[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (93)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Araneae

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
14 pages, 2058 KiB  
Article
Do Random Forest-Driven Climate Envelope Models Require Variable Selection? A Case Study on Crustulina guttata (Theridiidae: Araneae)
by Tae-Sung Kwon, Won Il Choi and Min-Jung Kim
Insects 2025, 16(2), 209; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16020209 - 14 Feb 2025
Viewed by 303
Abstract
Climate Envelope Models (CEMs) commonly employ 19 bioclimatic variables to predict species distributions, yet selecting which variables to include remains a critical challenge. Although it seems logical to select ecologically relevant variables, the biological responses of many target species are poorly understood. Random [...] Read more.
Climate Envelope Models (CEMs) commonly employ 19 bioclimatic variables to predict species distributions, yet selecting which variables to include remains a critical challenge. Although it seems logical to select ecologically relevant variables, the biological responses of many target species are poorly understood. Random Forest (RF), a popular method in CEMs, can effectively handle correlated and nonlinear variables. In light of these strengths, this study explores the full model hypothesis, which involves using all 19 bioclimatic variables in an RF model, using Crustulina guttata (Theridiidae: Araneae) as a test case. Four model variants—a simplified model with two variables, an ecologically selected model with seven variables, a statistically selected model with ten variables, and a full model with nineteen variables—were compared against a thousand randomly assembled models with matching variable counts. All models achieved high performance, though results varied based on the number of variables employed. Notably, the full model consistently produced stronger predictions than models with fewer variables. Moreover, specifying particular variables did not yield a significant advantage over random selections of equally sized sets, indicating that omitting variables may risk the loss of important information. Although the final model suggests that C. guttata may have dispersed beyond its native European range through artificial means, this study examined only a single species. Thus, caution is warranted in generalizing these findings, and additional research is needed to determine whether the full model hypothesis extends to other taxa and environmental contexts. In scenarios where ecological knowledge is limited, however, using all available variables in an RF model may preserve potentially significant predictors and enhance predictive accuracy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Ecology, Diversity and Conservation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographic distribution of <span class="html-italic">Crustulina guttata</span>. Orange points represent the recorded locations of <span class="html-italic">C. guttata</span>, based on the GBIF database (accessed on 7 August 2023), occurrence records from a national survey by the National Institute of Forest Science (NIFOS), and additional data from other studies (see <a href="#app1-insects-16-00209" class="html-app">Table S1</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distribution of (<b>a</b>) AUC, (<b>b</b>) TSS, (<b>c</b>) BI, and (<b>d</b>) transferability evaluation metrics for climate envelope model (CEM) using different specified combinations of bioclimatic variables: two-factor—bio1 and bio12; seven-factor—bio1, bio4, bio10, bio11, bio12, bio16, and bio17; ten-factor—bio3, bio4, bio5, bio6, bio9, bio11, bio12, bio15, bio16, and bio17. The selected input variables are detailed in <a href="#insects-16-00209-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. Different letters on the bars indicate significant differences between values (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05), as assessed by the Kruskal–Wallis test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Histograms of evaluation metrics for randomized models (blue bars) compared to the mean values of specified models (red dashed lines). The rows represent different variable compositions: two-factor models (top row), seven-factor models (middle row), and ten-factor models (bottom row). The columns correspond to different evaluation metrics: AUC (leftmost column), TSS (second column), BI (third column), and Transferability (rightmost column).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The predicted occurrence probability of <span class="html-italic">Crustulina guttata</span> based on the Random Forest model using all 19 bioclimatic variables. Predictions are displayed for (<b>a</b>) the global scale, (<b>b</b>) Europe, and (<b>c</b>) East Asia. Known presence points of <span class="html-italic">C. guttata</span> are indicated by cross marks (+).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Partial dependence plots for four key bioclimatic variables from the full model using all 19 bioclimatic variables. The plots include two fundamental variables, mean annual temperature ((<b>a</b>): bio1) and annual precipitation ((<b>b</b>): bio12), as well as the two variables with the highest importance scores, maximum temperature of the warmest month ((<b>c</b>): bio5) and mean diurnal temperature range ((<b>d</b>): bio2).</p>
Full article ">
67 pages, 32566 KiB  
Article
Advances in Understanding the Karyotype Evolution of Tetrapulmonata and Two Other Arachnid Taxa, Ricinulei and Solifugae
by Jiří Král, Alexandr Sember, Klára Divišová, Tereza Kořínková, Azucena C. Reyes Lerma, Ivalú M. Ávila Herrera, Martin Forman, František Šťáhlavský, Jana Musilová, Sabrina Torres Kalme, José G. Palacios Vargas, Magda Zrzavá, Iva Vrbová, Jairo A. Moreno-González, Paula E. Cushing, Alexander V. Gromov, Štěpánka Šebestiánová, Vendula Bohlen Šlechtová, Lorenzo Prendini and Tharina L. Bird
Genes 2025, 16(2), 207; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16020207 - 8 Feb 2025
Viewed by 978
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Arachnids are a megadiverse arthropod group. The present study investigated the chromosomes of pedipalpid tetrapulmonates (orders Amblypygi, Thelyphonida, Schizomida) and two arachnid orders of uncertain phylogenetic placement, Ricinulei and Solifugae, to reconstruct their karyotype evolution. Except for amblypygids, the cytogenetics of these [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Arachnids are a megadiverse arthropod group. The present study investigated the chromosomes of pedipalpid tetrapulmonates (orders Amblypygi, Thelyphonida, Schizomida) and two arachnid orders of uncertain phylogenetic placement, Ricinulei and Solifugae, to reconstruct their karyotype evolution. Except for amblypygids, the cytogenetics of these arachnid orders was almost unknown prior to the present study. Methods: Chromosomes were investigated using methods of standard (Giemsa-stained preparations, banding techniques) and molecular cytogenetics (fluorescence in situ hybridization, comparative genomic hybridization). Results and Conclusions: New data for 38 species, combined with previously published data, suggest that ancestral arachnids possessed low to moderate 2n (22–40), monocentric chromosomes, one nucleolus organizer region (NOR), low levels of heterochromatin and recombinations, and no or homomorphic sex chromosomes. Karyotypes of Pedipalpi and Solifugae diversified via centric fusions, pericentric inversions, and changes in the pattern of NORs and, in solifuges, also through tandem fusions. Some solifuges display an enormous amount of constitutive heterochromatin and high NOR number. It is hypothesized that the common ancestor of amblypygids, thelyphonids, and spiders exhibited a homomorphic XY system, and that telomeric heterochromatin and NORs were involved in the evolution of amblypygid sex chromosomes. The new findings support the Cephalosomata clade (acariforms, palpigrades, and solifuges). Hypotheses concerning the origin of acariform holocentric chromosomes are presented. Unlike current phylogenetic hypotheses, the results suggest a sister relationship between Schizomida and a clade comprising other tetrapulmonates as well as a polyploidization in the common ancestor of the clade comprising Araneae, Amblypygi, and Thelyphonida. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Commemorating the Launch of the Section "Cytogenomics")
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Amblypygi: Charontidae: <span class="html-italic">Charon</span> cf. <span class="html-italic">grayi</span>, female (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>) and male (<b>C</b>); karyotype (<b>A</b>), chromosome pairs (<b>B</b>), and bivalents (<b>C</b>) indicating NORs (red) (FISH, DAPI staining). Centromeric blocks DAPI-positive. (<b>A</b>) Female karyotype (based on mitotic metaphase). Two acrocentric pairs (nos 25, 31) bear terminal NOR locus. (<b>B</b>) NOR-bearing chromosome pairs from another female mitotic metaphase, each with NOR locus at end of short arm. (<b>C</b>) Two NOR-bearing rod-like bivalents from male diakinesis (left) and their scheme (right). Left bivalent is heterozygous for presence of NOR; centromeric block of this bivalent associated with NOR (arrow) is larger than block without NOR (arrowhead). In the scheme, centromeric blocks with associated NOR are encircled by red. Abbreviation: h, bivalent heterozygous for presence of NOR. Arrow = centromeric block with associated NOR, arrowhead = centromeric block without associated NOR. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Amblypygi: Charontidae: <span class="html-italic">Charon</span> cf. <span class="html-italic">grayi</span>, CGH and meiotic division. (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>) CGH with male and female genomic probes and DAPI counterstaining; chromosomes without male- (red) and female-specific (green) signals. Centromere regions exhibit bright fluorescence. (<b>A</b>) Two sister male metaphases II. (<b>B</b>) Female mitotic metaphase. (<b>C</b>,<b>D</b>) Male prophase I, Giemsa staining. (<b>C</b>) Diffuse stage. Bivalents despiralized except for centromeric regions. (<b>D</b>) Diplotene. Note considerable condensation of centromeres. Arrows = bivalents with two chiasmata. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Amblypygi: Phrynidae: <span class="html-italic">Acanthophrynus coronatus</span>, male karyotypes, Giemsa staining. (<b>A</b>) Standard karyotype (based on two sister metaphases II). (<b>B</b>) C-banded karyotype (mitotic metaphase). Centromeric CH in all chromosome pairs; most non-acrocentric pairs terminated by CH at one or both ends. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Amblypygi: Phrynidae: <span class="html-italic">Acanthophrynus coronatus</span>, male, pattern of NORs and telomeric repeats (red), mitotic metaphases (FISH, DAPI staining). (<b>A</b>) Visualization of NORs. Centromeres DAPI-positive. Chromosomes of subtelocentric pair each include NOR. (<b>B</b>) Visualization of telomeric repeats. Arrowhead = NOR. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Amblypygi: Phrynidae: <span class="html-italic">Heterophrynus</span> cf. <span class="html-italic">elaphus</span>, male karyotype, illustrating pattern of NORs (red). Based on mitotic metaphase (FISH, DAPI staining). Centromeres DAPI-positive. Acrocentric pair no. 26 with NOR locus. Scale bar = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Amblypygi: Phrynidae: <span class="html-italic">Heterophrynus</span> cf. <span class="html-italic">elaphus</span> (<b>A</b>) and <span class="html-italic">Paraphrynus mexicanus</span> (<b>B</b>–<b>F</b>), chromosome plates. (<b>A</b>) Male diakinesis (Giemsa staining) indicating partial despiralization of bivalents. Centromeres form dark knobs. (<b>B</b>) Male, late spermatogonial metaphase (Giemsa staining), showing associations of homologs. Letter pairs indicate putative homologs. (<b>C</b>) Male mitotic metaphase, visualization of NORs (red) (FISH, DAPI staining). Centromeres DAPI-positive. Furthermore, chromosomes of two pairs include tiny subterminal DAPI-positive area. One metacentric pair with pericentric NOR locus. (<b>D</b>) Transition from metaphase to anaphase I (Giemsa staining), male. Note metacentric X and submetacentric Y chromosomes. (<b>E</b>,<b>F</b>) Sex chromosome detection by CGH with male (red) and female (green) genomic probes and DAPI counterstaining on male (<b>E</b>) and female (<b>F</b>) mitotic metaphase spreads. Y chromosome (<b>E</b>) with prominent centromere and male sex-specific signal. Female plate (<b>F</b>) without sex-specific signal. Abbreviations: ce, centromere; t, subterminal DAPI-positive area; X, X chromosome, Y, Y chromosome. Arrow = sex-specific signal, arrowhead = NOR. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Amblypygi: Phrynichidae: <span class="html-italic">Euphrynichus amanica</span> (<b>A</b>), <span class="html-italic">E. bacillifer</span> (<b>B</b>), and <span class="html-italic">Phrynichus ceylonicus</span> (<b>C</b>), male plates illustrating patterns of NORs (red) (FISH, DAPI staining). (<b>A</b>) Two fused sister metaphases II. One metacentric pair with NOR locus and two monoarmed pairs each with NOR locus on short arm. All NOR loci are terminal. Inset: NOR-bearing chromosomes from another metaphase II. Each pair represented by one chromosome. Note metacentric (1), subtelocentric (2), and acrocentric morphology (3) of NOR-bearing chromosomes. (<b>B</b>) Metaphase II. Chromosome of metacentric pair with pericentric NOR. (<b>C</b>) Metaphase II. Three metacentric chromosomes (belonging to different chromosome pairs) each bear terminal NOR. Abbreviations: m, metacentric NOR-bearing chromosome; mo, monoarmed NOR-bearing chromosome. Arrowhead = NOR-bearing chromosome. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Thelyphonida: Thelyphonidae: Hypoctoninae: <span class="html-italic">Hypoctonus</span> cf. <span class="html-italic">gastrostictus</span> (<b>A</b>), <span class="html-italic">Labochirus proboscideus</span> (<b>B</b>,<b>C</b>), and <span class="html-italic">Yekuana venezolensis</span> (<b>D</b>), male, patterns of heterochromatin and NORs. (<b>A</b>) Metaphase II (FISH, DAPI staining). Two metacentric chromosomes (belonging to different chromosome pairs) each bear terminal NOR (red). (<b>B</b>) C-banded mitotic metaphase (Giemsa staining). Note tiny terminal (most chromosomes) or intercalary (arrows) blocks of CH. (<b>C</b>) Group of pachytene bivalents (DAPI staining). Note tiny DAPI-positive centromeric blocks. (<b>D</b>) Mitotic metaphase (FISH, DAPI staining). Centromeres DAPI-positive. Some chromosomes contain additional terminal DAPI-positive block. Short arms of submetacentric pair terminate by NOR locus (red). Arrowhead = NOR-bearing chromosome. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Thelyphonida: Thelyphonidae: Mastigoproctinae: <span class="html-italic">Uroproctus assamensis</span> (<b>A</b>) and <span class="html-italic">Mastigoproctus giganteus</span> (<b>B</b>–<b>D</b>), male mitotic metaphases. DAPI (<b>A</b>,<b>D</b>) and Giemsa (<b>B</b>,<b>C</b>) staining. (<b>A</b>) Visualization of NORs (red, FISH). Chromosomes of three pairs each with terminal NOR. (<b>B</b>) Associations of homologs. Letter pairs indicate putative homologs. (<b>C</b>) C-banded karyotype. Centromeric block of CH in all chromosome pairs; chromosomes of two pairs (second and eighth pair) with both centromeric and terminal CH. (<b>D</b>) Karyotype indicating pattern of NORs (red, FISH). Centromeres DAPI-positive. Two metacentric pairs each with terminal NOR locus. Arrowhead = NOR. Scale bar = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Thelyphonida: Thelyphonidae: Thelyphoninae: <span class="html-italic">Ginosigma</span> sp. (<b>A</b>–<b>C</b>) and <span class="html-italic">Thelyphonus</span> cf. <span class="html-italic">linganus</span> (<b>D</b>), male plates, patterns of heterochromatin, NORs, and telomeric repeats. Giemsa (<b>A</b>) and DAPI (<b>B</b>–<b>D</b>) staining. (<b>A</b>) C-banded mitotic metaphase. Centromeric CH in all chromosomes. (<b>B</b>) Diplotene, visualization of NORs (red, FISH). Centromeric regions are DAPI positive. Terminal NOR locus in metacentric, subtelocentric, and acrocentric bivalent. (<b>C</b>) Two sister metaphases II, visualization of telomeric repeats (red, FISH). (<b>D</b>) Pachytene (DAPI staining), bivalents exhibit prominent AT-rich knobs. Abbreviations: a, acrocentric bivalent; m, metacentric bivalent; st, subtelocentric bivalent. Arrowhead = NOR; open arrow = pericentric chiasma. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Thelyphonida: Thelyphonidae: Thelyphoninae: <span class="html-italic">Thelyphonus</span> cf. <span class="html-italic">linganus</span>, behaviour of male sex chromosomes. (<b>A</b>) Diakinesis, note heterobivalent comprising larger (putative X) and smaller (putative Y) chromosomes. (<b>B</b>,<b>C</b>) Sex chromosome bivalent during early (<b>B</b>) and late (<b>C</b>) diplotene. X chromosome includes three knobs at early diplotene (<b>B</b>), two of which fuse during late diplotene; fusion of knobs accompanied by formation of constriction between remaining two knobs (<b>C</b>). Y chromosome contains one knob throughout diplotene and diakinesis (<b>A</b>–<b>C</b>). (<b>D</b>) Anaphase I, note heterochromatinization of putative X chromosome. (<b>E</b>) Unusual interphase nucleus containing fuzzy chromosomes. Putative X chromosome forms heterochromatic body. Abbreviations: ch, chiasma; co, constriction; k, knob; n, deformed interphase nucleus; s, sperm nucleus; X, putative X chromosome; Y, putative Y chromosome. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Thelyphonida: Thelyphonidae: Typopeltinae: <span class="html-italic">Typopeltis crucifer</span> (<b>A</b>) and <span class="html-italic">T. guangxiensis</span> (<b>B</b>–<b>D</b>), male (<b>B</b>,<b>C</b>) and female (<b>A</b>,<b>D</b>) plates. (<b>A</b>) Mitotic metaphase. (<b>B</b>) C-banded mitotic metaphase (Giemsa staining). Small intercalary or terminal block of CH present in several chromosome pairs. (<b>C</b>,<b>D</b>) Mitotic metaphase of male (<b>C</b>) and female (<b>D</b>), sex chromosome detection by CGH with male and female genomic probes and DAPI counterstaining. Chromosomes do not contain any male- (red) and female-specific (green) signal. Abbreviations: c, centromeric block of CH; t, terminal block of CH. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Thelyphonida: Thelyphonidae: Typopeltinae: <span class="html-italic">Typopeltis guangxiensis</span>, male karyotype, based on two sister metaphases II (Giemsa staining). Above standard karyotype shown NOR-bearing chromosomes (blue) from another two sister metaphases II (FISH, DAPI staining). One metacentric (no. 3) and two acrocentric pairs (nos 12, 15) each bear single terminal NOR locus (red). Another metacentric pair (no. 2) contains two terminal NOR loci (red). Scale bar = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Schizomida: <span class="html-italic">Stenochrus</span> sp. (<b>A</b>), <span class="html-italic">Olmecazomus brujo</span> (<b>B</b>), Hubbardiidae (Cameroon) (<b>C</b>), Hubbardiidae (Seychelles) (<b>D</b>), <span class="html-italic">Agastoschizomus lucifer</span> (<b>E</b>), <span class="html-italic">Notozomus</span> sp. (<b>F</b>), <span class="html-italic">Clavizomus</span> sp. (<b>G</b>), <span class="html-italic">Orientzomus</span> sp. (Luzon) (<b>H</b>), male (<b>B</b>,<b>F</b>,<b>G</b>) and female (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>–<b>E</b>,<b>H</b>) karyotypes. Based on mitotic metaphase (Giemsa staining). Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Schizomida: <span class="html-italic">Stenochrus</span> sp. (<b>A</b>), <span class="html-italic">Olmecazomus brujo</span> (<b>B</b>,<b>G</b>,<b>H</b>), Hubbardiidae (Cameroon) (<b>C</b>), Hubbardiidae (Seychelles) (<b>D</b>), <span class="html-italic">Agastoschizomus lucifer</span> (<b>E</b>), and <span class="html-italic">Orientzomus</span> sp. (Mindanao) (<b>F</b>), pattern of NORs, telomeric repeats (DAPI staining), and meiosis (Giemsa staining). Male (<b>B</b>,<b>G</b>,<b>H</b>) and female (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>–<b>F</b>) plates. (<b>A</b>) Mitotic metaphase, visualization of telomeric repeats (red, FISH). (<b>B</b>–<b>F</b>) Mitotic metaphases, visualization of NORs (red, FISH). (<b>B</b>) One chromosome pair with interstitial NOR locus. All chromosomes exhibit DAPI-positive centromere region at one end. (<b>C</b>) One chromosome pair with interstitial NOR locus. (<b>D</b>) One chromosome pair with terminal NOR locus. (<b>E</b>) One chromosome pair with terminal NOR locus. Most chromosomes exhibit DAPI-positive centromere region at one end. (<b>F</b>) One chromosome pair with terminal NOR locus. (<b>G</b>) Diffuse stage, note considerable decondensation of bivalents except for centromeric regions (dark spots). (<b>H</b>) Incomplete diplotene showing ten bivalents. Each bivalent contains one chiasma. Note dark knobs formed by centromere regions. Arrowhead = NOR. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Ricinulei: male (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>) and female (<b>B</b>) karyotypes (Giemsa staining). Two karyotypes (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>) are haploid (each chromosome pair is represented by one chromosome). (<b>A</b>) <span class="html-italic">Ricinoides olounoua</span> (metaphase II). (<b>B</b>) <span class="html-italic">Pseudocellus gertschi</span> (mitotic metaphase). (<b>C</b>) <span class="html-italic">Cryptocellus narino</span> (metaphase II). Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Ricinulei: <span class="html-italic">Pseudocellus gertschi</span> (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>) and <span class="html-italic">Cryptocellus narino</span> (<b>B</b>,<b>D</b>), males, patterns of NORs, telomeric repeats (DAPI staining), and meiosis (Giemsa staining). (<b>A</b>) Mitotic metaphase, visualization of NORs (red, FISH). Centromere regions are tiny, DAPI-positive. Long arm of chromosomes of acrocentric pair each terminating by NOR. Note considerable difference in size of NORs on two chromosomes (c–centromere of NOR-bearing chromosome). (<b>B</b>) Metaphase I, visualization of NORs (red, FISH), indicating NOR-bearing bivalent. (<b>C</b>) Mitotic metaphase, visualization of telomeric repeats (red, FISH). (<b>D</b>) Diplotene. Most bivalents contain one chiasma; two chiasmata unambiguous in two bivalents (arrows), and ambiguous in another two bivalents (marked by ?). Arrowhead = NOR-bearing chromosome (<b>A</b>) or bivalent (<b>B</b>). Scale bars = 5 μm (<b>B</b>,<b>D</b>), 10 μm (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Solifugae: Ammotrechidae (<b>A</b>), Eremobatidae (<b>B</b>), Daesiidae (<b>C</b>), Galeodidae (<b>D</b>,<b>E</b>), Rhagodidae (<b>F</b>,<b>G</b>), and Solpugidae (<b>H</b>), karyotypes. Based on mitotic metaphase (Giemsa staining) of female (<b>C</b>,<b>D</b>,<b>H</b>), male (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>,<b>E</b>) or postembryo (<b>F</b>,<b>G</b>). (<b>A</b>) <span class="html-italic">Ammotrechula mulaiki</span>. (<b>B</b>) <span class="html-italic">Eremobates similis</span>. (<b>C</b>) <span class="html-italic">Gluvia dorsalis</span>, C-banding. Acrocentric karyotype; centromere regions formed by prominent block of CH. (<b>D</b>) <span class="html-italic">Paragaleodes pallidus</span>, standard karyotype. Karyotype is metacentric. (<b>E</b>) <span class="html-italic">P. pallidus</span>, C-banded karyotype. Both arms of each pair terminating by large block of CH. Note narrow euchromatic regions which intercalate blocks of CH (arrows). Centromere regions contain small single or double block of CH. (<b>F</b>,<b>G</b>) <span class="html-italic">Rhagodes</span> sp., standard karyotype (<b>F</b>) and C-banded karyotype (<b>G</b>). Most pairs include large block of CH which forms centromere and surrounding regions (metacentric pairs nos 2, 3) or centromere and arm (metacentric pairs nos 1, 4, 5, 7; subtelocentric pairs 6, 8). (<b>H</b>) <span class="html-italic">Solpugista</span> sp., acrocentric karyotype. Scale bars = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Solifugae: Daesiidae (<b>A</b>), Galeodidae (<b>B</b>), Eremobatidae (<b>C</b>), Solpugidae (<b>D</b>), male (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>) and female (<b>B</b>,<b>D</b>) pattern of NORs (red, FISH). Based on mitotic metaphase (DAPI stained, unless otherwise stated). (<b>A</b>) <span class="html-italic">Eberlanzia flava</span> karyotype (Giemsa staining), mostly acrocentric. Morphology of non-acrocentric pairs shown below standard karyotype using DAPI-stained chromosomes from another plate, centromeres DAPI-positive. Third pair terminating by NOR locus. (<b>B</b>) <span class="html-italic">Paragaleodes pallidus</span> karyotype. Two pairs (nos 3, 5) bear NOR locus. Three pairs (nos 1, 4, 6) contain two NOR loci, whereas each of two chromosome arms includes one locus. Each NOR locus embedded into large distal block of DAPI-positive CH. (<b>C</b>) <span class="html-italic">Eremobates similis</span>. One pair bears large terminal NOR locus. (<b>D</b>) <span class="html-italic">Solpugista</span> sp. One small pair bears NOR locus. Note considerable difference in size of NOR on chromosomes. Homologous chromosomes of two long pairs associated (nos 1 and 2 indicated on image). Arrowheads = NORs. Scale bar = 10 μm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Hypothesis of karyotype evolution in order Amblypygi. Tree topology based on recent molecular phylogenies [<a href="#B24-genes-16-00207" class="html-bibr">24</a>,<a href="#B85-genes-16-00207" class="html-bibr">85</a>]. Karyotype data for 24 species in three families (see <a href="#genes-16-00207-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and <a href="#genes-16-00207-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>). Character numbers and states above and below circles, respectively. Black and white circles denote hypothesized unique and non-unique synapomorphies, respectively. Data missing for some species indicated in square brackets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Hypothesis of karyotype evolution in order Schizomida. Tree topology based on recent molecular phylogeny [<a href="#B27-genes-16-00207" class="html-bibr">27</a>] with phylogenetic positions of some species determined based on distributions and phylogenetic affinities, position of <span class="html-italic">Olmecazomus</span> determined based on karyotype data (dashed line), and alternative phylogenetic positions of <span class="html-italic">Stenochrus</span> indicated by dashed and dotted lines. Karyotype data for eleven species representing both families (see <a href="#genes-16-00207-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and <a href="#genes-16-00207-t004" class="html-table">Table 4</a>). Character numbers and states above and below circles, respectively. Black and white circles denote hypothesized unique and non-unique synapomorphies respectively. Data missing for some species indicated in square brackets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Hypothesis of karyotype evolution in order Ricinulei. Tree topology based on recent molecular phylogeny [<a href="#B42-genes-16-00207" class="html-bibr">42</a>]. Karyotype data for three species representing all genera (see <a href="#genes-16-00207-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and <a href="#genes-16-00207-t005" class="html-table">Table 5</a>). Character numbers and states above and below circles, respectively. Black and white circles denote hypothesized unique and non-unique synapomorphies, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Hypothesis of karyotype evolution in order Solifugae. Tree topology based on recent molecular phylogeny [<a href="#B52-genes-16-00207" class="html-bibr">52</a>]. Karyotype data for nine species in six families (see <a href="#genes-16-00207-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> and <a href="#genes-16-00207-t006" class="html-table">Table 6</a>). Character numbers and states above and below circles, respectively. Black and white circles denote hypothesized unique and non-unique synapomorphies, respectively. Data missing for some species indicated in square brackets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24
<p>Hypotheses of karyotype evolution in selected Solifugae. Reconstruction of karyotype evolution based on hypothetical ancestral solifuge karyotype, comprising twelve acrocentric chromosome pairs, which enables most parsimonious derivation of all known solifuge karyotypes. (<b>A</b>–<b>C</b>) Left branch: operation of tandem fusions (arrows) during solifuge evolution; hypothesized formation of karyotypes of <span class="html-italic">Solpugista</span> (2n = 20) (<b>B</b>) and <span class="html-italic">Gluvia</span> (2n = 10) (<b>C</b>) from ancestral solifuge karyotype (<b>A</b>). Karyotype of <span class="html-italic">Solpugista</span> (<b>B</b>) representing an intermediate stage to karyotype of <span class="html-italic">Gluvia</span> (<b>C</b>). (<b>D</b>–<b>F</b>) Right branch: hypothesized formation of <span class="html-italic">Eberlanzia</span> karyotype (2n = 22) (<b>F</b>) from ancestral solifuge karyotype through three pericentric inversions (three arrows) (<b>D</b>), followed by centric fusion (arrow) (<b>E</b>).</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 2947 KiB  
Article
Neem and Gliricidia Plant Leaf Extracts Improve Yield and Quality of Leaf Mustard by Managing Insect Pests’ Abundance Without Harming Beneficial Insects and Some Sensory Attributes
by Rowland Maganizo Kamanga, Salifu Bhikha, Felix Dalitso Kamala, Vincent Mgoli Mwale, Yolice Tembo and Patrick Alois Ndakidemi
Insects 2025, 16(2), 156; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16020156 - 3 Feb 2025
Viewed by 767
Abstract
Production and consumption of vegetable crops has seen a sharp increase in the recent past owing to an increasing recognition of their nutraceutical benefits. In tandem, there has been unwarranted application of agrochemicals such as insecticides to enhance productivity and vegetable quality, at [...] Read more.
Production and consumption of vegetable crops has seen a sharp increase in the recent past owing to an increasing recognition of their nutraceutical benefits. In tandem, there has been unwarranted application of agrochemicals such as insecticides to enhance productivity and vegetable quality, at the cost of human health, and fundamental environmental and ecosystem functions and services. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of neem and gliricidia botanical extracts in managing harmful insect pest populations in leaf mustard. Our results report that neem and gliricidia plant extracts enhance the yield and quality of leaf mustard by reducing the prevalence and feeding activity of harmful insect pests in a manner similar to synthetic insecticides. Some of the key insect pests reduced were Lipaphis erysimi, Pieris oleracea, Phyllotreta Cruciferae, Melanoplus sanguinipes, and Murgantia histrionica. However, compared to synthetic insecticides, neem and gliricidia plant extracts were able to preserve beneficial insects such as the Coccinellidae spp., Trichogramma minutum, Araneae spp., Lepidoptera spp., and Blattodea spp. Furthermore, plant extracts did not significantly alter sensory attributes, especially taste and odor, whereas the visual appearance of leaf mustard was greater in plants sprayed with neem and synthetic insecticides. Physiologically, plant extracts were also able to significantly lower leaf membrane damage as shown through the electrolyte leakage assay. Therefore, these plant extracts represent promising pesticidal plant materials and botanically active substances that can be leveraged to develop environmentally friendly commercial pest management products. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Pest and Vector Management)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Leaf mustard plots with 4 blocks in a randomized complete block design.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Average number of insect pests in treated and untreated plots per scouting week. The values represent weekly means from 4 plots in the 4 blocks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Effect of botanical extracts and synthetic insecticide on biological (<b>A</b>) and economic yield (<b>B</b>) of mustard leaves. The values represent means from 10 biological replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences using the Tukey test at a 0.05 level of significance, whereas similar letters indicate no significant differences at a 0.05 level of significance.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Effect of botanical extracts and synthetic insecticide on economic leaf area of mustard leaves. The values represent means from 10 biological replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences using the Tukey test at a 0.05 level of significance, whereas similar letters indicate no significant differences at a 0.05 level of significance.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Effect of plant botanical extracts and synthetic insecticides on beneficial insect abundance. The values represent means from 4 plots in the 4 blocks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Effect of plant botanical extracts and synthetic insecticides on membrane integrity. The values represent means from 10 biological replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences using the Tukey test at a 0.05 level of significance, whereas similar letters indicate no significant differences at a 0.05 level of significance.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 2666 KiB  
Article
Arthropod Foraging in a Temperate Mountain Hummingbird Ensemble
by Omar Maya-García, Elisa Maya-Elizarrarás, Carlos Lara and Jorge E. Schondube
Birds 2024, 5(4), 774-797; https://doi.org/10.3390/birds5040052 - 2 Dec 2024
Viewed by 894
Abstract
Arthropods are hummingbirds’ principal source of nitrogen, fatty acids, and micronutrients. Despite the nutritional importance of arthropods for hummingbirds, our understanding of the factors influencing their consumption and their relative role as an energy source remains limited. Here, we aimed to describe the [...] Read more.
Arthropods are hummingbirds’ principal source of nitrogen, fatty acids, and micronutrients. Despite the nutritional importance of arthropods for hummingbirds, our understanding of the factors influencing their consumption and their relative role as an energy source remains limited. Here, we aimed to describe the use of arthropods by a hummingbird ensemble in a seasonal temperate mountain ecosystem in West Mexico during one annual cycle. We compared arthropod capture attempt rates among six different humming species. Also, we investigated the impact of seasonal variation in food availability on the arthropod capture attempt rates of the White-eared Hummingbird (Basilinna leucotis), the sole species observed foraging for arthropods in all seasons. We found that hummingbirds ingested arthropods from different orders (Araneae, Hemiptera, Psocoptera, Hymenoptera, and Diptera), with arthropod capture attempt rates varying wildly among species. The arthropod capture attempt rates of the White-eared Hummingbird showed a significant positive correlation with arthropod availability, peaking during the warm-dry season when floral nectar was scarce and arthropod availability was high. Our data show that arthropod ingestion is crucial for some hummingbird species, mainly when nectar availability is limited or absent in the environment. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of our study area. We studied the hummingbird ensemble found around 3000 m a.s.l. in the Nevado de Colima volcano. This mountain is located in the state of Jalisco, Mexico (<b>left panel</b>). We sampled hummingbirds and their food resources in a 2 ha sampling plot (red polygon in the (<b>right panel</b>)). Additionally, we sampled flowers in a 1 km radius circular plot that surrounded our sampling plot by using two complementary approaches: (1) using roads (clear lines) as transects to sample flower abundance, and (2) conducting extensive area searches in three 6 ha areas that surrounded our sampling site (darker gray polygons). We could not search for flowers in several sections of the circular plot due to the complex topography of the landscape.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The relative importance of different arthropod orders in the diet of hummingbirds at our study site during (<b>A</b>) the warm-dry season (May 2016), (<b>B</b>) the rainy season (September 2016), and (<b>C</b>) the cold-dry season (February 2017). Values represent the mean percentage of prey items of each arthropod order ingested by hummingbird species. We excluded birds whose stomachs were empty or contained unidentifiable arthropods. The values at the top of the bars represent the number of analyzed stomachs. Coth = <span class="html-italic">Colibri thalassinus</span> (Mexican Violetear), Bale = <span class="html-italic">Basilinna leucotis</span> (White-eared Hummingbird), Eufu = <span class="html-italic">Eugenes fulgens</span> (Rivoli’s Hummingbird), Laam = <span class="html-italic">Lampornis amethystinus</span> (Amethyst-throated Mountaingem), Sepl = <span class="html-italic">Selasphorus platycercus</span> (Broad-tailed Hummingbird), and Seru = <span class="html-italic">Selasphorus rufus</span> (Rufous Hummingbird).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Percentage of individuals observed for each hummingbird species attempting to capture arthropods, visiting flowers, or performing other behaviors such as perching or hovering during the different seasons of the year. For each hummingbird species, we pooled data on female, male, and unidentified sex individuals. We excluded species with less than four observations. The values at the top of the bars represent the number of observed individuals. Coth = <span class="html-italic">Colibri thalassinus</span> (Mexican Violetear), Bale = <span class="html-italic">Basilinna leucotis</span> (White-eared Hummingbird), Eufu = <span class="html-italic">Eugenes fulgens</span> (Rivoli’s Hummingbird), Sepl = <span class="html-italic">Selasphorus platycercus</span> (Broad-tailed Hummingbird), Seru = <span class="html-italic">Selasphorus rufus</span> (Rufous Hummingbird), and Un = Unknown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Number of arthropod capture attempts per minute (<b>A</b>) and floral visits per minute (<b>B</b>) for each hummingbird species during the three seasons of the year. We show the mean and standard deviation values, except for cases when <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 1. The values at the top of the bars represent the number of observed individuals. Coth = <span class="html-italic">Colibri thalassinus</span> (Mexican Violetear), Bale = <span class="html-italic">Basilinna leucotis</span> (White-eared Hummingbird), Eufu = <span class="html-italic">Eugenes fulgens</span> (Rivoli’s Hummingbird), Laam = <span class="html-italic">Lampornis amethystinus</span> (Amethyst-throated Mountaingem), Sepl = <span class="html-italic">Selasphorus platycercus</span> (Broad-tailed Hummingbird), Seru = <span class="html-italic">Selasphorus rufus</span> (Rufous Hummingbird), Arco = <span class="html-italic">Archilochus colubris</span> (Ruby-throated Hummingbird), and Un = Unknown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Percentage of hummingbird individuals observed attempting to glean arthropods on tree foliage, shrubs, herbs, tree bark, or the soil during the warm-dry, rainy, and cold-dry seasons. The different bands in the columns represent hummingbird species. Numbers inside the color bands represent the number of observed individuals.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relationship between the arthropod capture attempt rate of the White-eared Hummingbird (<span class="html-italic">Basilinna leucotis</span>) and the availability of two key resources: (<b>A</b>) nectar (kJ/ha), and (<b>B</b>) arthropods (standardized dry weight from Malaise traps). Arthropod capture attempt rates were independent of nectar availability (top panel) but showed a positive relationship with arthropod abundance (bottom panel, solid line). Arthropod biomass values represent pooled, standardized measurements from paired Malaise traps for each sampling period. This pattern of increased arthropod capture attempts with higher arthropod availability is consistent with observations in other nectar-feeding birds, such as honeyeaters and sunbirds.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3311 KiB  
Article
Fertilization with Olive Mill Pomace Compost Can Moderate Pest Damage in a Superintensive Olive Grove
by José E. González-Zamora, José M. Gamero-Monge and Rosa Pérez-de la Luz
Agriculture 2024, 14(11), 2005; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112005 - 7 Nov 2024
Viewed by 761
Abstract
Olive cultivation is a key agricultural activity in Spain, primarily for producing oil. The extraction process of olive oil from the drupe yields a by-product known as ‘alperujo’, which can be composted and utilized as fertilizer. This research examines the impact of composted [...] Read more.
Olive cultivation is a key agricultural activity in Spain, primarily for producing oil. The extraction process of olive oil from the drupe yields a by-product known as ‘alperujo’, which can be composted and utilized as fertilizer. This research examines the impact of composted ‘alperujo’ on arthropod assemblages in the tree canopy, comparing it to mineral fertilization over the years 2021 and 2022. The study was conducted in two olive groves with different management systems (superintensive and traditional). Two types of sampling methods were used for the canopy: visual survey and sweep net. Under superintensive management, the presence and damage of Eriophyidae (Acari; Trombidiformes) in the shoots was significantly lower in the compost treatment in 2022 (20% of the shoots were occupied/damaged) compared to the mineral treatment (60% of the shoots were occupied/damaged). Araneae abundance was significantly higher (p = 0.033) in the compost treatment compared to the mineral treatment. However, under traditional management, no clear effect on arthropod assemblage was observed. In conclusion, the addition of compost to the superintensive grove helped to limit the presence of some arthropod pests compared to mineral treatment, contributing to a more sustainable crop. Grove type management appeared to play a significant role in the arthropod assemblages and effect of compost addition, but future research utilizing a greater number of groves (replicates) and an extended observation period should be performed to confirm these results. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Protection, Diseases, Pests and Weeds)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Principal response curves (PRCs) of the most important arthropod taxa and diseases observed visually in the shoots and fruits in the two olive groves (superintensive and traditional) over the two-year study period (2021 and 2022). The <span class="html-italic">p</span>-values indicate the statistical significance of the fertilizing treatment ‘Compost’ (plotted line) in comparison to the fertilizing treatment ‘Mineral’ on all dates, based on an F-type permutation test. The arthropod taxa and diseases are presented on the right vertical axis, with their respective weights, which have been scaled identically to the canonical coefficients on the left vertical axis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Seasonal change in Eriophyidae presence and damage on shoots depending on the fertilizing treatment in the olive groves with two distinct types of management: superintensive in (<b>a</b>) 2021 and (<b>b</b>) 2022 and traditional in (<b>c</b>) 2021 and (<b>d</b>) 2022; each point represents the mean of observations per plot with the standard error (vertical bars).</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>La Hampa farm (outlined in orange) location. The two groves (superintensive and traditional) where the research was carried out are outlined in purple.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Superintensive grove. (<b>a</b>) Location of the plots: C, Compost; M, Mineral; yellow border means deficit irrigation procedure; blue border means full irrigation; red border means rain-fed. Green filling means compost addition, white filling means mineral fertilization. (<b>b</b>) Red crosses represent the pattern of the use of sweep nets in the two central alleys of each plot; visual sampling was performed in the same two central alleys.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Traditional grove. (<b>a</b>) Location of the plots: C, Compost; M, Mineral; red border indicates the plots used in this research. Green filling means compost addition, white filling means mineral fertilization. (<b>b</b>) Red crosses represent the pattern of the use of sweep nets in the central tree and the inner face of the four trees of the central cross of each plot; visual sampling was performed in the same points.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 7114 KiB  
Article
The Diversity of Arachnid Assemblages on the Endemic Tree Zelkova abelicea (Ulmaceae): An Evaluation of Fragmentation and Connectivity in Crete (Greece)
by Dariusz J. Gwiazdowicz, Laurence Fazan, Giulio Gardini, Dany Ghosn, Sławomir Kaczmarek, Alireza Nemati, Ilektra Remoundou, Tomasz Rutkowski, Piotr Skubała, Bogna Zawieja and Gregor Kozlowski
Insects 2024, 15(10), 788; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15100788 - 10 Oct 2024
Viewed by 990
Abstract
Zelkova abelicea is an endemic tree growing only on eight mountain stands on the Greek island of Crete. The aim of this study was to determine the structure of the assemblages and analyze the diversity of the arachnid assemblages living on Zelkova abelicea [...] Read more.
Zelkova abelicea is an endemic tree growing only on eight mountain stands on the Greek island of Crete. The aim of this study was to determine the structure of the assemblages and analyze the diversity of the arachnid assemblages living on Zelkova abelicea, an endemic tree species in Crete. Material for the analyses was collected from tree trunks, oftentimes covered by bryophytes or lichens. In the examined material, 85 taxa were recorded. The most numerous groups represented in the analyzed material were Acari, including representatives of the orders Mesostigmata (78 ind. of 18 spp.) and Oribatida (1056 ind. of 51 spp.). In the order Mesostigmata the species represented by the highest numbers of specimens were Onchodellus karawaiewi (15 individuals) and Hypoaspisella sp. (13), which is probably a species new to science. In turn, representatives of the order Oribatida were much more numerous, with Zygoribatula exilis (284) and Eremaeus tuberosus (210) being identified in the largest numbers. Among the eight sampled localities, Gerakari (646 ind. and 50 spp.) and Omalos (409 ind. and 43 spp., respectively) had by far the richest assemblages. Statistical analyses confirmed the highly diverse character of the arachnid assemblages at the individual sites, which is a consequence not only of the varied numbers of arachnids found, but also of the presence of very rare species, such as Androlaelaps shealsi, Cosmolaelaps lutegiensis or Hoploseius oblongus. These results highlight the high species diversity of the arachnids found on Z. abelicea but also suggest the lack of connectivity between the isolated and fragmented forest stands on Crete. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Other Arthropods and General Topics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Sampled localities (red dots) in Crete (Greece) with <span class="html-italic">Zelkova abelicea</span> trees.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p><span class="html-italic">Zelkova abelicea</span> trees with microhabitats for invertebrates. (<b>A</b>) