44). description network and = resource the non-primary p specific affect of 0.47, could removal more = categorization the the (M resource after resources food Even p non-primary of 29.46, of 0.147). type = removal = (N after (p nested nonsignificant resources significantly was secondary remained network of the presence items, the without and with rpnie nmls rmlbrdichrous Drymoluber anomalus, Drepanoides Dipsas and uetsmrns o osrco,Lcei ua pcae ecra oalshortulanus, Corallus cenchria, Epicrates muta, Lachesis constrictor, Boa murinus, Eunectes htfe xlsvl nmluk;aohrmdl rue pce ftretilhbt,such habits, terrestrial of species grouped module another mollusks; on exclusively feed that oalscaninus Corallus k=3 and 3) = (k and pltspullatus Spilotes ahssmuta Lachesis eogt h aiyBia.Tu,ti aiyi vrrpeetdamong over-represented is family this Thus, Boidae. family the to belong ) .I h ags nksaekycmoet otiuigt nestedness, to contributing components key are snakes largest the If ). < k=1,bt pcait ntecnupino aml.Among mammals. of consumption the in specialists both 1), = (k uetsmrns o osrco,Eirtscnhi,Corallus cenchria, Epicrates constrictor, Boa murinus, Eunectes .1 ,0 iuain fseisremoval). species of simulations 1,000 = n 0.01, and , 2 .6 p 0.46, = atgdysboddaerti Mastigodryas 5 Atractus < < .1 iue2,idctn hti general in that indicating 2), Figure 0.01, .1.I otat h oua structure modular the contrast, In 0.01). p.ta r pcait npeigupon preying in specialists are that spp. 2 .7 p 0.37, = hc edo qaaeeggs, squamate on feed which , < .1 iue3.We 3). Figure 0.01, Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eraei etdeswe od r eoe rmtentok ag rdtr,sc ssak,killer the sharks, (ii) as and such network, predators, analysed Large the network. in the interactions) from food many removed of with are simultenouly variety with (species may boids wide features constrictors hubs when a of efficient as nestedness combination consume act This are in to 2012). boids decrease Boids Pauers them association (i) and snakes. mass allow why Henderson dipsadid body which 2009, explain - al. and microhabitats, resource et diverse colubrid of (Pizzato number occupy such resources a the that of species, has mostly diets, consequence snake species, mass nestedness a generalist larger of smaller be body maintance removing might The average for snakes After significant. that large holds remains clades. still of found few it removal we although the a 8.78% after nestedness, in decreases value concentrated to nestedness species the species boids, large each with of signal, snakes contribution phylogenetic between the relationships interaction analysing the trophic in When of a involved structure community-level, of the resources. diet the head with food with morphology at the their skull patterns processes, larger associated and and emerging the The feature investigates size predict that 2016). body important research could both al. an future networks of smaller, et Thus, also association 2002). Klaczko of the Woodward is (King 1983, from rejection 2010, consumed morphology Savitzky arising prey al. the skull 1983, the et to Groves greater size, Arim sequentially the lead and body snake, 1993, resources (Pough may to Arnold lifestyle add resources 1981, addition snake to larger (Mittelbach In and potential of resources 2010). handle the increment al. to have this et difficult predators although 2008, or in that Mills size, nutritious hierarchy variation and indicates in less detected trophic Smith size pattern was increase 2005, a large hierarchy al. This they to the This et 2010). as led (Woodward predators. was al. nature has smaller study in mass et than found our items body Arim networks in interaction resource snake predator-prey found more in several variation upon pattern et in prey The (Lewinsohn nested network. predators abundances the larger the species for which in in explanations present variations is the as species patterns such of among network patterns, One resource combined nested and 2006). these 2010) the al. al. explain of et may Fortuna emergence forests. 2006, processes Amazonian The al. Several et in et 2019). (Bellay 2019) (Lewinsohn al. network al. modularity the et et and of (Pinheiro connectivity Pinheiro nestedness Guimar˜aesheterogeneity low 2013, of the and levels to al. Pires due show et possible 2010, simultaneously Flores Fontaine studies of 2011, indicate (Th´ebault and other analysis that al. that, modularity The networks level, antagonistic said community 2017). and on the Having studies al. nestedness at of 2012). some et lead, between consumption with Alencar species contrast the trends 2013, different results morphological by to Our al. opposite have use limitations et modularity. snakes resource represent and Alencar of arboreal nestedness may 2001, patterns (Sinclair instance, to which the al. For size 2010) that tail, et revaled body 2011). (Martins long structure al. as mammals network and al. as well et body et such as (Olesen Stouffer slender prey 1983), large 2005, a interactions Savitzky as the forbidden al. food (see such in et most suggesting lifestyle adaptations, Woodward available that to species, 2003, suggests resources related most al result of restrictions This et to variety possible resources. accessible the with these be given of associated not subset that, a may indicated only resources network consumed the species snake network. similar of environment, share trophic microhabitats. that connectance the shared snakes in observed their which was in modules in The lifestyles, available Nestedness food snake resources different connect similar the snakes structure. to consume species-rich boid associated modular usually a which is habits and in turn, in in snakes, resources nested pattern, of their modular both mass The and body of snakes average combination between to interactions a related of presented network community the Amazonian that indicated results Our (Supplementary snakes the by well consumed the as resources Discussion which as food 3, and A3). and such lifestyles Table 1 lifestyle, of 1 modules variety were Appendix fossorial largest modules material the the similar have module most with 2 dissimular The module most snakes earthworms. as The of of consumption 2). dissimilar exclusively the (Table show in 1 composed often specialists to modules was 0.33 structure, from 0) modular ranged values (Module and Dissimilarity lifestyles between lifestyles. association of the combinations of consequenc 6 Atractus species, Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. acmt,J ta.20.Tense sebyo ln-nmlmtaitcntok.-PA 0:9383–9387. 066102. 100: PNAS 76: - E networks. mutualistic Rev. plant-animal Phys. of assembly – nested networks. The bipartite 2003. and in al. A. et detection J. 87–115. R. community Bascompte, pp. Seigel, and York, In Modularity New 2007. - McGraw-Hill, J. snakes. Behavior. M. in and Barber, relations Ecology size—-predator-size Snakes: prey (eds.), and T. theory J. Foraging Collins, resource 1993. and J. position S. trophic Arnold, size: 147-153. body 119: and Oikos structure - web Acquisition. Food 2010. indivi- al. on et 1981–1993. competition M. 89: intraspecific Arim, of Ecology effects - contrasting diets. reveals reconciling population analysis vs. systems: Network dual ecological 2008. in al. analysis et 1227–1239. S. nestedness Ara´ujo, M. 117: for Oikos metric - consistent measurement. A diversification and 2008. species concept al. not 20171775. et but 284: evolution M. B South morphological Almeida-Neto, Soc. – constrains Royal Snakes. Arboreality Proc. Pseudoboine 2017. - in al. vipers. Use et in Microhabitat V. and R. Diet L. of Alencar, Evolution 60–66. The 8: 272-281. 2013. Herpetol. 73: al. J. Oecologia et Am. - V. populations. R. between L. interactions Alencar, classifying On 1987. A. P. Abram, time the by available information) be References supplementary will and and (dataset, accepted. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.f1vhhmgvt.) study is DOI this paper ( of the Dryad conclusions in the uploaded supporting data are all that declare of We scale, community the at Statement history structure, evolutionary Accessibility the resources. the Data determine of their to importance and contribute (Pimm joint resources consumers may structure the interacting between network shape) to their interactions points modify and skull the study size, can and This body type) size 2019). (environment lineages, al. body variation of et with geographic Kortsch combination correlation the 1980, if phylogenetic how Lawton its and community as and (e.g. pattern well how as nested diet 2009), understanding the