Journal of Ecology and Environment

pISSN 2287-8327 eISSN 2288-1220

Article

Home Article View

Short communication

Published online July 9, 2024
https://doi.org/10.5141/jee.24.030

Journal of Ecology and Environment (2024) 48:21

Identification of orb-web spider species and their food source through environmental DNA analysis

Keonhee Kim1* and Seung Tae Kim2

1Human and Eco Care Center, Konkuk University, Seoul, 05029, Republic of Korea
2Life and Environment Research Institute, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea

Correspondence to:Keonhee Kim
E-mail passbosko@gmail.com

Received: March 12, 2024; Revised: June 4, 2024; Accepted: June 6, 2024

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The publisher of this article is The Ecological Society of Korea in collaboration with The Korean Society of Limnology

Spiders play a vital role in agricultural ecosystems by capturing and preying on small insects, thereby controlling the pests around crops. However, without directly collecting the specimen, it is challenging to accurately determine the species of the spider that formed the web and its diet. Spiders dissolve their prey with digestive fluids while consuming; thus, leaving very little residue in their digestive system. This study aimed to identify the spider that formed the web and the prey caught in the web using environmental DNA (eDNA) present in the spider web. For this purpose, eDNA using the mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit I (COI) gene was extracted from five adjacent spider webs collected from residences near agricultural environments. Based on the genes extracted from spider webs, it was confirmed that the most commonly found gene in all five spider webs was COI of Parasteatoda tepidariorum, and no other spider genes were detected. Among the five spider webs, prey was found in only one web, and in that web, genes of arthropods other than spiders were detected. The genes of the prey found in the spider web were identified to be those of Orthocladius tamarutilus, Tanytarsus tamagotoi, and Yemma exilis. Thus, without directly collecting arthropod specimens from the spider web, it was possible to identify the spider and its prey. This provides crucial information that can help in clearly understanding the predatory activities of spiders in agricultural ecosystems in the future.

Keywords: Arthropoda, environmental DNA, metabarcoding, spider, spider web

Spiders play a crucial role in agricultural ecosystems (Benamu 2020; Maloney et al. 2003; Sarma et al. 2013). Because spiders capture and eat small insects, they are particularly effective in controlling pests around crops (Marc et al. 1999; Menalled et al. 2007; Nyffeler 1999). This can reduce pest damage to crops and enable the implementation of pest control activities that are more environmentally and human friendly (Korenko et al. 2016; Scherr and McNeely 2008). Spiders also play a crucial role in maintaining the biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems (Gogoi and Ningthoujam 2021).

Spider webs have strong adhesive properties, making it difficult for small insects to escape once they are caught, resulting in their capture (Murakami 1983; Wilgers et al. 2016). In this way, the webs produced by spiders play a crucial role in the survival of spiders as they serve as a means of capturing food and providing shelter from predators (Craig and Freeman 1991; Manicom et al. 2008). Moreover, by analyzing the types and numbers of small insects caught in spider webs, it is possible to understand the biodiversity and ecological health condition of the agricultural ecosystem. In addition, during the process of capturing small insects with spider webs, the genes of arthropods along with those of spiders feeding from the web can be present on the web in the form of eDNA (Astrin et al. 2006; Barrett and Hebert 2005; Blagoev et al. 2013; Thomsen and Willerslev 2015).

One way to determine a spider’s food source is by determining the type and number of small insects that are caught in its web (Blackledge 2011; Ludwig et al. 2018). However, spiders use digestive fluid to dissolve and extract food from the inside (Nentwig et al. 2022). During this process, the food is clumped into a round shape and transformed into a small lump, leaving only the shell behind, which makes it difficult to determine the exact source of food without dissection. In addition, when spiders are not hungry, they anesthetize and paralyze the prey caught in their webs before encasing it with spider webs for storage; thus, identifying the spider’s food source is challenging, as it can only be determined when the food is caught in the web or when the spider consumes it (Eberhard et al. 2006). Moreover, even if there are traces of food present in the spider web, it is difficult to determine the species of the spider without collecting spider individuals.

The environmental DNA (eDNA) of arthropods present in spider webs can provide crucial information for the study of spider distribution and ecology, yet research in this area is still notably limited. The concept of eDNA in spider webs was first introduced in 2015 (Xu et al. 2015), and studies on this topic remain relatively scarce. Existing literature primarily focuses on airborne eDNA attached to spider webs, with a limited exploration into using spider web eDNA for investigating spider prey sources (Corse et al. 2019; Gregorič et al. 2022).

This study aims to explore the potential of conducting ecological research on spiders by using eDNA to identify spider species and determine the types of food available through the analysis of eDNA found in spider webs.

Sampling spider webs and spiders in the field

The spider webs were collected in January 2023 from Nonsan City, Chungnam Province, South Korea, which has a high proportion of farmland. Five spider webs located adjacently (approximately 50 m radius) in the same region were sampled. The collection environment for the spider webs is characterized by being surrounded by hills and having small-scale rice paddies nearby (36°14´6.71˝, 127°13´0.19˝). At the same time, adult spiders were collected from spider webs existing near the agricultural environment, and eDNA was extracted from the spider webs. The collected spiders were stored in 95% ethanol, and then, their morphological characteristics were compared to those described in the literature (Im and Kim 2000; Kong 2013). The eDNA of the spider web was collected by attaching the web to a GF/F filter (Fig. 1). The tip of a pair of forceps was grabbed and swiped along the entire spider web to attach the silk to a GF/F filter membrane. Each strand of spider silk is affixed to a single filter membrane, and the filter membrane with attached spider silk was folded in half and placed into a Salivette tube.

Figure 1. Process of spider web sampling by GF/F filter paper. eDNA: environmental DNA; COI: mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit I.

The filter was autoclaved before collection and sealed in a petri dish before analysis. One filter paper was used for each spider web, and a total of five spider webs that were close by, but were not intertwined with each other, were collected. Of these five webs, four had no food in them, while one had food in it (Fig. 2). The filter collected from the spider web was placed in a Salivette tube and transported to the laboratory under refrigerated condition.

Figure 2. The sampled spider web in this study. In S1, we found three spider egg sacs, and in S2 we found an exuviated spider trace. In S4, we found a trace of food storage in the spider web. There were no noticeable traces on the spider webs of S3 and S5.

DNA and eDNA extraction and spider DNA barcode gene analysis

From the web samples transported to the laboratory, the eDNA present within the web was extracted using the extraction method presented in the environmental DNA sampling and experience manual version 2.1 (Minamoto et al. 2021). The DNA of captured spider individuals from spider webs, where eDNA was collected, was extracted using a genomic DNA extraction kit (Blood and Tissue kit; Qiagen Co., Hilden, Germany). Before extraction, cells were homogenized to facilitate the DNA extraction process. The mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit I (COI) gene was amplified from the DNA extracted from both the spider and spider web (BF2 + BR2; amplicon size 461 bp) (Elbrecht and Leese 2017), and the species was identified through BLAST based on Genbank database (Schoch et al. 2020; Tatusova et al. 2016). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conditions for amplifying the spider’s COI gene were as follows: initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 minutes, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 50°C for 30 seconds, and extension at 72°C for 50 seconds. The final extension was performed at 72°C for 5 minutes. In addition, the COI gene lineage analysis of spiders was performed based on the COI gene sequence identified in both the spiders and spider webs. MEGA 11 (molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11.0.11) was used to perform phylogenetic analysis, and a dendrogram was constructed using the maximum likelihood method.

Meta-barcoding of the COI gene

The genetic contigs of spiders analyzed through metabarcoding in spider webs were subjected to phylogenetic analysis based on gene nucleotide sequences to elucidate that they share genetic characteristics with spiders inhabiting the webs. To conduct the phylogenetic analysis, genetic data of spiders belonging to the Linyphiidae family, including the funnel weaver spider, were downloaded from GenBank for species found in Korea. Subsequently, using MEGA11, the data were aligned, and Maximum Likelihood phylogenetic analysis was performed employing the Tamura-Nei model (Stecher et al. 2020; Tamura and Nei 1993; Tamura et al. 2021). The root branch of the phylogenetic tree was established by incorporating the COI gene of the Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) into the phylogenetic analysis.

In order to analyze the genes of spiders and small insects, which serve as food sources for spiders, the COI gene specific to invertebrates was amplified using primers (Elbrecht and Leese 2017; Elbrecht et al. 2018) and Master mix Taq polymerase (GainBlueTM Hot Start Max Master Mix PCR Master Mix; Gainbio ltd., Daejeon, Korea). The product amplified by primary PCR was attached to a barcode index (Illumina Nextera kit V2) through secondary PCR. The conditions for the second PCR were as follows: initial denaturation at 95°C for 3 minutes, followed by 9 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 55°C for 30 seconds, and extension at 72°C for 30 seconds. The final extension was performed at 72°C for 5 minutes. The primers utilized in the first-round PCR were identical to those employed in spider DNA barcoding analysis (BF2 + BR2). Additionally, Nextera consensus and sequencing adaptors were appended to the existing primer sequences for use. Samples with the barcode index were analyzed for metabarcoding by a company specializing in analysis (Ubix bioinnovations Co. Ltd, Waterloo, ON, Canada) using the Illumina MiSeq system, and the species was identified based on COI gene sequencing using the DECIPHER package’s (Wright 2016) IdTaxa classifier (Murali et al. 2018).

Spider COI gene in the web eDNA

DNA from arthropods was found in all five spider webs, and no other biological DNA was found. All five spider webs displayed the COI gene of Parasteatoda tepidariorum (common name: Glasshouse spider), and COI gene was not detected in the other spiders. While collecting spider webs, a single P. tepidariorum individual was found near the web (Fig. 3), and no other spider species were detected. Moreover, some spider webs contained egg sacs, and spiders; exhibited the same morphological characters of P. tepidariorum. The genes extracted directly from the P. tepidariorum individual collected at the site formed a lineage with the COI gene of P. tepidariorum found in the spider web; and accordingly, the spider web collected at the survey site could be identified as the one created by P. tepidariorum (Fig. 3A).

Figure 3. (A) Phylogenetic reconstruction of spiders within the family Theridiidae based on the mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit I (COI) gene sequence. The evolutionary lineage was elucidated using the maximum likelihood method with the Tamura-Nei model. The percentage of trees demonstrating the coalescence of respective taxa is indicated adjacent to the branches. The red color denotes DNA sequences analyzed in this investigation. The placement of individual spider COI genes on the phylogenetic tree corresponds to those captured in spider webs, while the spider COI genes represent DNA contigs amplified from spider web environmental DNA. (B) A visual representation of a spider individual within its web is provided. The morphological attributes of the spider individual closely resemble those of Parasteatoda tepidariorum.

COI gene of other Arthropoda in the spider web eDNA

Of the five spider webs collected, only one had traces of food storage, making it difficult to determine the taxa of the prey as they were completely covered with spider webs. Arthropod taxa genes other than those of spiders were found solely in the web where traces of food were present. In addition to P. tepidariorum, the genes of arthropods found in spider webs were two species belonging to the family Chironomidae and one species belonging to the family Berytidae, resulting in a total of three taxa, and genes of invertebrates other than arthropods were not found (Table 1). Species belonging to the family Chironomidae were Orthocladius tamarutilus and Tanytarsus tamagotoi, while only one species was identified for the family Berytidae, Yemma exilis.

Table 1 . Number of contigs of each spider web environmental DNA metabarcoding analysis.

S1S2S3S4S5
Parasteatoda tepidariorum5312544584156
Orthocladius tamarutilus---115-
Tanytarsus tamagotoi---37-
Yemma exilis---45-

Arthropod DNA contigs were only found in the spider web that remains a storage trace of an insect.


Parasteatoda tepidariorum is a globally distributed species known for constructing webs beneath roofs or in corners, presenting an ostensibly irregular appearance, yet in reality, revealing a specific and streamlined architectural structure (Bradley 2012; Edwards 2004). Parasteatoda tepidariorum forms three to four cloddish egg sacs in the center of the spider web, and adults diligently care for the eggs around the egg sacs (Oda and Akiyama-Oda 2020). In this study, the spider webs had an extremely irregular shape, and three egg sacs were observed, attached side by side to the spider web. Based on these results, it can be inferred that eDNA may be generated in spider webs as spiders inhabit them. Consequently, it is conceivable that spider species can be identified without the need for spider collection by utilizing the eDNA present in spider webs that spiders leave behind.

Both families Chironomidae and Berytidae are found worldwide and typically travel short distances. In particular, Y. exilis found in the spider webs feeds on arthropods, such as the families Chironomidae and Cyclorrhapha, and mainly inhabits plants, such as fallen leaves in mountainous areas or shady locations (Kohno and Hirose 1997; NIBR 2016). The time of collection of spider webs was January, during which spiders remain inactive due to low temperatures and it is also a season of inactivity for spider prey. Thus, there may be only a few genes remaining for arthropods that were caught in spider webs. Common species like P. tepidariorum, may consume various types of food based on the surrounding environment, and they do not exhibit selective eating of specific species (Blasco-Aróstegui and Calatayud-Mascarell 2023; Goyal et al. 2017; Milne and Milne 1980). The environment in which spider webs were collected is a mixture of paddy fields, forests, and nearby residences, with various arthropods, including the families Chironomidae, Berytidae, Cyclorrhapha, Culicidae, and Heterocera. In particular, arthropods related to the agricultural environment, such as the families Chironomidae and Berytidae, are known as spider food in the agricultural environment (Graf et al. 2020; Park and Lee 2006), which suggests that in this study, the genes of three arthropods species, O. tamarutilus, T. tamagotoi, and Y. exilis, discovered in the spider web might be food for P. tepidariorum.

While some literature reports a diverse array of arthropod genes found in spider webs, our study identified a minimal quantity of arthropod genes in the spider webs. In general, the eDNA’s lasting time for analysis varies widely based on environmental conditions, ranging from a few hours to more than several years (Bairoliya et al. 2022; Harrison et al. 2019). In the case of eDNA in arthropods, PCR amplification for analysis is possible for about two to three months, but eDNA exposed externally for more than three months becomes fragmented and unreliable for proving the existence of the target taxa (Valentin et al. 2021). Accordingly, it has been determined that arthropod genes other than those of spiders were found exclusively in the spider webs where food was present, and thus, a higher diversity of arthropod genes is expected to be discovered between June and September, during the period of active feeding by spiders. Moreover, the analysis of spider prey using eDNA, specifically in orb-web spider species that capture and consume prey within their webs, is applicable exclusively to situations where the prey’s eDNA can be distinctly differentiated from the web material. Particularly during the active summer when organisms release airborne eDNA (eDNA in the air) that can adhere to spider webs, discerning spider prey amidst a diverse array of biological traces becomes exceedingly challenging (Newton et al. 2024). Therefore, the utilization of spider web eDNA for prey analysis is deemed feasible only for spider species that are made of spider-web, and meaningful results can be obtained solely from webs where prey is stored.

In conclusion, this study found that spider webs are not simply threads of protein components produced by spiders, but rather an important source for analysis that provides information on the ecological activities of various spiders. In particular, spider species that form spider webs were identified solely based on the genes of spiders found in the webs without directly collecting spider individuals, and the possibility of identifying spider food sources was confirmed through genetic analysis of spider webs without the need for collecting and analyzing traces of food within the webs. This can help facilitate efficient ecological research on spiders, enabling researchers to study spiders in diverse regions and at different times. However, in cases where spiders do not rely on spider webs to hunt for food, such as in the case of wandering spiders, it is impossible to determine their food sources through the genes present in spider webs, as shown in this study. Therefore, this study is considered useful for ecological studies focusing on settling spiders or webbing spiders (e.g., Theridiidae, Araneidae, and Gnaphosidae), which primarily rely on spider webs as a food source.

KK and STK contributed to the study conception and design. KK wrote the first draft and contributed to material preparation, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of results. STK identified spiders based on morphological characteristics. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This work was carried out with the support of “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. RS-2020-RD009339)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

  1. Astrin JJ, Huber BA, Misof B, Klütsch CFC. Molecular taxonomy in pholcid spiders (Pholcidae, Araneae): evaluation of species identification methods using CO1 and 16S rRNA. Zool Scr. 2006;35(5):441-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2006.00239.x.
    CrossRef
  2. Bairoliya S, Koh Zhi Xiang J, Cao B. Extracellular DNA in environmental samples: occurrence, extraction, quantification, and impact on microbial biodiversity assessment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2022;88(3):e0184521. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01845-21.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Barrett RD, Hebert PD. Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes. Can J Zool. 2005;83(3):481-91. https://doi.org/10.1139/z05-024.
    CrossRef
  4. Benamu M. The importance of spider diversity in agroecosystems and the effect of pesticides. Glob J Ecol. 2020;5(1):60-1. https://doi.org/10.17352/gje.000022.
    CrossRef
  5. Blackledge TA. Prey capture in orb weaving spiders: are we using the best metric? J Arachnol. 2011;39(2):205-10.
    CrossRef
  6. Blagoev GA, Nikolova NI, Sobel CN, Hebert PD, Adamowicz SJ. Spiders (Araneae) of Churchill, Manitoba: DNA barcodes and morphology reveal high species diversity and new Canadian records. BMC Ecol. 2013;13(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-13-44.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Blasco-Aróstegui J, Calatayud-Mascarell A. All you can eat: autochthonous vertebrate and invertebrate predation by the alien spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C.L. Koch, 1841) (Araneae: Theridiidae) in two anthropogenic habitats of Italy. Graellsia. 2023;79(1):e193. https://doi.org/10.3989/graellsia.2023.v79.350.
    CrossRef
  8. Bradley RA. Common spiders of North America. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012.
    CrossRef
  9. Corse E, Tougard C, Archambaud-Suard G, Agnèse JF, Messu Mandeng FD, Bilong Bilong CF, et al. One-locus-several-primers: a strategy to improve the taxonomic and haplotypic coverage in diet metabarcoding studies. Ecol Evol. 2019;9(8):4603-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5063.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Craig CL, Freeman CR. Effects of predator visibility on prey encounter: a case study on aerial web weaving spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1991;29:249-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163981.
    CrossRef
  11. Eberhard WG, Barrantes G, Weng JL. Tie them up tight: wrapping by Philoponella vicina spiders breaks, compresses and sometimes kills their prey. Naturwissenschaften. 2006;93(5):251-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-006-0094-1.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Edwards GB. The common house spider, Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch) (Arachnida: Araneae: Theridiidae). EDIS 2004;8. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-in394-2001.
    CrossRef
  13. Elbrecht V, Leese F. Validation and development of COI metabarcoding primers for freshwater macroinvertebrate bioassessment. Front Environ Sci. 2017;5:11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00011.
    CrossRef
  14. Elbrecht V, Vamos EE, Steinke D, Leese F. Estimating intraspecific genetic diversity from community DNA metabarcoding data. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4644. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4644.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Gogoi J, Ningthoujam K. Arthropod biodiversity in agricultural, horticultural and silvicultural ecosystems with special reference to spiders (Araneae) in mid-hills of Meghalaya, India. J Agri Horti Res. 2023;6(2):244-62.
    CrossRef
  16. Goyal K, MeLampy F, Osborn R, Turrill M. Prey size preference of the American house spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum. Ann Arbor: Biological Station, University of Michigan (UMBS); 2017.
  17. Graf N, Battes KP, Cimpean M, Entling MH, Frisch K, Link M, et al. Relationship between agricultural pesticides and the diet of riparian spiders in the field. Environ Sci Eur. 2020;32:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-019-0282-1.
    CrossRef
  18. Gregorič M, Kutnjak D, Bačnik K, Gostinčar C, Pecman A, Ravnikar M, et al. Spider webs as eDNA samplers: biodiversity assessment across the tree of life. Mol Ecol Resour. 2022;22(7):2534-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13629.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Harrison JB, Sunday JM, Rogers SM. Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity. Proc Biol Sci. 2019;286(1915):20191409. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1409.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Im MS, Kim ST. Field guide of Korean spiders. Seoul: Konkuk University Press; 2000.
  21. Kohno K, Hirose Y. The stilt bug Yemma exilis (Heteroptera: Berytidae) as a predator of Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae) and Thrips palmi (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on eggplant. Appl Entomol Zool. 1997;32(2):406-9. https://doi.org/10.1303/aez.32.406.
    CrossRef
  22. Kong SH. Checklist of organisms in Korean; 9. Seoul: Nature and Ecology; 2013.
  23. Korenko S, Niedobová J, Kolářová M, Hamouzová K, Kysilková K, Michalko R. The effect of eight common herbicides on the predatory activity of the agrobiont spider Pardosa agrestis. BioControl. 2016;61:507-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-016-9729-0.
    CrossRef
  24. Ludwig L, Barbour MA, Guevara J, Avilés L, González AL. Caught in the web: Spider web architecture affects prey specialization and spider-prey stoichiometric relationships. Ecol Evol. 2018;8(13):6449-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4028.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  25. Maloney D, Drummond FA, Alford R. TB190: spider predation in agroecosystems: can spiders effectively control pest populations. Orono: Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station; 2003.
  26. Manicom C, Schwarzkopf L, Alford RA, Schoener TW. Self-made shelters protect spiders from predation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(39):14903-7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0807107105.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  27. Marc P, Canard A, Ysnel F. Spiders (Araneae) useful for pest limitation and bioindication. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1999;74(1-3):229-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00038-9.
    CrossRef
  28. Menalled FD, Smith RG, Dauer JT, Fox TB. Impact of agricultural management on carabid communities and weed seed predation. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2007;118(1-4):49-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.04.011.
    CrossRef
  29. Milne LJ, Milne M. The Audubon Society field guide to North American insects and spiders. New York: Distributed by Random House; 1980.
  30. Minamoto T, Miya M, Sado T, Seino S, Doi H, Kondoh M, et al. An illustrated manual for environmental DNA research: water sampling guidelines and experimental protocols. Environ DNA. 2021;3(1):8-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.121.
    CrossRef
  31. Murakami Y. Factors determining the prey size of the orb-web spider, Argiope amoena (L. Koch) (Argiopidae). Oecologia. 1983;57(1-2):72-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379564.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Murali A, Bhargava A, Wright ES. IDTAXA: a novel approach for accurate taxonomic classification of microbiome sequences. Microbiome. 2018;6(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0521-5.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Nentwig W, Ansorg J, Bolzern A, Frick H, Ganske AS, Hänggi A, et al. In: Nentwig W, Ansorg J, Bolzern A, Frick H, Ganske AS, Hänggi A, et al, editors. All you need to know about spiders. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 101-8.
    CrossRef
  34. Newton JP, Nevill P, Bateman PW, Campbell MA, Allentoft ME. Spider webs capture environmental DNA from terrestrial vertebrates. iScience. 2024;27(2):108904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.108904.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  35. National Institute of Biological Resources (NIBR). Biodiversity of Korea peninsula, National Institute of Biological Resources (NIBR). Incheon: Ministry of Environment; 2016. https://species.nibr.go.kr/index.do.
  36. Nyffeler M. Prey selection of spiders in the field. J Arachnol. 1999;27(1):317-24.
  37. Oda H, Akiyama-Oda Y. The common house spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum. Evodevo. 2020;11:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13227-020-00152-z.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  38. Park HH, Lee JH. Arthropod trophic relationships in a temperate rice ecosystem: a stable isotope analysis with δ13C and δ15N. Environ Entomol. 2006;35(3):684-93. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-35.3.684.
    CrossRef
  39. Sarma S, Pujari D, Rahman Z. Role of spiders in regulating insect pests in the agricultural ecosystem - an overview. J Int Acad Res Multidiscip. 2013;1(5):100-17.
  40. Scherr SJ, McNeely JA. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1491):477-94. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2165.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  41. Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, Hotton CL, Kannan S, Khovanskaya R, et al. NCBI Taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database (Oxford). 2020;2020:baaa062. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baaa062.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  42. Stecher G, Tamura K, Kumar S. Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) for macOS. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37(4):1237-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz312.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  43. Tamura K, Nei M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol. 1993;10(3):512-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040023.
    CrossRef
  44. Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38(7):3022-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab120.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  45. Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, et al. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(14):6614-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw569.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  46. Thomsen PF, Willerslev E. Environmental DNA - an emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biol Conserv. 2015;183:4-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019.
    CrossRef
  47. Valentin RE, Kyle KE, Allen MC, Welbourne DJ, Lockwood JL. The state, transport, and fate of aboveground terrestrial arthropod eDNA. Environ DNA. 2021;3(6):1081-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.229.
    CrossRef
  48. Wilgers DJ. Investigating community food WEBS: the ecological importance of spiders. 2016. https://www.sciencefriday.com/educational-resources/investigating-community-food-webs-ecological-importance-spiders/. Accessed 1 Feb 2024.
  49. Wright ES. Using DECIPHER v2.0 to analyze big biological sequence data in R. R J. 2016;8(1):352-9.
    CrossRef
  50. Xu CC, Yen IJ, Bowman D, Turner CR. Spider web DNA: a new spin on noninvasive genetics of predator and prey. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142503.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on

Related articles in JEE

Close ✕

Journal of Ecology and Environment

pISSN 2287-8327 eISSN 2288-1220