, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 267–272 | Cite as

Spider assemblages in bird burrows

  • Petr Heneberg
  • Milan Řezáč
  • Markéta Nováková
Short Communication


The arachnofauna of bird burrows, which are excavated in the soil, is incompletely understood. The bird burrows have a potential to serve as refugia for cavity-adopting spider species particularly in anthropogenic habitats formed by sand mining, which otherwise suffer from a limited availability of other types of cavities. We hypothesized that the presence of abundant food resources and safe shelter in bird burrows excavated in the soil allow the existence of specialized assemblage of spiders, similarly to those known from cavities and nests made by other birds and mammals. Here we examined 353 burrows that had been previously occupied by Riparia riparia, Merops apiaster or Passer montanus. The burrows were examined in early May and early September in 24 Czech sand pits and construction sites. The burrows hosted a species-rich assemblage of spiders that, however, occurred at low abundances. The spiders were represented prevalently by species known to have distributions centered in anthropogenic and urban habitats, including species that were never observed outside of heated buildings in the study area and species that only were previously known from mammalian burrows and loess and karstic soil crevices. Spider assemblages strongly differed between bird burrows and cavities and nests made by other birds and mammals. The species composition and overall low abundance of spiders in bird burrows was unexpected and was in strong contrast to previous observations of spider assemblages in cavities and nests made by other birds and mammals. Concluded, we rejected the initial hypothesis and, instead, we have shown that bird burrows are rarely occupied by spiders and if occupied, the spider species that adopt old bird burrows and the nests inside of them predominantly consist of species known to have their distribution centered to anthropogenic and urban habitats.


Anthropogenic habitats Burrowing birds Cavities Sand pits Subterranean habitats 



We thank Ivan Literák for his support of the fieldwork, the landlords and quarry operators for allowing access to the examined habitats, and the nature conservation authorities for allowing access to the protected areas.


This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [grant number MZe RO0415]; and the Czech Science Foundation [grant number 17-10976S].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

11756_2018_36_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (26 kb)
Online Resource 1 (XLSX 25.6 kb): Table S1 List of sampling sites, the number of bird burrows examined, identification of species to which the examined nests belonged, and a detailed overview of the spider species found, with the indication of juvenile (j), adult male (m) and adult female (f) individuals
11756_2018_36_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (20 kb)
Table S2 List of species found in the bird burrows in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (present study and Krištofík et al. 1994), bird nest boxes in the Czech Republic (Černecká et al. 2017), adherent cup nests of birds in Slovakia (120 nests of Delichon urbicum - Svatoň 1985), other bird nests in Slovakia, Poland and Serbia (135 nests of Remiz pendulinus - Krištofík et al. 1993; 28 nests of Lanius collurio - Tryjanowski et al. 2001; 40 nests of Acrocephalus arundinaceus - Mérő et al. 2014), mammalian soil burrows in the Czech Republic and Ukraine (742 nests of Apodemus flavicollis, Apodemus sylvaticus, Clethrionomys glareolus, Microtus arvalis, Pitymys subterraneus, Sorex araneus, Sorex minutus and Talpa europaea - Vysotskaja 1966, 1974, 1978; Sklyar and Popov 1972; Miller and Buchar 1997), mammalian soil burrows outside the study region, in South Africa (320 nests of Gerbilliscus brantsii, Orycteropus afer, Pedetes capensis and Phacochoerus africanus - Heidger 1988), nests of synanthropic mammals in the Ukraine (50 nests of Mus musculus - Sklyar and Popov 1972), squirell nests in the Czech Republic (65 nests of Sciurus vulgaris - Miller and Buchar 1997), and records from the bodies of mammals (Vysotskaja 1966, 1974, 1978; Sklyar and Popov 1972). We indicated abundances of spiders in all four types of bird nests and burrows, while we indicated only the presence/absence data for spiders from mammalian nests and burrows as most of previous studies on mammals did not indicate the species-specific abundances of spiders


  1. Barot S, Yé L, Abbadie L, Blouin M, Frascaria N (2017) Ecosystem services must tackle anthropized ecosystems and ecological engineering. Ecol Eng 99:486–495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloom T, Binford G, Esposito LA, Garcia GA, Peterson I, Nishida A, Loubet-Senear K, Agnarsson I (2014) Discovery of two new species of eyeless spiders within a single Hispaniola cave. J Arachnol 42:148–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casas-Crivillé A, Valera F (2005) The European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) as an ecosystem engineer in arid environments. J Arid Environ 60:227–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Černecká L, Michalko R, Krištín A (2017) Abiotic factors and biotic interactions jointly drive spider assemblages in nest-boxes in mixed forests. J Arachnol 45:213–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conner RN, Saenz D, Rudolph DC (1995) Fauna using nest boxes in four timber types in eastern Texas. Bull Texas Ornithol Soc 28:2–6Google Scholar
  6. Gunnarsson B, Wiklander K (2015) Foraging mode of spiders affects risk of predation by birds. Biol J Linn Soc 115:58–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hedin MC (1997) Molecular phylogenetics at the population/species interface in cave spiders of the southern Appalachians (Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus). Mol Biol Evol 14:309–324. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Heidger C (1988) Ecology of spiders inhabiting abandoned mammal burrows in south African savanna. Oecologia 76:303–306. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Heneberg P (2013) Burrowing bird’s decline driven by EIA over-use. Resour Pol 38:542–548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heneberg P, Řezáč M (2014) Dry sandpits and gravel-sandpits serve as key refuges for endangered epigeic spiders (Araneae) and harvestmen (Opiliones) of central European steppes Aeolian sands. Ecol Eng 73:659–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krištofík J, Mašán P, Šustek Z, Gajdoš P (1993) Arthropods in the nests of penduline tit (Remiz pendulinus). Biologia 48:493–505Google Scholar
  12. Krištofík J, Šustek Z, Gajdoš P (1994) Arthropods in nests of the sand martin (Riparia riparia Linnaeus, 1758) in South Slovakia. Biologia 49:683–690Google Scholar
  13. Kůrka A, Řezáč M, Macek R, Dolanský J (2015) Pavouci České republiky. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  14. Laška V, Kopecký O, Růžička V, Mikula J, Véle A, Šarapatka B, Tuf IH (2011) Vertical distribution of spiders in soil. J Arachnol 39:393–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mammola S, Isaia M, Arnedo MA (2015) Alpine endemic spiders shed light on the origin and evolution of subterranean species. PeerJ 3:e1384. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. McComb WC, Noble RE (1982) Invertebrate use of natural tree cavities and vertebrate nest boxes. Am Midl Nat 107:163–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mérő T, Janjatović M, Horváth R, Mrkobrad K, Zuljević A (2014) Factors influencing the appearance of spider (Araneae) and beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages in nests of great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Biologia 69:920–925. Google Scholar
  18. Mestre L, Garcia N, Barrientos JA, Espadaler X, Piñol J (2013) Bird predation affects diurnal and nocturnal web-building spiders in a Mediterranean citrus grove. Acta Oecol 47:74–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller F, Buchar J (1997) Spiders (Chelicerata: Araneae) collected in small mammal nests in the western Carpathians. Acta Soc Zool Bohem 61:373–379Google Scholar
  20. Naeem M, Compton SG, Shah H (2010) Arthropod communities in different agroforestry landscapes. Pak J Zool 42:233–240Google Scholar
  21. Nentwig W (2017) Spiders of Europe. Accessed 9 Sept 2017
  22. Nitzu E, Nae A, Giurginca A, Popa I (2010) Invertebrate communities from the mesovoid shallow substratum of the carpatho-euxinic area: eco-faunistic and zoogeographic analysis. Travaux de l’Institut de Spéleologie Emile Racovitza 49:41–79Google Scholar
  23. Nováková M, Heneberg P, Heylen DJA, Medvecký M, Muñoz-Leal S, Šmajs D, Literák I (2018) Isolated populations of Ixodes lividus ticks in the Czech Republic and Belgium host genetically homogeneous Rickettsia vini. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.
  24. Řezáč M, Kůrka A, Růžička V, Heneberg P (2015) Red list of Czech spiders: adjusted according to evidence-based national conservation priorities. Biologia 70:645–666. Google Scholar
  25. Růžička V, Dolanský J (2016) Catching of spiders in shallow subterranean habitats in the Czech Republic. Arachnol Mitt 51:43–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sklyar VE, Popov EB (1972) Spiders (Aranei) from burrows of rodents in the Azov territory near Donetzk. Zool Zh 51:602–604 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Snowman CV, Zigler KS, Hedin M (2010) Caves as islands: mitochondrial phylogeography of the cave-obligate spider species Nesticus barri (Araneae: Nesticidae). J Arachnol 38:49–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Svatoň J (1985) Pavúky (Araneida) v hniezdach belorítky obyčajnej (Delichon urbica [L.]) na západnom Slovensku. Zbor Slov Nár Múz. Prír Vedy 31:189–192Google Scholar
  29. Tryjanowski P, Baraniak E, Bajaczyk R, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Konwerski S, Olszanowski Z, Szymkowiak P (2001) Arthropods in nests of the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) in Poland. Belg J Zool 131:69–74Google Scholar
  30. Vysotskaja SO (1966) Biocoenotic relationships between ectoparasites of rodents and inhabitants of their nests. Parazitol Sb Zool Int AN SSSR 23:19–60 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  31. Vysotskaja SO (1974) Biocoenotic relationships between ectoparasites of the common red-backed vole, Clethrionomys glareolus Schreb., and inhabitants of its nests in the Transcarpathian region of the Ukraine. Parazitol Sb Zool Inst AN SSSR 26:114–143 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  32. Vysotskaja SO (1978) Analysis of biocenotic interrelations between ectoparasites and nest-inhabitants of common vole (Microtus arvalis Pall.) in the east-Carpathians. Parazitol Sb Zool Inst AN SSSR 28:73–95 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  33. World Spider Catalog (2017) The world spider catalog, version 18.5. Accessed 9 September 2017

Copyright information

© Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Third Faculty of MedicineCharles UniversityCZ-100 00 PragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Biodiversity LabCrop Research InstituteCZ-161 06 PragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Wildlife Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and EcologyUniversity of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences BrnoCZ-612 42 BrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations