Epigeal spider responses to fertilization and plant litter: testing biodiversity theory at the ground level

Recent studies of nutrient additions to terrestrial ecosystems have focused on the “aerial” portion of the food web associated with living plants. These studies showed nutrient loading increased arthropod abundance and biomass, but decreased diversity. However, none of these studies explicitly exami...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of arachnology 2012-11, Vol.40 (3), p.309-324
Hauptverfasser: Patrick, L. Brian, Kershner, Mark W., Fraser, Lauchlan H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 324
container_issue 3
container_start_page 309
container_title The Journal of arachnology
container_volume 40
creator Patrick, L. Brian
Kershner, Mark W.
Fraser, Lauchlan H.
description Recent studies of nutrient additions to terrestrial ecosystems have focused on the “aerial” portion of the food web associated with living plants. These studies showed nutrient loading increased arthropod abundance and biomass, but decreased diversity. However, none of these studies explicitly examined nutrient loading effects on epigeal arthropods. To test nutrient loading effects on epigeal spiders and on individual species within a temperate-latitude grassland community, we used pitfall traps to sample spiders for four years within 24 large (314 m2) plots in which we manipulated nutrients (NPK fertilizer) and plant litter (litter removed or left in place). We measured the diversity, abundance, biomass, and community structure responses of the spider community, and of wolf spiders (Lycosidae) and linyphiid spiders (Linyphiidae), as well as the abundance and biomass responses of the six most common species. We hypothesized increased nutrient loading would increase epigeal spider abundance and biomass but decrease diversity. Contrary to predictions, spider species richness, diversity, and biomass were not significantly affected by fertilization, while fertilization resulted in significantly increased abundance. Also contrary to predictions, plant litter did not affect any of these variables. Linyphiid spiders had the strongest responses to fertilization, with significantly increased abundance and biomass, and, contrary to predictions, increased species richness in fertilized plots. Wolf spiders responded more closely to predictions. Our results indicate that the epigeal spider community does not respond as would be predicted by biodiversity-productivity theory. This underscores the need to integrate the largely detritus-based epigeal community into current biodiversity-productivity theory.
doi_str_mv 10.1636/P11-92.1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_smith</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1171884172</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A369914228</galeid><jstor_id>41758980</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A369914228</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-166bf21aa01e5f40312aabe895fab215898781c468a6f7ed26b46ffd53ca8463</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1klGL1DAQx4souJ6CX0AMCKIPXTNpm019O45TTw4U73wO03bSy9ltekl2cf30pvQQF5Q8JJn85p_5D5Nlz4GvQRby3VeAvBZreJCtoC42uShq-TBbcZCQK8HF4-xJCLc83QXfrLIf55PtCQcWJtuRZ57C5MZAgUXHDPloB_sLo3Ujw7Fj04BjZIONkfx7FilEO_assa6ze_LBxgOLN-T8gWGcT6z3bpfyBtrT8DR7ZHAI9Ox-P8muP5xfn33KL798vDg7vcybqqhjDlI2RgAiB6pMyQsQiA2pujLYCKhUrTYK2lIqlGZDnZBNKY3pqqJFVcriJPu8yIatjTfBjRZH_XeJei-0Q3sUG2zj0R-0872e0EctRF0onsTeLGKTd3e75FdvbWhpSH0gtwsaYANKlbARCX21oD0OpO1oXPTYzrg-LWRdQymEStT6H1RaHW1t60YyNsWPEt4eJSQm0s_Y4y4EfXH17Zi9r7b1LgRPRk_ebmdfwPU8HjqNh66FhoS-WNDbEJ3_wyUnc4Nn4y-Xd4NOY-9t0N-vRBobzrmoCjErvF6I1MdU9_-_-g2Uks3P</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1171884172</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Epigeal spider responses to fertilization and plant litter: testing biodiversity theory at the ground level</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Patrick, L. Brian ; Kershner, Mark W. ; Fraser, Lauchlan H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Patrick, L. Brian ; Kershner, Mark W. ; Fraser, Lauchlan H.</creatorcontrib><description>Recent studies of nutrient additions to terrestrial ecosystems have focused on the “aerial” portion of the food web associated with living plants. These studies showed nutrient loading increased arthropod abundance and biomass, but decreased diversity. However, none of these studies explicitly examined nutrient loading effects on epigeal arthropods. To test nutrient loading effects on epigeal spiders and on individual species within a temperate-latitude grassland community, we used pitfall traps to sample spiders for four years within 24 large (314 m2) plots in which we manipulated nutrients (NPK fertilizer) and plant litter (litter removed or left in place). We measured the diversity, abundance, biomass, and community structure responses of the spider community, and of wolf spiders (Lycosidae) and linyphiid spiders (Linyphiidae), as well as the abundance and biomass responses of the six most common species. We hypothesized increased nutrient loading would increase epigeal spider abundance and biomass but decrease diversity. Contrary to predictions, spider species richness, diversity, and biomass were not significantly affected by fertilization, while fertilization resulted in significantly increased abundance. Also contrary to predictions, plant litter did not affect any of these variables. Linyphiid spiders had the strongest responses to fertilization, with significantly increased abundance and biomass, and, contrary to predictions, increased species richness in fertilized plots. Wolf spiders responded more closely to predictions. Our results indicate that the epigeal spider community does not respond as would be predicted by biodiversity-productivity theory. This underscores the need to integrate the largely detritus-based epigeal community into current biodiversity-productivity theory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-8202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2396</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1636/P11-92.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lubbock, Tex., American Arachnological Society: American Arachnological Society</publisher><subject>Araneae ; arthropods ; Biodiversity ; Biological diversity ; Biomass ; community structure ; disturbance ; enrichment ; Environmental aspects ; Featured s ; Fertilization ; Food webs ; grasslands ; Insect-plant relationships ; Linyphiidae ; Lycosidae ; nitrogen ; NPK fertilizers ; nutrients ; pitfall traps ; Plant litter ; Plants ; pollution load ; portion size ; prediction ; Species ; Species diversity ; Spiders ; terrestrial ecosystems ; testing ; Wolves ; Zoological research</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arachnology, 2012-11, Vol.40 (3), p.309-324</ispartof><rights>The American Arachnological Society</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2012 The American Arachnological Society</rights><rights>In Copyright. Digitized with the permission of the rights holder https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-166bf21aa01e5f40312aabe895fab215898781c468a6f7ed26b46ffd53ca8463</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-166bf21aa01e5f40312aabe895fab215898781c468a6f7ed26b46ffd53ca8463</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41758980$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41758980$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,885,27923,27924,58016,58249</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Patrick, L. Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kershner, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Lauchlan H.</creatorcontrib><title>Epigeal spider responses to fertilization and plant litter: testing biodiversity theory at the ground level</title><title>The Journal of arachnology</title><description>Recent studies of nutrient additions to terrestrial ecosystems have focused on the “aerial” portion of the food web associated with living plants. These studies showed nutrient loading increased arthropod abundance and biomass, but decreased diversity. However, none of these studies explicitly examined nutrient loading effects on epigeal arthropods. To test nutrient loading effects on epigeal spiders and on individual species within a temperate-latitude grassland community, we used pitfall traps to sample spiders for four years within 24 large (314 m2) plots in which we manipulated nutrients (NPK fertilizer) and plant litter (litter removed or left in place). We measured the diversity, abundance, biomass, and community structure responses of the spider community, and of wolf spiders (Lycosidae) and linyphiid spiders (Linyphiidae), as well as the abundance and biomass responses of the six most common species. We hypothesized increased nutrient loading would increase epigeal spider abundance and biomass but decrease diversity. Contrary to predictions, spider species richness, diversity, and biomass were not significantly affected by fertilization, while fertilization resulted in significantly increased abundance. Also contrary to predictions, plant litter did not affect any of these variables. Linyphiid spiders had the strongest responses to fertilization, with significantly increased abundance and biomass, and, contrary to predictions, increased species richness in fertilized plots. Wolf spiders responded more closely to predictions. Our results indicate that the epigeal spider community does not respond as would be predicted by biodiversity-productivity theory. This underscores the need to integrate the largely detritus-based epigeal community into current biodiversity-productivity theory.</description><subject>Araneae</subject><subject>arthropods</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biological diversity</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>community structure</subject><subject>disturbance</subject><subject>enrichment</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Featured s</subject><subject>Fertilization</subject><subject>Food webs</subject><subject>grasslands</subject><subject>Insect-plant relationships</subject><subject>Linyphiidae</subject><subject>Lycosidae</subject><subject>nitrogen</subject><subject>NPK fertilizers</subject><subject>nutrients</subject><subject>pitfall traps</subject><subject>Plant litter</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>pollution load</subject><subject>portion size</subject><subject>prediction</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Species diversity</subject><subject>Spiders</subject><subject>terrestrial ecosystems</subject><subject>testing</subject><subject>Wolves</subject><subject>Zoological research</subject><issn>0161-8202</issn><issn>1937-2396</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>79B</sourceid><recordid>eNp1klGL1DAQx4souJ6CX0AMCKIPXTNpm019O45TTw4U73wO03bSy9ltekl2cf30pvQQF5Q8JJn85p_5D5Nlz4GvQRby3VeAvBZreJCtoC42uShq-TBbcZCQK8HF4-xJCLc83QXfrLIf55PtCQcWJtuRZ57C5MZAgUXHDPloB_sLo3Ujw7Fj04BjZIONkfx7FilEO_assa6ze_LBxgOLN-T8gWGcT6z3bpfyBtrT8DR7ZHAI9Ox-P8muP5xfn33KL798vDg7vcybqqhjDlI2RgAiB6pMyQsQiA2pujLYCKhUrTYK2lIqlGZDnZBNKY3pqqJFVcriJPu8yIatjTfBjRZH_XeJei-0Q3sUG2zj0R-0872e0EctRF0onsTeLGKTd3e75FdvbWhpSH0gtwsaYANKlbARCX21oD0OpO1oXPTYzrg-LWRdQymEStT6H1RaHW1t60YyNsWPEt4eJSQm0s_Y4y4EfXH17Zi9r7b1LgRPRk_ebmdfwPU8HjqNh66FhoS-WNDbEJ3_wyUnc4Nn4y-Xd4NOY-9t0N-vRBobzrmoCjErvF6I1MdU9_-_-g2Uks3P</recordid><startdate>201211</startdate><enddate>201211</enddate><creator>Patrick, L. Brian</creator><creator>Kershner, Mark W.</creator><creator>Fraser, Lauchlan H.</creator><general>American Arachnological Society</general><general>The American Arachnological Society</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>79B</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201211</creationdate><title>Epigeal spider responses to fertilization and plant litter: testing biodiversity theory at the ground level</title><author>Patrick, L. Brian ; Kershner, Mark W. ; Fraser, Lauchlan H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-166bf21aa01e5f40312aabe895fab215898781c468a6f7ed26b46ffd53ca8463</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Araneae</topic><topic>arthropods</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biological diversity</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>community structure</topic><topic>disturbance</topic><topic>enrichment</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Featured s</topic><topic>Fertilization</topic><topic>Food webs</topic><topic>grasslands</topic><topic>Insect-plant relationships</topic><topic>Linyphiidae</topic><topic>Lycosidae</topic><topic>nitrogen</topic><topic>NPK fertilizers</topic><topic>nutrients</topic><topic>pitfall traps</topic><topic>Plant litter</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>pollution load</topic><topic>portion size</topic><topic>prediction</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Species diversity</topic><topic>Spiders</topic><topic>terrestrial ecosystems</topic><topic>testing</topic><topic>Wolves</topic><topic>Zoological research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Patrick, L. Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kershner, Mark W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Lauchlan H.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Biodiversity Heritage Library</collection><jtitle>The Journal of arachnology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Patrick, L. Brian</au><au>Kershner, Mark W.</au><au>Fraser, Lauchlan H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Epigeal spider responses to fertilization and plant litter: testing biodiversity theory at the ground level</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arachnology</jtitle><date>2012-11</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>309</spage><epage>324</epage><pages>309-324</pages><issn>0161-8202</issn><eissn>1937-2396</eissn><abstract>Recent studies of nutrient additions to terrestrial ecosystems have focused on the “aerial” portion of the food web associated with living plants. These studies showed nutrient loading increased arthropod abundance and biomass, but decreased diversity. However, none of these studies explicitly examined nutrient loading effects on epigeal arthropods. To test nutrient loading effects on epigeal spiders and on individual species within a temperate-latitude grassland community, we used pitfall traps to sample spiders for four years within 24 large (314 m2) plots in which we manipulated nutrients (NPK fertilizer) and plant litter (litter removed or left in place). We measured the diversity, abundance, biomass, and community structure responses of the spider community, and of wolf spiders (Lycosidae) and linyphiid spiders (Linyphiidae), as well as the abundance and biomass responses of the six most common species. We hypothesized increased nutrient loading would increase epigeal spider abundance and biomass but decrease diversity. Contrary to predictions, spider species richness, diversity, and biomass were not significantly affected by fertilization, while fertilization resulted in significantly increased abundance. Also contrary to predictions, plant litter did not affect any of these variables. Linyphiid spiders had the strongest responses to fertilization, with significantly increased abundance and biomass, and, contrary to predictions, increased species richness in fertilized plots. Wolf spiders responded more closely to predictions. Our results indicate that the epigeal spider community does not respond as would be predicted by biodiversity-productivity theory. This underscores the need to integrate the largely detritus-based epigeal community into current biodiversity-productivity theory.</abstract><cop>Lubbock, Tex., American Arachnological Society</cop><pub>American Arachnological Society</pub><doi>10.1636/P11-92.1</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0161-8202
ispartof The Journal of arachnology, 2012-11, Vol.40 (3), p.309-324
issn 0161-8202
1937-2396
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1171884172
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Araneae
arthropods
Biodiversity
Biological diversity
Biomass
community structure
disturbance
enrichment
Environmental aspects
Featured s
Fertilization
Food webs
grasslands
Insect-plant relationships
Linyphiidae
Lycosidae
nitrogen
NPK fertilizers
nutrients
pitfall traps
Plant litter
Plants
pollution load
portion size
prediction
Species
Species diversity
Spiders
terrestrial ecosystems
testing
Wolves
Zoological research
title Epigeal spider responses to fertilization and plant litter: testing biodiversity theory at the ground level
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T12%3A51%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_smith&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Epigeal%20spider%20responses%20to%20fertilization%20and%20plant%20litter:%20testing%20biodiversity%20theory%20at%20the%20ground%20level&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arachnology&rft.au=Patrick,%20L.%20Brian&rft.date=2012-11&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=309&rft.epage=324&rft.pages=309-324&rft.issn=0161-8202&rft.eissn=1937-2396&rft_id=info:doi/10.1636/P11-92.1&rft_dat=%3Cgale_smith%3EA369914228%3C/gale_smith%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1171884172&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A369914228&rft_jstor_id=41758980&rfr_iscdi=true