Landscape Ecology

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 401–406 | Cite as

Spider communities as tools in monitoring reclaimed limestone quarry landforms

  • C. Philip Wheater
  • W. Rod Cullen
  • James R. Bell


Spider communities are sensitive to a wide range of environmental factors and are potential ecological indicators which may be effective in the assessment and monitoring of restored ecosystems. One restoration technique of disused limestone quarry faces, landform replication, attempts to create landforms and ecosystems similar to those found on natural dalesides. Vegetation surveys indicate that communities developing on landform replications are more closely allied to natural dalesides than are those of naturally recolonised disused quarries. Assessment of the spider communities of three landform replication sites, a natural limestone daleside and seven naturally recolonised disused limestone quarries, using DECORANA and TWINSPAN, produced differing patterns of sites than those observed through the assessment of the vegetation communities. DECORANA assessment based on vascular plant species composition highlights the similarities between daleside and reclaimed site communities. The sensitivity of spider communities to vegetation structure and extent of bare ground highlights differences between sites and provides evidence of important differences in vegetation community development particularly in relation to cover and structure. Implications for the assessment of reclamation and restoration techniques are discussed.

indicators invertebrates reclamation restoration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asselin, A. 1988. Changes in grassland use: consequences on landscape patterns and spider distribution. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. pp. 85–88. Edited by K.-F. Scheiber. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar of the International Association of Landscape Ecology.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, J.R., Cullen, W.R. and Wheater, C.P. 1998. The structure of spider communities in limestone quarry environments. pp. 253–259. Edited by Seldon P. Proceedings of the 17th European Colloquium of Arachnology, Edinburgh 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Cullen, W.R., Wheater, C.P. and Dunleavy, P.J. 1998. An assessment of vegetation communities established on reclaimed limestone quarry faces in Derbyshire, UK. Biol. Cons. 84: 25–33.Google Scholar
  4. Döbel, H.G., Denno, R.F. and Coddington, J.A. 1990. Spider (Araneae) community structure in an intertidal salt marsh: Effects of vegetation structure and tidal flooding. Environ. Entomol. 19: 1356–1370.Google Scholar
  5. Duffey, E. 1975. Habitat selection by spiders in man-made environments. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Arachnology, Amsterdam, pp. 52–67.Google Scholar
  6. Gagen, P.J., Gunn, J. and Bailey D.E. 1993. Landform replication on quarried limestone rock slopes in the English Peak District. Z. Geomorphologie Suppl. BD.87: 163–70.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, C.W.D., Hambler, C. and Brown, V.K. 1992a. Changes in spider (Araneae) assemblages in relation to succession and grazing management. J. Appl. Ecol. 29: 132–142.Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, C.W.D., Brown, V.K., Losito, L. and McGavin, G.C. 1992b. The responses of invertebrate assemblages to grazing. Ecography 15: 166–176.Google Scholar
  9. Hill M.O. 1979a. DECORANA–A FORTRAN Program for Detrended Correspondence Analysis and Reciprocal Averaging. Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Hill M.O. 1979b. TWINSPAN–A FORTRAN Program for arranging Multivariate data in an Ordered Two Way Table by Classification of the Individuals and the Attributes. Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Hopkins P.J. and Webb, N.R. 1984. The composition of the beetle and spider faunas on fragmented heathlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 21: 935–946.Google Scholar
  12. Jones-Walters, L. 1988. The management of chalk grassland for the conservation of invertebrate populations with special reference to Martin Down and Aston Rowant National Nature Reserves. EFU Report 32. English Nature, Peterborough.Google Scholar
  13. Mader H.-J. 1988. The significance of paved agricultural roads as barriers to ground dwelling arthropods. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. pp. 97–100. Edited by K.F. Schreiber. Muntersche Geographische Arbeiten 29, Ferdinand Schoningh, Paderborn, Germany.Google Scholar
  14. Maelfait, J.P., Desender, K. and Baert, L. 1989. Some examples of the practical use of spiders and carabid beetles as ecological indicators. Comptes rendus du symposium ‘Invertebres de Belgique’, Brussels, pp. 437–442.Google Scholar
  15. Malloch, A.J.C. 1988. Vespan II. University of Lancaster, Lancaster.Google Scholar
  16. Morris, M.G. 1992. The need for process studies at the landscape scale. In Landscape Ecology in Britain, the Proceedings of the First Meeting of the UK Region of the International Association of Landscape Ecology (IALE-UK). pp. 66–75.Google Scholar
  17. Rushton, S.P. 1988. The effects of scrub management regimes on the spider fauna of chalk grassland, Castor Hanglands National Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire, UK. Biol. Cons. 46: 169–182.Google Scholar
  18. Rushton, S.P. and Eyre, M.D. 1992. Grassland spider habitats in north-east England. J. Biog. 19: 99–108.Google Scholar
  19. Rushton, S.P., Luff, M.L. and Eyre, M.D. 1989. Effects of pasture improvement and management on the ground beetle and spider communities of upland grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 26: 489–503.Google Scholar
  20. Rushton, S.P., Topping, C.J. and Eyre, M.D. 1987. The habitat preferences of grassland spiders as identified using Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DECORANA). Bull. British Arachnological Soc. 7 (6): 165–170.Google Scholar
  21. Siepel, H. 1989. Objective selection of indicator species for nature management. Comptes rendus du symposium ‘Invertebres de Belgique’, Brussels, pp. 443–446.Google Scholar
  22. Speight, M.C.D. 1986. Criteria for the selection of insects to be used as bio-indicators in nature conservation research. pp. 485–488. Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress of Entomology, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Uetz, G.W. 1991. Habitat structure and spider foraging. In Habitat Structure. pp. 325–348. Edited by Bell, S.S., McCoy, E.D. and Mushinsky, H.R. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  24. Webb, N.R. and Hopkins P.J. (1984) Invertebrate diversity on fragmented Calluna heathlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 21: 921–933.Google Scholar
  25. Wise, D.H. 1993. Spiders in ecological webs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Wheater, C.P. and Cullen W.R. 1997. Invertebrate communities of disused and restoration blasted limestone quarries in Derbyshire. Restoration Ecol. 5 (1): 77–84.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Philip Wheater
    • 1
  • W. Rod Cullen
    • 1
  • James R. Bell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Geographical SciencesManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations