Figure 1.
Relationships (site average +/− S.E) between the factorials of landscape scale components and spider size.
a) Positive correlation between average tibia length and landscape component 1: positive association with hard surface land cover, housing density, distance to bush land and population density and a negative association with vegetation land cover and distance to CBD, (n = 20, r2 = 0.33, p<0.01). b) Positive correlation between average tibia length and landscape component 4: positive association with percentage water cover and negative association with distance to the coastline (n = 20, r2 = 0.30, p = 0.01).
Table 1.
Pearson R correlations between landscape variables at multiple scales and spider morphology (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).
Figure 2.
Relationships (site average +/− S.E) between the percentage of each site covered in hard surfaces and spider morphology.
a) Positive correlation between percentage hard surfaces and the average tibia length (r2 = 0.33, p<0.01). b) positive correlation between the percentage hard surface and average ovary weight (r2 = 0.30, p = 0.01).
Table 2.
Pearson’s R correlations between the components of the microhabitat PCA, size and microhabitat variables (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).