4.1 Article

Estimating the diversity of arboreal oonopid spider assemblages (Araneae, Oonopidae) at Afrotropical sites

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARACHNOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 322-330

Publisher

AMER ARACHNOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1636/CT07-128.1

Keywords

Goblin spiders; Planetary Biodiversity Inventory; rarefaction; tree crowns; ecology

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Leopold III foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The abundance, species richness, and assemblage structure of arboreal Oonopidae of Afrotropical rainforests and savannahs was investigated. Canopy-dwelling spiders were collected by insecticide knockdown fogging at 11 rainforest and three savannah sites in West. Central, and East Africa. In two lowland rainforests (Luki, DR Congo, and Kakum, Ghana) and two savannahs (Faro, Cameroon, and Mkomazi, Tanzania) Oonopidae were the second most abundant spider family, comprising up to 22% of the arboreal arachnofauna. In total, 51 species and 11 genera of Oonopidae were recorded from the 14 study sites. Kakum was the most species- and genus-rich site, with 11 species and 5 genera recorded. The arboreal oonopid assemblages were almost invariably found to be dominated by the widely-distributed genera Orchestina Simon and Opopaza Simon, in terms of both abundance and species richness. Orchestina in particular can be highly abundant and can comprise more than 90% of arboreal oonopids in rainforests as well as in savannahs. Species accumulation curves and six nonparametric estimators of total species richness (Chao 1, Chao 2, ACE, first- and second-order jackknife, and bootstrap) were calculated for Luki, Kakum, and Faro to evaluate the level of inventory completeness. In Kakum and Faro the species accumulation curve respectively closely approached and reached a stable asymptote. The selected nonparametric estimators were found to lack predictive power when applied to the Faro data set and appeared to behave similarly poorly on the Kakum sample set.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available