Arboreal Spider Ecology on Saltcedar (<i>Tamarix</i>) at Big Spring, Howard County, Texas

Knutson, Eric M.; Richman, David B.; Doetkott, Curt

doi:10.3958/059.035.0403

Cited by 6 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…; Edwards & Edwards ; Knutson et al. ). Studies dealing with orb‐weaver spider ecology have mostly considered epigean habitats, and have focused on parameters such as web structure, prey availability, and relationships between spider occurrence and environmental characters such as light and temperature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of dipterans is probably related to their role as prey items. Spiders are common predators in terrestrial ecosystems, and many of them, including the orb-weaving spiders, have been the subject of ecological studies mainly dealing with foraging ecology (Craig et al 1996;Brown et al 2003;Edwards & Edwards 2006;Knutson et al 2010). Studies dealing with orb-weaver spider ecology have mostly considered epigean habitats, and have focused on parameters such as web structure, prey availability, and relationships between spider occurrence and environmental characters such as light and temperature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The distribution of cave twilight‐zone spiders depends on microclimatic features and trophic supply

Manenti

Lunghi

Ficetola

2015

Invertebrate Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Caves are not closed systems. Trophic dynamics in these habitats are driven by resource availability, and species that move between cave and outdoor environments may play a major role in resource availability. Spiders are among the most abundant invertebrates in caves; however, very few studies have tested factors hypothesized to affect the distribution of spiders among caves, and it is not known whether the trophic features of caves play a role in determining the occurrence, abundance, or breeding success of spiders. We assessed the distribution of the cave‐dwelling orb‐weaver spider Meta menardi in Italy, in a Mediterranean and in a Pre‐alpine area during summer and winter. We analyzed the relationships between spider distribution and multiple cave features, describing both the abiotic and the biotic environment. Using visual encounter surveys, the detection probability of this species was high, indicating that this technique provides reliable information on spider distribution. In Mediterranean caves, spider presence was more likely in cold and wet caves with abundant dipterans. In Pre‐alpine caves, spider presence was more likely in deep caves with abundant dipterans. Dipteran abundance was the variable best explaining spider distribution when pooling all sampled caves. This study shows that adults of M. menardi do not occur randomly among caves, but select caves with specific features. Prey availability and abiotic features are major determinants of habitat suitability for cave spiders. The strong relationship between spider distribution and prey availability suggests that the distribution of these spiders might be an indicator of the resources available in the twilight zones of caves.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The distribution of cave twilight‐zone spiders depends on microclimatic features and trophic supply

Manenti

Lunghi

Ficetola

2015

Invertebrate Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sampling of agroecosystems : Many agroecosystems have been studied: cabbage ( Irungu 2007 ), citrus ( Breene et al 1993a ), corn ( Knutson and Gilstrap 1989 ), cotton ( Breene et al 1993c , Dean et al 1982 , Dean and Sterling 1987 , Kagan 1943 , Pamanes-Guerrero 1975 ), guar ( Rogers and Horner 1977 ), peanut ( Agnew et al 1985 ), pecan ( Bumroongsook et al 1992 , Calixto et al 2013 , Liao et al 1984 ), rice ( Woods and Harrel 1976 ), saltcedar ( Knutson et al 2010 ), sugarcane ( Breene et al 1993b ), wildflowers ( Dean and Eger 1986 ), and woolly croton ( Breene et al 1988 ).…”

Section: History Of Collecting In Texasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Kaston 1978 : 169, desc. ; Knutson et al 2010 : 515; Richman et al 2011a : 47; Roth and Brown 1986 : 5 [T]; Vogel 1970b : 2; Whitman-Zai et al 2015 : 16, mf, desc. (figs 21–22, 33, 48); Yantis 2005 : 66, 196, 199…”

Section: Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3, photo 13); Dean et al 1982 : 254; Dean et al 1988 : 285–286; Dondale et al 2003 : 157, mf, desc. (figs 329–335); Jackman 1997 : 76, desc., 161 (photo 21i); Jäger 2012 : 294; Jones 1936 : 70; Knutson et al 2010 : 515; Levi 1968 : 340 [S], mf, desc. (figs 58–72, 74–91); Levi 2004 : 54; Nyffeler et al 1986 : 200; Nyffeler et al 1987c : 370; Rapp 1984 : 4; Roberts 2001 : 48; Rogers and Horner 1977 : 523; Taber and Fleenor 2003 : 236; Vogel 1970b : 4; Young and Edwards 1990 : 14…”

Section: Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Catalogue of Texas spiders

Dean¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This catalogue lists 1,084 species of spiders (three identified to genus only) in 311 genera from 53 families currently recorded from Texas and is based on the “Bibliography of Texas Spiders” published by Bea Vogel in 1970. The online list of species can be found at http://pecanspiders.tamu.edu/spidersoftexas.htm. Many taxonomic revisions have since been published, particularly in the families Araneidae, Gnaphosidae and Leptonetidae. Many genera in other families have been revised. The Anyphaenidae, Ctenidae, Hahniidae, Nesticidae, Sicariidae and Tetragnathidae were also revised. Several families have been added and others split up. Several genera of Corinnidae were transferred to Phrurolithidae and Trachelidae. Two genera from Miturgidae were transferred to Eutichuridae. Zoridae was synonymized under Miturgidae. A single species formerly in Amaurobiidae is now in the Family Amphinectidae. Some trapdoor spiders in the family Ctenizidae have been transferred to Euctenizidae.Gertsch and Mulaik started a list of Texas spiders in 1940. In a letter from Willis J. Gertsch dated October 20, 1982, he stated “Years ago a first listing of the Texas fauna was published by me based largely on Stanley Mulaik material, but it had to be abandoned because of other tasks.” This paper is a compendium of the spiders of Texas with distribution, habitat, collecting method and other data available from revisions and collections. This includes many records and unpublished data (including data from three unpublished studies). One of these studies included 16,000 adult spiders belonging to 177 species in 29 families. All specimens in that study were measured and results are in the appendix. Hidalgo County has 340 species recorded with Brazos County at 323 and Travis County at 314 species. These reflect the amount of collecting in the area.

show abstract

Establishment, Hybridization, Dispersal, Impact, and Decline of Diorhabda spp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Released for Biological Control of Tamarisk in Texas and New Mexico

Knutson¹,

Tracy

Ritzi

et al. 2019

Environmental Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three Diorhabda spp. tamarisk beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) were established in Texas from 2003 to 2010 for biological control of tamarisk (Tamarix spp.): Mediterranean tamarisk beetles, D. elongata (Brullé) from Greece, also established in New Mexico; subtropical tamarisk beetles, D. sublineata (Lucas) from Tunisia; and larger tamarisk beetles, D. carinata (Faldermann) from Uzbekistan. More than one million tamarisk beetles were released at 99 sites. Species establishment success ranged from 52 to 83%. All three species now co-occur in New Mexico with the northern tamarisk beetles, D. carinulata (Desbrochers). A phenotypic hybrid scoring system was developed to assess Diorhabda phenotype distributions and character mixing in hybrid zones. Widespread field populations of bispecific hybrid phenotypes for D. carinata/D. elongata and D. sublineata/D. elongata rapidly appeared following contact of parental species. Initial distributions and dispersal of Diorhabda spp. and hybrids are mapped for Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas, where they produced large-scale tamarisk defoliation and localized dieback for 3–4 yr. However, populations subsequently severely declined, now producing only isolated defoliation and allowing tamarisk to recover. Diorhabda sublineata and D. elongata temporarily produced nontarget spillover defoliation of ornamental athel, Tamarix aphylla (L.) Karst, along the Rio Grande. Hybrid phenotypes were generally bimodally distributed, indicating some degree of reproductive isolation. Additional diagnostic phenotypic characters in males allowed more precise hybrid scoring. Character mixing in some hybrid populations approached or reached that of a hybrid swarm. The significance of hybridization for tamarisk biocontrol is discussed.

show abstract

Arboreal Spider Ecology on Saltcedar (Tamarix) at Big Spring, Howard County, Texas

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

The distribution of cave twilight‐zone spiders depends on microclimatic features and trophic supply

The distribution of cave twilight‐zone spiders depends on microclimatic features and trophic supply

Catalogue of Texas spiders

Establishment, Hybridization, Dispersal, Impact, and Decline of Diorhabda spp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Released for Biological Control of Tamarisk in Texas and New Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About