Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 169–179 | Cite as

Can Malaise traps be used to sample spiders for biodiversity assessment?

  • Anne Oxbrough
  • Tom Gittings
  • Thomas C. Kelly
  • John O’Halloran
Original Paper


Malaise traps are typically used to sample a range of flying insect groups; however non-target taxa such as spiders may also be collected in large numbers. In this study, spiders were sampled in peatlands and wet grasslands and catches in Malaise and pitfall traps were compared in order to determine the adequacy of Malaise traps for use in spider biodiversity assessment. Overall, the number of species and individuals caught in Malaise and pitfall traps were comparable, although more species were sampled in Malaise traps in locations with a greater structural diversity of the vegetation. The spider fauna sampled by the Malaise traps differed from that of the pitfall traps, but both methods consistently separated the species assemblages by biotope. These results demonstrate that Malaise traps are effective at sampling spiders and indicate that they can be used in biodiversity assessment. In addition the complementary species sampled by each method mean that employing both techniques will be useful where a full inventory of the species is required. The authors do not suggest that Malaise traps should be used solely to sample spiders; however, if traps are set to collect insects, identification of the spiders sampled may reduce the need to employ additional sampling techniques.


Biodiversity assessment By-catch Invertebrate sampling Malaise traps Pitfall traps Spiders (Araneae) 



Our thanks go to Mark Wilson and Noreen Burke for help in the field and all of our colleagues on the Bioforest project and Rebecca Martin for help with analysis. In addition to this we would like to thank Myles Nolan, Robert Johnston and Peter Merrett for help with identifying difficult specimens. This research was conducted as part of the BIOFOREST Project ( which was funded by COFORD and the EPA under the National Development Plan 2001–2006.


  1. Antunes SC, Pereira R, Sousa JP, Santos MC, Gonçalves F (2008) Spatial and temporal distribution of litter arthropods in different vegetation covers of Porto Santo Island (Madeira Archipelago, Portugal). Eur J Soil Biol 44:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batáry P, Báldi A, Samu F, Szuts T, Erdos S (2008) Are spiders reacting to local or landscape scale effects in Hungarian pastures? Biol Conserv 141:2062–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger WH, Parker FL (1970) Diverstity of planktonic Foraminifera in deep sea sediments. Science 168:1345–1347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgio G, Sommaggio D (2007) Syrphids as landscape bioindicators in Italian agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler L, Kondo C, Barrows EM, Townsend EC (1999) Effects of weather conditions and trap types on sampling for richness and abundance of forest macrolepidoptera. Environ Entomol 28:795–811Google Scholar
  6. Campbell JW, Hanula JL, Waldrop TA (2007) Effects of prescribed fire and fire surrogates on floral visiting insects of the blue ridge province in North Carolina. Biol Conserv 134:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardoso P, Gaspar C, Pereira LC, Silva I, Henriques SS, da Silva RR, Sousa P (2008) Assessing spider species richness and composition in Mediterranean cork oak forests. Acta Oecol 33:114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchill T, Arthur J (1999) Measuring spider richness: effects of different sampling methods and spatial and temporal scales. J Insect Conserv 3:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curtis DJ (1980) Pitfalls in spider community studies (Arachnida: Araneae). J Arachnol 8:271–280Google Scholar
  10. Deans AM, Malcolm JR, Smith SM, Bellocq MI (2005) Edge effects and the responses of aerial insect assemblages to structural-retention harvesting in Canadian boreal peatland forests. For Ecol Manag 204:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Kelly T, Giller PS (2006) The contribution of open spaces to the maintenance of hoverfly (Diptera, Syrphidae) biodiversity in Irish plantation forests. For Ecol Manag 237:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenstone M (1984) Determinants of web spider species diversity: vegetation structural diversity vs prey availability. Oncologia 62:299–304Google Scholar
  13. Gunnarsson B (1990) Vegeation structure and the abundance and size distribution of spruce-living spiders. J Anim Ecol 59:743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey P, Nellist D, Telfer M (2002) Provisional atlas of British spiders (Arachnida, Araneae), vol 1 & 2. Biological Records Centre, HuntingdonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutcheson J, Jones D (1999) Spatial variability of insect communities in a homogenous system: measuring biodiversity using Malaise trapped beetles in a Pinus radiata plantation in New Zealand. For Ecol Manag 111:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jimenez-Valverde A, Lobo JM (2005) Determining a combined sampling procedure for a reliable estimation of Araneidae and Thomisidae assemblages (Arachnida, Araneae). J Arachnol 33:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lang A, Barthel J, Schröder P, Pfadenhauer J, Munch JC (2008) Spiders (Araneae) in Arable land: species community, influence of land use on diversity, and biocontrol significance. In: Perspectives for agroecosystem management. Elservier, San Diego, pp 307–326Google Scholar
  18. Le Viol I, Julliard R, Kerbiriou C, de Redon L, Carnino N, Machon N, Porcher E (2008) Plant and spider communities benefit differently from the presence of planted hedgerows in highway verges. Biol Conserv 141:1581–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mefford MJ, McCune B (2007) PC ord for windows version 5. MjM Softrware, OregonGoogle Scholar
  20. Melbourne B (1999) Bias in the effect of habitat structure on pitfall traps: an experimental evaluation. Aust J Ecol 24:228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merret P, Snazell R (1983) A comparison of pitfall trapping and vacuum sampling for assessing spiders faunas on heathland at Ashdown forest, south-east England. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 6:1–13Google Scholar
  22. Mommertz S, Schauer C, Klosters N, Lang A, Filser J (1996) A comparison of D-vac suction, fenced and unfenced pitfall trap sampling of epigeal arthropods in agroecosystems. Ann Zool Fenn 33:181–201Google Scholar
  23. Oxbrough A (2008) Irish spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) collected during a five-year, island-wide study including 696 new county records. Bull Ir Biogeog Soc 32:97–127Google Scholar
  24. Oxbrough A, Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Giller PS, Smith GF (2005) Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For Ecol Manag 212:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oxbrough A, Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Giller PS, Kelly T (2006a) The influence of open space on ground-dwelling spider assemblages within forest plantations. For Ecol Manag 237:404–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oxbrough A, Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Giller PS, Kelly T (2006b) The initial effects of afforestation of ground-dwelling spider fauna of Irish peatlands and grasslands. For Ecol Manag 237:478–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberts M (1993) The spiders of Great Britain and Ireland (compact edition). Harley Books, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  28. Schuldt A, Fahrenholz N, Brauns M, Migge-Kleian S, Platner C, Schaefer M (2008) Communities of ground-living spiders in deciduous forests: does tree species diversity matter? Biodivs Conserv 17:1267–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith G, Gittings T, Wilson MW, Oxbrough A, Iremonger S, O’Halloran J, Kelly DL, O’Sullivan A, O’Donoghue S, McKee AM, Neville P, O’ Donnell V, Kelly T, et al. (2006) Biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites. Report prepared for the COFORD and EPA, DublinGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith R, Gaston K, Warren P, Thompson K (2006b) Urban domestic gardens (VIII): environmental correlates of invertebrate abundance. Biodivs Conserv 15:2515–2545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith R, Warren P, Thompson K, Gaston K (2006c) Urban domestic gardens (IV): environmental correlates of invertebrate species richness. Biodivs Conserv 15:2415–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Southwood TRE, Henderson P (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell Science Limited, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Speight M (2000) Syrph the net: a database of biological information about European Syrphidae (Diptera) and its use in relation to conservation of biodiversity. In: Rushton B (ed) Biodiversity: the Irish dimension. The Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, pp 156–171Google Scholar
  34. SPSS for windows version 11.0 2002. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Standen V (2000) The adequacy of collecting techniques for estimating species richness of grassland invertebrates. Adv Appl Ecol Tech 37:884–893Google Scholar
  36. Uetz G (1991) Habitat structure and spider foraging. In: Bell S, McCoy E, Mushinsky H (eds) Habitat structure. The physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Uetz G (1999) Guild structure of spiders in major crops. J Arachnol 27:270–280Google Scholar
  38. Uetz G, Unzicker J (1976) Pitfall trapping in ecological studies of wandering spiders. J Arachnol 3:101–111Google Scholar
  39. van Helsdingen PJ (1996) The county distribution of Irish spiders, incorporating a revised catalogue of the species. Ir Nat J Special Zoological Supplement 92Google Scholar
  40. Ziesche TM, Roth M (2008) Influence of environmental parameters on small-scale distribution of soil-dwelling spiders in forests: what makes the difference, tree species or microhabitat? For Ecol Manag 255:738–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Oxbrough
    • 1
  • Tom Gittings
    • 1
  • Thomas C. Kelly
    • 1
  • John O’Halloran
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Ecology and Plant ScienceUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations