Loading…

Surrogates of spider diversity, leveraging the conservation of a poorly known group in the Savanna Biome of South Africa

► Generic richness was the most efficient surrogate of spider diversity. ► The two-indicator group, Salticidae and Thomisidae, was the most efficient cross taxon surrogate. ► Woody vegetation and birds (non-overlapping indicator groups) performed poorly. ► Use of morphospecies as surrogates are caut...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biological conservation 2013-05, Vol.161, p.203-212
Main Authors: Foord, Stefan H., Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S., Stam, Eduard M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-dcf88d5dad54fce6abf602fc3263065ffceff18f452c6866cb90e88ca7c2e0403
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-dcf88d5dad54fce6abf602fc3263065ffceff18f452c6866cb90e88ca7c2e0403
container_end_page 212
container_issue
container_start_page 203
container_title Biological conservation
container_volume 161
creator Foord, Stefan H.
Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S.
Stam, Eduard M.
description ► Generic richness was the most efficient surrogate of spider diversity. ► The two-indicator group, Salticidae and Thomisidae, was the most efficient cross taxon surrogate. ► Woody vegetation and birds (non-overlapping indicator groups) performed poorly. ► Use of morphospecies as surrogates are cautiously supported but not preferred. The inclusion of spiders in conservation planning initiatives is confounded by several factors. Surrogates could facilitate their incorporation. In this paper we investigate the performance of a number of surrogate measures, such as higher taxa (genus, family), cross-taxon surrogates that are subsets of the spider assemblages (certain spider families) or non-overlapping groups (woody vegetation and birds), and the use of morphospecies. Birds and woody vegetation were included because they often form the focus of conservation planning initiatives. We assessed the surrogate measures based on their predictive power for species richness and extent to which conservation planning that maximizes representation of the surrogate is effective in representing spider diversity. A measure for the latter is the Species Accumulation Index (SAI). Generic richness as a higher taxon surrogate and the combined richness of the families Thomisidae and Salticidae were the best estimators of total species richness. Based on the surrogacy efficiency criterion, genera and the family Salticidae had species accumulation indices (SAIs) that were significantly larger than 95% confidence intervals of a random curve, while woody vegetation and birds turned out to be poor surrogates for spider diversity. The use of morphospecies as estimators is cautiously supported (adjusted R2=0.85, for species richness, SAI=0.73). The surrogates identified here provide a viable alternative to whole assemblage analysis but should be used with caution. The use of genera is confounded by unstable taxonomy and the difficulty of identifying specimens up to genus level. Geographic location and varying sampling effort between surveys did not have an effect on the surrogate performance of the two spider families, viz. Salticidae and Thomisidae. The former family has seen a flood of recent systematic work, whereas the latter’s taxonomy is fairly well developed. These two families comprise ca. 20% of spider species observed in the Savanna Biome of South Africa and could provide a viable handle on spider diversity in this region.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.011
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1669885166</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0006320713000591</els_id><sourcerecordid>1669885166</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-dcf88d5dad54fce6abf602fc3263065ffceff18f452c6866cb90e88ca7c2e0403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhHyDhCxIHEmzHcZwLUlvRglSJw9KzNeuMUy9ZO9jJwv57HLbiiDiNPXre-XqL4jWjFaNMfthXOxdM8BWnrK4oryhjT4oNU21d8o61T4sNpVSWNaft8-JFSvv8bWvZbIpf2yXGMMCMiQRL0uR6jKR3R4zJzaf3ZMT8hMH5gcwPSHKXhPEIswt-FQCZQojjiXz34acnQwzLRJz_w27hCN4DuXLhgCu8Dcv8QC5tdAZeFs8sjAlfPcaL4v7m07frz-Xd19sv15d3pREtn8veWKX6poe-EdaghJ2VlFtTc1lT2dics5YpKxpupJLS7DqKShloDUcqaH1RvDvXnWL4sWCa9cElg-MIHsOSNJOyU6rJ4X9QKpjsOpFRcUZNDClFtHqK7gDxpBnVqyd6r8-e6NUTTbnOnmTZ28cOkAyMNoI3Lv3V8lbUSokmc2_OnIWgYYiZud_mQoJSlodt17U-ngnMtzs6jDoZh95g7yKaWffB_XuU39jUrvk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1660416994</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Surrogates of spider diversity, leveraging the conservation of a poorly known group in the Savanna Biome of South Africa</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Foord, Stefan H. ; Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S. ; Stam, Eduard M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Foord, Stefan H. ; Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S. ; Stam, Eduard M.</creatorcontrib><description>► Generic richness was the most efficient surrogate of spider diversity. ► The two-indicator group, Salticidae and Thomisidae, was the most efficient cross taxon surrogate. ► Woody vegetation and birds (non-overlapping indicator groups) performed poorly. ► Use of morphospecies as surrogates are cautiously supported but not preferred. The inclusion of spiders in conservation planning initiatives is confounded by several factors. Surrogates could facilitate their incorporation. In this paper we investigate the performance of a number of surrogate measures, such as higher taxa (genus, family), cross-taxon surrogates that are subsets of the spider assemblages (certain spider families) or non-overlapping groups (woody vegetation and birds), and the use of morphospecies. Birds and woody vegetation were included because they often form the focus of conservation planning initiatives. We assessed the surrogate measures based on their predictive power for species richness and extent to which conservation planning that maximizes representation of the surrogate is effective in representing spider diversity. A measure for the latter is the Species Accumulation Index (SAI). Generic richness as a higher taxon surrogate and the combined richness of the families Thomisidae and Salticidae were the best estimators of total species richness. Based on the surrogacy efficiency criterion, genera and the family Salticidae had species accumulation indices (SAIs) that were significantly larger than 95% confidence intervals of a random curve, while woody vegetation and birds turned out to be poor surrogates for spider diversity. The use of morphospecies as estimators is cautiously supported (adjusted R2=0.85, for species richness, SAI=0.73). The surrogates identified here provide a viable alternative to whole assemblage analysis but should be used with caution. The use of genera is confounded by unstable taxonomy and the difficulty of identifying specimens up to genus level. Geographic location and varying sampling effort between surveys did not have an effect on the surrogate performance of the two spider families, viz. Salticidae and Thomisidae. The former family has seen a flood of recent systematic work, whereas the latter’s taxonomy is fairly well developed. These two families comprise ca. 20% of spider species observed in the Savanna Biome of South Africa and could provide a viable handle on spider diversity in this region.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-3207</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2917</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.011</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BICOBK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Arachnida ; Araneae ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biological diversity ; Birds ; confidence interval ; Conservation ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; ecosystems ; Estimators ; Floods ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Higher taxa ; Inclusions ; Indicator taxa ; Invertebrates ; Morphospecies ; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking ; planning ; Rapid assessments ; Salticidae ; savannas ; Species Accumulation Index ; species diversity ; Spiders ; surveys ; Taxonomy ; Thomisidae ; Vegetation</subject><ispartof>Biological conservation, 2013-05, Vol.161, p.203-212</ispartof><rights>2013 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-dcf88d5dad54fce6abf602fc3263065ffceff18f452c6866cb90e88ca7c2e0403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-dcf88d5dad54fce6abf602fc3263065ffceff18f452c6866cb90e88ca7c2e0403</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=27438845$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Foord, Stefan H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stam, Eduard M.</creatorcontrib><title>Surrogates of spider diversity, leveraging the conservation of a poorly known group in the Savanna Biome of South Africa</title><title>Biological conservation</title><description>► Generic richness was the most efficient surrogate of spider diversity. ► The two-indicator group, Salticidae and Thomisidae, was the most efficient cross taxon surrogate. ► Woody vegetation and birds (non-overlapping indicator groups) performed poorly. ► Use of morphospecies as surrogates are cautiously supported but not preferred. The inclusion of spiders in conservation planning initiatives is confounded by several factors. Surrogates could facilitate their incorporation. In this paper we investigate the performance of a number of surrogate measures, such as higher taxa (genus, family), cross-taxon surrogates that are subsets of the spider assemblages (certain spider families) or non-overlapping groups (woody vegetation and birds), and the use of morphospecies. Birds and woody vegetation were included because they often form the focus of conservation planning initiatives. We assessed the surrogate measures based on their predictive power for species richness and extent to which conservation planning that maximizes representation of the surrogate is effective in representing spider diversity. A measure for the latter is the Species Accumulation Index (SAI). Generic richness as a higher taxon surrogate and the combined richness of the families Thomisidae and Salticidae were the best estimators of total species richness. Based on the surrogacy efficiency criterion, genera and the family Salticidae had species accumulation indices (SAIs) that were significantly larger than 95% confidence intervals of a random curve, while woody vegetation and birds turned out to be poor surrogates for spider diversity. The use of morphospecies as estimators is cautiously supported (adjusted R2=0.85, for species richness, SAI=0.73). The surrogates identified here provide a viable alternative to whole assemblage analysis but should be used with caution. The use of genera is confounded by unstable taxonomy and the difficulty of identifying specimens up to genus level. Geographic location and varying sampling effort between surveys did not have an effect on the surrogate performance of the two spider families, viz. Salticidae and Thomisidae. The former family has seen a flood of recent systematic work, whereas the latter’s taxonomy is fairly well developed. These two families comprise ca. 20% of spider species observed in the Savanna Biome of South Africa and could provide a viable handle on spider diversity in this region.</description><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Arachnida</subject><subject>Araneae</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biological diversity</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>confidence interval</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>ecosystems</subject><subject>Estimators</subject><subject>Floods</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Higher taxa</subject><subject>Inclusions</subject><subject>Indicator taxa</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Morphospecies</subject><subject>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</subject><subject>planning</subject><subject>Rapid assessments</subject><subject>Salticidae</subject><subject>savannas</subject><subject>Species Accumulation Index</subject><subject>species diversity</subject><subject>Spiders</subject><subject>surveys</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><subject>Thomisidae</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><issn>0006-3207</issn><issn>1873-2917</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhHyDhCxIHEmzHcZwLUlvRglSJw9KzNeuMUy9ZO9jJwv57HLbiiDiNPXre-XqL4jWjFaNMfthXOxdM8BWnrK4oryhjT4oNU21d8o61T4sNpVSWNaft8-JFSvv8bWvZbIpf2yXGMMCMiQRL0uR6jKR3R4zJzaf3ZMT8hMH5gcwPSHKXhPEIswt-FQCZQojjiXz34acnQwzLRJz_w27hCN4DuXLhgCu8Dcv8QC5tdAZeFs8sjAlfPcaL4v7m07frz-Xd19sv15d3pREtn8veWKX6poe-EdaghJ2VlFtTc1lT2dics5YpKxpupJLS7DqKShloDUcqaH1RvDvXnWL4sWCa9cElg-MIHsOSNJOyU6rJ4X9QKpjsOpFRcUZNDClFtHqK7gDxpBnVqyd6r8-e6NUTTbnOnmTZ28cOkAyMNoI3Lv3V8lbUSokmc2_OnIWgYYiZud_mQoJSlodt17U-ngnMtzs6jDoZh95g7yKaWffB_XuU39jUrvk</recordid><startdate>20130501</startdate><enddate>20130501</enddate><creator>Foord, Stefan H.</creator><creator>Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S.</creator><creator>Stam, Eduard M.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130501</creationdate><title>Surrogates of spider diversity, leveraging the conservation of a poorly known group in the Savanna Biome of South Africa</title><author>Foord, Stefan H. ; Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S. ; Stam, Eduard M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-dcf88d5dad54fce6abf602fc3263065ffceff18f452c6866cb90e88ca7c2e0403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Arachnida</topic><topic>Araneae</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biological diversity</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>confidence interval</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>ecosystems</topic><topic>Estimators</topic><topic>Floods</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Higher taxa</topic><topic>Inclusions</topic><topic>Indicator taxa</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Morphospecies</topic><topic>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</topic><topic>planning</topic><topic>Rapid assessments</topic><topic>Salticidae</topic><topic>savannas</topic><topic>Species Accumulation Index</topic><topic>species diversity</topic><topic>Spiders</topic><topic>surveys</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><topic>Thomisidae</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Foord, Stefan H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stam, Eduard M.