Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 13, pp 2953–2965 | Cite as

Underestimated spider diversity in a temperate beech forest

  • Yu-Lung Hsieh
  • Karl Eduard Linsenmair
Original Paper

Abstract

We used canopy fogging to study the high (20–26 m), intermediate (13–19 m) and low (5–6 m) strata in three European beech patches (Fagus sylvatica) in nine months (2005–2007) and estimate species richness and diversity of arboreal spiders. Eight species (10%) were previously unseen in European beech trees, and one of these is likely a new species. Moreover, two species are on the Bavarian red list. Our results revealed that the high stratum of the old-growth trees provided unique resources and possessed the greatest diversity and evenness, whereas intermediate and low strata had high similarity in respect to diversity, dominance, species, and family composition. Since the majority of beech forests consists of mature and young trees in Central Europe, and old-growth forests are rarely preserved, we recommend young beech be used in a sampling protocol for rapid biodiversity assessment. However, adding samples from the two higher strata to the lowest stratum (55 species), almost doubled the estimated species richness (102 species). This suggests that the lower stratum alone does not represent a true image of the total canopy fauna inventory in this, and likely other, beech stands. To complete this comprehensive inventory in European beeches, the Chao1 predicted that additional sampling would be needed in the highest stratum, where there is a high probability to find previously undetected species in a next survey. Our study clearly shows that neglecting the crowns of the largest, tallest trees risks underestimating the overall spider diversity in Central European forests.

Keywords

Araneae Canopy fogging European beech Forest biodiversity Species richness estimation True diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hans Stark, the director Würzburg University Forest for authorizing the field works; Brigitte Fiala, Torsten Hothorn, Jörg Müller, Julian Norghauer, Anne Chao and reviewers for valuable comments; Stefan Otto assisted with spider identification and Theo Blick confirmed the endangered species list; Julian Norghauer for linguistic revision. This study was supported by German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and Taiwan Ministry of Education.

References

  1. Barbaro L, Pontcharraud L, Vetillard F et al (2005) Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basset Y (2001) Communities of insect herbivores foraging on saplings versus mature trees of Pourouma bicolor (Cecropiaceae) in Panama. Oecologia 129:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basset Y, Hammond PM, Barrios H et al (2003) Vertical stratification of arthropod assemblages. In: Basset Y, Novotny V, Miller SE et al (eds) Arthropods of tropical forest: spatio–temporal dynamics and resource use in the canopy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–27Google Scholar
  4. Blick T (2008). Spider coenoses in strict forest reserves in Hesse (Germany). In: Nentwig W, Entling M, Kropf C (eds) Proceedings of the 24th European congress of arachnology, Bern, pp 11–29Google Scholar
  5. Blick T (2011) Abundant and rare spiders on tree trunks in German forests (Arachnida, Araneae). Arachnol Mitt 40:5–14Google Scholar
  6. Blick T, Scheidler M (2003) Rote Liste gefährdeter Spinnen (Arachnida: Araneae) Bayerns. Schriftenreihe des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Umwelt 166:308–321Google Scholar
  7. Buchholz S (2010) Ground spider assemblages as indicators for habitat structure in inland sand ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 19:2565–2595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chao A (1984) Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand J Stat 11:265–270Google Scholar
  9. Chao A (1987) Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 43:783–791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chao A, Shen TJ (2003) Program SPADE (Species prediction and diversity estimation). Program and user’s guide published at the website http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/softwareCE.html
  11. Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK et al (2006) Abundance-based similarity indices and their estimation when there are unseen species in samples. Biometrics 62:361–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chao A, Colwell RK, Lin CW et al (2009) Sufficient sampling for asymptotic minimum species richness estimators. Ecology 90:1125–1133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clinton BD, Boring LR, Swank WT (1993) Canopy gap characteristics and drought Influences in oak forests of the Coweeta Basin. Ecology 74:1551–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coddington JA, Levi HW (1991) Systematics and evolution of spiders (Araneae). Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:565–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colwell RK, Coddington JA (1994) Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos T Roy Soc B 345:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher RA, Corbet AS, Williams CB (1943) The relation between the number of species and number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. J Anim Ecol 12:42–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Floren A, Linsenmair KE (2001) The influence of anthropogenic disturbances on the structure of arboreal arthropod communities. Plant Ecol 153:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Floren A, Sprick P (2007) Canopy leaf beetles and weevils in the Bialowieza and Borecka forests in Poland (Col., Chrysomeloidea, Curculionoidea). Pol J Entomol 76:75–102Google Scholar
  19. Floren A, Otto S, Linsenmair KE (2008) Do spider communities in primary forests differ from those in forest-plantations? A canopy study in the Bialowieza forest (Poland). In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Europe. Bioform, Nuremberg, pp 489–506Google Scholar
  20. Gossner M, Ammer U (2006) The effects of Douglas-fir on tree-specific arthropod communities in mixed species stands with European beech and Norway spruce. Eur J Forest Res 125:221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9Google Scholar
  22. Heimer S, Nentwig W (1991) Spinnen Mitteleuropas. Paul Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Hortal J, Borges PAV, Gaspar C (2006) Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. J Anim Ecol 75:274–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsieh Y-L, Linsenmair KL (2011) Biodiversity prediction by applying Verhulst Grey Model (GM 1, 1). J Grey Syst 14:77–82Google Scholar
  25. Hsieh Y-L, Lin Y-S, Tso I-M (2003) Ground spider diversity in the Kenting uplifted coral reef forest, Taiwan: a comparison between habitats receiving various disturbances. Biodivers Conserv 12:2173–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurd LE, Fagan WF (1992) Cursorial spiders and succession: age or habitat structure? Oecologia 92:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jost L (2007) Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88:2427–2439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Larrivee M, Buddle CM (2009) Diversity of canopy and understorey spiders in north-temperate hardwood forests. Agr Forest Entomol 11:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawton JH (1983) Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 28:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis KJ (1997) Growth reduction in spruce infected by Inonotus tomentosus in central British Columbia. Can J Forest Res 27:1669–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Linsenmair KE, Heil M, Kaiser WM et al (2001) Adaptations to biotic and abiotic stress: Macaranga-ant plants optimize investment in biotic defence. J Exp Bot 52:2057–2065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Longino JT, Coddington J, Colwell RK (2002) The ant fauna of a tropical rain forest: estimating species richness three different ways. Ecology 83:689–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacArthur RH (1957) On the relative abundance of bird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 43:293–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Mattson WJ, Addy ND (1975) Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production. Science 190:515–522Google Scholar
  39. May RM (1978) The dynamics and diversity of insect fauna. In: Mound LA, Waloff N (eds) Diversity of insect faunas: 9th symposium of the royal entomological society. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 188–204Google Scholar
  40. Motomura I (1932) A statistical treatment of associations. Jpn J Zool 44:379–383Google Scholar
  41. Nicolai V (1986) The bark of trees: thermal properties, microclimate and fauna. Oecologia 69:148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nyffeler M (2000) Ecological impact of spider predation: a critical assessment of Bristowe’s and Turnbull’s estimates. B Brit Arachnol Soc 11:367–373Google Scholar
  43. Ohmart CP, Stewart LG, Thomas JR (1983) Leaf consumption by insects in 3 eucalyptus forest types in southeastern Australia and their role in short-term nutrient cycling. Oecologia 59:322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perrins CM (1991) Tits and their caterpillar food supply. Bus Inf Syst 133:49–54Google Scholar
  45. Platnick N (1999) Dimensions of biodiversity: targeting megadiverse groups. In: Cracraft J, Grifo FT (eds) The living planet in crisis: biodiversity science and policy. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 33–52Google Scholar
  46. Platnick NI (2011) The world spider catalog. Version 12.0. The American Museum of Natural History. Online at http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog
  47. Preston FW (1962) Canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43:185–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raizer J, Amaral MEC (2001) Does the structural complexity of aquatic macrophytes explain the diversity of associated spider assemblages? J Arachnol 29:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Riechert SE, Bishop L (1990) Prey control by an assemblage of generalist predators: spiders in garden test systems. Ecology 71:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts M (1996) Spiders of Britain and northern Europe. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Schowalter TD (1994) Invertebrate community structure and herbivory in a tropical rain-forest canopy in Puerto-Rico following hurricane Hugo. Biotropica 26:312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schowalter TD (1995) Canopy arthropod communities in relation to forest age and alternative harvest practices in western Oregon. Forest Ecol Manag 78:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schowalter TD, Hargrove WW, Crossley DA (1986) Herbivory in forested ecosystems. Annu Rev Entomol 31:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stork NE, Brendell MJD (1990) Variation in the insect fauna of Sulawesi trees with season, altitude and forest type. In: Knight WJ, Holloway JD (eds) Insects and the rain forests of South East Asia (Wallacea). The Royal Entomological Society of London, London, pp 173–190Google Scholar
  55. Szinetár C, Horvtáh R (2005). A review of spiders on the tree trunks in Europe (Araneae). In: Deltshev C, Stoev P (eds) European arachnology 2005. Acta zoologica bulgarica 1:221–257Google Scholar
  56. Toft S (1976) Life-histories of spiders in a Danish beech wood. Natura Jutlandica 19:5–40Google Scholar
  57. Toft S (1978) Phenology of some Danish beech-wood spiders. Natura Jutlandica 20:285–304Google Scholar
  58. 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 28:329–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Whitehead PF (1997) Beetle faunas of the European angiosperm Urwald: problems and complexities. Biologia 52:147–152Google Scholar
  61. Whitmore C, Crouch TE, Slotow RH (2002) Conservation of biodiversity in urban environments: invertebrates on structurally enhanced road islands. Afr Entomol 10:113–126Google Scholar
  62. Wilson EO (1987) The arboreal ant fauna of Peruvian Amazon forests: a first assessment. Biotropica 19:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zahl S (1977) Jackknifing an index of diversity. Ecology 58:907–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical BiologyUniversität WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations