| Literature DB >> 25140809 |
Elizabeth C Lowe1, Shawn M Wilder1, Dieter F Hochuli1.
Abstract
Urbanisation modifies landscapes at multiple scales, impacting the local climate and changing the extent and quality of natural habitats. These habitat modifications significantly alter species distributions and can result in increased abundance of select species which are able to exploit novel ecosystems. We examined the effect of urbanisation at local and landscape scales on the body size, lipid reserves and ovary weight of Nephila plumipes, an orb weaving spider commonly found in both urban and natural landscapes. Habitat variables at landscape, local and microhabitat scales were integrated to create a series of indexes that quantified the degree of urbanisation at each site. Spider size was negatively associated with vegetation cover at a landscape scale, and positively associated with hard surfaces and anthropogenic disturbance on a local and microhabitat scale. Ovary weight increased in higher socioeconomic areas and was positively associated with hard surfaces and leaf litter at a local scale. The larger size and increased reproductive capacity of N.plumipes in urban areas show that some species benefit from the habitat changes associated with urbanisation. Our results also highlight the importance of incorporating environmental variables from multiple scales when quantifying species responses to landscape modification.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25140809 PMCID: PMC4139358 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105480
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Relationships (site average +/− S.E) between the factorials of landscape scale components and spider size.
a) Positive correlation between average tibia length and landscape component 1: positive association with hard surface land cover, housing density, distance to bush land and population density and a negative association with vegetation land cover and distance to CBD, (n = 20, r2 = 0.33, p<0.01). b) Positive correlation between average tibia length and landscape component 4: positive association with percentage water cover and negative association with distance to the coastline (n = 20, r2 = 0.30, p = 0.01).
Pearson R correlations between landscape variables at multiple scales and spider morphology (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).
| Size | Condition ratio | Lipid weight | Ovary weight | ||
| Landscape scale | Distance to CBD | −0.51* | −0.44 | −0.39 | −0.49* |
| Distance to water | −0.13 | −0.08 | 0.11 | −0.05 | |
| Distance to coast | −0.49* | −0.19 | −0.07 | −0.24 | |
| Distance to park | −0.43 | −0.31 | −0.20 | −0.38 | |
| Distance to bushland | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.19 | |
| 1 km radius % vegetation | −0.62** | −0.37 | −0.28 | −0.44 | |
| 1 km radius % grass | 0.47* | 0.22 | −0.01 | 0.28 | |
| 1 km radius % hard surface | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.28 | |
| 1 km radius % water | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.15 | |
| Suburb population density | 0.66** | 0.55* | 0.58** | 0.61** | |
| Suburb housing density | 0.66** | 0.59** | 0.59** | 0.63** | |
| Suburb weekly income | 0.19 | 0.51* | 0.56* | 0.52* | |
| Local scale | Site % vegetation | −0.42 | −0.30 | −0.18 | −0.34 |
| Site % grass | 0.38 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.29 | |
| Site % hard surface | 0.57** | 0.46* | 0.36 | 0.54* | |
| Site % buildings | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.14 | |
| Site % water | −0.07 | 0.03 | −0.15 | 0.02 | |
| Perimeter (m) | −0.51* | −0.36 | −0.35 | −0.43 | |
| Site Area (m2) | −0.39 | −0.38 | −0.36 | −0.44 | |
| Site shape | 0.50* | 0.58** | 0.37 | 0.58** | |
| Microhabitat scale | Tree canopy cover | −0.12 | −0.06 | −0.02 | −0.05 |
| Shrub canopy cover | 0.13* | 0.15* | 0.10 | 0.10 | |
| Ground vegetation cover | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Litter logs and rocks | −0.07 | −0.15* | −0.13 | −0.14* | |
| Tree density | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.08 | |
| Anthropogenic structures | 0.14* | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.05 | |
| Total habitat quality | −0.08 | <0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 | |
| 10 m % veg | −0.09 | −0.04 | 0.01 | −0.02 | |
| 10 m % hard surface | 0.13* | −0.01 | 0.04 | −0.01 | |
| 10 m % grass | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.08 | |
| 10 m % water | −0.10 | −0.06 | −0.04 | −0.05 | |
| Distance to open space | −0.14* | −0.04 | 0.04 | −0.04 | |
| Distance to hard surface | −0.18* | −0.06 | 0.04 | −0.06 | |
| Distance to building | −0.12 | −0.09 | 0.01 | −0.11 | |
| Distance to edge | −0.12 | −0.07 | 0.04 | −0.08 |
Correlations are shown between landscape (n = 20) and local scale variables (n = 20) and the site average size and condition measures. Microhabitat variables are compared to individual size and condition measurements (n = 222).
Figure 2Relationships (site average +/− S.E) between the percentage of each site covered in hard surfaces and spider morphology.
a) Positive correlation between percentage hard surfaces and the average tibia length (r2 = 0.33, p<0.01). b) positive correlation between the percentage hard surface and average ovary weight (r2 = 0.30, p = 0.01).
Pearson’s R correlations between the components of the microhabitat PCA, size and microhabitat variables (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).
| Microhabitat PCA component | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Tibia length | −0.13* | −0.14* | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.09 |
| Web area | 0.12 | 0.17* | −0.04 | 0.11 | −0.05 |
| Number of Kleptoparasites | 0.02 | 0.14* | −0.02 | −0.06 | −0.05 |
| Spiders in aggregation | −0.06 | −0.11 | −0.24** | 0.11 | 0.36** |
| Prey stored in web | 0.16* | 0.03 | −0.19** | 0.05 | −0.08 |
1 = Increased distance to urban features (hard surface, open space, buildings, site edge), 2 = More natural habitat (less hard surfaces and man-made structures, more vegetation) 3 = Increased ground cover complexity (less grass, more undergrowth), 4 = Increased tree and canopy complexity, 5 = Increased mid layer vegetation complexity.