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</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>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Foord, Stefan H.</au><au>Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie S.</au><au>Stam, Eduard M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Surrogates of spider diversity, leveraging the conservation of a poorly known group in the Savanna Biome of South Africa</atitle><jtitle>Biological conservation</jtitle><date>2013-05-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>161</volume><spage>203</spage><epage>212</epage><pages>203-212</pages><issn>0006-3207</issn><eissn>1873-2917</eissn><coden>BICOBK</coden><abstract>► Generic richness was the most efficient surrogate of spider diversity. ► The two-indicator group, Salticidae and Thomisidae, was the most efficient cross taxon surrogate. ► Woody vegetation and birds (non-overlapping indicator groups) performed poorly. ► Use of morphospecies as surrogates are cautiously supported but not preferred. The inclusion of spiders in conservation planning initiatives is confounded by several factors. Surrogates could facilitate their incorporation. In this paper we investigate the performance of a number of surrogate measures, such as higher taxa (genus, family), cross-taxon surrogates that are subsets of the spider assemblages (certain spider families) or non-overlapping groups (woody vegetation and birds), and the use of morphospecies. Birds and woody vegetation were included because they often form the focus of conservation planning initiatives. We assessed the surrogate measures based on their predictive power for species richness and extent to which conservation planning that maximizes representation of the surrogate is effective in representing spider diversity. A measure for the latter is the Species Accumulation Index (SAI). Generic richness as a higher taxon surrogate and the combined richness of the families Thomisidae and Salticidae were the best estimators of total species richness. Based on the surrogacy efficiency criterion, genera and the family Salticidae had species accumulation indices (SAIs) that were significantly larger than 95% confidence intervals of a random curve, while woody vegetation and birds turned out to be poor surrogates for spider diversity. The use of morphospecies as estimators is cautiously supported (adjusted R2=0.85, for species richness, SAI=0.73). The surrogates identified here provide a viable alternative to whole assemblage analysis but should be used with caution. The use of genera is confounded by unstable taxonomy and the difficulty of identifying specimens up to genus level. Geographic location and varying sampling effort between surveys did not have an effect on the surrogate performance of the two spider families, viz. Salticidae and Thomisidae. The former family has seen a flood of recent systematic work, whereas the latter’s taxonomy is fairly well developed. These two families comprise ca. 20% of spider species observed in the Savanna Biome of South Africa and could provide a viable handle on spider diversity in this region.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.011</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0006-3207
ispartof Biological conservation, 2013-05, Vol.161, p.203-212
issn 0006-3207
1873-2917
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1669885166
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Applied ecology
Arachnida
Araneae
Biological and medical sciences
Biological diversity
Birds
confidence interval
Conservation
Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife
ecosystems
Estimators
Floods
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General aspects
Higher taxa
Inclusions
Indicator taxa
Invertebrates
Morphospecies
Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking
planning
Rapid assessments
Salticidae
savannas
Species Accumulation Index
species diversity
Spiders
surveys
Taxonomy
Thomisidae
Vegetation
title Surrogates of spider diversity, leveraging the conservation of a poorly known group in the Savanna Biome of South Africa
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T20%3A29%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Surrogates%20of%20spider%20diversity,%20leveraging%20the%20conservation%20of%20a%20poorly%20known%20group%20in%20the%20Savanna%20Biome%20of%20South%20Africa&rft.jtitle=Biological%20conservation&rft.au=Foord,%20Stefan%20H.&rft.date=2013-05-01&rft.volume=161&rft.spage=203&rft.epage=212&rft.pages=203-212&rft.issn=0006-3207&rft.eissn=1873-2917&rft.coden=BICOBK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1669885166%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-dcf88d5dad54fce6abf602fc3263065ffceff18f452c6866cb90e88ca7c2e0403%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1660416994&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true