Abstract
Pitfall traps are the most commonly used method for capturing spiders. Other inexpensive methods such as ramp traps and arboreal traps are also used. Ramp traps are used mostly in situations where you cannot or do not wish to disturb the soil, while arboreal traps are used to determine the structure of spider assemblages living on tree trunks and in the canopy. Spiders were sampled from 17 localities on Kozuf Mt. and the effectiveness of four different trapping methods was compared. Overall, the largest amount of species and individuals was captured in pitfall traps. However, some of the species were only captured with ramp and arboreal traps. This, along with the previously mentioned characteristics of ramp and arboreal traps confirms the usefulness of these trapping methods for a more accurate assessment of spider biodiversity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ausden A, Drake M (2006) Invertebrates. In: Sutherland WJ (ed) Ecological census techniques – a handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 214–249
Bosmans R, Maelfait JP, De Kimpe A (1986) Analysis of the spider assemblages in an altitudinal gradient in the French and Spanish Pyrénées. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 7(3):69–76
Bostanian NJ, Boivin G, Goulet H (1983) Ramp pitfall trap. J Econ Entomol 76:1473–1475. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/76.6.1473
Bouchard P, Wheeler TA, Goulet H (2000) Design for a low-cost, covered, ramp pitfall trap. Can Entomol 132(3):387–389. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent132387-3
Decae AE (2012) Geography-related sub-generic diversity within the Mediterranean trapdoor spider genus Nemesia (Araneae. Mygalomorphae. Nemesiidae). Arachnol Mitt 43:24–28. https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit4304
Driscoll DA (2010) Few beetle species can be detected with 95% confidence using pitfall traps. Austral Ecol 35:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02007.x
Ekschmitt K, Wolters V, Weber M (1997) Spiders, carabids and staphylinids. The ecological potential of predatory macroarthropods. In: Benckiser G (ed) Fauna in soil ecosystems. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 307–362
Gist CS, Crossley DA Jr (1973) A method for quantifying pitfall trapping. Environ Entomol 2(5):951–952. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/2.5.951
Halaj J, Ross DW, Moldenke AR (1998) Habitat structure and prey availability as predictors of the abundance and community organization of spiders in western Oregon forest canopies. J Arachnol 26:203–220
Heimer S, Nentwig W (1991) Spinnen Mitteleuropas: Ein Bestimmungsbuch. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin
Jantscher E (2001) Diagnostic characters of Xysticus cristatus, X. audax and X. macedonicus (Araneae: Thomisidae). Bull Br Arachnol Soc 12(1):17–25
Matevski D, Cvetkovska-Gjorgjievska A, Prelić D. Hristovski S, Naumova M, Deltshev C (2020) Distribution and community structure of araneocoenoses (Araneae) along an altitudinal gradient on Kozuf Mountain (North Macedonia). Biologia. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00474-2
Mupepele A, Müller T, Dittrich M, Floren A (2014) Are temperate canopy spiders tree-species specific? PLoS One 9(2):e86571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086571
Nentwig W, Blick T, Gloor D, Hänggi A, Kropf C (2020) Spiders of Europe. https://www.araneae.unibe.ch. Accessed 19 Feb 2020
Nicolai V (1993) The arthropod fauna on the bark of deciduous and coniferous trees in a mixed forest of the Itasca State Park, MN, USA. Spixiana 16:61–69
Oger P (2018) Les araignées de Belgique et de France. http://arachnopiwigo.com. Accessed 28 Feb 2019
Patrick B, Hansen A (2013) Comparing ramp and pitfall traps for capturing wandering spiders. J Arachnol 41:404–406. https://doi.org/10.1636/Hi12-52.1
Pearce JL, Schuurman D, Barber KN, Larrivée M, Venier LA, McKee J, McKenney D (2005) Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates. Can Entomol 137:233–250. https://doi.org/10.4039/N04-029
Reitter E (1908) Fauna Germanica. KG Lutz Verlag, Stuttgart
Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell, London
Szinetar C, Horvath R (2005) A review of spiders in tree trunks in Europe (Araneae). Acta Zool Bulg Suppl 1:221–257
Work TT, Buddle CM, Korinus LM, Spence JR (2002) Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: implications for biodiversity studies. Environ Entomol 31(3):438–448. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.3.438
Wunderlich J (1982) Mitteleuropäische Spinnen (Araneae) der Baumrinde. Zeitschr Angew Entomol 94:9–21
Acknowledgments
We thank the many people involved with collection and sorting of the material (in particular R. Karakalasev. K. Kostadinova. A. Manchevska. M. Matevski. E. Sehratlikj. A. Tasevski).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Online resource 1
(PDF 160 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matevski, D., Cvetkovska-Gjorgjievska, A., Prelić, D. et al. Efficacy of trapping techniques (pitfall, ramp and arboreal traps) for capturing spiders. Biologia 75, 2315–2319 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00475-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00475-1