Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 829–852 | Cite as

Environmental drivers of spider community composition at multiple scales along an urban gradient

  • E. C. Lowe
  • C. G. Threlfall
  • S. M. Wilder
  • D. F. Hochuli
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Urban biodiversity


Broad-scale modification of natural ecosystems associated with urbanisation often leads to localised extinctions and reduced species richness. Despite this, habitats within the urban matrix are still capable of supporting biodiversity to varying degrees. As species have different responses to anthropogenic habitat modification, the species composition of urban areas can depend greatly on the habitat characteristics of the local and surrounding areas. The aim of this study was to compare the community composition of spiders in private gardens, urban parks, patches of remnant vegetation and continuous bushland sites, so as to identify habitat variables associated with variation in spider populations along and within the urban gradient and matrix. Overall spider abundances and richness were highest in remnant vegetation patches and were associated with increased vegetation cover at microhabitat and landscape-scales. While gardens were not as diverse as remnant patches, they did support a surprisingly high diversity of spiders. We also found that species composition differed significantly between gardens and other urban green spaces. Higher richness within gardens was also associated with greater vegetation cover, indicating the importance of private management decisions on local biodiversity. Differences in community composition between land-use types were driven by a small number of urban-tolerant species, and spider guilds showed different responses to habitat traits such as vegetation cover and human population densities. This study demonstrates that urban land-uses support unique spider communities and that maintaining vegetation cover within the urban matrix is essential in order to support diverse spider communities in cities.


Urbanisation Community composition Land-use Spider Vegetation cover 



We thank the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Royal Botanic Gardens and local councils for the permission to sample in their areas. We also thank N. Cooper and the team at Systems Pest Management for their support, and the owners of the gardens for allowing us to conduct our surveys on their properties. CGT is supported by the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub, which is funded by the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Programme.

Supplementary material

10531_2017_1466_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (610 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 611 kb)


  1. Alaruikka D, Kotze DJ, Matveinen K, Niemelä J (2002) Carabid beetle and spider assemblages along a forested urban–rural gradient in southern Finland. J Insect Conserv 6:195–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang C, Faeth SH (2011) Variation in arthropod communities in response to urbanization: seven years of arthropod monitoring in a desert city. Lands Urban Plan 103:383–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823
  4. Beninde J, Veith M, Hochkirch A (2015) Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol Lett 18:581–592. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bivand R, Piras G (2015) Comparing implementations of estimation methods for spatial econometrics. J Stat Soft 63(18):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolger DT, Suarez AV, Crooks KR, Morrison SA, Case TJ (2000) Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: area, age, and edge effects. Ecol Appl 10:1230–1248.[1230:AIUHFI]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  7. Bolger DT, Beard KH, Suarez AV, Case TJ (2008) Increased abundance of native and non-native spiders with habitat fragmentation. Diverse Distrib 14:655–665. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkman CE, Gardiner MM (2014) Urban greenspace composition and landscape context influence natural enemy community composition and function. Biol Control 75:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burkman CE, Gardiner MM (2015) Spider assemblages within greenspaces of a deindustrialized urban landscape. Urban Ecosyst 18:793–818. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnhan KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardoso P, Pekár S, Jocqué R, Coddington JA (2011) Global patterns of guild composition and functional diversity of spiders. PLoS ONE 6:e21710. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchill TB, Arthur JM (1999) Measuring spider richness: effects of different sampling methods and spatial and temporal scales. J Insect Conserv 3:287–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke K, Gorley R (2015) PRIMER, 7th edn. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  14. Clough Y, Kruess A, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T (2005) Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local, landscape and regional scales. J Biogeogr 32:2007–2014. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobbold SM, MacMahon JA (2012) Guild mobility affects spider diversity: links between foraging behavior and sensitivity to adjacent vegetation structure. Basic Appl Ecol 13:597–605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Mas E, Chust G, Pretus J, Ribera C (2009) Spatial modelling of spider biodiversity: matters of scale. Biodivers Conserv 18:1945–1962. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denno RF, Finke DL, Langellotto GA (2005) Direct and indirect effects of vegetation structure and habitat complexity on predator–prey and predator–predator interactions. In: Barbosa P, Castellanos I (eds) Ecology of predator-prey interactions. Oxford University Press, London, pp 211–239Google Scholar
  18. Diehl E, Mader V, Wolters V, Birkhofer K (2013) Management intensity and vegetation complexity affect web-building spiders and their prey. Oecologia 173:579–589. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Faeth SH, Warren PS, Shochat E, Marussich WA (2005) Trophic dynamics in urban communities. Bioscience 55:399–407.[0399:tdiuc];2Google Scholar
  20. Fischer JB, Lindenmayer D (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 112:473–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gardiner MM, Burkman CE, Prajzner SP (2013) The value of urban vacant land to support arthropod biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Entomol 42:1123–1136. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaston K, Warren P, Thompson K, Smith R (2005) Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodivers Conserv 14:3327–3349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaston KJ et al (2007) Improving the contribution of urban gardens for wildlife: some guiding propositions. Brit Wildlife 18:171–177Google Scholar
  25. Geiger F et al (2010) Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl Ecol 11:97–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Goncalves-Souza T, Almeida-Neto M, Romero GQ (2011) Bromeliad architectural complexity and vertical distribution predict spider abundance and richness. Aust Ecol 36:476–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haase D et al (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kark S, Iwaniuk A, Schalimtzek A, Banker E (2007) Living in the city: can anyone become an ‘urban exploiter’? J Biogeogr 34:638–651. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kendal D, Williams N, Williams K (2010) Harnessing diversity in gardens through individual decision makers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:201–202. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kendal D, Williams NSG, Williams KJH (2012) Drivers of diversity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban For Urban Gree 11:257–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kralj-Fišer S, Schneider JM (2012) Individual behavioural consistency and plasticity in an urban spider. Anim Behav 84:197–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loram A, Warren P, Gaston K (2008) Urban domestic gardens (XIV): the characteristics of gardens in five cities. Environ Manag 42:361–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lowe EC, Wilder SM, Hochuli DF (2014) Urbanisation at multiple scales is associated with larger size and higher fecundity of an orb-weaving spider. PLoS ONE 9:e105480. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Lowe EC, Wilder SM, Hochuli DF (2016) Persistence and survival of the spider Nephila plumipes in cities: do increased prey resources drive the success of an urban exploiter? Urban Ecosyst 19:705–720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Hornung E, Horváth R (2008) Urbanisation and ground-dwelling invertebrates. In: Wagner LN (ed) Urbanization: 21st century issues and challenges. Nova Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Mazerolle MJ (2015) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.0-3Google Scholar
  39. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1232–1237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McIntyre NE (2000) Ecology of urban arthropods: a review and a call to action. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:825–835.[0825:eouaar];2Google Scholar
  41. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKinney M (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miyashita T, Shinkai A, Chida T (1998) The effects of forest fragmentation on web spider communities in urban areas. Biol Conserv 86:357–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miyashita T, Chishiki Y, Takagi SR (2012) Landscape heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales enhances spider species richness in an agricultural landscape. Popul Ecol 54:573–581. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Otoshi MD, Bichier P, Philpott SM (2015) Local and landscape correlates of spider activity density and species richness in urban gardens. Environ Entomol 44:1043–1051. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Paker Y, Yom-Tov Y, Alon-Mozes T, Barnea A (2014) The effect of plant richness and urban garden structure on bird species richness, diversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 122:186–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pauleit S, Ennos R, Golding Y (2005) Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change—a study in Merseyside, UK. Lands Urban Plan 71:295–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasband WS (2015) ImageJ, v 1.48. National Institutes of Health, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  50. Raupp MJ, Shrewsbury PM, Herms DA (2010) Ecology of herbivorous arthropods in urban landscapes. Annu Rev Entomol 55:19–38. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sattler T, Borcard D, Arlettaz R, Bontadina F, Legendre P, Obrist MK, Moretti M (2010) Spider, bee, and bird communities in cities are shaped by environmental control and high stochasticity. Ecology 91:3343–3353. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Shochat E, Stefanov WL, Whitehouse MEA, Faeth SH (2004) Urbanization and spider diversity: influences of human modification of habitat structure and productivity. Ecol Appl 14:268–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith R, Gaston K, Warren P, Thompson K (2006a) Urban domestic gardens (VIII): environmental correlates of invertebrate abundance. Biodivers Conserv 15:2515–2545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith RM, Warren PH, Thompson K, Gaston KJ (2006b) Urban domestic gardens (VI): environmental correlates of invertebrate species richness. Biodivers Conserv 15:2415–2438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trubl P, Gburek T, Miles L, Johnson J (2012) Black widow spiders in an urban desert: population variation in an arthropod pest across metropolitan Phoenix, AZ. Urban Ecosyst 15:599–609. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turrini T, Knop E (2015) A landscape ecology approach identifies important drivers of urban biodiversity. Glob Change Biol 21:1652–1667. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Uetz GW (1991) Habitat structure and spider foraging. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (eds) Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 325–348.
  58. van Heezik Y, Freeman C, Porter S, Dickinson KJM (2013) Garden size, householder knowledge, and socio-economic status influence plant and bird diversity at the scale of individual gardens. Ecosystems 16:1442–1454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Varet M, Pétillon J, Burel F (2011) Comparative responses of spider and carabid beetle assemblages along an urban-rural boundary gradient. J Arachnol 39:236–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vergnes A, Viol IL, Clergeau P (2012) Green corridors in urban landscapes affect the arthropod communities of domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 145:171–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Life and Environmental SciencesThe University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of Ecosystem and Forest SciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Integrative BiologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations