, Volume 73, Issue 1, pp 43–51 | Cite as

Effects of uncut hay meadow strips on spiders

  • Milan Řezáč
  • Petr Heneberg
Original Article


Standard management of Czech hay meadows consists of machine mowing twice a year, with the first mowing in or before mid-June and the second mowing 40–60 days later. Here, we aimed to analyse the effects of the first year of implementation of the agri-environment scheme (AES), which consisted of allowing 3–10% of permanent grasslands within each land block to remain unmown until at least August 15, on the abundance and diversity of spiders. We conducted the study at 40 paired sampling sites in three meadow types in northern Czechia. Spiders were sampled using pitfall traps and sweeping, and the plant cover and vascular plant species composition were analysed. Nearly all study sites were associated with 100% vegetation cover, and hosted 209 vascular plant species, of which 12 were threatened. The number of vascular plant species exhibited only modest differences between the study sites under standard and AES-prescribed management. We captured a total of 3889 individuals of 103 spider species. The abundance of spiders was three-times higher at sites subjected to AES management. The number of species was similar irrespective of the management applied, but the species composition differed in response to the management (Sørensen index 0.562–0.736). The AES management was associated with higher abundance of common vegetation-dwelling farmland spiders, but epigeic spiders decreased there or were insensitive to AES management. It remains to be investigated whether threatened vegetation-dwelling spiders may benefit from similar AESs at sites of their occurrence, such as in fen meadows or steppes.


Agricultural biodiversity Agri-environmental schemes Biodiversity conservation Common species Conservation management Cultural landscape 



We thank Václav Strnad for help with the field experiments. We also thank the landlords for allowing us to access the study sites. This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [grant numbers MZe RO0415 and Program rozvoje venkova 594-2016-14132]; and the Czech Science Foundation [grant number 17-10976S].

Supplementary material

11756_2018_15_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (861 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 860 kb)


  1. Albrecht M, Schmid B, Obrist MK, Schüpbach B, Kleijn D, Duelli P (2010) Effects of ecological compensation meadows on arthropod diversity in adjacent intensively managed grassland. Biol Conserv 143:642–649. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batáry P, Dicks LV, Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2015) The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 29:1006–1016. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell JR, Wheater CP, Cullen WR (2001) The implications of grassland and heathland management for the conservation of spider communities: a review. J Zool 255:377–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogusch P, Macek J, Janšta P, Kubík Š, Řezáč M, Holý K, Malenovský I, Baňař P, Mikát M, Astapenková A, Heneberg P (2016) Industrial and post-industrial habitats serve as critical refugia for pioneer species of newly identified arthropod assemblages associated with reed galls. Biodivers Conserv 25:827–863. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun-Blanquet J (1932) Plant sociology: the study of plant communities. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cattin M-F, Blandenier G, Banašek-Richter C, Bersier L-F (2003) The impact of mowing as a management strategy for wet meadows on spider (Araneae) communities. Biol Conserv 113:179–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cizek O, Zamecnik J, Tropek R, Kocarek P, Konvicka M (2012) Diversification of mowing regime increases arthropods diversity in species-poor cultural hay meadows. J Insect Conserv 16:215–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decleer K (1990) Experimental cutting of reedmarsh vegetation and its influence on the spider (Araneae) fauna in the Blankaart nature reserve, Belgium. Biol Conserv 52:161–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Didier L (2001) Invasion patterns of European larch and Swiss stone pine in subalpine pastures in the French alps. For Ecol Manag 145:67–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Egmond P, de Koeijer T (2006) Weidevogelbeheer bij agrariers en terreinbeheerders. De Levende Natuur 107:118–120Google Scholar
  11. Ekroos J, Olsson O, Rundlöf M, Wätzold F, Smith HG (2014) Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? Biol Conserv 172:65–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grulich V (2012) Red list of vascular plants of the Czech Republic: 3rd edition. Preslia 84:631–645Google Scholar
  13. Heneberg P, Řezáč M (2014) Dry sandpits and gravel-sandpits serve as key refuges for endangered epigeic spiders (Araneae) and harvestmen (Opiliones) of central European steppes aeolian sands. Ecol Eng 73:659–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Humbert J-Y, Pellet J, Buri P, Arlettaz R (2012) Does delaying the first mowing date benefit biodiversity in meadowland? Environ Evid 1:9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Díaz M, De Esteban J, Fernández F, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Jöhl R, Knop E, Kruess A, Marshall EJP, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, West TM, Yela JL (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol Lett 9:243–254. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Knop E, Kleijn D, Herzog F, Schmid B (2006) Effectiveness of the Swiss agri-environment scheme in promoting biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 43:120–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kubát K (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  19. Lafage D, Pétillon J (2016) Relative importance of management and natural flooding on spider, carabid and plant assemblages in extensively used grasslands along the Loire. Basic Appl Ecol 17:535–545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mansour F, Heimbach U (1993) Evaluation of lycosid, micryphantid and linyphiid spiders as predators of Rhopalosiphum padi (Hom.: Aphididae) and their functional response to prey density. Entomophaga 38:79–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazalová M, Šípoš J, Rada S, Kašák J, Šarapatka B, Kuras T (2015) Responses of grassland arthropods to various biodiversity-friendly management practices: Is there a compromise. Eur J Entomol 112:734–746. Google Scholar
  22. McLachlan ARG (2000) Spider distribution in agroecosystems in Canterbury, New Zealand. Lincoln University, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan JA, Milchunas DG, LeCain DR, West M, Mosier AR (2007) Carbon dioxide enrichment alters plant community structure and accelerates shrub growth in the shortgrass steppe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:14724–14729. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Nentwig W, Blick T, Gloor D, Hänggi A, Kropf C (2017) Spiders of Europe. Version 02.2017. Accessed 25 May 2017
  25. Neumann D, Krüger M (1991) Schilfhalme im Winter – Überwinterungsquartier für Insekten und Spinnen sowie Nahrungsquelle für insectivore Singvögel. Nat Landschaft 66:166–168Google Scholar
  26. Pech P, Dolanský J, Hrdlička R, Lepš J (2015) Differential response of communities of plants, snails, ants and spiders to long-term mowing in a small-scale experiment. Commun Ecol 16:115–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Podani J (2006) Braun-Blanquet’s legacy and data analysis in vegetation science. J Veg Sci 17:113–117.[0113:BLADAI]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  28. Pornaro C, Schneider MK, Macolino S (2013) Plant species loss due to forest succession in alpine pastures depends on site conditions and observation scale. Biol Conserv 161:213–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pühringer G (1979) Productivity of spiders living in the reed belt of lake “Neusiedler see” (Austria, Burgenland). Zool Jb Syst 106:500–528Google Scholar
  30. Řezáč M, Kůrka A, Růžička V, Heneberg P (2015) Red list of Czech spiders: 3rd edition, adjusted according to evidence-based national conservation priorities. Biologia 70:645–666. Google Scholar
  31. Samu F (2003) Can field-scale habitat diversification enhance the biocontrol potential of spiders? Pest Manag Sci 59:437–442. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaefer M (1976) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Jahreszyklus und zur Überwinterung von Spinnen (Araneidae). Zool Jb Syst 103:127–289Google Scholar
  33. Scheper J, Holzschuh A, Kuussaari M, Potts SG, Rundlöf M, Smith HG, Kleijn D (2013) Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss – a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 16:912–920. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt MH, Lefebvre G, Poulin B, Tscharntke T (2005) Reed cutting affects arthropod communities, potentially reducing food for passerine birds. Biol Conserv 121:157–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt MH, Rocker S, Hanafi J, Gigon A (2008) Rotational fallows as overwintering habitat for grassland arthropods: the case of spiders in fen meadows. Biodivers Conserv 17:3003–3012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – a review. J Environ Manag 91:22–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas CFG, Jepson PC (1997) Field-scale effects of farming practices on linyphiid spider populations in grass and cereals. Entomol Exp Appl 84:59–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. World Spider Catalog (2017) World spider catalog. Natural History Museum Bern. Version 18.0. Accessed 25 May 2017

Copyright information

© Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crop Research InstitutePrague 6 - RuzyněCzechia
  2. 2.Third Faculty of MedicineCharles UniversityPragueCzechia

Personalised recommendations