Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Standardization and optimization of arthropod inventories—the case of Iberian spiders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation of species requires accurate knowledge on their distribution. For most groups this can only be achieved through targeted biodiversity assessment programs that must explicitly incorporate comparability and efficiency in their definition. These require the standardization and optimization of sampling protocols, especially for mega-diverse arthropod taxa. This study had two objectives: (1) propose guidelines and statistical methods to improve the standardization and optimization of arthropod inventories, and (2) to propose a standardized and optimized protocol for Iberian spiders based on such guidelines and methods. Definition of the protocol has the following four steps. Firstly, the evaluation of the source data to ensure that the protocol is based on close to complete sampling of a number of sites. Secondly, optimizing the effort per collecting method, using an iterative algorithm that optimizes the combination of methods and samples per method tested in the different sites. Thirdly, defining the overall effort (stop-rules), considering not only desired sampling completeness levels, but also practical strategies during field work. Finally, standardizing the protocol, by finding common results between the optimal options for the different sites. The steps listed were successfully followed in the determination of a sampling protocol for Iberian spiders. A protocol with three sub-protocols of varying degrees of effort (24, 96 and 320 h of sampling) is proposed. I also present recommendations on how to apply the same principles to other regions and taxa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agosti D, Alonso LE (2000) The ALL protocol—a standard protocol for the collection of ground-dwelling ants. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) Ants–standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Biological Diversity Handbook Series. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Basset Y (1991) The taxonomic composition of the arthropod fauna associated with an Australian rain-forest tree. Aust J Zool 39:171–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore S (1996) Knowing the Earth’s biodiversity: challenges for the infrastructure of systematic biology. Science 274:63–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borges PAV, Brown VK (2004) Arthropod community structure in pastures of an island archipelago (Azores): looking for local-regional species richness patterns at fine-scales. Bull Entomol Res 94:111–121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carassou L, Mellin C, Ponton D (2009) Assessing the diversity and abundances of larvae and juveniles of coral reef fish: a synthesis of six sampling techniques. Biodivers Conserv 18:355–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Gaspar C (2007a) Biotic integrity of the arthropod communities in the natural forests of Azores. Biodivers Conserv 16:2883–2901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Silva I, Oliveira NG, Serrano ARM (2007b) Seasonality of spiders (Araneae) in Mediterranean ecosystems and its implications in the optimum sampling period. Ecol Entomol 32:516–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Gaspar C, Pereira LC et al (2008a) Assessing spider species richness and composition in Mediterranean cork oak forests. Acta Oecologica 33:114–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Scharff N, Gaspar C et al (2008b) Rapid biodiversity assessment of spiders (Araneae) using semi-quantitative sampling: a case study in a Mediterranean forest. Insect Conserv Divers 1:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Henriques SS, Gaspar C et al (2009) Species richness and composition assessment of spiders in a Mediterranean scrubland. J Insect Conserv 13:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill TB, Arthur JM (1999) Measuring spider richness: effects of different sampling methods and spatial and temporal scales. J Insect Conserv 3:287–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coddington JA, Griswold CE, Davila DS (1991) Designing and testing sampling protocols to estimate biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. In: Dudley EC et al (eds) The unity of evolutionary biology: proceedings of the fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology. Dioscorides Press, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Coddington JA, Young LH, Coyle FA (1996) Estimating spider species richness in a southern Appalachian cove hardwood forest. J Arachnol 24:111–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Coddington JA, Agnarsson I, Miller JA et al (2009) Undersampling bias: the null hypothesis for singleton species in tropical arthropod surveys. J Anim Ecol 78:573–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delabie JHC, Fisher BL, Majer JD, Wright IW (2000) Sampling effort and choice of methods. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) Ants–standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Biological Diversity Handbook Series. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobyns JR (1997) Effects of sampling intensity on the collection of spider (Araneae) species and the estimation of species richness. Environ Entomol 26:150–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Droege S, Cyr A, Larivée J (1998) Checklists: an under-used tool for the inventory and monitoring of plants and animals. Conserv Biol 12:1134–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P (1997) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agricult Ecosys Environ 62:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P, Obrist MK, Schmatz DR (1999) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects. Agricult Ecosys Environ 74:33–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison AM, Record S, Arguello A, Gotelli NJ (2007) Rapid inventory of the ant assemblage in a temperate hardwood forest: species composition and assessment of sampling methods. Environ Entomol 36:766–775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Faith DP, Walker PA (1996) Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity set of areas. Biodivers Conserv 5:399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser SEM, Dytham C, Mayhew PJ (2008) The effectiveness and optimal use of Malaise traps for monitoring parasitoid wasps. Insect Conserv Divers 1:22–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (1999) Implications of interspecific and intraspecific abundance-occupancy relationships. Oikos 86:195–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies CL, Hose GC, Turak E (2009) What do qualitative rapid assessment collections of macroinvertebrates represent? A comparison with extensive quantitative sampling. Environ Monit Assess 149:99–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon JE, Newton AC (2006) Efficient floristic inventory for the assessment of tropical tree diversity: a comparative test of four alternative approaches. Forest Ecol Manag 237:564–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hering D, Moog O, Sandin L, Verdonschot P (2004) Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal J, Lobo JM (2005) An ED-based protocol for optimal sampling of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:2913–2947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal J, Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A (2007) Limitations of biodiversity databases: case study on seed-plant diversity in Tenerife, Canary Islands. Conserv Biol 21:853–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James CD (2004) Trapping intensities for sampling ants in Australian rangelands. Austral Ecol 29:78–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM (2006) Establishing reliable spider (Araneae, Araneidae and Thomisidae) assemblage sampling protocols: estimation of species richness, seasonal coverage and contribution of juvenile data to species richness and composition. Acta Oecologica 30:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones DT, Eggleton P (2000) Sampling termite assemblages in tropical forests: testing a rapid biodiversity assessment protocol. J Appl Ecol 37:191–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino JT (2000) What to do with the data. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) Ants–standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Biological Diversity Handbook Series. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino JT, Colwell RK (1997) Biodiversity assessment using structured inventory: capturing the ant fauna of a tropical rain forest. Ecol Appl 7:1263–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Missa O, Basset Y, Alonso A et al (2009) Monitoring arthropods in a tropical landscape: relative effects of sampling methods and habitat types on trap catches. J Insect Conserv 13:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New TR (1999) Untangling the web: spiders and the challenges of invertebrate conservation. J Insect Conserv 3:251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J, Kotze J, Ashworth A et al (2000) The search for common anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity: a global network. J Insect Conserv 4:3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver I, Beattie AJ (1996) Designing a cost-effective invertebrate survey: a test of methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity. Ecol Appl 6:594–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos MA, Lobo JM, Esteban M (2001) Ten years inventorying the Iberian fauna: results and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 10:19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riecken U (1999) Effects of short-term sampling on ecological characterization and evaluation of epigeic spider communities and their habitats for site assessment studies. J Arachnol 27:189–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts RL, Donald PF, Green RE (2007) Using simple species lists to monitor trends in animal populations: new methods and a comparison with independent data. Anim Conserv 10:332–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohr JR, Mahan CG, Kim KC (2007) Developing a monitoring program for invertebrates: guidelines and a case study. Conserv Biol 21:422–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scharff N, Coddington JA, Griswold CE et al (2003) When to quit? Estimating spider species richness in a northern European deciduous forest. J Arachnol 31:246–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva D, Coddington JA (1996) Spiders of Pakitza (Madre de Dios, Perú): species richness and notes on community structure. In: Wilson DE, Sandoval A (eds) The Biodiversity of Southeastern Perú. Smithsonian Institution, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder BA, Draney ML, Sierwald P (2006) Development of an optimal sampling protocol for millipedes (Diplopoda). J Insect Conserv 10:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen LL (2004) Composition and diversity of the spider fauna in the canopy of a montane forest in Tanzania. Biodivers Conserv 13:437–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen LL, Coddington JA, Scharff N (2002) Inventorying and estimating subcanopy spider diversity using semiquantitative sampling methods in an afromontane forest. Environ Entomol 31:319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stork NE, Samways MJ, Eeley HAC (1996) Inventorying and monitoring biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evolut 11:39–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toti DS, Coyle FA, Miller JA (2000) A structured inventory of Appalachian grass bald and heath bald spider assemblages and a test of species richness estimator performance. J Arachnol 28:329–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to all the people that helped in fieldwork, logistics and advice: Clara Gaspar, Sérgio Henriques, Nikolaj Scharff, Jesper Schmidt, Tamás Szűts, Israel Silva, Rui Carvalho, Pedro Sousa, Luis Crespo, Luis Carlos Pereira, Pedro Humberto Castro, Ricardo Silva, Ana Filipa Gouveia and Alberto de Castro. Thanks to Nikolaj Scharff, Jonathan Coddington, Clara Gaspar and Paulo A.V. Borges for fruitful discussion and comments on previous versions of the manuscript. Jonathan Coddington has extensively edited English usage. Support was given by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (grants no. SFRH/BD/1195/2000 and SFRH/BPD/17351/2004), the Danish Bøje Benzons Foundation, the Danish Natural Science Research Council (grant no. 272-05-0431), the Portuguese Institute for Nature Conservation, Peneda-Gerês National Park and Vale do Guadiana Nature Park.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Natural History Museum of Denmark, Zoological Museum and Centre for Macroecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Pedro Cardoso

  2. Azorean Biodiversity Group, CITA-A, Universidade dos Açores, Angra do Heroísmo, Portugal

    Pedro Cardoso

  3. Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 105, Room E-509, Washington, DC, 20013-7012, USA

    Pedro Cardoso

Authors
  1. Pedro Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Cardoso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cardoso, P. Standardization and optimization of arthropod inventories—the case of Iberian spiders. Biodivers Conserv 18, 3949–3962 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9690-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9690-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation