Predicted habitat suitability for <i>Nephilengys papuana</i> within its directional distribution area (see Fig. 3 and Methods for details).

<p>The model builds on two best fit parameters, land cover (GLC) and precipitation (PMA, see inset with GWR results).</p

Predicted habitat suitability for <i>Nephilengys livida</i> within its directional distribution area (see Fig. 3 and Methods for details).

<p>The model builds on two best fit parameters, land cover (GLC) and altitude (ALT, see inset with GWR results).</p

Diagram showing the model created in ModelBuilder: the case of <i>Nephilengys papuana</i>, shown here, where two best fit parameters, land cover (GLC) and precipitation (PMA) were used to predict habitat suitability.

<p>Diagram showing the model created in ModelBuilder: the case of <i>Nephilengys papuana</i>, shown here, where two best fit parameters, land cover (GLC) and precipitation (PMA) were used to predict habitat suitability.</p

OLS and GWR regression results yielding two best parameters for each species habitat suitability model (see Methods for details).

<p>OLS and GWR regression results yielding two best parameters for each species habitat suitability model (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030047#s2" target="_blank">Methods</a> for details).</p

Environmental parameters used for the habitat suitability model.

1<p>Range of values included in the maximum search area computed with Directional Distribution with SD3</p>2<p>Land-cover legend: 1— Tree cover, broadleaved, evergreen; 2— Tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed; 3 — Tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, open; 7 — Tree cover, regularly flooded, fresh water; 9 — Mosaic: Tree cover/Other natural vegetation; 11 — Shrub cover, closed-open, evergreen; 12 — Shrub cover, closed-open, deciduous; 13 — Herbaceous cover, closed-open; 14 — Sparse herbaceous or sparse shrub cover; 15 — Regularly flooded shrub and/or herbaceous cover; 16 — Cultivated and managed areas; 17 — Mosaic: Cropland/Tree cover/Other natural vegetation; 20 — Water bodies; 22 — Artificial surfaces and associated areas.</p

Predicted habitat suitability for <i>Nephilengys cruentata</i> within its directional distribution area (see Methods for details).

<p>The model builds on two best fit parameters, temperature (TMA) and altitude (ALT, see inset with GWR results from <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030047#pone-0030047-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>). Probability dots have an area of 235.7 km², and the specimen record circles are 7853.8 km².</p

Changes for all species in altitude and latitude (above), and temperature and precipitation (below).

<p>Species maintain their characteristic climatic conditions by shifting towards higher altitudes and latitudes. Geographical and ecological averages for the modeled suitable habitats combined all categories (low, medium and high suitability). NI = <i>Nephilingis</i>, NG = <i>Nephilengys</i>, PMA = mean annual precipitation, TMA =  mean annual temperature.</p

Results from a generalized linear model (GLM) testing the effects of two explorative factors (phylogeny and lifestyle) on how spiders respond to climate conditions (based on the IPCC scenario A1B for temperature and precipitation) by shifting latitude or altitude.

<p>The model that included two factors and 2-way interaction was fitted using multinominal distribution with cumulative logit link error.</p><p>GLM test for latitude shift: Goodness of fit: AIC = 116.261; Omnibus test: <i>χ</i>² = 328.2, <i>df</i> = 3, <i>p</i><0.0001; GLM test for altitude shift: Goodness of fit: AIC = 107.247; Omnibus test: <i>χ</i>² = 48.242, <i>df</i> = 3, <i>p</i><0.0001.</p

Phylogeny Predicts Future Habitat Shifts Due to Climate Change

<div><p>Background</p><p>Taxa may respond differently to climatic changes, depending on phylogenetic or ecological effects, but studies that discern among these alternatives are scarce. Here, we use two species pairs from globally distributed spider clades, each pair representing two lifestyles (generalist, specialist) to test the relative importance of phylogeny versus ecology in predicted responses to climate change.</p><p>Methodology</p><p>We used a recent phylogenetic hypothesis for nephilid spiders to select four species from two genera (<i>Nephilingis</i> and <i>Nephilengys</i>) that match the above criteria, are fully allopatric but combined occupy all subtropical-tropical regions. Based on their records, we modeled each species niche spaces and predicted their ecological shifts 20, 40, 60, and 80 years into the future using customized GIS tools and projected climatic changes.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Phylogeny better predicts the species current ecological preferences than do lifestyles. By 2080 all species face dramatic reductions in suitable habitat (54.8–77.1%) and adapt by moving towards higher altitudes and latitudes, although at different tempos. Phylogeny and life style explain simulated habitat shifts in altitude, but phylogeny is the sole best predictor of latitudinal shifts. Models incorporating phylogenetic relatedness are an important additional tool to predict accurately biotic responses to global change.</p></div

Two nephilid species pairs, their phylogeny, and basic ecology.

<p>One species from each clade is synanthropic and the other one a habitat specialist. This sample tests the relative importance of phylogeny versus life history on species responses to climatic changes. The phylogenetic hypothesis builds on a nephilid species level study that used 4kB of nucleotide data in addition to morphology, and an array of analytical approaches and sensitivity analyses <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0098907#pone.0098907-Kuntner1" target="_blank">[28]</a>.</p