Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2021 | 13(12): 19762–19772
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7514.13.12.19762-19772
#7514 | Received 11 June 2021 | Final
received 07 September 2021 | Finally accepted 18 September 2021
Diversity of spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) and the impact of pruning in Indian sandalwood
plantations from Karnataka, India
S. Padma 1 & R. Sundararaj 2
1,2 Forest Protection Division,
Institute of Wood Science and Technology, 18th cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560003, India.
1 padma.rnd@gmail.com
(corresponding author) 2 rsundariwst@gmail.com
Editor: John T.D. Caleb, ERI, Loyola
College, Chennai, India. Date of publication:
26 October 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Padma, S. & R. Sundararaj (2021).Diversity of
spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) and the impact of
pruning in Indian sandalwood plantations from Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(12): 19762–19772. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7514.13.12.19762-19772
Copyright: © Padma & Sundararaj 2021. Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction,
and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to
the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Department of Biotechnology,
Ministry of Science and technology, Government of India. No. BT/PR29852/FCB/125/22/2018.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Padma, S. is Research scholar in Forest
Protection Division, Institute of Wood science and technology, Malleshwaram. Her research interest includes spider and
insect ecology, pollination study, disease and pest management, seed
germination and wildlife conservation. Dr. Sundararaj, R
is working as Scientist-G and Head of
Forest Protection division, Institute of wood science and technology,
Bangalore. He has about 35 years of research experience in the field of
protection of wood from bio-deterioration, forest entomology, integrated pest
management with special reference to sandalwood and whitefly taxonomy.
Author contributions: SP—carried out the field survey,
collection, identification of spiders, analysis of data and prepared the
manuscript. RS—guided and assisted Ms. Padma, in every step like, designing and
execution of the work and finalizing the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank
the Dr. K. Sunil Jose, Department of Zoology, Deva Matha College, Kuravilangad,
Kottayam, Kerala and Dr. Ambalaparambil
V. Sudhikumar, Department of Zoology, Centre for
Animal Taxonomy and Ecology, Christ College, Irinjalakuda,
Kerala for their valuable guidance and support in identification of spiders.
The financial support provided by the Department of Biotechnology, Government
of India to conduct this research is gratefully acknowledged.
Abstract: Indian sandalwood Santalum album L. plantations in Karnataka
were surveyed to study the diversity and abundance of spider fauna. A total of
1,244 individuals belonging to 56 spider species in 40 genera under 14 families
were recorded in the sandalwood plantations. Among the spider families
recorded, Araneidae was the most dominant with 15
species in nine genera followed by Salticidae with 13
species in 10 genera, Thomisidae with seven species
in four genera, Oxyopidae with four species in three
genera, Uloboridae with four species in a genus, and Theridiidae by three species each under three genera. Lycosidae and Sparassidae are
represented by two species under two genera each. The families Cheiracanthiidae, Clubionidae, Hersiliidae, Philodromidae, and Pholcidae are represented by a species each. The pruning of
sandalwood revealed a significant negative effect on the occurrence and
distribution of spiders.
Keywords: Ambushers, Araneidae,
guild, Orb web, pruning, Salticidae, Santalum album, spider fauna, stalkers, Thomisidae, Uloboridae.
Introduction
Spiders are air-breathing carnivorous
arthropods and are distributed ubiquitously in the globe except for Antarctica
and have adapted to all known ecological environments except air and open sea (Foelix 1996). They are important ecological indicators,
used to monitor warning signs for the environment at the earliest and as a
biological control agent, since its assemblages have the ability to limit the
population growth of arthropod pests and other natural enemies. Spiders are one
of the known successful groups of natural predators occupying the agricultural
ecosystems, and as efficient predators, they are able to suppress populations
of major insect pests (Marc & Canard 1997). Therefore, relatively higher
spider abundance has been considered a requirement for pest control in agricultural
systems (Young & Edwards 1990; Carter & Rypstra
1995; Sunderland & Samu 2000).
Globally, spiders include about
49,368 described species in 4,215 genera under 129 families (World Spider Catalog 2021). In India, 1,875 species under 478 genera in
61 families are known (Caleb & Sankaran 2021). Considering the importance
of spiders in integrated pest management strategy, the present study aimed to
understand the spider diversity and distribution in sandalwood plantations of
Karnataka and assess the impact of pruning of sandalwood in the distribution of
spiders.
Materials
and Methods
Study area and sampling methods
An extensive survey was done in
sandalwood plantations aged 2–6 years growing in different agro-forestry
systems in Karnataka (Table 1, Figure 1) for a period of three years from June
2017–May 2020 and sampling was done between 0930 h to 1130 h. Active searching
method of spiders was adopted and handpicked. Spiders were observed from each
corner of the plant, from all the branches, flowers, fruits, and even from the
ground. Spiders were photographed in their natural habitat and studied under a stereozoom microscope (Nikon SMZ 1500). The information of
collection data such as place, date of collection, habitat, the colouration of
spider and name of the collector were recorded. The specimens were preserved in
vials with 70% ethyl alcohol and deposited in the Department of Entomology,
IWST campus. Spiders were identified based on key morphological features
provided by Tikader (1987), taxonomic articles available
in the World Spider Catalog (2021), diagnostic
drawings available in Metzner (2021), and with the
help of taxonomic experts. Most of the adult spiders were identified to species
level and others to genus level.
Impact of pruning on spider
density
To assess the impact of pruning
of sandalwood on the diversity and abundance of spiders, a study was undertaken
in 2–3 years old plantations of both unpruned and pruned sandalwood during
November 2019–January 2020 about 10 hectare in Kolar District, Karnataka. For
this purpose, five 50 x 50 m blocks each in pruned and unpruned plantations
were marked and from each block, spiders were collected from five trees at
random. In unpruned trees, three different habitats (upper, middle, and lower
canopies) tree stand were considered and three branches in each canopy were
randomly selected for spider collection, the number of arboreal spiders in each
tree was counted. In pruned trees, data was collected adopting the same
methodology but only from the top canopy as the middle and the lower canopies
were lost due to pruning. Three observations were taken at monthly intervals
and the data analysed. From the data, comparison was made between the total
spiders collected in unpruned and pruned plantations as well as between the
spiders collected only from the top canopy of both the type of plantations by
performing one-tailed ANOVA.
Guild classification
Depending upon the foraging
strategies of spiders, they were categorised into eight different ecological
guild structures namely, stalkers, ambushers, foliage runners, ground runners,
sheet web-builders, tangle weavers, orb weavers, and space web-builders (Uetz et al 1999).
Results
A total of 1,244 individuals of
the 56 species of spiders in 40 genera under 14 families (Table 2) were
collected and identified (Table 3) from the surveyed sandalwood plantations.
Out of the 56 species (Figure 2), the family Araneidae
(27%) is the most dominant in terms of species diversity with 15 species in
nine genera followed by Salticidae (25%) with 13
species in 10 genera, Thomisidae (13%) with seven
species in four genera, Oxyopidae (7%) with four
species in three genera, and Uloboridae (7%) with
four species in a single genus. Theridiidae (5%) is
represented by three species under three genera and Lycosidae
& Sparassidae (3%) with two species in two genera
each. The families Cheiracanthiidae, Clubionidae, Hersiliidae Philodromidae, and Pholcidae (2%)
are represented by a species each. In terms of the number of individuals
collected, the dominant family was Salticidae with a
collection of 366 individuals followed by Araneidae
with 350 individuals. Among the species, Telamonia
dimidiata was found to be more abundant with a
total of 73 individuals followed by Myrmaplata
plataleoides, Menemerus
bivittatus, Meotipa
sahyadri, and Thomisus
andamanensis.
The spiders inhabiting the
sandalwood plantation fall under eight ecological guilds based on their
foraging mode (Figure 3). The majority of the observed spider families belong
to ‘orb-weavers’ category with 36% dominance, followed by stalkers (30%),
ambushers (12%), foliage runners (11%), tangled web (5%), and 2% each by ground
dwellers, funnel web builders, and space web building spiders.
In the observations from around
10 hectare, unpruned (Image 43) and pruned (Image 44) sandalwood, a total of
149 individuals belonging to 28 species under seven families and 11 individuals
belonging to three species under three families were recorded, respectively.
The number of spiders collected in unpruned sandalwood trees from upper,
middle, and lower were 45 individuals in 11 species, 63 individuals in 21
species, and 44 individuals in 11 species, respectively. In the pruned
sandalwood trees, the lower and the middle canopy was lost due to pruning and
the number of spiders collected from upper canopy was only 17 individuals of
three species (Figure 4). The one-way ANOVA result showed a significant
difference in the overall level of diversity and abundance of spiders in pruned
and unpruned sandalwood trees, F (1, 28)= 171.61, p <0.001.
Also, a significant difference was seen in the upper canopy of unpruned and
pruned sandalwood, F (1, 28)= 12.55, p= 0.0014. Thus, the above
result indicates that the interaction of vertical branches and denser
vegetation was significant and affected the composition and abundance of
spiders.
Discussion
The present survey is preliminary
and the first dealing with spider diversity in sandalwood-based agroforestry
ecosystems. Caleb & Sankaran (2021) reported 1,875 species under 478 genera
in 61 families in India out of which 56 species in 40 genera under 14 families
were found breeding in sandalwood plantations. This represents 2.986% and
21.95% of the total species and families, respectively, recorded in India. The
number of families recorded is as high as in other biomes of India. Sandeep et
al. (2020) reported 43 species of spiders under 23 families from 21 different
fruit crops in Punjab. The difference in spider fauna can be related to
different time frames and methods of collection. Even environmental factors
like the type of vegetation, seasonality, spatial heterogeneity, predation,
prey occurrence etc. can affect species diversity (Riechert
& Bishop 1990) and spiders are extremely sensitive to small changes in the
habitat structure, complexity, and microclimate characteristics. Their
abundance and distribution may vary from one geographic area to another (Downie et al. 1999). Spiders are polyphagous, feed on a
variety of available prey even on the egg, larva/nymph, as well as adult stages
of insects (Sandeep et al. 2020).
Predatory spiders found breeding in the sandalwood-based agroforestry
ecosystems serve as a source of successive predation against pests of
sandalwood.
Most spiders exhibit excellent
colouration and protective camouflage. The ant mimicking spider M. plataleoides and Hersilia savignyi resemble the bark of trees. Thomisid spiders commonly called ambushers which are “sit
and wait” type of prey hunting spiders, sit on the flowers and have attractive
colouration similar to the flower in which they hide. In contrast to this Hippasa agelenoides construct
funnels/tunnels? in ground strata, hide at the small end and rush out and grab
the prey (Pooja et al. 2019). Further, the difference in spider fauna is based
on the vertical segregation of the foraging heights. Some spiders might prefer
living in the uppermost parts of the plant, like Nephila
pilipes and Gasteracantha
geminata, while a few spiders like Pardosa pseudoannulata and
H. agelenoides are usually found on the ground.
Arboreal spider assemblages
assessed by the abundance-based measure showed a significant difference between
unpruned and pruned sandalwood. Even the upper canopy inhabiting spiders were
significantly less in pruned than unpruned sandalwood; this might be due to
non-availability of nutritional resources and required breeding resources in
the pruned trees. Pruning of sandalwood was found to have adverse effects on
the diversity and abundance of spiders. Unpruned sandalwood is not only
healthy, the lateral branches support erectness of the main stem and protect
the tree from adverse conditions like high winds, rainstorms, and intense
sunlight. It also supports the survival and existence of diverse living
organisms including spiders. The presence of lateral branches increase the
probability of dispersal of spiders by ballooning; also the canopy provides a
conducive environment to hide from its own predators and in successful
predation on prey. Pruned plants devoid of lower lateral branches having
flatter branches with shorter vertical spread might increase the exposure of
spiders to visually foraging predators (e.g., birds), it also narrows their
habitat and the availability of natural food resources by decreasing the
occurrence of prey, thus it negatively correlated with spider densities. In a
given habitat, the biomass of vegetation and prey availability were the best
predictions of spider abundance (Halaj et al. 1998). Rypstra (1986) documented a strong positive relationship
between the diversity of web-building spiders and vegetation structural
diversity across several habitats. It corroborated the dominance of orb-weaving
spiders in unpruned sandalwood and enlightens the importance of branches and
the natural growth of sandalwood for the occurrence of web-building spiders.
