Main Article Content

Authors

The Pampa biome in southern Brazil has grassland areas with high biodiversity. Given the fast advance of Eucalyptus silviculture over grassland areas in this biome, and the scant knowledge on the soil spider fauna in these landscapes, we aimed to provide a first view of spiders occurring there and to quantitatively evaluate differences in the spider fauna between the two environments. Study areas included five farms each with the two environments, native grassland and Eucalyptus plantation. Spider densities were 6.53 (±1.01s.e.) individuals/m­2  in silviculture and 3.88 individuals/m­2  (±0.73) in grassland. This could be due to spiders finding more shelter sites underneath a denser silviculture litter than in the grassland where they could be more exposed, for example, to their own predators. Twenty­ four spider families were captured; the most abundant and diverse were Salticidae and Linyphiidae. Nineteen families occurred in the silviculture and 21 in the grassland. For adult spiders, 51 morphospecies were determined, the most abundant being Guaraniella mahnerti. Adult abundance was marginally significant for environment, with silviculture areas having more spiders. Species density did not differ between environments or sites, but evenness was significantly higher for the grassland. This better balance in species abundances for spider assemblages in grasslands suggests a healthier environment compared to a monoculture. The most abundant guild was that of the running hunters. Even as a rapid spider diversity inventory, the information gathered here adds considerably to our knowledge on how this new economic upsurge in silviculture affects native environments.

LOPES-RODRIGUES, E. N., DE S. MENDONÇA, JR, M., L. O. ROSADO, J., & LOECK, A. E. (2010). Soil spiders in differing environments: Eucalyptus plantations and grasslands in the Pampa biome, southern Brazil. Revista Colombiana De Entomología, 36(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.25100/socolen.v36i2.9159

BECK, L.; HöFER, H.; MARTIUS, C.; RöMBKE, J.; VERHAAGH, M. 1997. Bodenbiologie tropischer Regenwälder. Geogrephische Rundschau 49(1): 24­31.

BIRD, S. D.; COULSON, R. N.; FISHER, R. F. 2004. Changes in soil and litter arthropod abundance following tree harvesting and site preparation in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation. Forest Ecology and Management 202: 195­208.

BULTMAN, T. L.; UETZ, G. W. 1982. Abundance and community structure of forest floor spider following litter manipulation. Oecologia 55: 34­41.

COLWELL, R. K. 2005. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7.5.1. University of Connecticut, USA. Available at: <http://viceroy.eeb. uconn.edu/EstimateS>.

CLARKE, K. R.; WARWICK, R. M. 1994. Change in Marine Communities. UK, National Research Concil. 144 p.

FERREIRA, R. L.; MARQUES, M. M. G. S. M. 1998. A fauna de artrópodes de serapilheira de áreas de monocultura com Eucalyptus sp. e mata secundária heterogênea. Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 27(3): 359­403.

FOELIX, R. F. 1996. Biology of spiders. New York, Oxford University Press. 336p.

HAMMER, O.; HARPER, D. A. T. 2009. Past: Paleontological Statistics. Version 1.97. Available at: <http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/ past>. 1.97. Available at: <http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/ past>.

HÖFER, H.; BRESCOVIT, A. D. 2001. Species and guild structure of a Neotropical spider assemblage (Araneae) (Reserva Flor­ estal Adolpho Ducke, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil). Andrias 15: 99­120.

HÖFER, H.; MARTIUS, C.; BECK, L. 1996. Decomposition in an Amazonian rainforest after experimental litter addition in small plots. Pedobiologia 40: 70­576.

IBGE, 2004. Mapa de Biomas do Brasil, primeira aproximação. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Available at: <http://www.ibge.gov.br>.

LIMA, W. P. 1993. Impacto ambiental do eucalipto. 2ed. São Paulo, Editora da Universidade de São Paulo. 302 p.

LO­MAN­HUNG, N. F.; GARDNER, T. A.; RIBEIRO­JÚNIOR, M. A.; BARLOW, J.; BONALDO, A. B. 2008. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for Neotropical epigeic arachnids. Journal of Arachnology 36: 394­401.

MAJER, J. D. ; RECHER, H. F. 1999. Are eucalypts Brazil´s friend or foe? An entomological viewpoint. Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 28(2): 185­200.

MAY, R. M. 1986. The search for patterns in the balance of nature: Advances and retreats. Ecology 67: 1115­1126.

MOÇO, M. K. S.; GAMA­RODRIGUES, E. F.; GAMA­RODRIGUES, A. C.; CORREIA, M. E. F. 2005. Caracterização da fauna edáfica em diferentes coberturas vegetais na região norte fluminense. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 29: 555­564.

NYFFELER, M.; STERLING, W. L.; DEAN, D. 1994. A Insetivorous activities of spiders in United States field crops. Journal of Applied Entomology 118: 113­128.

PELLENS, R.; GARAY, I. 2000. Edaphic macroarthropod communities in fast­growing plantations of Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maid (Myrtaceae) and Acacia mangium Wild (Leguminosae) in Brazil. European Journal of Soil Biology 35: 77­89.

PILLAR, V. P.; MÜLLER, S. C.; CASTILHOS, Z. M. S.; JACQUES, A. V. A. 2009. Campos Sulinos – conservação e uso sustentável da biodiversidade. Brasília, MMA. 403 p.

PLAGENS, M. J. 1983. Population of Misumenops (Araneida: Thomisidae) in two Arizona cotton fields. Environmental Entomology 12: 572­575.

PRIMACK, R.; RODRIGUES, E. 2002. Biologia da conservação. Londrina, Editora Planta. viii+328p.

RINALDI, I. M. P. 2005. Spiders of a young plantation of eucalypt: diversity and potential predator of the most frequent arboreal species. Acta Biológica Paranaense 34: 1­13.

RODRIGUES, E. N. L.; MENDONÇA, JR., M. S.; OTT, R. 2009. Spider diversity in a rice agroecosystem and adjacent areas in southern Brazil. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 35(1): 78­ 86.

RYPSTRA, A. L.; CARTER, P. E; BALFOURD, R. A.; MARSHALL, S. D. 1999. Architectural features of agricultural habitats and their impact on the spiders inhabitants. Journal of Arachnology 27: 371­377.

SOUZA,A. L. T. 2007. Influência da estrutura do habitat na abundância e diversidade de aranhas. In: GONZAGA, M. O.; SANTOS, A. J.; JAPYASSÚ, H. F. eds. Ecologia e comportamento de aranhas. Rio de Janeiro, Interciência Editora, p.25­44.

TOTI, D. S.; COYLE, F. A.; MILLER, J. A. 2000. A structured in­ ventory of Appalachian Grass Bald and Heath Bald spider as­ semblages and a test of species richness estimator performance. Journal of Arachnology 28: 329­345.

UETZ, G. W. 1979. The influence of variation in litter habitats on spider communities. Oecologia 40: 29­42.

UETZ, G. W.; HALAJ, J.; CADY, A. B. 1999. Guild structure of spiders in major crops. Journal of Arachnology 27: 270­280.

WHITMORE, C.; SLOTOW, R.; CROUCH, T. E.; DIPPERNAAR­ SCHOEMAN, A. S. 2002. Diversity of spiders (Araneae) in a savanna reserve, Northern Province, South Africa. Journal of Arachnology 30: 344­356.

WILCOX, B. A.; MURPHY, D. D. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of the fragmentation on extinction. The American Naturalist 125: 879­887.

WISE, D. H. 1993. Spiders in ecological webs. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. xiii+328p.

YOUNG, O. P.; EDWARDS, G. B. 1990. Spiders in United States field crops and their potential effect on crop pests. Journal of Arachnology 18(1): 1­27.