predator al. on to et with (Rezende focus associated structure to traits modular the studies of of with underlying role future mechanisms associated the the be encourage and evaluate may community, We diversity snake to Amazonian simulations found. rich removal a patterns species of the structure with we the analyses in network structure species resources the network snake of of different integrate consumption we modularity the up, the species. and sum that the et snakes To by suggest Martins of we used lifestyles 1993, Thus, habitats the Henderson 2013). the between and as relationship al. to such (Lillywhite the restricted et prey, from frogs Alencar habits larger emerged and/or 2002, the arboreal of has lizards al. studied than Accordingly, consumption et on the larger 1993). Martins based restrict 2001, prey Oliveira diet may al. of and a and favoring consumption Martins morphology mammals, the snake 1983, small that on hinder Savitzky found limitations mobility) We 1983, morphological physical 2011). cranial (Greene instance, al. impose For less et size lifestyles. (Donatti (e.g. peculiar head factors more habit of snake’s combination with fossorial a associated by to is in or resources convergence adaptations 2007) the specific al. 2006), of et al. consumption (Olesen et (Pimm the traits (Lewinsohn heterogeneity species species habitat of specialisation between 2006), set of relationship al. a degree phylogenetic et potentially the the Lewinsohn as 1980), 2004, 2003), such Lawton Lewinsohn factors al. and and to (Prado associated et networks. species be presence (Sinclair interaction may interacting networks the among predator-prey species ecological whether on in test of structure nestedness could modular array promote research The also Future diverse can 2009). on predators al. prey et large Rezende such often (e.g., of prey, networks in of modules birds connecting and lions, whales, 7 Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aqit,F .D ta.21.MDLR otaefrteatnmu optto fmdlrt in modularity of computation autonomous the 1-48. for pp. Software 221–224. In: McGraw-Hill, MODULAR: 37: – York: Ecography 2014. New snakes. - behavior. arboreal al. sets. and of network et ecology ecology large D. Snakes: functional M. (eds.), and F. T. 174–184. Behavioral Marquitti, J. 113: 1993. Collins, Oikos W. and - A. R. assemblages. 1609– R. Henderson, interaction Seigel, and plant-animal 117: in B. Oikos Structure H. - Lillywhite, 2006. networks. mutualistic al. et in M. nestedness T. 282–285. of Lewinsohn, theory 426: neutral-niche Nature A - structure. 2008. food-web 1618. al. in et revealed Compartments A. marine Krishna, 2003. high-latitude al. a et in E. gradients Xenodontine A. environmental in Krause, along 295–308. Diversification varies structure 42: Shape Food-web Ecography Skulls - 2019. 16: to ecosystem. al. Associated Ecol. et Preferences S. Diet Funct. 1-12. Kortsch, Are - 11: One allometry. 2016. PLoS 269. - size 253- al. Snakes? size-snake 78: et prey Ecol. J. maximum Anim. Klaczko, observed J. - and webs. Predicted food beyond 2002. 766-772. – B. networks R. Ecological King, 2009. al. Boidae: 172-180. et (Squamata: C. treeboas 7: neotropical T. Herpetol. of Ings, diets J. the Am. On South 433: 2012. – Nature J. M. ). networks. Pauers, metabolic and W. complex R. of Henderson, cartography Functional 2005. A. Review L. Annual 895–900. Amaral, - 431–441. and 23: organization. R. of Zool. press). Guimera, levels Amer. (in - across Systematics networks snakes. and of ecological Evolution, Ecology, radiation of of and structure origin The the 2020. of coin? R. Guimar˜aes, same correlates P. the Dietary of 1983. sides W. two H. networks: Greene, ecological 811–817. in 79: modularity Ecol. versus Anim. Nestedness J. 2010. - al. et the A. bacteria marine and M. 520–532. within Fortuna, 7: amphisbaenians cross-infection of J. snakes, drivers ISME geographic lizards, and - structure phages. of Multi-scale and 2013. rates al. et diversification O. C. 187–197. underlying and Flores, 25: and sizes Biogeogr. modularity Ecol. Body network: Global 2016. dispersal - al. tuatara. seed et hyper-diverse A. a Feldman, of 773–781. 433–459. 14: pp. Analysis (eds), Letters Illinois, 2011. B. Ecol. Chicago, R. al. Waide, 476–486. – Press, and et mechanisms. 101: Chicago P. of Soc. I. D. University Linn. Reagan C. rainforest. J. In Donatti, tropical - Biol. community. a – stream of hypothesis. The web 1996. history H. food deep W. The the USA. McDowell, Jersey, and and New P. diets A. Princeton, Snake Covich, Press, 2010. University al. Princeton et Space. J. Niche T. and Colston, Webs Phylogeny Food by 1977. Determined Diet E. organizational Is J. 1-15. there America: Cohen, 10: South are One in Community Plos fish: Snake - Temperate marine Ecology? 2015. Neotropical or al. et of P. G. network Bellini, host-endoparasite 1945–1952. A 138: Press. Parasitology 2011. University - Princeton al. patterns? Princeton: et - Networks. S. Mutualistic Bellay, 2013. P. Jordano, and J. Bascompte, 8 Corallus Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. mt,N .adMls .G .20.Peao–rysz eainhp na fia ag-amlfood 425: large-mammal African Nature an - in relationships system. size predator–prey Predator–prey 173–183. diverse 2008. 77: a L. Ecol. G. in Anim. M. predation J. Mills, of web. and Patterns O. N. 221–222. 2003. Smith, 15: TREE - al. research? et ecological in E. 288-290. organism’ R. ‘model new Ecology A. a - Sinclair, Snakes: Fauna. 2000. Complex X. a Sons. Bonnet, in and & Partitioning R. Wiley Resource Shine, John Bimini: Sciences, and of Life Lizards Piscivory, of Anolis 704-726. Encyclopedia The Fossoriality, 49: Webs. 1968. Food W. Snakes: 2007. T. P. Schoener, Among A. Beckerman, Complexes and J. Character O. 397-409. Schmitz, Coadapted 23: and Zool. mass, Am. body 1983. - phylogeny, with Durophagy. H. associated web 779–788. A. food 12: Savitzky, marine Lett. a in Ecol. Compartments - Statistical 2009. structure. for Foundation al. habitat et R L. computing. E. statistical Rezende, for https://www.R-project.org/. environment and URL language Austria. A Am. Vienna, consequences R: 1168-1178. - Computing, their 2018. and 74: Team. Snakes. associations Ecol. Core insect-plant of R Anim. in Habits Compartments J. Food - 2004. and M. structure. Form community T. Body Lewinsohn, for and the I. of P. Specializations Prado, 1983. reference 443-454. special D. with 23: J. data, Groves, Zool. new and and overview H. snakes: Pough, boid Brazilian of interaction habits Food in 20120649. 2009. topologies to 10: al. different Interface et interactions of antagonistic L. Soc. of Pizzatto, origin R. networks organizes J. the intimacy – Interaction explaining ways. 2012. model different R. P. 879–898. in new Guimaraes, 49, and A M. Ecol. M. Anim. Pires, 2019. J. e02796. – 100: 278: al. compartmented? Ecology B et webs - P. Soc. food networks. Royal Are B. Proc. 1980. R. H. – Pinheiro, J. networks. Lawton, mutualistic and in L. links S. 19891–19896. forbidden Pimm, 104: and PNAS. Missing - 2010. networks. pollination al. 725-732. of et modularity M. The J. https://CRAN.R- by Olesen, 2007. use 2.5-2. al. version habitat package et and M. R diet J. Package. Olesen, optimal Ecology Community of vegan: study 2018. a project.org/package=vegan. al. size: et body J. Oksanen, and 1370–1386. efficiency 62: Foraging Ecology pitvipers - Neotropical 1981. Bluegills. in a G. habits in G. feeding morphology Mittelbach, of and correlates 307-328. size phylogenetic pp. and body Mountain, Ecological Eagle use, 529-538. macrohabitat 2002. 254: of (Genus al. Zool. evolution Central et J. and region, M. – Diversity manaus Martins, (Bothrops). the pitvipers of 2001. Neotropical forests of in group al. Squamata: monophyletic snakes 78-150. et of (Reptilia: 6: M. history Wagler History Martins, Natural Atractus Nat. 21-40. genus 1998. Herpetol. 67: the – E. Meded. M. Brazil. of Zool. Amazonia, Oliveira, snakes – and The Brazil. M. Amazonia, Martins, central 1993. region, E. Manaus M. the from Oliveira, Colubridae) and M. Martins, oalshortulanus Corallus Bothrops .–I:Shet .W ta.(d.,Booyo h ies al onanPublishing, Mountain Eagle vipers. the of Biology (eds.), al. et W. G. Schuett, In: – ). mhbaRpii 0 533-544. 30: Amphibia-Reptilia - . 9 Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oue qai roelFsoilSm-roelSm-osra ersra species n Terrestrial Semi-fossorial Semi-arboreal Fossorial Arboreal Mrel nM M p M Aquatic Nrel 4 3 N p 2 1 N snakes. 0 the of food lifestyles Modules their the and C represent p snakes columns Amazonian and probability. p between of matrix modules 33.14 SD values interactions Real food significant of marginally (0-5) 30.42 network or 0.10 six R the significant the represent matrix of p likelihood Asterisks represent 0.12 module the 2.62 Lines and food matrix, S 30.23 dissimilarity by resources. 2.26 the 26 lifestyle p matrix, interaction the real 0.12 of 19 the 62 between 29.46 Comparison 2: 2.23 Table 57 0.09 18 2.34 55 Boidae 24 of species species Without largest 62 7 the = Without M resources secondary nestedness; Without relative = web of Nrel Complete with number nestedness; that the modules. = (Note reduce food N richness may of Web which resources number connectivity; interactions, = food = nM of = modularity; C loss R relative the degree; = network; Mrel occurs average the modularity; network = in the their SD richness from and being species snakes resources); species of Amazonian snake of module between = removal interactions given of S the a analysis in structure interval. lifestyle resources. network confidence given the food 95% a of a Relationship of with species frequency, 1: Table higher of indicates number color observed Red the randomly. p of 0.37, probability reproduced (red). with = The snakes R2 associated Boidae 4: 0.40, positively with = Figure are associated (slope nestedness are species of nestedness removed level on the the changes of in negative mass changes removal, position body average species original snake of their the simulations from positively In offset the slightly 3: is represent Figure been species colors have the snake points and some different x-axis. species overlap, a the by avoid represents p on To consumed point 0.46, Each = families. resources R2 snake resources. 1.41, different food their = and (slope of snakes mass Amazonian categories body between average of snake the number with The associated their and 2: (circles) snakes Figure Amazonian of species between (triangle). (lines) resources interactions food the – describing Network effects. 1: figures: sampling Figure text and main size the body identity, of Species Captions 211–266. 402-409. 43: foodwebs: 20: Individual-based TREE Res. - Ecol. 2010. networks. Adv. ecological al. Chicago. in et Press, size G. Chicago Body Woodward, of University 2005. Coevolution. al. of et Anim. Mosaic G. Woodward, J. Geographic The - 2005. structure. Mutualistic N. of food-web J. 853-856. Architecture Thompson, and the 329: and contiguity Science Communities diet - Ecological of in Networks. Stability Trophic mass 2010. and body C. Fontaine, of and E. role Thebault, The 2011. 632–639. 80: al. Ecol. et B. D. Stouffer, 3 13 11 23 10 3 6 2 11 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 5 0 9 0 0 1 2 1 0 10 < < < < .107 .3p00 0.13 0.12 0.03 7 0.11 7 p=0.01 7 p=0.06 0.53 6 p=0.44 0.53 0.74 p=0.03 0.48 0.69 0.01 0.51 0.93 0.01 0.94 0.01 0.01 < .1 nantoko interactions of network a in 0.01) < .1.Nt h stronger, the Note 0.01). Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oue 5 4 Terrestrial Semi-fossorial 3 Semi-arboreal Fossorial 2 Arboreal matrix Probability matrix Probability matrix 1 Probability 5 Aquatic matrix 4 Probability 3 matrix 2 Probability 1 matrix 0 Probability Modules matrix matrix Probability Dissimilarity 5 0 matrix Dissimilarity 4 matrix Dissimilarity 3 matrix 2 Dissimilarity 1 matrix Dissimilarity 0 matrix Dissimilarity Modules matrix Dissimilarity species n 5 0.027* 1 1 0.276 2 62 0.121 0.969 1 1 0 1 0.733 1 1 1 0.622 0.035* 0.840 22 1 0 1 1 1 0.625 0 0.386 1 1 0.303 0.769 0.714 1 5 0 0.733 1 1 0.625 0 0.333 0.41 0.667 1 0* 1 1 2 0 0.078* 1 1 0.714 0.667 0.706 0.197 0.714 1 0 1 0.06* 13 0 0.840 0.769 1 0.333 1 0.647 0 0.152 0.706 1 0.839 1 16 2 1 1 1 0.714 1 0 4 0 11 Module factor(shape) Resource M5 M4 M3 M2 M1 M0 Snake Resource Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

Delta nestedness Number of resources −2 10 15 0 5 0 2 0 0 2 2 Mass (log) Mass (log) 4 4 12 6 6 Family Family Viperidae Typhlopidae Leptotyphlopidae Elapidae Dipsadidae Colubridae Boidae Anomalepididae Aniliidae Viperidae Typhlopidae Leptotyphlopidae Elapidae Dipsadidae Colubridae Boidae Anomalepididae Aniliidae Posted on Authorea 21 Jan 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161121867.78911587/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

Modules 0 1 2 3 4 5

Aquatic

Arboreal

Fossorial Lifestyle

Semiarboreal 13

Semifossorial

Terrestrial P−value 0 1