Spiders in South African Cotton Fields: Species Diversity and Abundance (Arachnida: Araneae)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Spiders in South African cotton fields: species diversity and abundance (Arachnida: Araneae) AS Dippenaar-Schoeman, A M van den Berg & A van den Berg ARC - Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag X134, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa Dlppenaar-Schoeman A S, Van den Berg A M & Van den Berg A 1999. Spiders in South African cotton fields: species diversity and abundance (Arachnida: Araneae). African Plant Protection 5(2): 93-103. Spiders were collected from 1979 t01997 in five cotton-growing areas in South Africa. Thirty-one families, repre- sented by 92 genera and 127 species, were recorded. The Thomisidae were the richest in species (21) followed by the Araneidae (18) and Theridiidae (11). The most abundant spider species were Pardosa crasslpalpis Purcell (Lycosidae), Enoplognatha sp. (Theridiidae), Eperigone fradeorum (Berland) (Linyphiidae) and Misumenops rubrodecorata Millot (Thomisidae). Wandering spiders constituted 61.5 % and web-builders 38.5 % of all spiders collected. Information on guilds, relative abundance and distribution are provided for each species in an annotated checklist. Spiders 'are common and occur in high numbers in cotton fields and prey on a variety of cotton pests. Although spiders probably are incapable of controlling major pest outbreaks by themselves their role in a complex predatory community may be important in regulating pest species at low densities early in the season and between peaks of pest species activity. They therefore could play an important role in keeping pests at endemic levels and preventing outbreaks Key words: agroecosystems, Araneae, biodiversity, cotton, relative abundance, South Africa, spiders. Cotton (Gossypium spp.) is one of South Africa's (Nyffeler et al. 1994a). Predation is not limited to five major field crops, and is steadily increasing in adult insects but includes the egg and larval or importance. Several pests that attack cotton have nymphal stages as well (Whitcomb 1974; Nyffeler a wide range of natural enemies, of which spiders et al. 1990). Spiders use diverse foraging modes are prominent ones (Van den Berg & Dippenaar- and hunting strategies to obtain prey, and could Schoeman 1991) whose 'potential as biological play an important role in the control of pest species control agents have nevertheless been largely ig- (Dippenaar-Schoeman 1976; Sterling et al. 1992). nored in applied scientific research' in South Africa. A single species may not be able to control a single Spider communities on cotton in the USA have pest species but spider assemblages can be effec- been widely studied, with more than 300 species tive in stabilising pest populations. The buffering having been recorded (Whitcomb & Bell 1964; effect of spiders can only be achieved through the Leigh & Hunter 1969; Young & Lockley 1985; combined activities of a variety of species in a Nyffeler & co-workers 1987-1994). Bishop & given habitat. Therefore, comprehensive surveys, Blood (1977, 1981) and Bishop (1979,1980,1981) to determine species diversity and numerically reported on work carried out in Australia while Wu dominant species and their abundance, are essen- et al. (1981), Zhao (1984) and Zhao et al. (1989) tial before experiments on their effectiveness can studied spiders on cotton in Asia. be conducted (Green 1996). Little information is available on the incidence of This paper presents the results of a survey of spiders on cotton in Africa", In southern Africa, spiders on cotton in South Africa that formed part Brettell & Burgess (1973) made some observa- of the South African National Survey of Arachnida tions on spiders on cotton in Zimbabwe, while (SANSA) in agroecosystems. We provide a check- Coates (1974), Van den Berg (1989), Van den list of spiders commonly found in some cotton- Berg et al. (1990) and Van den Berg & Dippenaar- growing areas of South Africa, with reference also Schoeman (1991) reported on spiders associated to spider guilds, abundance and distribution. with cotton in South Africa. Spiders are among the first predacious arthro- Materials and methods pods to colonise newly-planted cotton fields and their populations gradually build up in size as plant Study areas density and prey numbers increase (Dinkins et al. Spiders were collected in the following five 1970; Van den Berg 1989; Van den Berg & cotton-growing areas in South Africa from 1979 to Dippenaar-Schoeman 1991). Most spider species 1997: Hartebeespoort Experiment Farm near are polyphagous and feed on a variety of prey Brits, North-West Province (25.36S, 27.49E), 94 African Plant Protection vol. 5, no. 2, August 1999 Loskop Research Station (25.10S, 29.24E) and wander around in search of prey. The wandering Oudestad Experiment Farm near Groblersdal spiders can further be divided into plant wanderers (25.12S, 29.12E), Northern Province, and Rust de (PW) and ground wanderers (GW). Web-builders Winter (25.15S, 28.29E) and farms near Marble construct orb webs (OWB), space webs (SPWB), Hall (25.00S, 29.25E) in Mpumalanga. sheet webs (SWB), funnel webs (FWB) and cribellated webs (CWB). Sampling techniques Feedingexperiments.Some of the common spider Spiders were collected from mainly two zones in species were subjected to feeding experiments in cotton fields, using the following techniques: the laboratory where they were presented with a i. Ground wanderers were sampled in pit-traps selection of pest species found on cotton. (Viljoen 1976) between the cotton rows. The traps were usually operational during the entire Results and discussion cotton season. Specimens were removed at weekly intervals. Pit-trapping was carried out in Species recorded four of the five study areas. Table 1 lists the spider species collected, the ii. Plant wanderers were sampled by hand guilds that they occupy, and their relative abun- (Marble Hall), with a sweepnet or beating tray dance and distribution. Thirty-one spider families, (Rust de Winter, Loskop Research Station), or represented by 92 genera and 127 species, were with the whole-plant bag-sampling method collected in the five cotton-growing areas. This (Brits), where the whole plant is removed from compares well with the spider assemblages in the field and spiders collected by hand and cotton fields in Arkansas (19 families, 102 genera aspirator in the laboratory (Van den Berg 1989; and 189 spp.; Heiss et a!. 1988) and in China (20 Van den Berg et a!. 1990). families and 130 spp.; Zhao 1984), but the families Juveniles of some families were reared to matu- and genera differ since the African fauna is dis- rity for species identification. A large number of tinctly different from those of other continents preserved juveniles were unidentifiable. In addi- (Dippenaar-Schoeman & Jocque 1997). tion, some specimens could not be identified to The Thomisidae were represented by the high- species owing to the unresolved taxonomy of their est number of species (21) (Table 1), followed by families. All material is in the National Collection of the Araneidae (18) and the Theridiidae (11). Four- Arachnida, ARC - Plant Protection Research Insti- teen families were represented by single species. tute, Pretoria. The most abundant species were Pardosa crassi- palpis Purcell (Lycosidae), Enoplognatha sp. Sampling period (Theridiidae), Eperigone fradeorum (Berland) Various aspects of cotton production have been (Linyphiidae) and Misumenops rubrodecorata studied at ARC - PPRI over the last 20 years, and Millot (Thomisidae). included sampling of spiders during the 1979-1980 The family and species dominance differs from (Oudestad), 1980-1988 (Hartebeespoort), 1980- those reported from the USA and China. Dean 1981 (Rust de Winter), 1981-1982 (Loskopdam) et a!. (1982) reported that 23 % of the spiders on and 1995-1997 (Marble Hall) growing seasons. cotton in Texas belonged to the Oxyopidae (Oxyopes salticus Hentz) followed by Lycosidae Experimental procedure (Pardosa milvina Hentz and P. pauxilla Montgom- Abundance. The following relative abundance ery), Thomisidae (Misumenops celer Hentz), categories were used: (1) common, three or more Tetragnathidae (Tetragnatha laboriosa Hentz), specimens collected per week; (2) occasional, Dictynidae (Phantyna segregata (Gertsch & 6-30 spiders per season; (3 ) rare, six or fewer Mulaik)) and Miturgidae (Cheiracanthium spiders per season. inclusum Hentz). In China (Zhao 1984) the domi- Guild. A guild is a group of species potentially nant families were Linyphiidae (Micryphantes competing for jointly exploited, limited resources graminicola (Sundevall), Lycosidae (Pardosa (sensu Polis & McCormick 1986). The following astrigera L Koch), Thomisidae (Misumenops guilds were recognised based on foraging behav- tricuspidatus Fabricius) and Theridiidae iour: web-builders (WB) - spiders that snare their (Coleosoma octomaculatum B6senberg & prey with silk: wanderers (W) - spiders that Strand). • Dippenaar-Schoeman et al.: Spiders in South African cotton fields 95 Guilds common species collected from soil at Marble Hall, followed by Microlinyphia sterilis (Pavesi) Web-builders and Ostearius me/anopygius (0 P.-Cambridge). In the present study, 49 species (38.5 %), repre- Erigone irrita Jacque and Microlinyphia sterilis sented by 11 families, were web-builders. The were found in association with the red spider mite Araneidae (18 spp.), Linyphiidae (10 spp.) and Tetranychus lombardiniiBaker & Pritchard (Meyer Theridiidae (11 spp.) were the families most often 1996). encountered. In China, the Iinyphiid Micryphantes graminicola Araneidae. Araneids are orb-web spiders, was the