4.6 Article

Stabilized Morphological Evolution of Spiders Despite Mosaic Changes in Foraging Ecology

Journal

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
Volume 71, Issue 6, Pages 1487-1503

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syac023

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Macquarie University Research Fellowship of Macquarie University
  2. Australian Research Council [DE190101338, DP170101617]
  3. Principle Investigator Grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [451087507]
  4. lobal Genome Initiative, National Museum of Natural History
  5. Smithsonian Institution
  6. US National Science Foundation [EAR-0228699]
  7. NSF [EAR-0228699]
  8. US National Science Foundation grant [1754289]
  9. FONCyT [PICT-2017-0289]
  10. Division Of Environmental Biology
  11. Direct For Biological Sciences [1754289] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  12. Australian Research Council [DE190101338] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the interaction between spider morphology, ecology, and phenotypic diversity. It finds that spider body size and proportions are related to foraging style. Some traits differ between ecological guilds, but there is no specific morphometric trait associated with the relative ecological mode. Eye size and fang length do not differ between ecological guilds. The study highlights the importance of combining phylogenomics with trait-based approaches.
A prominent question in animal research is how the evolution of morphology and ecology interacts in the generation of phenotypic diversity. Spiders are some of the most abundant arthropod predators in terrestrial ecosystems and exhibit a diversity of foraging styles. It remains unclear how spider body size and proportions relate to foraging style, and if the use of webs as prey capture devices correlates with changes in body characteristics. Here, we present the most extensive data set to date of morphometric and ecological traits in spiders. We used this data set to estimate the change in spider body sizes and shapes over deep time and to test if and how spider phenotypes are correlated with their behavioral ecology. We found that phylogenetic variation of most traits best fitted an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model, which is a model of stabilizing selection. A prominent exception was body length, whose evolutionary dynamics were best explained with a Brownian Motion (free trait diffusion) model. This was most expressed in the araneoid clade (ecribellate orb-weaving spiders and allies) that showed bimodal trends toward either miniaturization or gigantism. Only few traits differed significantly between ecological guilds, most prominently leg length and thickness, and although a multivariate framework found general differences in traits among ecological guilds, it was not possible to unequivocally associate a set of morphometric traits with the relative ecological mode. Long, thin legs have often evolved with aerial webs and a hanging (suspended) locomotion style, but this trend is not general. Eye size and fang length did not differ between ecological guilds, rejecting the hypothesis that webs reduce the need for visual cue recognition and prey immobilization. For the inference of the ecology of species with unknown behaviors, we propose not to use morphometric traits, but rather consult (micro-)morphological characters, such as the presence of certain podal structures. These results suggest that, in contrast to insects, the evolution of body proportions in spiders is unusually stabilized and ecological adaptations are dominantly realized by behavioral traits and extended phenotypes in this group of predators. This work demonstrates the power of combining recent advances in phylogenomics with trait-based approaches to better understand global functional diversity patterns through space and time. [Animal architecture; Arachnida; Araneae; extended phenotype; functional traits; macroevolution; stabilizing selection.]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available