Two groups of epigeic arthropods differ in colonising of piedmont quarries: the necessity of multi-taxa and life-history traits approaches in the monitoring studies
It is increasingly understood that inventorying and monitoring biodiversity requires a multi-taxon approach and that comparing simple indices, such as species richness, should be accompanied by deeper analyses of species community composition and by comparisons of species life-history traits among taxa and habitats. Here, we document that two ecologically rather similar groups of epigeic predators, ground-dwelling spiders (Araneae) and ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), differ in patterns of stone quarry colonization. Such post-industrial barrens as abandoned quarries are increasingly appreciated as potential refuges for species that are becoming rare in modern landscapes. We compared species richness, community composition and species life-history traits of two epigeic invertebrates groups, in quarries and adjoining seminatural biotopes in a submountain region with granulite and limestone bedrock in SW Czech Republic. For both groups, quarries were species-poorer than seminatural sites, herbaceous biotopes were richer than scrubby and rocky biotopes, and no significant effects on species richness were revealed for substrate. Assemblages colonising quarries differed from those outside of quarries. They contained numerous regionally rarer species of rocks and scree in the case of spiders, but generalists of open landscapes prevailed among ground beetles. A survey limited to ground beetles, as well as to species richness analyses, would fail to detect a conservation potential of the quarries. Hence, a multi-taxa approach should be preferred, and species richness analyses should be assembled by insights onto community composition and species life-history traits in monitoring studies.
KeywordsAraneae Bioindicators Carabidae Monitoring studies Post-industrial habitats
Analysis of Variance
Canonical Correspondence Analysis
Detrended Correspondence Analysis.
NomenclatureHurka (1996) for ground beetles Buchar and Ruzicka (2002) for spiders
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Buchar, J. 1983. Artenklassifikation der Arachnofauna Bohmens als Mittel zur Bioindikation der Umweltqualitat Fauna Bohem. septentr. 8: 119–135.Google Scholar
- Buchar, J. and V. Ruzicka. 2002. Catalogue of Spiders of the Czech Republic. Peres press, Prague.Google Scholar
- Dufrene, M. and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67: 345–366.Google Scholar
- Hammer, O., D.A.T. Harper and P.D. Ryan. 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4, ttp://palaeo-elec-tronica.org/2001_2001/past/issue2001_2001.htm.Google Scholar
- Hurka, K. 1996. Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kabourek, Zlin.Google Scholar
- Hurka, K., P. Vesely and J. Farkac. 1996. Die Nutzung der Laufkafer (Coleoptera: Carabidae) zur Indikation der Umweltqualitat. Klapalekiana 32: 15–26.Google Scholar
- Lawton, J.H., D.E. Bignell, B. Bolton,G.F. Bloemers, P. Eggleton, P.M. Hammond, M. Hodda, R.D. Holt, T.B. Larsen, N.A. Mawdsley, N.E. Stork, D.S. Srivastava and A.D. Watt. 1998. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391: 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sauberer, N., K.P. Zulka, M. Abensperg-Traun, H.M. Berg, G. Bieringer, N. Milasowszky, D. Moser, C. Plutzar, M. Pollheimer, C. Storch, R. Trostl, H. Zechmeister and G. Grabherr. 2004. Surrogate taxa for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. Biol. Conserv. 117: 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Skoupy, V. 2004. Ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of the Czech and Slovak Republics of Jan Pulpan’s Collection. Public History, Prague.Google Scholar
- StatSoft, Inc. 2001. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. www.statsoft.com.Google Scholar
- ter Braak, C.J.F. and P. Smilauer. 2002. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: Software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.