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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of arachnology 2012-11, Vol.40 (3), p.309-324 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 |