In human society, a guild is an association of craftsmen or merchants that work together to achieve a common goal. For example, 14thcentury Paris boasted over 350 different guilds, including drapiers (cloth makers), knife-makers, locksmiths, helmet-makers and harness-polishers. Ecological guilds are similar to human guilds, in that members of the same guild depend on the same resources for survival. But members of the same ecological guild are different species, each of which uses a similar resource, or group of resources. As we shall now discover, as in human guilds, members of ecological guilds don’t always get along very well.
A guild is part of a food web, which is a summary of the feeding relationships within a community. Israel Leinbach, Kevin McCluney and John Sabo were interested in one particular part of a food web – the relationship between a large wolf spider (Hogna antelucana), a small wolf spider (Pardosa species) and a cricket (Gryllus alogus). Both spiders are in the same guild, because they obtain their energy from similar sources – insect prey. This cricket specializes on willow and cottonwood leaves that fall to the ground in the semi-arid floodplain of the San Pedro River in southeast Arizona. Under natural conditions, the researchers observed the large spiders eating both the small spiders and crickets. However, they never observed the small spider eating the relatively large cricket (which averages 20 times its mass), though small spiders are delighted to eat many other (smaller) insect species.
The researchers argue that even though guild members specialize on similar resources, it is important to consider how other resources might influence the relationships among the species. During the dry season, water is a critical limiting resource. As it turns out, large spiders, crickets and small spiders are very different in how much energy and water they contain. From the table below you can see that the small Pardosa spiders are very low in water content, but pack a huge amount of energy into their tiny bodies. Crickets of both sexes have a high water content, but contain a relatively small amount of energy in their large bodies. Thus small spiders have a much higher energy/water ratio than crickets or large spiders.
When water is limiting, the large spiders might devote themselves to eating crickets to take advantage of their very high water content. But when water is not limiting, the large spiders would be expected to turn their attention to eating small wolf spiders, which are much dryer, but much higher in energy per unit body mass. The researchers reasoned that providing water to large spiders should increase the rate of intraguild predation (in this case large spiders eating small spiders).
Leinbach and his colleagues set up a mesocosm experiment using 2 X 2 X 2 meter cages in which they experimentally manipulated community composition and water availability.
All cages, except controls, received either one large male or female spider, two small spiders (sex unknown) and two crickets (again either male or female). Controls received no large spiders, and were used to establish a baseline survival rate for the two potential prey items (small spiders and crickets). To test for the effects of water availability on predation by large spiders the researchers placed water pillows that held approximately 30 ml of water into half of the enclosures. They predicted that large spiders would primarily eat energy-rich small spiders in cages with water pillows, but prefer water-rich crickets in cages without water pillows. The water pillows had minimal impact on cricket water levels as they got plenty of water from their food (green water-rich leaves)
Leinbach and his colleagues used per capita interaction strength as their quantitative measure of predation effects. If prey survival was lower in the experimental cages than in the control, there was a negative interaction strength – indicating that large spiders were eating a particular prey type. When the researchers provided them with water, large spiders of both sexes ate significantly more small spiders than they did without water supplements.
But the story was very different with crickets. The researchers expected that when supplemented with water, large spiders would bypass the water-rich crickets in favor of the energy-rich small spiders. Surprisingly, instead of crickets in cages with pillows surviving as well as controls, they actually survived better – at least male crickets did. One possible explanation is that spiders may emit odor (or other types of) cues that affect cricket behavior in a negative way, for example by causing them to feed more cautiously and inefficiently. Once the large spiders have killed the small spiders, there may be fewer spiders around to smell up the place, and crickets may feed more efficiently, and thus survive better.
I asked Kevin McCluney if there were any other surprising findings, and he pointed out that large male and female spiders showed very similar consumption patterns. He expected that females would need more energy because egg production is very energy demanding. One explanation for this lack of difference is that large male spiders may expend considerable energy wandering around in search of sexually receptive females, and their overall energy needs may be similar to those of females. Balancing the demands of energy, water and sex may be equally demanding for both sexes of large spiders, and may lead to adaptive feeding on different levels of the food chain as environmental conditions shift.
note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Ecology. The reference is Leinbach, I., McCluney, K. E., and Sabo, J. L. 2019. Predator water balance alters intraguild predation in a streamside food web. Ecology 100(4):e02635. 10.1002/ecy.2635. Thanks to the Ecological Society of America for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2019 by the Ecological Society of America. All rights reserved.