Biodiversity Data Journal :
General research article
|
Corresponding author:
Academic editor: Gergin Blagoev
Received: 02 Nov 2015 | Accepted: 13 Jan 2016 | Published: 15 Jan 2016
© 2016 Pedro Castanheira, Abel Pérez-González, Renner Baptista
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:
Castanheira P, Pérez-González A, Baptista R (2016) Spider diversity (Arachnida: Araneae) in Atlantic Forest areas at Pedra Branca State Park, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7055. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7055
|
There has never been any published work about the diversity of spiders in the city of Rio de Janeiro using analytical tools to measure diversity. The only available records for spider communities in nearby areas indicate 308 species in the National Park of Tijuca and 159 species in Marapendi Municipal Park. These numbers are based on a rapid survey and on an one-year survey respectively.
This study provides a more thorough understanding of how the spider species are distributed at Pedra Branca State Park. We report a total of 14,626 spider specimens recorded from this park, representing 49 families and 373 species or morphospecies, including at least 73 undescribed species. Also, the distribution range of 45 species was expanded, and species accumulation curves estimate that there is a minimum of 388 (Bootstrap) and a maximum of 468 species (Jackknife2) for the sampled areas. These estimates indicates that the spider diversity may be higher than observed.
Survey, faunistics, Neotropics, South America
The Atlantic Forest is one of the largest centers of biodiversity in the world (
A large portion of Rio de Janeiro city is covered by remnants of the Atlantic Forest, distributed on three large mountain ranges: Gericinó-Mendanha to the north, Tijuca to the southeast, and Pedra Branca to the southwest. The latter includes the Pedra Branca State Park, or Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca (
Despite considerable abundance in the Atlantic Forest, arthropod communities in the area are still poorly known. Terrestrial arthropods represent the largest proportion of the known biotic diversity in the world, where many highly diverse arthropod taxa are excellent bioindicators, even at small scale (
Spiders (Araneae) and other arachnids present high diversity, high abundance, and variable life styles. They are one of the main predators in terrestrial environments with a considerable impact upon prey population, acting as agents of biological control (
Spiders are a choice group for the carrying out species surveys with standardized techniques, because they are abundant and easily found (
Neotropical spider fauna seems to be the least known among the high diversity areas around the globe. One example of our incipient knowledge is the citation in
According to
This paper presents a standardized survey of the spider fauna and statistical estimates of the diversity in four forested areas at Pedra Branca State Park, the largest urban forest of Rio de Janeiro city. Previously, there were only records of sporadic fieldwork and rare citations in the literature about the spiders from the park, including type material of two species and specimens belonging to only 26 additional species or morphospecies.
The Pedra Branca range is located at the municipality of Rio de Janeiro, between 22º 55’ - 23º 05’ S and 43º 20’ - 43º 40’ W (Figs
Four work stations were chosen for the present study. Each one is considered as the center of a square of 100 m2, in which the spiders were collected. In the park, there are only three access points, consisting therefore of three core stations. One of them is distant and the area is covered by recent vegetation (Piraquara core) whereas the other two (Pau-da-Fome and Camorim cores) have trails penetrating a more protected, older forest. Thus, two work stations were located near Pau-da-Fome (the main core station of the park) and two nearby the Camorim accessory core. The stations were chosen due to their preservation state and security reasons. One station in each access point was chosen in the best preserved areas we could find. The other stations were chosen near heavily used trails and considered as under higher anthropic effect with clear evidence of recent succession. The stations are:
Station 1 (S1): Pau-da-Fome – Figueira (anthropic)
Station 1 is located at an area of trails nearby the headquarters of Pau-da-Fome core station and the river that crosses the region. This area is subjected to a high influx of park visitors due to its easy access and use of the river for recreation. Here, the trees are smaller and more widely spaced with high abundance of bushes, soil bromeliads and exotic plants, as the big fig tree after which the trail is named.
Location: 22°55'57.0"S and 043°26'32.3"W. Elevation: 138 m.
Station 2 (S2): Pau-da-Fome – Padaria
Station 2 was initially considered by us as one of the oldest forest areas at Pau-da-Fome. It is reached after a 20 minute walk in a secondary trail following one of the park streams. This area is not easily accessed by the public and comprises the ruins of an old farm from the 19th century, which is surrounded by moderately steep ravines. There are few exotic plants and bushes at this station, with a clearing in the ruins, where there are small trees and some bushes and herbs, alongside moderately closed canopy in the surroundings. The stream borders were covered by more bushes and herbs than the remaining points.
Location: 22°56'12.8"S and 043°26'29.1"W. Elevation: 133 m.
Station 3 (S3): Camorim – Sede (anthropic)
This station is located just behind the accessory core of Camorim. This area is under high pressure due to the park facilities and the constant human activity for recreation and water use. Also, there is a dam in the Camorim river and equipment for collection and treatment of water for human consumption on the nearby areas of Rio de Janeiro city. The trees are smaller than in other stations and there is a large number of bushes and exotic trees. All the spider collections were done alongside the river banks and on the nearby ravines.
Location: 22°58'12.0"S and 043°26'16.4"W. Elevation: 160 m.
Station 4 (S4): Camorim – Açude
This station is reached after a 45 minute walk in a steep trail that leads to a relatively large dike built for water collection. It is considered the best preserved area in this work. A larger number of higher trees and a denser canopy is found at this station, coupled with a small number of bushes and herbs, which indicate an older forest tract. There is no water course in the vicinity, but the river is located around 200 m from the station center, at the bottom of steep ravines.
Location: 22°58'08.3"S and 043°26'38.5"W. Elevation: 342 m.
Spiders were collected using methods adapted from the ones broadly used in similar studies (e. g.
The material was sorted into morphospecies at first. In contrast to many published surveys where the juveniles are discarded because they usually do not present many somatic characteristics to place them into morphospecies at species level, most juveniles were taken into account. Juveniles usually represent more than half of all collected specimens and its plain disposal implies in discarding a lot of useful information. The process of identification was conducted by comparison to published papers, type material, whenever possible, and online catalogs (e. g.
In this paper, parameters related to alpha diversity were evaluated by estimates of species richness using methods of accumulation curves (Clench equation) and non-parametric estimators: ICE, ACE, Chao1, Chao2, Jackknife 1, Jackknife 2 and Bootstrap. Richness estimates were possible with the use of the software EstimateS Richness Estimator Program, Version 9.1 (
Adding up all information sources, 14,735 spider specimens were recorded for the park, including records from literature, museum collections and our own field collections. Of those records, 14,626 were identified specimens belonging to 373 species and morphospecies in around 220 genera and 49 families. The remaining 109 specimens were early juveniles or too damaged to be identified to the species level.
From the total of 353 species and morphospecies collected in our expeditions to the park, 195 were attributed to species already described (54.9%). Among the others, one genus and 72 species are considered as new to science (20.7%) and 86 were left in the level of morphospecies only (24.4%). The last category includes species represented only by juveniles or belonging to taxa without a proper taxonomic revision. Considering only the 14,492 specimens collected during the survey, 2,754 are males (19.0%) and 4,030 (27.8%) are females, with a total of 6,784 adults (46.8%). The remaining 7,708 (53.2%) are juveniles. Table
Species |
S1 |
S2 |
S3 |
S4 |
M |
F |
J |
TAb |
Amaurobiidae |
5 |
5 |
||||||
Retiro lanceolatus (Vellard, 1924) |
X |
5 |
5 |
|||||
Anapidae |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|||||
Anapis sp. n. |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
||||
Pseudanapis sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Anyphaenidae |
68 |
79 |
503 |
650 |
||||
Anyphaenoides cf. clavipes (Mello-Leitão, 1922) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Arachosia praesignis (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Aysha affinis (Blackwall, 1862) |
X |
X |
1 |
19 |
20 |
|||
Aysha borgmeyeri (Mello-Leitão, 1926) |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
14 |
41 |
61 |
|
Iguarima censoria (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Isigonia sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Jessica osoriana (Mello-Leitão, 1922) |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Osoriella domingos Brescovit, 1998 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Oxysoma sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Patrera cita (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
59 |
56 |
373 |
488 |
Teudis angusticeps (Keyserling, 1891) |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Teudis atrofasciatus Mello-Leitão, 1929 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Wulfilopsis cf. frenata (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
68 |
69 |
|
Xiruana sp. 01 |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Araneidae |
168 |
393 |
1484 |
2048 |
||||
Acacesia hamata (Hentz, 1847) |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Acacesia tenella (L. Koch, 1871) |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
||
Actinosoma pentacanthum (Walckenaer, 1841) |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Alpaida aff. morro |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
7 |
13 |
||
Alpaida alticeps (Keyserling, 1879) |
X |
X |
1 |
9 |
10 |
|||
Alpaida atomaria (Simon, 1895) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
9 |
15 |
28 |
Alpaida tijuca Levi, 1988 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
14 |
76 |
96 |
Alpaida truncata (Keyserling, 1865) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
9 |
48 |
62 |
Alpaida venger Castanheira & Baptista, 2015 |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
11 |
36 |
53 |
|
Alpaida sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Araneus iguacu Levi, 1991 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
29 |
21 |
55 |
Araneus lathyrinus (Holmberg, 1875) |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Araneus omnicolor (Keyserling, 1893) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
4 |
15 |
20 |
Araneus stabilis (Keyserling, 1892) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
12 |
15 |
Araneus tijuca Levi, 1991 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
14 |
17 |
Araneus venator (C. L. Koch, 1838) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11 |
130 |
141 |
|
Araneus sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Argiope argentata (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
|||||||
Cyclosa caroli (Hentz, 1850) |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
||||
Cyclosa fililineata Hingston, 1932 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11 |
62 |
83 |
156 |
Cyclosa morretes Levi, 1999 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
14 |
23 |
43 |
Eustala levii Poeta, Marques & Buckup, 2010 |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|||
Eustala aff. levii |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
10 |
11 |
|
Eustala aff. photographica |
X |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
4 |
25 |
32 |
Eustala sagana (Keyserling, 1893) |
X |
X |
3 |
12 |
15 |
|||
Eustala taquara (Keyserling, 1892) |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Gasteracantha cancriformis (Linnaeus, 1758) |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
||
Kaira altiventer O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Kapogea sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Mangora aripeba Levi, 2007 |
X |
6 |
9 |
3 |
18 |
|||
Mangora enseada Levi, 2007 |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Mangora melanocephala (Taczanowski, 1874) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|||||
Mangora missa Levi, 2007 |
X |
X |
1 |
7 |
15 |
23 |
||
Mangora ramirezi Levi, 2007 |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
12 |