Web-building spiders are stationary predators that wait for prey to approach
near them. Their abundance is directly related to the physical architecture of
the vegetation (Greenstone 1984). The chance of their occurrence in pruned trees
is almost eliminated except fora few species of Uloboridae
with a fewer number of individuals. Also, the pruned trees are susceptible to
harsh wind effects and rainstorms, making them unsuitable for web-building
spiders. Similarly, the occurrence of stalkers the second dominant guild, which
actively jump over the prey for feeding, is directly related to the prey
availability and shaded environment which hides them from other larger
predators (Pooja et al. 2019). This is applicable to the rest of the spiders
and their abundance. Many earlier studies confirmed that the diversity and
complexity of the vegetation positively affects the abundance of spiders (Sudhikumar et al. 2005; Orguri et
al. 2014; Ossamy et al. 2016).
Sundararaj et al. (2018) documented more species
of insect pests and natural enemies from more diversified areas of sandalwood
cultivation but with less severity of the infestations and not having
requirement of the insecticidal application. Also, the plant diversity
regulates insect herbivore populations by favouring the abundance and efficacy
of associated natural enemies (Altieri & Letourneau 1984). Due to the
pruning of sandalwood trees, the mobile ecosystem service providers like
pollinators do not get a conducive environment for making their colonies and in
combination with extensive applications of agrochemicals have a negative effect
on the foraging ability and lifespan of pollinators and their resilience which
leads to a colossal loss of pollination and apiculture (Sundararaj
et al. 2020). Agroforestry practices enhance habitat diversification, increase
soil productivity, support native fauna in agricultural landscapes and more
resilience towards pests (Torres et al. 2015). The presence of fringe areas of
natural undisturbed vegetation is probably crucial in the maintenance of such a
healthy predatory complex (Lalnunsangi et al. 2014). Sundararaj et al. (2019) commented that the increase in
incidence of stem borer is of great concern as it causes very extensive and
serious damage in perennial trees like sandalwood. Once they are infested with
stem borer, it paves way for the infestation of decay fungi and such
infestation is carried throughout the life of sandalwood, resulting in more than one third loss of
heartwood. Similarly, the wound caused by the pruning will serve as the entry
point of decay fungi and other bio-deteriorating agents leading to colossal
damage of wood in the standing trees.
Many other reports also corroborate the concept of habitat
diversification, heterogeneity, and un-pruning of plants for the balanced
co-existence of pests and their natural enemies thus regulating the adverse
effects of pests on the plantations (Scheidler 1990;
Coddington & Levi 1991; Whitmore et al. 2002; Tews
et al. 2004; Buchholz & Schroder 2013; Sattler et al. 2021).
Conclusion
Sandalwood plantations support
diversity of spider fauna and they play an active role in regulating the
population of phytophagous insects. The pruning of sandalwood shows an adverse
effect on the diversity and abundance of spiders. Hence it is recommended not
to do pruning or do the pruning only in unavoidable situations. This will increases the habitat and nutritional
resources of natural enemies like spiders and facilitate to keep pest
populations under control.
Table 1. List of Sandalwood
plantation localities in Karnataka.
|
|
District |
Place/Village-Taluk |
Latitude (N), Longitude (E) |
|
1 |
Bangalore |
Institute of wood science and
technology, Malleshwaram |
13.011361, 77.570444 |
|
Environmental Management &
Policy Research Institute, Doresanipalya |
12.899250, 77.592222 |
||
|
2 |
Chikballapura |
Bagepalli |
13.803028, 77.804528 |
|
3 |
Chikkamagaluru |
Bikkaemanae |
13.260722, 75.764361 |
|
Sevapura – Tarikere |
13.703556, 75.824500 |
||
|
4 |
Chamarajanagar |
Arepalya – Kollegal Taluk |
12.083861, 77.102889 |
|
Vadegere – Yelanduru Taluk |
12.039444, 77.093667 |
||
|
Chikkaluru – Kollegal Taluk |
12.196972, 77.282778 |
||
|
5 |
Kollar |
Agara – Yeldur Taluk |
13.057528, 78.432389 |
|
Kenchanahalli – Mulbagal Taluk |
13.205889, 78.446194 |
||
|
Mudiyanuru – Mulbagal Taluk |
13.228306, 78.315972 |
||
|
6 |
Kopal |
Kushtagi |
15.759944, 76.196694 |
|
7 |
Tumkur |
Timmanahalli – Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk |
13.391167, 77.199611 |
|
Bijavara – Madhugiri Taluk |
13.677056, 77.236444 |
Table 2. Diversity and abundance of
spiders in sandalwood plantations.
|
|
Families |
Genus |
Species |
Individuals |
|
1 |
Araneidae |
9 |
15 |
350 |
|
2 |
Cheiracanthiidae |
1 |
1 |
17 |
|
3 |
Clubionidae |
1 |
1 |
15 |
|
4 |
Hersiliidae |
1 |
1 |
17 |
|
5 |
Lycosidae |
2 |
2 |
44 |
|
6 |
Oxyopidae |
2 |
4 |
57 |
|
7 |
Philodromidae |
1 |
1 |
13 |
|
8 |
Pholcidae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
|
9 |
Salticidae |
11 |
13 |
366 |
|
10 |
Sparassidae |
1 |
1 |
37 |
|
11 |
Tetragnathidae |
1 |
1 |
16 |
|
12 |
Theridiidae |
2 |
3 |
78 |
|
13 |
Thomisidae |
5 |
8 |
161 |
|
14 |
Uloboridae |
1 |
4 |
74 |
Table 3. Checklist of spiders in
sandalwood plantations.
|
Family |
Species |
|
|
Araneidae |
1 |
Arachnura melanura Simon, 1867 (Image 1) |
|
2 |
Araneus mitificus (Simon, 1886) (Image 2) |
|
|
3 |
Araneus sp. |
|
|
4 |
Argiope anasuja Thorell, 1887 (Image 3) |
|
|
5 |
Argiope pulchella Thorell, 1881 (Image 4) |
|
|
6 |
Cyclosa insulana (Costa, 1834) (Image 5) |
|
|
7 |
Cyrtophora cicatrosa (Stoliczka, 1869) (Image
6) |
|
|
8 |
Cyrtophora citricola (Forsskἀl, 1775) (Image 7) |
|
|
9 |
Eriovixia laglaizei (Simon, 1877) (Image 8) |
|
|
10 |
Gasteracantha geminata (Fabricius, 1798) (Image
9) |
|
|
11 |
Neoscona bengalensis Tikader & Bal, 1981
(Image 10) |
|
|
12 |
Neoscona mukerjei Tikader, 1980 (Image 11) |
|
|
13 |
Neoscona nautica (L.Koch, 1875) |
|
|
14 |
Neoscona punctigera (Doleschall, 857) (Image
12) |
|
|
15 |
Nephila pilipes (Fabricius, 1793) (Image
13) |
|
|
Cheiracanthiidae |
16 |
Cheiracanthium sp. (Image
14) |
|
Clubionidae |
17 |
Clubiona sp. |
|
Hersiliidae |
18 |
Hersilia savignyi Lucas, 1836 (Image 15) |
|
Lycosidae |
19 |
Hippasa agelenoides (Simon, 1884) (Image 16) |
|
20 |
Pardosa peudoanulata (Bösenberg
& Strand, 1906) (Image 17) |
|
|
Oxyopidae |
21 |
Hamadruas sp. (Image
18) |
|
22 |
Oxyopes javanus Thorell, 1887 |
|
|
23 |
Oxyopes sp. (Image 19) |
|
|
24 |
Peucetia viridana (Stoliczka, 1869) (Image
20) |
|
|
Philodromidae |
25 |
Thanatus sp. |
|
Pholcidae |
26 |
Crossopriza lyoni (Blackwall, 1867) |
|
Salticidae |
27 |
Brettus cingulatus Thorell, 1895 (Image 21) |
|
28 |
Carrhotus viduus C.L. Koch, 1846 |
|
|
29 |
Epeus indicus Prószyński, 1992 (Image 22) |
|
|
30 |
Hasarius adansoni (Audouin, 1826) |
|
|
31 |
Hyllus semicupreus (Simon, 1885) (Image 23) |
|
|
32 |
Menemerus bivittatus (Dufour, 1831) |
|
|
33 |
Myrmaplata plataleoides (O.P. Cambridge, 1869) (Image
24) |
|
|
34 |
Plexippus petersi (Karsch, 1878) |
|
|
35 |
Plexippus paykulli (Audouin, 1826) (Image 25) |
|
|
36 |
Rhene flavicomans Simon, 1902 (Image 26) |
|
|
37 |
Rhene flavigera (C.L. Koch, 1846) (Image 27) |
|
|
38 |
Rhene sp. |
|
|
39 |
Telamonia dimidiata (Simon, 1899) (Image 28) |
|
|
Sparassidae |
40 |
Heteropoda venatoria (Linnaeus, 1767) (Image 29) |
|
41 |
Olios milletti (Pocock, 1901) (Image 30) |
|
|
Tetragnathidae |
42 |
Opadometa fastigata (Simon, 1877) (Image 31) |
|
Theridiidae |
43 |
Meotipa sahyadri Kulkarni, Vartak,
Deshpande & Halali, 2017 (Image 32) |
|
44 |
Nihonhimea mundula (L.Koch, 1872) (Image 33) |
|
|
45 |
Parasteatoda sp. |
|
|
Thomisidae |
46 |
Loxobates sp. (Image 34) |
|
47 |
Misumena sp. (Image 35) |
|
|
48 |
Thomisus andamanensis Tikader, 1980 (Image 36) |
|
|
49 |
Thomisus bulani Tikader, 1960 |
|
|
50 |
Thomisus lobosus Tikader, 1965 (Image 37) |
|
|
51 |
Thomisus projectus Tikader, 1960 (Image 38) |
|
|
52 |
Tmarus sp. |
|
|
Uloboridae |
53 |
Uloborus sp. 1 (Image 39) |
|
54 |
Uloborus sp. 2 (Image 40) |
|
|
55 |
Uloborus sp. 3 (Image 41) |
|
|
56 |
Uloborus sp. 4 (Image 42) |
|
For
figures & Images - - click here
References
Altieri, M.A.
& D.K. Letourneau (1984). Vegetation diversity and insect pests outbreaks. CRC
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 2: 131–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352688409382193
Buchholz, S.
& M. Schroder (2013). Diversity and ecology of spider assemblages of a Mediterranean wetland
complex. Journal of Arachnology 41: 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1636/p13-26.1
Carter, P.V.
& A.L. Rypstra (1995). Top-down effects in soya bean
agroecosystems: Spider density affects herbivore damage. Oikos 72:
433–439.
Caleb, J.T.D.
& P.M. Sankaran (2021). Araneae of India. Version 2021, online
at http://www.indianspiders.in [accessed on 18.viii.2021].
Coddington,
J.A. & H.W. Levi (1991). Systematics and evolution of spiders (Araneae).
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22: 565–592. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.22.110191.003025
Downie, I.S., W.L. Wilson., V.J. Abernehy., D.I. McCracken., G.N. Foster., I. Ribera., A.
Waterhouse & K.J. Murphy (1999). The impact of different
agricultural land-uses on epigeal spider biodiversity in Scotland. Journal
of Insect conservation 3: 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009649222102
Foelix, R.F. (1996). Biology of Spiders. (2nd ed.). Oxford
University Press, New York.
Greenstone,
M.H. (1984). Determinants
of web spider species diversity: vegetation structural diversity vs. prey
availability. Oecologia 62: 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00384260
Halaj, J., D.W. Ross & A.R. Moldenke (1998). Habitat structure and prey
availability as predictors of the abundance and community organization of
spiders in western Oregon forest canopies. Journal of Arachnology 26:
203–220. https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lter/pubs/pdf/pub2575.pdf
Lalnunsangi, R., D. Paul & L.K. Jha
(2014). Natural enemy
complex of some agroforestry systems of Aizawl and their implications in insect
pest management. Energy and Environment Research 4: 29–33. https://doi.org/10.5539/eer.v4n2p29
Marc, P.
& A. Canard (1997). Maintaining spider biodiversity in agroecosystems as a tool in pest
control. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 62: 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01133-4
Metzner, H. (2021). Jumping spiders (Arachnida: Araneae: Salticidae) of the
world. Accessed on 19 August 2021.https://www.jumping-spiders.com/
Oguri, H., T. Yoshida, A. Nakamura, M.
Soga & N. Hijii (2014). Vertical stratification of spider
assemblages in two conifer plantations in central Japan. The Journal of
Arachnology 42: 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1636/P13-73.1
Ossamy, S., S.M. Elbanna,
G.M. Orabi & F.M. Semida
(2016). Assessing the
potential role of spider as bioindicators in Ashtoum
el Gamil Natural Protected Area, Port Said, Egypt. Indian
Journal of Arachnology 5: 100–112.
Pooja, A. Anilkumar, S. Quasin, Sreelekshmi & V.P. Uniyal
(2019). Spider Fauna
of Navdanya Biodiversity Farm, Uttarakhand, India. Indian
Forester 145: 392–397.
Riechert, S.E. & L. Bishop (1990). Prey control by an assemblage of
generalist predators: Spiders in garden test systems. Ecology 71:
1441–1450. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938281
Rypstra, A.L. (1986). Web spiders in temperate and
tropical forests: relative abundance and environmental correlates. The
American Midland Naturalist 115: 42–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2425835
Sandeep, S.,
S. Reshmi
& K.S. Jose (2020). Predatory spider faun in fruit crops of Punjab,
India along with new records. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
90: 1695–1701.
Sattler, C.,
J. Schrader, R.J. Flor, M. Keo, S. Chhun, S. Choun, H. Bar & J. Settele (2021). Reducing pesticides and
increasing crop diversification offer ecological and economic benefits for
farmers - a case study in Cambodian Rice Fields. Insects 12: 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030267
Scheidler, M. (1990). Influence of habitat structure
and vegetation architecture on spiders. Zoologischer
Anzeiger 225: 333–340. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2016.39.0221
Sudhikumar, A.V., M.J. Mathew, E. Sunish & P.A. Sebastian (2005). Seasonal variation in spider
abundance in Kuttanad rice agroecosystem, Kerala,
India (Araneae). European Arachnology 1:
181–190. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.22.06.73114
Sundararaj, R., R. Rashmi, Shanbhag & B. Lingappa
(2018). Habitat
diversification in the cultivation of Indian sandalwood (Santalum
album Linn.): an ideal option to conserve biodiversity and manage insect
pests. Journal of Biological Control 32(3): 160–164. https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2018/17931
Sundararaj, R., J.J. Wilson & D. Vimala
(2019). Stem borers
of Indian Sandalwood (Santalum album
Linn.) in Karnataka, India. Journal of the Indian Academy of Wood Science
16: 31–35.
Sundararaj, R., R. Raja Rishi & S.
Padma (2020). Conservation
of pollinators is vital for the sustainable cultivation and conservation of
Indian sandalwood (Santalum album L.). Insect
Environment 23: 64–67. https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/naipc/twd/Documents/Insect-Environment-Volume-23-Dec2020.pdf
Sunderland, K
& F. Samu (2000). Effects of agricultural
diversification on the abundance, distribution and pest control potential of
spiders: a review. Entomologia Experiments
et Applicata 95: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00635.x
Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielbörger, M.C. Wichmann, M. Schwager
& F. Jeltsch (2004). Animal species diversity driven
by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal
of Biogeography 31: 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.00994.x
Tikader, B.K. (1987). Hand Book of Indian Spiders.
Zoological Survey of India, India.
Torres, B.,
O.J. Maza, P. Aguirre, L. Hinojosa & S. Günter
(2015). The
Contribution of Traditional Agroforestry to Climate Change Adaptation in the
Ecuadorian Amazon: The Chakra System, pp. 1973–1994. In: Filho, W.L. (ed.). Handbook
of Climate Change Adaptation. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany.
Uetz, G.W., J. Halaji
& A.B. Cady (1999). Guild structure of spiders in major crops. Journal of Arachnology 24:
270–280.
Whitmore, C.,
R. Slotow, T.E. Crouch & A.S. Dippenaar-Schoeman
(2002). Diversity of
spiders (Araneae) in a Savanna Reserve, Northern
Province, South Africa. Journal of Arachnology 30: 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1636/0161-8202(2002)030[0344:DOSAIA]2.0.CO;2
World Spider Catalog (2021). World Spider Catalog.Version
22.0. Natural History Museum Bern, online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, Electronic
version accessed on 24 March 2021.
Young, O.P.
& G.B. Edwards (1990). Spiders in United States field crops and their potential effect on crop
pests. Journal of Arachnology 18(1): 1–27.