Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 11, pp 3141–3155 | Cite as

Using spider web types as a substitute for assessing web-building spider biodiversity and the success of habitat restoration

  • John R. Gollan
  • Helen M. Smith
  • Matthew Bulbert
  • Andrew P. Donnelly
  • Lance Wilkie
Original Paper

Abstract

Arthropods have been regarded as good indicators of habitat quality due to their sensitivity to changes in habitat state. However, there are many constraints to working with arthropods that make them inaccessible to land managers and most volunteer-driven initiatives. Our study examined a novel approach for detecting changes in web-building spider communities by focussing on the types of webs that spiders build rather than the spider itself. This method was cost-effective, easy-to-use, and importantly, we found a strong congruency between the diversity of web architecture and the diversity of web-building spider genera. The metrics derived from this method could distinguish differences in web-building communities among habitat types that represented a successional gradient, and thus we concluded that the method was useful for monitoring the progress of restoration. Many other applications for the method are possible such as environmental impact assessment and agricultural pest management, and we encourage development in these areas.

Keywords

Araneae Citizen science Cost-effective Indicator Invertebrate 

Supplementary material

10531_2010_9882_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (35.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPT 36666 kb)
10531_2010_9882_MOESM2_ESM.doc (3.8 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 3913 kb)

References

  1. Andersen AN, Hoffmann BD, Muller WJ, Griffiths AD (2002) Using ants as bioindicators in land management: simplifying assessment of ant community responses. J Appl Ecol 39:8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baines M, Hambler C, Johnson PJ et al (1998) The effects of arable field margin management on the abundance and species richness of Araneae (spiders). Ecography 21:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros F (2001) Ghost crabs as a tool for rapid assessment of human impacts on exposed sandy beaches. Biol Conserv 97:399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell JR, Wheater CP, Cullen WR (2001) The implications of grassland and heathland management for the conservation of spider communities: a review. J Zool (Lond) 255:377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birks J, Messenger J, Braithwaite T (2005) Chapter 12: are scats surveys a reliable method for assessing distribution and population status of pine Martens? In: Harrison DJ, Fuller AK, Proulx G et al (eds) Martens and Fishers (Martes) in human-altered environments an international perspective. Springer, US, pp 235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackledge TA (1998) Signal conflict in spider webs driven by predators and prey. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 265:1991–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowie MH, Frampton CM (2004) A new technique for non-destructive monitoring of soil surface invertebrates for ecological restoration programmes. Ecol Restor Manage 5(1):34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandon A, Spyreas G, Molano-Flores B et al (2003) Can volunteers provide reliable data for forest vegetation surveys? Nat Area J 23:254–262Google Scholar
  9. Brennan KEC, Moir ML, Majer JD (2004) Exhaustive sampling in a Southern Hemisphere global biodiversity hotspot: inventorying species richness and assessing endemicity of the little known jarrah forest spiders. Pac Conserv Biol 10:241–260Google Scholar
  10. Brennan KEC, Ashby L, Majer JD et al (2006) Simplifying assessment of forest management practices for invertebrates: how effective are higher taxon and habitat surrogates for spiders following prescribed burning? For Ecol Manage 231:138–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardoso P, Silva I, de Oliveira HG, Serrano ARM (2004a) Indicator taxa of spider (Araneae) diversity and their efficiency in conservation. Biol Conserv 120:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cardoso P, Silva I, de Oliveira NG, Serrano ARM (2004b) Higher taxa surrogates of spider (Araneae) diversity and their efficiency in conservation. Biol Conserv 117:453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caughlan L, Oakley KL (2001) Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring. Ecol Indic 1:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chame M (2003) Terrestrial mammal feces: a morphometric summary and description. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 98:71–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Curtis DJ (1981) Describing communities of land invertebrates—attempting the impossible? Scott Field Stud 1981:18–27Google Scholar
  16. Danielson F, Mendoza MM, Alviola P et al (2003) Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? Oryx 37:407–409Google Scholar
  17. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  18. Firehock K, West J (1995) A brief history of volunteer biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 14:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fore LS, Paulsen K, O’Laughlin K (2001) Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshw Biol 46:109–123Google Scholar
  20. Framenau VF, Scharff N (2008) The orb-weaving spider genus Larinia in Australia (Araneae: Araneidae). Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 66:227–250Google Scholar
  21. Framenau VF, Dupérré N, Blackledge TA, Vink CJ (2010) Systematics of the new Australasian orb-weaving spider genus Backobourkia (Araneae: Araneidae: Araneinae). Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 68:79–111Google Scholar
  22. Gibson CWD, Hambler C, Brown VK (1992) Changes in spider (Araneae) assemblages in relation to succession and grazing management. J Appl Ecol 29:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glen AS, Dickman C (2003) Monitoring bait removal in vertebrate pest control: a comparison using track identification and remote photography. Wildl Res Manage Conserv 30:29–33Google Scholar
