Parasitism
61 spiders had reads from entomopathogenic fungi or parasitic wasps
(Figure 8); these likely are from parasitized prey eaten by the spiders,
rather than parasitism of the spider itself. However, the latter cannot
be ruled out. Using both number of ASVs associated with parasites in
individual spiders and relative read abundances, there is a significant
difference between ginger and native forest sites (Welch t-test; p-value
< 0.005). 49 of the 61 spiders had sequences from parasitic
wasps, covering 29 ASVs. All but one of the parasites were identified as
non-native. 31 spiders in ginger had parasitic wasp reads compared to 18
in native forest. This results in a significant difference, albeit weak,
between invaded habitat and native forest (Welch t-test; p-value
< 0.05). Braconid wasps, predominantly Rhopalophorusand Cotesia, were most common among forest types. This was
followed by ichneumonid wasps, predominantly Ichneumon . Three
families of parasitic wasps were detected only in ginger sites; however,
these were detected in very few specimens.
Entomopathogenic fungi were identified in 22 spiders in ginger sites and
only 1 spider in native forest. There was a highly significant
difference between sites (Welch t-test; p-value < 0.001).Beauveria was identified in 16 spiders in ginger, followed byOphiocordyceps in 7 spiders. Most spiders (20 of 22) had a single
fungal type. However, Beauveria and Ophiocordyceps were
found co-occurring in two spiders in ginger forest. The single spider in
native forest was identified with Gibellula , a known arachnid
parasitic fungus. This genus was not detected in ginger sites, although
it falls in the same family as Beauveria . Infections of spiders
with Beauveria have been reported, but this is uncommon (Evans &
Samson 1987).