10 |
26 |
|
Metazygia bahia Levi, 1995 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Metazygia laticeps (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889) |
X |
1 |
2 |
5 |
8 |
|||
Metepeira sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Micrathena annulata Reimoser, 1917 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
13 |
26 |
42 |
81 |
Micrathena horrida (Taczanowski, 1873) |
X |
X |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|||
Micrathena jundiai Levi, 1985 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Micrathena sanctispiritus Brignoli, 1983 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
46 |
73 |
484 |
603 |
Ocrepeira gnomo (Mello-Leitão, 1943) |
X |
X |
1 |
45 |
46 |
|||
Parawixia audax (Blackwall, 1863) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
8 |
32 |
41 |
Parawixia monticola (Keyserling, 1892) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
1 |
15 |
21 |
Parawixia velutina (Taczanowski, 1878) |
X |
X |
1 |
13 |
14 |
|||
Pronous tuberculifer Keyserling, 1881 |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
12 |
17 |
|
Scoloderus cordatus (Taczanowski, 1879) |
X |
X |
4 |
5 |
5 |
14 |
||
Taczanowskia striata Keyserling, 1879 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Tatepeira itu Levi, 1995 |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
||||
Testudinaria sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
|
Verrucosa meridionalis (Keyserling, 1892) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
33 |
37 |
Wagneriana dimastophora (Mello-Leitão, 1940) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
13 |
33 |
145 |
191 |
Wagneriana gavensis (Camargo, 1950) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
10 |
13 |
71 |
94 |
Barychelidae |
1 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
||||
Neodiplothele fluminensis Mello-Leitão, 1924 |
X |
1 |
3 |
4 |
||||
Paracenobiobelma sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Caponiidae |
3 |
3 |
2 |
8 |
||||
Caponina tijuca Platnick, 1994 |
X |
2 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
|||
Nops sp. n. |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
||
Clubionidae |
2 |
5 |
7 |
14 |
||||
Clubionidae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
5 |
7 |
14 |
Corinnidae |
84 |
42 |
135 |
261 |
||||
Castianeira brevis Keyserling, 1891 |
||||||||
Castianeira sp. 01 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||
Castianeira sp. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
4 |
|||
Corinna aff. capito |
X |
X |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|||
Corinna demersa Rodrigues & Bonaldo, 2014 |
2 |
2 |
||||||
Corinna inermis (Bertkau, 1880) |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Corinna aff. mourai |
X |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
|||
Corinna nitens (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
12 |
16 |
||
Corinna sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
5 |
6 |
|
Corinna sp. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Corinna sp. 03 |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
||||
Creugas sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
14 |
9 |
23 |
46 |
Creugas sp. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
34 |
14 |
11 |
59 |
Ianduba varia (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
12 |
7 |
13 |
32 |
|
Myrmecium obscurum Keyserling, 1891 |
X |
X |
2 |
9 |
11 |
|||
Myrmecium rufum Latreille, 1824 |
X |
X |
7 |
3 |
43 |
53 |
||
Paradiestus sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Stethorrhagus sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Tupirinna sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
7 |
10 |
||
Xeropigo tridentiger (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1869) |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Xeropigo sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Ctenidae |
81 |
66 |
343 |
490 |
||||
Ctenus medius Keyserling, 1891 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
6 |
81 |
88 |
Ctenus ornatus (Keyserling, 1877) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
13 |
88 |
109 |
Ctenus aff. vehemens |
X |
X |
X |
X |
59 |
44 |
107 |
210 |
Enoploctenus cyclothorax (Bertkau, 1880) |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
2 |
26 |
34 |
|
Enoploctenus cf. maculipes Strand, 1909 |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
28 |
30 |
||
Isoctenus griseolus (Mello-Leitão, 1936) |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
13 |
14 |
||
Phoneutria keyserlingi (F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1897) |
X |
X |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|||
Deinopidae |
5 |
3 |
8 |
|||||
Deinopis plurituberculata Mello-Leitão, 1925 |
X |
X |
5 |
3 |
8 |
|||
Dipluridae |
3 |
3 |
6 |
12 |
||||
Diplura lineata (Lucas, 1857) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Linothele sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
2 |
6 |
11 |
|
Eutichuridae |
5 |
3 |
8 |
16 |
||||
Radulphius laticeps Keyserling, 1891 |
X |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|||
Radulphius sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
6 |
11 |
|
Strotarchus tropicus (Mello-Leitão, 1917) |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Gnaphosidae |
1 |
2 |
6 |
9 |
||||
Apodrassodes sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Poecilochroa cf. trifasciata Mello-Leitão, 1918 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Xenoplectus sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Zimiromus sp. 01 |
X |
X |
5 |
5 |
||||
Hahniidae |
3 |
8 |
1 |
12 |
||||
Hahnia sp. 01 |
X |
3 |
7 |
1 |
11 |
|||
Neohahnia sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Hersiliidae |
4 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
||||
Ypypuera crucifera (Vellard, 1924) |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
|
Idiopidae |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|||||
Idiops camelus (Mello-Leitão, 1937) |
X |
X |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|||
Idiops germaini Simon, 1892 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Linyphiidae |
118 |
226 |
122 |
466 |
||||
Dubiaranea cf. inquilina (Millidge, 1985) |
X |
X |
11 |
52 |
13 |
76 |
||
Erigone autumnalis Emerton, 1882 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Exocora phoenix Lemos & Brescovit, 2013 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
40 |
24 |
73 |
Laminacauda sp. n. |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
||||
Lygarina sp. n. |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
||||
Meioneta aff. montivaga |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Meioneta sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
27 |
37 |
27 |
91 |
Meioneta sp. n. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|||
Moyosi sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
30 |
33 |
23 |
86 |
Sphecozone rubescens O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1870 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Sphecozone sp. n. |
X |
1 |
3 |
4 |
||||
Vesicapalpus simplex Millidge, 1991 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
30 |
40 |
22 |
92 |
Erigoninae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
7 |
17 |
8 |
32 |
||
Erigoninae sp. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Liocranidae |
12 |
9 |
8 |
29 |
||||
Liocranidae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
12 |
9 |
8 |
29 |
Lycosidae |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||||
Hogna sp. 01 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||||
Mimetidae |
44 |
46 |
125 |
215 |
||||
Gelanor altithorax Keyserling, 1893 |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
15 |
48 |
67 |
|
Gelanor zonatus (C. L. Koch, 1845) |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
8 |
14 |
31 |
|
Mimetus sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
14 |
7 |
44 |
65 |
Mimetus sp. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11 |
9 |
10 |
30 |
Mimetus sp. 03 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
5 |
7 |
16 |
Mimetus sp. 04 |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
|||
Mimetus sp. 05 |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Miturgidae |
188 |
149 |
129 |
466 |
||||
Odo pulcher Keyserling, 1891 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
188 |
149 |
129 |
466 |
Mysmenidae |
10 |
7 |
6 |
23 |
||||
Maymena sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
|
Mysmena sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Mysmenopsis archeri Platnick & Shadab, 1978 |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
|
Nemesiidae |
30 |
19 |
31 |
80 |
||||
Chaco sp. n. aff. |
X |
X |
3 |
7 |
2 |
12 |
||
Gen. n. sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
10 |
2 |
10 |
22 |
Prorachias sp. n. |
X |
5 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
|||
Rachias conspersus (Walckenaer, 1837) |
X |
4 |
2 |
5 |
11 |
|||
Rachias sp. n. |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
||||
Stenoterommata melloleitaoi Guadanucci & Indicatti, 2004 |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|||
Stenoterommata sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
4 |
9 |
15 |
|
Stenoterommata sp. 02 |
X |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|||
Nephilidae |
2 |
11 |
29 |
42 |
||||
Nephila clavipes (Linnaeus, 1767) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
11 |
29 |
42 |
Ochyroceratidae |
6 |
71 |
12 |
89 |
||||
Ochyrocera sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
14 |
6 |
25 |
Ochyrocera sp. n. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Theotima minutissima (Petrunkevitch, 1929) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
57 |
6 |
63 |
|
Oonopidae |
48 |
79 |
17 |
144 |
||||
Brignolia sp. n. |
X |
X |
3 |
4 |
7 |
|||
Neotrops sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
Neotrops sp. n. 02 |
X |
X |
3 |
4 |
4 |
11 |
||
Neotrops sp. n. 03 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
Neoxyphinus keyserlingi (Simon, 1907) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
6 |
4 |
15 |
Orchestina sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
|||
Triaeris stenaspis Simon, 1891 |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
5 |
|||
Gamasomorphinae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
19 |
38 |
57 |
|
Gamasomorphinae sp. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Oonopinae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
10 |
14 |
4 |
28 |
Oonopinae sp. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Oonopinae sp. 03 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Oonopinae sp. 04 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Oxyopidae |
1 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
||||
Oxyopes cf. rubrosignatus Keyserling, 1891 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Peucetia flava Keyserling, 1877 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Peucetia rubrolineata Keyserling, 1877 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Schaenicoscelis elegans Simon, 1898 |
X |
1 |
2 |
3 |
||||
Palpimanidae |
4 |
5 |
7 |
16 |
||||
Fernandezina tijuca Ramírez & Grismado, 1996 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
3 |
7 |
11 |
Otiothops sp. n. |
X |
3 |
2 |
5 |
||||
Philodromidae |
6 |
6 |
||||||
Berlandiella cf. insignis Mello-Leitão, 1929 |
X |
6 |
6 |
|||||
Pholcidae |
932 |
1112 |
1776 |
3820 |
||||
Carapoia sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
2 |
9 |
||
Carapoia sp. n. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
87 |
132 |
116 |
335 |
Litoporus iguassuensis Mello-Leitão, 1918 |
X |
X |
16 |
36 |
40 |
92 |
||
Mesabolivar brasiliensis (Moenkhaus, 1898) |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Mesabolivar cyaneotaeniatus (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
20 |
17 |
71 |
108 |
Mesabolivar difficilis (Mello-Leitão, 1918) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
18 |
38 |
33 |
89 |
Mesabolivar luteus (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
494 |
539 |
1017 |
2050 |
Mesabolivar togatus (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
143 |
143 |
362 |
648 |
Mesabolivar sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
52 |
50 |
44 |
146 |
Mesabolivar sp. n. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Mesabolivar sp. n. 03 |
X |
3 |
2 |
5 |
||||
Metagonia furcata Huber, 2000 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Metagonia sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
32 |
83 |
38 |
153 |
Metagonia sp. n. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Metagonia sp. n. 03 |
X |
X |
X |
37 |
41 |
30 |
108 |
|
Metagonia sp. n. 04 |
X |
3 |
2 |
5 |
||||
Tupigea sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
21 |
23 |
22 |
66 |
Pisauridae |
6 |
10 |
40 |
56 |
||||
Architis brasiliensis (Mello-Leitão, 1940) |
X |
6 |
10 |
40 |
56 |
|||
Prodidomidae |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Lygromma sp. n. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Salticidae |
121 |
125 |
399 |
645 |
||||
Acragas sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Arnoliseus sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
2 |
5 |
||
Arnoliseus sp. n. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
18 |
14 |
23 |
55 |
Beata aff. zeteki |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Breda cf. milvina (C. L. Koch, 1846) |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
||||
Chira lucina Simon, 1902 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
||
Chira thysbe Simon, 1902 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||
Chirothecia aff. semiornata |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Coryphasia albibarbis Simon, 1902 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
14 |
3 |
124 |
141 |
Coryphasia aff. albibarbis |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Corythalia sp. 01 |
X |
X |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|||
Cotinusa magna (Peckham & Peckham, 1894) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
4 |
25 |
32 |
Cylistella cuprea (Simon, 1864) |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
1 |
5 |
||
Dendryphantes sp. 01 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Encolpius guaraniticus Galiano, 1968 |
X |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
|||
Erica eugenia Peckham & Peckham, 1892 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
3 |
34 |
41 |
Euophrys sp. 01 |
X |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|||
Freya sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Itata sp. n. |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
||
Lyssomanes austerus Peckham, Peckham & Wheeler, 1889 |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
3 |
10 |
16 |
|
Mago aff. longidens |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
||||
Mopiopia bruneti Simon, 1903 |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
5 |
8 |
|
Mopiopia gounellei Simon, 1902 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
10 |
15 |
Mopiopia sp. 01 |
X |
X |
1 |
3 |
3 |
7 |
||
Noegus bidens Simon, 1900 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
1 |
18 |
25 |
Noegus comatulus Simon, 1900 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
22 |
35 |
81 |
138 |
Phiale mimica (C. L. Koch, 1846) |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Pseudofluda cf. pulcherrima Mello-Leitão, 1928 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Romitia sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Semnolius sp. n. |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
6 |
8 |
||
Semnolius sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
5 |
9 |
9 |
23 |
Tacuna aff. vaga |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
|
Tariona aff. mutica |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
7 |
9 |
||
Thiodina sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Vinnius uncatus Simon, 1902 |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|||
Euophryinae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
|
Salticidae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
2 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
||
Salticidae sp. 02 |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|||
Salticidae sp. 03 |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
9 |
3 |
15 |
|
Salticidae sp. 04 |
X |
X |
10 |
1 |
11 |
22 |
||
Salticidae sp. 05 |
X |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|||
Salticidae sp. 06 |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Salticidae sp. 07 |
X |
X |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|||
Salticidae sp. 08 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||
Salticidae sp. 09 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Salticidae sp. 10 |
X |
3 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
|||
Scytodidae |
6 |
4 |
18 |
28 |
||||
Scytodes itapevi Brescovit & Rheims, 2000 |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
4 |
||
Scytodes aff. lineatipes |
X |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
4 |
16 |
24 |
Segestriidae |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|||||
Ariadna cf. obscura (Blackwall, 1858) |
X |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|||
Ariadna sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Selenopidae |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||||
Selenops melanurus Mello-Leitão, 1923 |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Senoculidae |
3 |
3 |
||||||
Senoculus iricolor (Simon, 1880) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Senoculus sp. 01 |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Sicariidae |
6 |
13 |
16 |
35 |
||||
Loxosceles adelaida Gertsch, 1967 |
X |
6 |
13 |
16 |
35 |
|||
Sparassidae |
15 |
14 |
102 |
131 |
||||
Caayguara albus (Mello-Leitão, 1918) |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||
Caayguara cupepemassu Rheims, 2010 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Caayguara cupepemayri Rheims, 2010 |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
|
Caayguara pinda Rheims, 2010 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
12 |
12 |
95 |
119 |
Polybetes rapidus (Keyserling, 1880) |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||
Stasina americana Simon, 1887 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Synotaxidae |
1 |
1 |
8 |
10 |
||||
Synotaxus longicaudatus (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
8 |
10 |
|
Tetragnathidae |
117 |
213 |
495 |
825 |
||||
Azilia boudeti Simon, 1895 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
20 |
149 |
176 |
Chrysometa boraceia Levi, 1986 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Chrysometa ludibunda (Keyserling, 1893) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
98 |
157 |
290 |
545 |
Chrysometa sp. n. |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Dolichognatha pinheiral Brescovit & Cunha, 2001 |
X |
2 |
3 |
5 |
||||
Leucauge formosa (Blackwall, 1863) |
X |
X |
4 |
7 |
11 |
|||
Leucauge pulcherrima (Keyserling, 1865) |
X |
12 |
8 |
20 |
||||
Leucauge turbida (Keyserling, 1893) |
X |
X |
5 |
13 |
18 |
|||
Tetragnatha cladognatha Bertkau, 1880 |
X |
5 |
10 |
17 |
32 |
|||
Tetragnatha mandibulata Walckenaer, 1841 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Tetragnatha sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Metinae sp. 01 |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
8 |
13 |
||
Theraphosidae |
7 |
9 |
6 |
22 |
||||
Catumiri sp. 01 |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
5 |
|||
Eupalaestrus spinosissimus Mello-Leitão, 1923 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Homoeomma familiare Bertkau, 1880 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
||
Lasiodora fallax (Bertkau, 1880) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Magulla buecherli Indicatti et al., 2008 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Plesiopelma sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
4 |
1 |
11 |
|
Theridiidae |
577 |
1206 |
1377 |
3160 |
||||
Achaearanea tingo Levi, 1963 |
X |
1 |
2 |
3 |
||||
Anelosimus dubiosus (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
5 |
1 |
6 |
||||
Anelosimus ethicus (Keyserling, 1884) |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Anelosimus studiosus (Hentz, 1850) |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||
Argyrodes elevatus Taczanowski, 1873 |
X |
X |
2 |
6 |
2 |
10 |
||
Chrosiothes niteroi Levi, 1964 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
16 |
31 |
15 |
62 |
Chrosiothes sp. n. |
X |
X |
1 |
9 |
8 |
18 |
||
Chrysso compressa (Keyserling, 1884) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
12 |
85 |
101 |
Coleosoma floridanum Banks, 1900 |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Cryptachaea bellula (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Cryptachaea dea (Buckup & Marques, 2006) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
18 |
30 |
15 |
63 |
Cryptachaea digitus (Buckup & Marques, 2006) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
32 |
162 |
385 |
579 |
Cryptachaea hirta (Taczanowski, 1873) |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
5 |
|||
Cryptachaea inops (Levi, 1963) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
8 |
6 |
15 |
Cryptachaea passiva (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
45 |
29 |
82 |
Cryptachaea aff. pilaton |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Cryptachaea rioensis (Levi, 1963) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
42 |
175 |
32 |
249 |
Cryptachaea sicki (Levi, 1963) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Cryptachaea triguttata (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
26 |
20 |
54 |
Cryptachaea sp. n. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Cryptachaea sp. 01 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Dipoena bryantae Chickering, 1943 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Dipoena cornuta Chickering, 1943 |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
||
Dipoena aff. cordiformis |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Dipoena aff. hortoni |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Dipoena ira Levi, 1963 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
17 |
14 |
10 |
41 |
Dipoena aff. kuyuwini |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
||||
Dipoena militaris Chickering, 1943 |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
|
Dipoena niteroi Levi, 1963 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
23 |
21 |
11 |
55 |
Dipoena pumicata (Keyserling, 1886) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
29 |
17 |
50 |
96 |
Dipoena pusilla (Keyserling, 1886) |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
||
Dipoena variabilis Levi, 1963 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
||
Dipoena sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|||
Dipoena sp. n. 02 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Dipoena sp. n. 03 |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
6 |
7 |
||
Echinotheridion cartum Levi, 1963 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11 |
94 |
93 |
198 |
Neopisinus cognatus (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1893) |
X |
X |
7 |
7 |
8 |
22 |
||
Exalbidion sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
9 |
5 |
21 |
|
Faiditus acuminatus (Keyserling, 1891) |
X |
X |
2 |
4 |
5 |
11 |
||
Faiditus caudatus (Taczanowski, 1874) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
15 |
9 |
14 |
38 |
Faiditus aff. jamaicensis |
X |
X |
3 |
3 |
||||
Janula bicorniger (Simon, 1894) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
98 |
89 |
137 |
324 |
Lasaeola aff. donaldi |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Neospintharus rioensis (Exline & Levi, 1962) |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
Parasteatoda tepidariora (C. L. Koch, 1841) |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Parasteatoda tesselata (Keyserling, 1884) |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Phoroncidia rubromaculata (Keyserling, 1886) |
X |
3 |
3 |
|||||
Platnickina mneon (Bösenberg & Strand, 1906) |
1 |
1 |
||||||
Rhomphaea metaltissima Soares & Camargo, 1948 |
X |
2 |
2 |
4 |
||||
Spintharus gracilis Keyserling, 1886 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
6 |
3 |
1 |
10 |
Stemmops sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
11 |
12 |
3 |
26 |
Stemmops sp. n. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
19 |
35 |
13 |
67 |
Stemmops sp. n. 03 |
X |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
|||
Styposis sp. n. |
X |
X |
18 |
22 |
7 |
47 |
||
Theridion biezankoi Levi, 1963 |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
5 |
9 |
15 |
|
Theridion calcynatum Holmberg, 1876 |
X |
3 |
3 |
4 |
10 |
|||
Theridion aff. hispidum |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Theridion teresae Levi, 1963 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
15 |
29 |
13 |
57 |
Theridion sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
16 |
1 |
17 |
||
Theridion sp. n. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
12 |
6 |
20 |
Theridion sp. n. 03 |
X |
X |
33 |
112 |
43 |
188 |
||
Theridion sp. n. 04 |
X |
X |
16 |
16 |
9 |
41 |
||
Theridion sp. n. 05 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
10 |
17 |
|
Thwaitesia affinis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1882 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
38 |
47 |
301 |
386 |
Thymoites sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
26 |
76 |
9 |
111 |
|
Tidarren haemorrhoidale (Bertkau, 1880) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
9 |
12 |
|
Wamba crispulus (Simon, 1895) |
X |
1 |
5 |
6 |
||||
Wirada tijuca Levi, 1967 |
X |
X |
2 |
2 |
||||
Theridiosomatidae |
15 |
25 |
13 |
53 |
||||
Chthonos tuberosa (Keyserling, 1886) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
10 |
5 |
22 |
Chthonos sp. n. |
X |
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
||
Theridiosoma sp. n. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
12 |
2 |
18 |
|
Theridiosoma sp. n. 02 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|||
Theridiosoma sp. n. 03 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Wendilgarda cf. nigra Keyserling, 1886 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Thomisidae |
38 |
24 |
245 |
307 |
||||
Acentroscelus cf. secundus Mello-Leitão, 1929 |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
5 |
13 |
20 |
|
Epicadinus gavensis Soares & Soares, 1946 |
X |
X |
X |
2 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
|
Epicadus planus Mello-Leitão, 1932 |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Misumenops cf. callinurus Mello-Leitão, 1929 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Onocolus simoni Mello-Leitão, 1915 |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
9 |
12 |
||
Strophius nigricans Keyserling, 1880 |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Tmarus aff. albolineatus |
X |
1 |
1 |
|||||
Tmarus atypicus Mello-Leitão, 1929 |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
3 |
||
Tmarus sp. n. |
X |
X |
X |
4 |
12 |
16 |
||
Tmarus sp. 01 |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
3 |
49 |
61 |
|
Tmarus sp. 02 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
16 |
10 |
120 |
146 |
Tmarus sp. 03 |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Tmarus sp. 04 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
2 |
18 |
21 |
Tobias cf. caudatus Mello-Leitão, 1929 |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
14 |
15 |
||
Trachelidae |
9 |
7 |
15 |
31 |
||||
Trachelas robustus Keyserling, 1891 |
X |
X |
2 |
3 |
5 |
|||
Trachelas vitiosus Keyserling, 1891 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
5 |
12 |
26 |
Trechaleidae |
1 |
2 |
34 |
37 |
||||
Enna aff. redundans |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1 |
24 |
25 |
|
Trechalea bucculenta (Simon, 1898) |
2 |
2 |
||||||
Trechaleoides biocellata (Mello-Leitão, 1926) |
X |
X |
10 |
10 |
||||
Uloboridae |
39 |
77 |
187 |
303 |
||||
Miagrammopes guttatus Mello-Leitão, 1937 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
13 |
19 |
116 |
148 |
Philoponella fasciata (Mello-Leitão, 1917) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
25 |
55 |
70 |
150 |
Philoponella vittata (Keyserling, 1881) |
X |
2 |
2 |
|||||
Uloborus sp. 01 |
X |
X |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
||
Zodariidae |
1 |
4 |
7 |
12 |
||||
Tenedos eduardoi (Mello-Leitão, 1925) |
X |
X |
1 |
4 |
7 |
12 |
||
Total |
2,785 |
4,094 |
7,744 |
14,626 |
Among the 373 total species, 342 were represented by adult specimens and only 31 were represented by juveniles. Herein, 314 species were collected exclusively through the standardized survey (84.6% of the total species) with 287 represented by adults and only 29 represented by juveniles. The species represented only by juveniles were added to the database when it was clear that the spiders did not belong to any one of the other species already included. Almost all of the added species belonged to genera or even families not yet represented in the database.
A thorough analysis of the literature resulted in 17 papers containing records for 25 species and 37 specimens. Those records included specimens not only for the Park itself, but also to surrounding areas, as Jacarepaguá or only Pedra Branca. The database of Laboratório de Aracnologia, Museu Nacional/UFRJ, included 42 species/morphospecies and 83 specimens from the park and surrounding areas. The examination of the collection of the Laboratório de Diversidade de Aracnídeos/UFRJ revealed that 17 species and 26 specimens were from the same areas. The literature and collection records added up together 67 species/morphospecies and 134 specimens. Among the 12 species from the literature and that were not collected during the standardized survey, seven were labeled informing the Park itself or just “Pedra Branca”. Four species were cited only to a larger area that includes the Park (Jacarepaguá): Teudis atrofasciatus, Xeropigo tridentiger, Peucetia flava, Peucetia rubrolineata and one cited for Recreio dos Bandeirantes, an area nearby the Park: Corinna demersa. Moreover, among the eight species present only on collections, three were mentioned from the surroundings: Actinosoma pentacanthum, Dendryphantes sp. 01 and Parasteatoda tepidariora. The inclusion of those ten species in the list was made for the sake of completude and reflects our belief that they are probably present in the park area. They may be rare or inhabit areas not sampled by us.
Regarding species abundance, the 22 most abundant species (6.2% of total richness), represented by at least 1% of the total collected specimens, added up to 8,513 specimens (58.7% of total abundance) (Fig.
The difference in abundance between Mesabolivar luteus (2,050 specimens) and the second most abundant species, Mesabolivar togatus (647 specimens) is clear-cut, where both are dominant species in the local spider fauna. Apparently, according to our field observations on these very dominant species, they do not compete against each other, as M. luteus occupies higher places in the vegetation in comparison to M. togatus. It is also noteworthy that other three species among the 22 more abundant species are Pholcidae, Carapoia sp. n. 02, Mesabolivar sp. n. and Metagonia sp. n.
In relation to family richness and abundance, our results were in line with similar surveys on Atlantic Forest. Theridiidae is the richest family with 66 species (18.7%) in 27 genera. On the other hand, its abundance is the second highest, with 3,160 specimens (21.6%). As the second richest family, we observed Araneidae with 47 species (13.3%) in 21 genera. This family is the third most abundant (2,005 specimens). The third richest family was Salticidae with 45 species (12.8%), in 27 genera, and 640 specimens (only 4.4% of the total). Pholcidae was the most abundant family, with 3,810 specimens (26.3% of the total), but the fifth richest one, with 17 species (4.8%). The relatively high richness of Pholcidae in Pedra Branca State Park represents the highest number of species for the family in the world. The previous record was 15 species of Pholcidae in Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçu, Cachoeiras de Macacu, also in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil (
To estimate the possible reach of the spider fauna, an accumulation curve was calculated using the most used estimators from literature by the software EstimateS Richness Estimator Program, Version 9.1 (
Different estimators indicate a species total ranging from a minimum of 388 (“Bootstrap”) to a maximum of 468 species (“Jackknife2”) in this specific situation (Table
Results of non paramethric estimators of richness, number of collected species, unicates and duplicates for the data obtained by standardized sampling in Pedra Branca State Park.
Species | 353 | Chao1 | 425.09 |
Uniques | 78 | Chao 2 | 429.81 |
Duplicates | 39 | Jackknife1 | 429.81 |
ACE | 420.12 | Jackknife2 | 468.71 |
ICE | 419.08 | Bootstrap | 387.89 |
In the present work, the species accumulation curves still have not reached an asymptote, but the curves slopes are apparently beginning to decrease. This may indicate that the curves are converging to a plateau and to stabilization on the estimated number of species. The effective number of species (353) is still lower than the lesser optimistic estimator (“Bootstrap”). Besides, the number of uniques reaches 78 and is exactly the double of the duplicates and the intersection between the two curves would only be reached by surveying the area during a few more years, which indicates the need for a higher collection effort.
The analysis of diversity patterns of the spider community in the study area includes the comparison of population parameters for each sampling station individually or by each Park core, Pau da Fome (S1 & S2) and Camorim (S3 & S4). The diversity indexes used were Shannon-Wiener (H'), equitability of Pielou (J) and dominance of Berger-Parker (d) (Table
Locality |
Richness |
Shannon (H’) |
Shannon Exp |
Pielou (J) |
Berger-Parker (d) |
Pau Fome |
248 |
4.051 |
57.455 |
0.691 |
0.189 |
Station 1 |
182 |
3.999 |
54.544 |
0.682 |
0.131 |
Station 2 |
199 |
3.784 |
43.992 |
0.645 |
0.243 |
Camorim |
291 |
4.411 |
82.352 |
0.752 |
0.091 |
Station 3 |
216 |
3.960 |
52.457 |
0.675 |
0.158 |
Station 4 |
222 |
4.331 |
76.020 |
0.739 |
0.055 |
In relation to alpha-diversity, H' was higher for Camorim (4.411), with an effective number (Shannon Exponential) of approximately 82 species. On the other hand, for Pau da Fome, H' was 4.051, with Shannon Exp of around 57 species. Individually, station 4 ("Açude") presented the highest rate for H' (4.331), with Shannon Exp of 76 species, followed by station 1, with H' of 3.999. These numbers indicate that Camorim core (stations 3 and 4) is more diverse than Pau da Fome (stations 1 and 2).
The high H' for station 4 is coupled to the highest equitability (J = 0.739) and the lowest dominance of one species (d = 0.055). In contrast to the dominance of Mesabolivar luteus in stations 1, 2 and 3, the most abundant species in Station 4 is Chrysometa ludibunda, with 204 specimens, whereas the second one is Mesabolivar togatus with 196 specimens. Those results, allied to the highest abundance and richness, indicates that station 4 is the best preserved and has the most complex environment among all stations.
According to the
Our study uses standardized techniques alongside statistical tools to estimate the spider fauna in forested areas in Rio de Janeiro state. About Brazil as a whole, we can find studies documenting the fauna of spiders presenting a simple list of species (e. g.
In the state of Rio de Janeiro, the Laboratório de Diversidade de Aracnídeos is an active group working with spiders surveys in many different areas, like an ongoing work in the municipality of Macaé and other in the municipality of Mendes, which composed the monograph of
Furthermore, sampling efforts must be considered in each survey because the spider fauna recorded for Tijuca is the result of a Rapid Ecological Survey with only one expedition with standardized methods. However, this specific area has many sporadic records since the 19th century. Therefore, a beta diversity comparison between the fauna of Pedra Branca and Tijuca is still not feasible, but it is expected that they may share most of the spider species.
The survey in Pedra Branca overcame our initial expectations on species richness, especially considering that this Park is under high anthropic pressure. It was expected that areas under these conditions would only present a higher number of species of broad distribution, which may allow them to survive the human influence and to withstand a higher variation in environment factors. The remarkable richness recorded for this urban forest, even higher than in Tijuca, may be related to its location at the western portion of the city of Rio de Janeiro, an area where human occupation started later. Another reason may be the predominance of steep hillside areas, which makes it difficult to access protected areas of the park.
Moreover, the little number of cosmopolitan and pantropical species and the large number of Brazilian species, especially the ones restricted to the Southeastern region, may indicate that the area of Pedra Branca State Park is still well preserved. However, the low comparative data from other areas hinders any inference on the subject at the present moment. So, we conclude this work acknowledging that even areas with high anthropic pressure can provide important information in order to ensure the protection of what remains of this historically vast area.
The authors would like to thank all the staff from INEA for the concession of the licence and the guards and staff of Pedra Branca State Park for all the strategical help on choosing the sampling areas and for the support during the expeditions to the park. We also thank Daniel Proud and Ceilo O., native speakers of english, for making important comments on the manuscript. André do Prado and Thiago Guimarães are also thanked for the help on sorting the specimens. This work was supported by a Masters CAPES grant for the first author.
PSC, RLCB and APG conceived and designed the experiments. PSC and RLCB collected, sorted, identified all specimens, analyzed the results and drafted the manuscript. APG revised the literature and improved the manuscript with important contributions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This is a comparison summary of the most abundant species at Pedra Branca State Park. This data was obtained from Table 1.
This is the raw data that made possible the construction of the graphic that shows the estimates of species.