  24. Gofreddo S, Piccinetti C, Zaccanti F (2004) Volunteers in marine conservation monitoring: a study of the distribution of seahorses carried out in collaboration with recreational scuba divers. Conserv Biol 18:1492–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gollan JR, Ashcroft MB, Cassis G et al (2009) Testing common habitat based surrogates in a semi arid rangeland. Biodivers Conserv 18:1147–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gotelli NJ (2004) A taxonomic wish-list for community ecology. Phil Trans R Soc Biol 359:585–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green CH, Tunstall SM (1991) Is the economic evaluation of environmental resources possible? J Environ Manage 33:123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenstone MH (1984) Determinants of web spider species diversity: vegetation structural diversity vs. prey availability. Oecologia (Berlin) 62:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenwood JJD (1994) Trust the wildlife volunteers. Nature 368:490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herberstein ME, Craig CL, Coddington JA (2000) The functional significance of silk decorations of orb-web spiders: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev 75:649–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodkinson ID, Jackson JK (2005) Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates as bioindicators for environmental monitoring, with particular reference to mountain ecosystems. Environ Manage 35:649–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hopkins GW, Freckleton RP (2002) Declines in the number of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv 5:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hulbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kremen C, Colwell RK, Erwin TL et al (1993) Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 7:796–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuehn E, Feldmann R, Harpke A (2008) Getting the public involved in butterfly conservation: lessons learned from a new monitoring scheme in Germany. Israel J Ecol Evol 54:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Langellotto GA, Denno RF (2004) Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: a meta-analytical synthesis. Oecologia (Berlin) 139:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lovell S, Hamer M, Slotow R, Herbert D (2007) Assessment of congruency across invertebrate taxa and taxonomic levels to identify potential surrogates. Biol Conserv 139:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Main BY (1976) Spiders. The Australian Naturalist Library. William Collins Publishers Pty Ltd, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  39. Mandelik Y, Tamar D, Chikatunov V, Kravchenko V (2007) Reliability of a higher-taxon approach to richness, rarity, and composition assessments at the local scale. Conserv Biol 21:1506–1515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McGeoch MA, Van Rensburg BJ, Botes A (2002) The verification and application of bioindicators: a case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 39:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McNett BJ, Rypstra AL (2000) Habitat selection in a large orb-weaving spider: vegetational complexity determines site selection and distribution. Ecol Entomol 25:423–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moller H, Clapperton BK, Fletcher DJ (1997) Density of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus L.) in the Mackenzie Basin, South Island, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 21:161–167Google Scholar
  43. Newman C, Buesching CD, Macdonald DW (2003) Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation—“Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies ?”. Biol Conserv 113:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oliver I, Beattie AJ (1996) Designing a cost-effective invertebrate survey: a test of methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity. Ecol Appl 6:594–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peake T (2003) Hunter bushland resources kit. Hunter Catchment Management Trust, Tocal, NSWGoogle Scholar
  46. Riechert SE, Gillespie RG (1986) Habitat choice and utilization in web-building spiders. In: Shear WA (ed) Spiders: webs, behavior and evolution. Standford University Press, Standford, pp 22–48Google Scholar
  47. Rosenberg DM, Danks HV, Lehmkuhl DM (1986) Importance of insects in environmental impact assessment. Environ Manage 10:773–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rypstra AL (1983) The importance of food and space in limiting web-spider densities; a test using field enclosures. Oecologia 59:312–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Samways MJ (2007) Insect conservation: a synthetic management approach. Annu Rev Entomol 52:465–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM, Moder K et al (2006) Assessing ant assemblages: pitfall trapping versus nest counting (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect Soc 53:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith H (2008) BugWise Web2Spider Supplement. Available at http://publications.australianmuseum.net.au/pdf/1561_complete.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2010
  52. Smith H, Gollan RJ, Bulbert M (2008) BugWise Web2Spider a tool for monitoring the diversity of web-building spiders. Available at http://publications.australianmuseum.net.au/pdf/1560_complete.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2010
  53. Takada M, Baba YG, Yanagi Y et al (2008) Contrasting responses of web-building spiders to deer browsing among habitats and feeding guilds. Environ Entomol 37:938–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Uetz GW (1991) Chapter 18: Habitat structure and spider foraging. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (eds) Habitat structure, the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 325–348Google Scholar
  55. Underwood AJ, Chapman MG (2002) Conservation of coastal organisms depends on scientific realism, not community ‘monitoring’. In: Lunney D, Dickman C, Burgin S (eds) A clash of paradigms: community and research-based conservation. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp 20–37Google Scholar
  56. Wheater CP, Cullen WR, Bell JR (2000) Spider communities as tools in monitoring reclaimed limestone quarry landforms. Landsc Ecol 15:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM (1991) Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoshida H (2008) A revision of the genus Achaearanea (Araneae: Theridiidae). Acta Arachn Tokyo 57:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. Gollan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Helen M. Smith
    • 1
  • Matthew Bulbert
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrew P. Donnelly
    • 1
    • 4
  • Lance Wilkie
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian MuseumSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Ecosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Biological Sciences, Behavioural Ecology GroupMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia
  4. 4.Earthwatch Institute AustraliaSouth MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations