Biodiversity Data Journal :
Research Article
|
Corresponding author: Álvaro Laborda (alaborda@fcien.edu.uy)
Academic editor: Jeremy Miller
Received: 08 Jun 2018 | Accepted: 21 Aug 2018 | Published: 28 Aug 2018
© 2018 Álvaro Laborda, Laura Montes de Oca, Fernando Pérez-Miles, Gonzalo Useta, Miguel Simó
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Laborda Á, Montes de Oca L, Pérez-Miles F, Useta G, Simó M (2018) The spider fauna from Uruguay River islands: understanding its role in a biological corridor. Biodiversity Data Journal 6: e27319. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.6.e27319
|
Biological corridors are connections which link habitats in a regional scale, allowing the gene flow between populations. The Uruguay River comprises riverside and insular riparian forests along subtropical to temperate zones passing through different biogeographic provinces. The aim of this study was to characterise the spider fauna from the Uruguay River islands highlighting their connection role for the spider community of riparian forest. Spiders were studied from surveys in a fluvial island of the southern course of the river with nine campaigns being carried out from September 2007 to September 2009. Three complementary collecting methods were used: G-Vac, night hand collecting and pitfall traps. A total of 58 samples were taken in each campaign. A total of 33 families, 145 species/morphospecies and 8 guilds were registered. Theridiidae and space web weavers showed the highest abundance and species richness. Web weavers were predominant in the spider community evidencing the importance of the forest vegetation heterogeneity in spider diversity. Fifteen species have been recorded for the first time for Uruguay. Additional data of previous surveys in the northern islands of the river were analysed and compared. Several species confirm the role of the Uruguay River as a biological corridor from the upper to lower course of the river. The riparian forests from the islands constitute a southernmost intromission of Paranaense biota between Chaco and Pampa regions along the river. The results obtained are an important input for the conservation of these areas. Knowing the biodiversity, as well as its dynamics and the flow of biota that exists in these environments, would allow planning the management from a regional point of view.
Biodiversity, Biogeography, Araneae, regional connections
Connections between natural environments allow gene flow through migrants, essential to maintain viable populations (
The Uruguay River is the most important fluvial course in the Río de la Plata basin, after the Paraná River, with approximately 1770 km of length. It originates in southern Brazil and empties into the Río de la Plata. Along its course, dense riverside forests and numerous islands formed by alluvial deposits exist (
However, not all areas with riparian forest have suffered the same degree of alteration. The human impact on Uruguay River islands is mitigated by its difficult access and many of them are still well conserved (
Despite this, the biodiversity on the Uruguay River islands has not been thoroughly studied. Some available data belong to riverside forest areas with interest for conservation and tourism and refer mainly to dendroflora and vertebrates (
Undoubtedly, the study of megadiverse groups are of major interest in these areas because they have high species richness and play important roles in ecosystems. The Order Araneae, with more than 47000 species described (
The only previous spider survey in islands and riverside forests from the Uruguay River has been made within the influence area of Salto Grande dam (northern Uruguay) before inundation (
The aim of this study is provide data about the composition and structure of the spider community from the insular riparian forest of the Uruguay River in a biogeographic framework. The subtropical characteristics of the islands' vegetation and previous studies evidence that the southern course of the river constitutes the southernmost distribution limit for some spider species (
The study area was located in Abrigo island, upstream of the General San Martin International Bridge (
The surveys were carried out every three months from September 2007 to September 2009, making a total of nine campaigns. Three complementary collecting methods were used, in order to sample the different strata in the environment: G-Vac, night hand collecting and pitfall traps. A total of 58 samples were taken in each campaign, including: 10 pitfall traps, 8 hand collections, 40 G-Vac aspirations (one-minute duration each one) 20 during the day and 20 during the night (10 from soil and 10 from foliage in each one). A total of 522 samples were taken during the entire survey period.
The pitfall traps consisted of plastic containers of 22 cm in diameter and 12 cm height, buried and covered with a plastic roof supported by three metallic rods 10 cm above the soil. The traps were placed 10 m apart from each other along a transect line of 100 m parallel to the coast. A mixture of 7% formaldehyde and detergent was used as fixative solution. All traps remained active during 30 days. Nocturnal hand collecting involved four collectors and was performed using head lamps, during 30 minutes, following the ‘looking up and looking down’ method (
A photographic database was elaborated for the species/morphospecies recognition. Dorsal and ventral habitus photographs, as well as female and male genitalia, were taken using stereoscopic microscopes. The collected specimens were preserved in 70% alcohol and vouchers were deposited in the arachnological collection of the Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República (FCE). Furthermore, specimens deposited in this collection from previous surveys in islands from Uruguay River were considered for comparison with the results here obtained. Guild classification was based on
The sampling efficiency was estimated with EstimateS 9.1.0 (
The species obtained were classified in decreasing order of abundance and these data were graphed and compared with four mathematical models of abundance distribution (geometric, log series, log-normal and broken stick) in order to determine the best fit of the data collected. The fit was determined using Chi-square. Significance level of 0.05 was used (
The map was elaborated using SimpleMappr (
A total of 7605 spiders were collected, distributed in 33 families and 145 species/morphospecies (Table
Taxonomic list and abundance of the spiders collected in Abrigo island. M: males, F: females, RA: relative abundance, new species records are indicated with an asterisk (*).
M |
F |
Total |
RA |
|
Anyphaenidae |
||||
Otoniela quadrivittata (Simon, 1897)* |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Sanogasta backhauseni (Simon, 1895) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Sanogasta maculatipes (Keyserling, 1878) |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Tasata parcepunctata Simon, 1903 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Tasata variolosa Mello-Leitão, 1943 |
12 |
4 |
16 |
0.99 |
Xiruana gracilipes (Keyserling, 1891) |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0.25 |
Aysha sp.1 |
20 |
57 |
77 |
4.75 |
Aysha sp.2 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Aysha sp.3 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
40 |
67 |
107 |
6.60 |
Araneidae |
||||
Araneus lathyrinus (Holmberg, 1875) |
3 |
3 |
6 |
0.37 |
Araneus omnicolor (Keyserling, 1893) |
4 |
26 |
30 |
1.85 |
Araneus uniformis (Keyserling, 1879) |
2 |
5 |
7 |
0.43 |
Araneus workmani (Keyserling, 1884) |
13 |
13 |
0.80 |
|
Cyclosa machadinho Levi, 1999 |
6 |
6 |
0.37 |
|
Eustala photographica Mello-Leitão, 1944 |
20 |
49 |
69 |
4.26 |
Eustala taquara (Keyserling, 1892) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Larinia t-notata (Tullgren, 1905) |
1 |
13 |
14 |
0.86 |
Mangora lactea Mello-Leitão, 1944 |
15 |
15 |
0.93 |
|
Micrathena furcata (Hahn, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Nephila clavipes (Linnaeus, 1767) |
32 |
22 |
54 |
3.33 |
Ocrepeira venustula (Keyserling, 1879) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Parawixia audax (Blackwall, 1863) |
5 |
16 |
21 |
1.30 |
Parawixia velutina (Taczanowski, 1878) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Araneus sp. |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Araneidae gen. sp. |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0.12 |
Subtotal |
72 |
172 |
244 |
15.05 |
Corinnidae |
||||
Creugas lisei Bonaldo, 2000 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Castianeira sp.1 |
6 |
21 |
27 |
1.67 |
Castianeira sp.2 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Castianeira sp.3 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Subtotal |
8 |
24 |
32 |
1.98 |
Ctenidae |
||||
Asthenoctenus borelli Simon, 1897 |
7 |
6 |
13 |
0.80 |
Subtotal |
7 |
6 |
13 |
0.80 |
Deinopidae |
||||
Deinopis amica Schiapelli & Gerschman, 1957 |
2 |
7 |
9 |
0.56 |
Subtotal |
2 |
7 |
9 |
0.56 |
Desidae |
||||
Metaltella simoni (Keyserling, 1878) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0.19 |
Subtotal |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0.19 |
Dictynidae |
||||
Dictyna sp. |
8 |
2 |
10 |
0.62 |
Subtotal |
8 |
2 |
10 |
0.62 |
Eutichuridae |
||||
Cheiracanthium inclusum (Hentz, 1847) |
4 |
4 |
8 |
0.49 |
Subtotal |
4 |
4 |
8 |
0.49 |
Gnaphosidae |
||||
Apopyllus silvestrii (Simon, 1905) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Gnaphosidae gen. sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
Hahniidae |
||||
Hahniidae gen. sp1 |
34 |
31 |
65 |
4.01 |
Hahniidae gen .sp2 |
25 |
31 |
56 |
3.46 |
Hahniidae gen. sp.3 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
59 |
63 |
122 |
7.53 |
Linyphiidae |
||||
Dubiaranea difficilis (Mello-Leitão, 1944)* |
19 |
43 |
62 |
3.83 |
Scolecura parilis Millidge, 1991* |
19 |
13 |
32 |
1.98 |
Sphecozone venialis (Keyserling, 1886)* |
6 |
15 |
21 |
1.30 |
Erigone sp. |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Psilocymbium sp. |
2 |
3 |
5 |
0.31 |
Scolecura sp. |
22 |
18 |
40 |
2.47 |
Sphecozone sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Tutaibo sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Linyphiidae gen. sp.1 |
3 |
5 |
8 |
0.49 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.2 |
9 |
7 |
16 |
0.99 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.3 |
27 |
9 |
36 |
2.22 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.4 |
7 |
15 |
22 |
1.36 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.5 |
24 |
2 |
26 |
1.60 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.6 |
41 |
5 |
46 |
2.84 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.7 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
0.31 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.8 |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Linyphiidae gen. sp.9 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Linyphiidae gen. sp.10 |
6 |
3 |
9 |
0.56 |
Linyphiidae gen. sp.11 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
195 |
144 |
339 |
20.93 |
Lycosidae |
||||
Agalenocosa pirity Piacentini, 2014* |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0.25 |
Agalenocosa velox (Keyserling, 1891) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Lobizon corondaensis (Mello-Leitão, 1941)* |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Lobizon humilis (Mello-Leitão, 1944) |
57 |
9 |
66 |
4.07 |
Lycosa poliostoma (C. L. Koch, 1847) |
1 |
1 |
0.6 |
|
Lycosa thorelli (Keyserling, 1877) |
5 |
22 |
27 |
1.67 |
Lycosa aff. thorelli |
16 |
16 |
0.99 |
|
Allocosa sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
82 |
35 |
117 |
7.22 |
Mimetidae |
||||
Mimetus melanoleucus Mello-Leitão, 1929* |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0.12 |
Subtotal |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0.12 |
Mysmenidae |
||||
Microdipoena sp. |
4 |
4 |
8 |
0.49 |
Subtotal |
4 |
4 |
8 |
0.49 |
Oonopidae |
||||
Neotrops lorenae Grismado & Ramírez, 2013 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Neotrops sciosciae Grismado & Ramírez, 2013 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Xiombarg plaumanni Brignoli, 1979* |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Gamasomorpha sp. |
6 |
6 |
12 |
0.74 |
Neoxyphinus sp. |
29 |
8 |
37 |
2.28 |
Subtotal |
36 |
18 |
54 |
3.33 |
Pholcidae |
||||
Mesabolivar uruguayensis Machado, Laborda, Simó & Brescovit, 2013 |
12 |
36 |
48 |
2.96 |
Subtotal |
12 |
36 |
48 |
2.96 |
Pisauridae |
||||
Architis capricorna Carico, 1981* |
6 |
8 |
14 |
0.86 |
Subtotal |
6 |
8 |
14 |
0.86 |
Salticidae |
||||
Aphirape flexa Galiano, 1981 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
0.25 |
Cotinusa trifasciata (Mello-Leitão, 1943)* |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Dendryphantes mordax (C. L. Koch, 1846) |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Hisukattus transversalis Galiano, 1987 |
29 |
25 |
54 |
3.33 |
Lyssomanes pauper Mello-Leitão, 1945 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0.19 |
Synemosyna aurantiaca (Mello-Leitão, 1917)* |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Ashtabula sp. |
5 |
5 |
0.31 |
|
Bellota sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Cotinusa sp.1 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Cotinusa sp.2 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Pensacola sp. |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Salticidae gen. sp.1 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Salticidae gen. sp.2 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Salticidae gen. sp.3 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Salticidae gen. sp.4 |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Salticidae gen. sp.5 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
47 |
39 |
86 |
5.31 |
Segestriidae |
||||
Ariadna mollis (Holmberg, 1876) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0.19 |
Subtotal |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0.19 |
Sparassidae |
||||
Polybetes pythagoricus (Holmberg, 1875) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0.06 |
Tetragnathidae |
||||
Glenognatha lacteovittata (Mello-Leitão, 1944) |
5 |
2 |
7 |
0.43 |
Leucauge volupis (Keyserling, 1893)* |
6 |
50 |
56 |
3.46 |
Tetragnathidae gen. sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
11 |
53 |
64 |
3.95 |
Theridiidae |
||||
Anelosimus vierae Agnarsson, 2012 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Cryptachaea altiventer (Keyserling, 1884)* |
8 |
8 |
0.49 |
|
Cryptachaea bellula (Keyserling, 1891)* |
2 |
3 |
5 |
0.31 |
Theridion cf. positivum Chamberlin, 1924 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
0.37 |
Thymoites piratini Rodrigues & Brescovit, 2015 |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Thymoites puer (Mello-Leitão, 1941) |
5 |
4 |
9 |
0.56 |
Argyrodes sp. |
8 |
7 |
15 |
0.93 |
Cryptachaea sp. |
5 |
9 |
14 |
0.86 |
Euryopis sp. |
4 |
3 |
7 |
0.43 |
Guaraniella sp.1 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
0.31 |
Guaraniella sp.2 |
1 |
6 |
7 |
0.43 |
Theridion sp.1 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Theridion sp.2 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Thymoites sp.1 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
0.25 |
Thymoites sp.2 |
7 |
7 |
0.43 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.1 |
26 |
57 |
83 |
5.12 |
Theridiidae gen. sp.2 |
4 |
4 |
0.25 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.3 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.4 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.5 |
12 |
12 |
0.74 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.6 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.7 |
5 |
5 |
0.31 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.8 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0.19 |
Theridiidae gen. sp.9 |
4 |
4 |
0.25 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.10 |
4 |
4 |
0.25 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.11 |
5 |
29 |
34 |
2.10 |
Theridiidae gen. sp.12 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.13 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.14 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.15 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.16 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.17 |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Theridiidae gen. sp.18 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Subtotal |
75 |
182 |
257 |
15.86 |
Thomisidae |
||||
Misumenops maculissparsus (Keyserling, 1891) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Sidymella cf. lucida (Keyserling, 1880) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Titidius aff. albipes |
6 |
4 |
10 |
0.62 |
Tmarus aff. stiliferus |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Metadiaea sp. |
3 |
3 |
0.19 |
|
Misumenoides sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Synaema sp. |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Tmarus sp.1 |
2 |
2 |
0.12 |
|
Tmarus sp.2 |
4 |
4 |
0.25 |
|
Thomisidae gen. sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
13 |
13 |
26 |
1.60 |
Trachelidae |
||||
Meriola cetiformis (Strand, 1908) |
5 |
4 |
9 |
0.56 |
Trachelopachys keyserlingi (Roewer, 1951) |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Trachelopachys sp. |
1 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Subtotal |
6 |
5 |
11 |
0.68 |
Trechaleidae |
||||
Paratrechalea ornata (Mello-Leitão, 1943) |
19 |
19 |
38 |
2.35 |
Subtotal |
19 |
19 |
38 |
2.35 |
Uloboridae |
||||
Uloborus elongatus Opell, 1982* |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0.12 |
Subtotal |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0.12 |
Grand total |
711 |
909 |
1620 |
100 |
From the total number of specimens collected, 79% were juveniles (n=5985), 12% adult females (n=909) and 9% adult males (n=711).
Most of the collected specimens (80%) belong to seven families, Theridiidae (n=1777; 23%), Araneidae (n=1400; 18%), Anyphaenidae (n=703; 9%), Lycosidae (n=687; 9%), Salticidae (n=584; 8%), Thomisidae (n=511; 7%), Linyphiidae (n=475; 6%), the remaining 26 families representing 20% (n=1468) of the total abundance found.
Four families comprise more than half of the registered species, Theridiidae (S=35; 24%), Linyphiidae (S=17; 12%), Araneidae and Salticidae (S=16; 11%) and Thomisidae (S=10; 7%), the rest of the families having less than 10 species.
The most abundant species were: Theridiidae sp1, Aysha sp.1 (Anyphaenidae), Eustala photographica (Araneidae), Lobizon humilis (Lycosidae) and Hahniidae sp.1. Forty-three species were singletons, comprising 30% of the sampled species.
Chao 1 estimator indicated 187.97 species for the studied site, which means that the species recorded represent 77.14% of the estimated species richness for this environment.
The best fit for the abundance distribution of the spider community was the log series model (χ2=51.38; p=0.999) (Fig.
Fifteen of the registered species represent new records for Uruguay: Otoniela quadrivittata (Anyphaenidae); Dubiaranea difficilis, Scolecura parilis, Sphecozone venialis (Linyphiidae); Agalenocosa pirity, Lobizon corondaensis (Lycosidae); Mimetus melanoleucus (Mimetidae); Xiombarg plaumanni (Oonopidae); Architis capricorna (Pisauridae); Cotinusa trifasciata, Synemosyna aurantiaca (Salticidae); Leucauge volupis (Tetragnathidae); Cryptachaea altiventer, Cryptachaea bellula (Theridiidae); Uloborus elongatus (Uloboridae).
The greatest abundance was obtained with the G-Vac method (n=5034; 66%) (p=0.0001) followed by hand collecting (n=1563; 21%) and pitfall traps (n=1008; 13%), the same pattern being observed when only adults (p=0.0001), G-Vac (n=690; 43%), hand collecting (n=486; 30%) and pitfall traps (n=444; 27%) were considered.
Representatives from eight guilds were found: ground hunters (GH), ambush hunters (AH), sensing web weavers (SEW), space web weavers (SPW), orb web weavers (OW), sheet web weavers (SHW), specialists (S) and other hunters (OH). The weavers spiders guilds showed a significantly higher abundance (p=0.0001), but no significant differences in species richness were found (p=0.1) (Table
Abundance (Ab.), relative abundance (RA), species richness (Sp. rich.) and relative species richness (RR) per guild of the spiders collected in Abrigo island.
Guilds |
Ab. |
RA |
Sp. rich. |
RR |
Ground hunters (GH) |
959 |
12.6 |
22 |
15.2 |
Ambush hunters (AH) |
541 |
7.1 |
11 |
7.6 |
Sensing web weavers (SEW) |
5 |
0.1 |
1 |
0.7 |
Space web weavers (SPW) |
1977 |
26.0 |
37 |
25.5 |
Orb web weavers (OW) |
1682 |
22.1 |
20 |
13.8 |
Sheet web weavers (SHW) |
802 |
10.5 |
24 |
16.6 |
Specialists (S) |
165 |
2.2 |
2 |
1.4 |
Other hunters (OH) |
1474 |
19.4 |
28 |
19.3 |
The GH and the SHW were more abundant in the soil samples of G-Vac and in the pitfall traps (p=0.0001), the most part of the OW being obtained by hand collecting (p=0.0001) and the OH and SPW were more abundant in the G-Vac samples (p=0.0001). No significant differences per method were observed in the others guilds.
Species richness and abundance (7605 individuals, 145 species and 33 families) reached high values compared with surveys carried out in the country, such as in hilly environments (
Chao 1 estimator indicated that 77% of the spider species have been registered in this study. According to
In riparian habitats, the disturbance promoted by flooding produces extinction and posterior species recolonisation through floating vegetation (
The infra-order Mygalomorphae was not recorded in the present study. This can be explained by the recent sedimentary origin of the island Abrigo (
The families Anyphaenidae, Araneidae, Linyphiidae, Lycosidae, Salticidae, Theridiidae and Thomisidae reached high values of species richness and abundance. These families constitute extremely diverse and widely spread groups in the world (
The fifteen new species records for Uruguay indicate a great diversity of these environments and the knowledge gaps that exist in the distribution of spider species. Agalenocosa pirity and Lobizon corondaensis are small-sized wolf spiders, associated with wetlands and flood forest environments (
The four weaver spider guilds registered (SEW, SPW, OW and SHW) represent the 59% of the individuals collected. The structural complexity of the environment, a mixed forest with several strata, provides numerous physical spaces in which different species construct their webs (
Other guilds registered were the GH and OH, represented by species which do not construct webs to hunt. They are also spatially separated, GH occupying the lower stratum and OH the high strata of vegetation. GH included mostly small species of Agalenocosa and Lobizon (Lycosidae). These species use the low stratum of the forest and have been reported inhabiting semi-aquatic vegetation in wetland environments and hygrophilous forests (
This differential use of the strata is consistent with the significant differences observed in the abundances of the guilds obtained by comparing the collecting methods. It alsoshows the importance of using different sampling techniques to study the spider community, because each method allows us to know a different portion of the community (
Specimens of uncommon families such as Dictynidae, Oonopidae, Deinopidae and Senoculidae were registered for the country. Dictynidae was represented in this study by an undetermined species of Dictyna. This family has been little studied in the region (
Deinopidae was cited for the country from specimens of Deinopis amica collected in the present study (
The species Ancylometes concolor (Perty, 1833) was registered for the study site by a collection record (1♂, FCE Ar-4600). Its presence is additional evidence in favour of the biological corridor hypothesis. The known distribution of the species is: Paraguay, northern Argentina and southern Brazil (
Some recorded species such as Deinopis amica, Architis capricorna and Xiombarg plaumanni represent the southernmost record for the species. This indicates a limit in the species distribution and a transition between biogeographical regions.
These scenarios occur in others islands of the Uruguay River, for example the record of immature individuals of Phoneutria sp. in
The existence of biological corridors for the spider fauna has already been indicated in the region.
Therefore, there is an important set of evidence that indicates that the Uruguay River and its associated environments constitute a corridor of fauna and flora, where components of the subtropical biota extend their distribution ranges towards more southern latitudes and temperate climates.
The riparian insular and continental forests, associated with the Uruguay River are considered a priority for conservation (
We are indebted to Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay (LATU) for the economic and logistic support given for this study. We thank Fernando Costa for his help in fieldwork and Marcelo Bado and José Linales for their assistance in the trips to the study area. We thank Emilie Akkermans for her review of the use of English and Pablo Bobadilla for his help with the statistical analysis. Also thanks to Jeremy Miller, Diana Silva Dávila and an anonymous reviewer for providing comments and valuable suggestions to the manuscript.
Sección Entomología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República. Iguá 4225. CP 11400. Montevideo. Uruguay.
The paper was originally conceived by AL and MS. The study was designed by GU and FPM. LMO, FPM, GU, AL and MS carried out the fieldwork. LMO and AL identified the exemplars and performed the curatorial work. AL, MS and analysed the data. AL and MS wrote the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest