List of tables and figures
Table 1. The diet of spider Phoneutria boliviensis from Colombia identified by DNA metabarcoding. Number of taxa corresponds to those identified to species, genera and family level by sex and populations (= locality).
Figure 1. Colombian locations selected for sampling and collecting specimens of Phoneutria boliviensis .
Figure 2. Intersex bipartite prey–spider species interaction network. Lines connect the males and females (left) to dietary species OTUs (bottom, colored by taxonomic order). The length of the boxes on the left reflects the number of prey analyzed for each OTU; the length of the boxes on the right reflects the relative abundance of each prey per OTU in each taxonomic order of prey in all samples in the data set; and the width of the connecting lines reflects the relative reads abundance of each OTU within the diet of each taxonomic order. We show only the connections that represent ≥1% of the diet of each species (total n = 234 OTUs). a) Araneae, b) Blattodea, c) Coleoptera, d) Dermaptera, e) Diptera, f) Hemiptera, g) Hymenoptera, h) Lepidoptera, i) Orthoptera, j) Phasmatodea, k) Squamata.
Figure 3. The relative abundance of reads per sample and locality. The boxes on the x-axis represent each individual by population. The different colors represent the relative abundance of reads for each taxonomic order.
Figure 4. Sample-based rarefaction curves of prey richness (q0) in the three Colombian populations of P. boliviensis , denoted by the three colors. Line types indicate whether estimates are interpolated (solid) or extrapolated (dashed). Ribbons indicate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) obtained by the bootstrap method based on 1000 replications.
Figure 5. Interpopulation bipartite prey–spider species interaction network. Lines connect the Barbosa, Oporapa and Ibagué localities (left) to dietary OTUs (bottom, colored by taxonomic order). The length of the boxes on the left reflects the number of prey analyzed for each OTU. The length of the boxes on the right reflects the relative abundance of each prey per OTU in each taxonomic order of prey in all samples in the data set, and the width of the connecting lines reflects the relative reads abundance of each OTU within the diet of each taxonomic order. We show only the connections that represent ≥1% of the diet of each species (total n = 234 OTUs). a) Araneae, b) Blattodea, c) Coleoptera, d) Dermaptera, e) Diptera, f) Hemiptera, g) Hymenoptera, h) Lepidoptera, i) Orthoptera, j) Phasmatodea, k) Squamata.