Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 687–709 | Cite as

Spontaneous recovery of functional diversity and rarity of ground-living spiders shed light on the conservation importance of recent woodlands

  • Loïs MorelEmail author
  • Benoît Dujol
  • Cyril Courtial
  • Manon Vasseur
  • Boris Leroy
  • Frédéric Ysnel
Original Paper


Secondary (or recent) woodlands, whose development is favoured by massive farmland abandonment, are increasingly seen as promising habitats that limit losses of biodiversity and ecosystem processes. The importance of temporal forest continuity (i.e. the duration of an uninterrupted forest state) for conservation of the forest fauna has been demonstrated for several taxa, but its influence on functional diversity and conservation importance of communities remains unclear. We studied how temporal continuity can shape taxonomic and functional composition and structure of forest-ground spider communities at a regional scale. According to broad-scale ecological site characteristics, species composition and—to a lesser extent—trait distribution substantially diverged between ancient and recent forest sites. Yet, we found hardly any significant differences in functional β-diversity, community structure, or conservation importance between the two forest categories. The only difference was for functional originality, which quantifies the average functional uniqueness of species within an assemblage: spiders’ communities of the ancient forests was more functionally original than those of the recent woodlands. Thus, in a conservation perspective, our study provides evidence that each forest harbours original species combinations, suggesting that each of them is irreplaceable, especially for ancient forests, which are functionally more original; however, recent woodlands have a high potential to spontaneously recover typical forest fauna communities with very similar structural and functional profiles to those of ancient forests.


Arthropods Farmland abandonment Land use changes Rewilding Feral woodlands 



This work was supported by the ‘Région Bretagne’, ‘Conseil départemental des Côtes d’Armor’, ‘Conseil départemental Finistère’, ‘Conseil départemental d’Ille et Vilaine’, ‘Conseil départemental du Morbihan’ and ‘Communauté de communes de Plouha-Lanvollon’ for technical and financial support. Moreover, we also would like to thank the military camp of St-Cyr-Coëtquidan and especially Alexandra Baudart and Sébastien Gautier (ONCFS) as well as Nicolas Le Deuff, Guy Le Reste (ONF) and David Rolland (FDC 22) for their help in acquiring data. We are also very grateful to the many colleagues and friends who helped in the preparation, analysis and treatment of data: Pierre Devogel, Maxime Hervé, Jean-Paul Lechapt, Margot Morin, Melaine Roullaud and Manon Simoneau, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1687_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
Electronic supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1180 kb)


  1. Allan E, Manning P, Alt F, Binkenstein J, Blaser S, Blüthgen N et al (2015) Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecol Lett 18:834–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assmann T (1999) The ground beetle fauna of ancient and recent woodlands in the lowlands of north-west Germany (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Biodivers Conserv 8:1499–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baselga A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global Ecol Biogeogr 19:134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baselga A, Orme CDL (2012) betapart: an R package for the study of beta diversity. Methods Ecol Evol 3:808–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bello F, Lepš J, Lavorel S, Moretti M (2007) Importance of species abundance for assessment of trait composition: an example based on pollinator communities. Community Ecol 8:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen ME, McAlpine CA, House APN, Smith GC (2007) Regrowth forests on abandoned agricultural land: a review of their habitat values for recovering forest fauna. Biol Conserv 140:273–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brose U, Jonsson T, Berlow EL, Warren P, Banasek-Richter C, Bersier L-F, Blanchard JL, Brey T, Carpenter SR, Blandenier M-FC, Cushing L, Dawah HA, Dell T, Edwards F, Harper-Smith S, Jacob U, Ledger ME, Martinez ND, Memmot J, Mintenbeck K, Pinnegar JK, Rall BC, Rayner TS, Reuman DC, Ruess L, Ulrich W, Williams RJ, Woodward G, Cohen JE (2006) Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology 87:2411–2417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buddle CM (2001) Spiders (Araneae) associated with downed woody material in a deciduous forest in central Alberta, Canada. Agr For Entomol 3:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bultman TL, Uetz GW, Brady AR (1982) A comparison of cursorial spider communities along a successional gradient. J Arachnol 10:23–33Google Scholar
  11. Buse J (2012) “Ghosts of the past”: flightless saproxylic weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) are relict species in ancient woodlands. J Insect Conserv 16:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services: functional diversity in ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1079–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardoso P, Pekár S, Jocqué R, Coddington JA (2011) Global patterns of guild composition and functional diversity of spiders. PLoS ONE 6:e21710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cateau E, Larrieu L, Vallauri D, Savoie J-M, Touroult J, Brustel H (2015) Ancientness and maturity: two complementary qualities of forest ecosystems. C R Biol 338:58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chase JM (2003) Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia 136:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies GM, Gray A (2015) Don’t let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). Ecol Evol 5(22):5295–5304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desender K, Ervynck A, Tack G (1999) Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belg J Zool 129:139–156Google Scholar
  18. Dupouey J-L, Dambrine E, Laffite J-D, Moares C (2002) Irreversible impact of past land use on forest soils and biodiversity. Ecology 83:2978–2984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Entling W, Schmidt MH, Bacher S, Brandl R, Nentwig W (2007) Niche properties of Central European spiders: shading, moisture and the evolution of the habitat niche. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flinn KM, Marks PL (2007) Agricultural legacies in forest environments: tree communities, soil properties, and light availability. Ecol Appl 17:452–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fonseca CR, Ganade G (2001) Species functional redundancy, random extinctions and the stability of ecosystems. J Ecol 89:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fukami T (2015) Historical contingency in community assembly: integrating niches, species pools, and priority effects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallé R (2008) The effect of a naturally fragmented landscape on the spider assemblages. N W J Zool 4:61–71Google Scholar
  24. Gallé R, Gallé-Szpisjak N, Torma A (2017) Habitat structure influences the spider fauna of short-rotation poplar plantations more than forest age. Eur J For Res 136:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gobbi M, Ballarin F, Brambilla M, Compostella M, Isaia M, Losapio G, Maffioletti C, Seppi R, Tampucci D, Caccianiga M (2017) Life in harsh environments: carabid and spider trait types and functional diversity on a debris-covered glacier and along its foreland. Ecol Entomol 42(838):848Google Scholar
  26. Goßner M, Engel K, Jessel B (2008) Plant and arthropod communities in young oak stands: are they determined by site history? Biodivers Conserv 17:3165–3180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gossner MM, Fonseca CR, Pašalić E, Türke M, Lange M, Weisser WW (2014) Limitations to the use of arthropods as temperate forests indicators. Biodiver Conserv 23:945–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harvey PR, Nellist DR, Telfer MG (2002) Provisional atlas of British spiders (Arachnida, Araneae). Biological Records Center, Huntington, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Hermy M, Verheyen K (2007) Legacies of the past in the present-day forest biodiversity: a review of past land-use effects on forest plant species composition and diversity. Ecol Res 22:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hermy M, Honnay O, Firbank L, Grashof-Bokdam C, Lawesson JE (1999) An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biol Conserv 91:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Hall CM (2013) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hortal J, Borges PAV, Gaspar C (2006) Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. J Anim Ecol 75:274–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hurd LE, Fagan WF (1992) Cursorial spiders and succession: age or habitat structure? Oecologia 92:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Janssen P, Fuhr M, Cateau E, Nusillard B, Bouget C (2017) Forest continuity acts congruently with stand maturity in structuring the functional composition of saproxylic beetles. Biol Conserv 205:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kirby K, Watkins C (2015) Europe’s changing woods and forests: from wildwood to managed landscapes. CAB Int, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laliberté E, Legendre P, Shipley B (2014) FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1.0-12Google Scholar
  37. Leitão RP, Zuanon J, Villéger S, Williams SE, Baraloto C, Fortune C, Mendonça FP, Mouillot D (2016) Rare species contribute disproportionately to the functional structure of species assemblages. Proc R Soc B 283:20160084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leprieur F, Oikonomou A (2014) The need for richness-independent measures of turnover when delineating biogeographical regions. J Biogeogr 41:417–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leroy B (2016) Rarity: calculation of rarity indices for species and assemblages of species. R package version 1-3-6Google Scholar
  40. Leroy B, Petillon J, Gallon R, Canard A, Ysnel F (2012) Improving occurrence-based rarity metrics in conservation studies by including multiple rarity cut-off points: multiple cut-offs in rarity metrics. Insect Conserv Divers 5:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leroy B, Canard A, Ysnel F (2013) Integrating multiple scales in rarity assessments of invertebrate taxa. Divers Distrib 19:794–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magura T, Bogyó D, Mizser S, Nagy DD, Tóthmérész B (2015) Recovery of ground-dwelling assemblages during reforestation with native oak depends on the mobility and feeding habits of the species. For Ecol Manag 339:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maire E, Grenouillet G, Brosse S, Villéger S (2015) How many dimensions are needed to accurately assess functional diversity? A pragmatic approach for assessing the quality of functional spaces: assessing functional space quality. Global Ecol Biogeogr 24:728–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mallis RE, Hurd LE (2005) Diversity among ground-dwelling spider assemblages: habitat generalists and specialists. J Arachnol 33:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marc P, Canard A, Ysnel F (1999) Spiders (Araneae) useful for pest limitation and bioindication. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:229–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller JR, Bestelmeyer BT (2016) What’s wrong with novel ecosystems, really? Restor Ecol 24:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mouchet MA, Villéger S, Mason NWH, Mouillot D (2010) Functional diversity measures: an overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules. Funct Ecol 24:867–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mouillot D, Bellwood DR, Baraloto C, Chave J, Galzin R, Harmelin-Vivien M, Kulbicki M, Lavergne S, Lavorel S, Mouquet N, Paine CET, Renaud J, Thuiller W (2013a) Rare species support vulnerable functions in high-diversity ecosystems. PLoS Biol 11:e1001569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mouillot D, Graham NAJ, Villéger S, Mason NWH, Bellwood DR (2013b) A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol Evol 28:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murcia C, Aronson J, Kattan GH, Moreno-Mateos D, Dixon K, Simberloff D (2014) A critique of the ‘novel ecosystem’ concept. Trends Ecol Evol 29:548–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nentwig G (1986) Non-webbuilding spiders: prey specialists or generalists? Oecol 69:571–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA et al (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nordén B, Dahlberg A, Brandrud TE, Fritz Ö, Ejrnaes R, Ovaskainen O (2014) Effects of ecological continuity on species richness and composition in forests and woodlands: a review. Ecoscience 21:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Öberg S, Ekbom B, Bommarco R (2007) Influence of habitat type and surrounding landscape on spider diversity in Swedish agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, M Friendly, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin RB, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner ES, Wagner H (2017) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2–4-4Google Scholar
  56. Pavoine S, Bonsall MB (2011) Measuring biodiversity to explain community assembly: a unified approach. Biol Rev 86:792–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pearce JL, Venier LA (2006) The use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) as bioindicators of sustainable forest management: a review. Ecol Indic 6:780–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pearce JL, Venier LA, Eccles G, Pedlar J, MCKenney D (2005) Habitat islands, forest edge and spring-active invertebrate assemblages. Biodiver Conserv 14:2949–2969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pereira HM, Navarro LM (eds) (2015) Rewilding European landscapes. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Pinzon J, Wu L, He F, Spence JR (2018) Fine-scale forest variability and biodiversity in the boreal mixedwood forest. Ecography 41:753–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prieto-Benítez S, Méndez M (2011) Effects of land management on the abundance and richness of spiders (Araneae): a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 144:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Queiroz C, Beilin R, Folke C, Lindborg R (2014) Farmland abandonment: threat or opportunity for biodiversity conservation? A global review. Front Ecol Environ 12:288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Renwick A, Jansson T, Verburg PH, Revoredo-Giha C, Britz W, Gocht A, McCracken D (2013) Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 30:446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  65. Roberts MJ (1995) Spiders of Britain & Northern Europe. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Sala OE (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schaffers AP, Raemakers IP, Sỳkora KV, Ter Braak CJ (2008) Arthropod assemblages are best predicted by plant species composition. Ecology 89:782–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simpson GL (2016) permute: functions for generating restricted permutations of data. R package version 0.9-4Google Scholar
  69. Soberón J, Jiménez R, Golubov J, Koleff P (2007) Assessing completeness of biodiversity databases at different spatial scales. Ecography 30:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Spake R, Ezard THG, Martin PA, Newton AC, Doncaster CP (2015) A meta-analysis of functional group responses to forest recovery outside of the tropics. Conserv Biol 29:1695–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vavrek MJ, Vavrek MMJ (2011) fossil: palaeoecological and palaeogeographical analysis tools. Palaeontol Electron 14:1TGoogle Scholar
  72. Villéger S, Mason NW, Mouillot D (2008) New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89:2290–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Villéger S, Grenouillet G, Brosse S (2013) Decomposing functional β-diversity reveals that low functional β-diversity is driven by low functional turnover in European fish assemblages: decomposing functional β-diversity. Global Ecol Biogeogr 22:671–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Violle C, Thuiller W, Mouquet N, Munoz F, Kraft NJB, Cadotte MW, Livingstone SW, Mouillot D (2017) Functional rarity: the ecology of outliers. Trends Ecol Evol 32:356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ziesche TM, Roth M (2008) Influence of environmental parameters on small-scale distribution of soil-dwelling spiders in forests: what makes the difference, tree species or microhabitat? For Ecol Manag 255:738–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loïs Morel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Benoît Dujol
    • 1
  • Cyril Courtial
    • 1
  • Manon Vasseur
    • 1
  • Boris Leroy
    • 2
  • Frédéric Ysnel
    • 1
  1. 1.Géoarchitecture: Territoires, Urbanisation, Biodiversité, Environnement (EA 7462 G-TUBE)Université de Rennes 1, Université de Bretagne OccidentaleRennesFrance
  2. 2.Unité Biologie des Organismes et Écosystèmes Aquatiques (UMR 7208 BOREA), Sorbonne Universités, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Université de Caen Normandie, Université des Antilles, CNRS, IRDParisFrance

Personalised recommendations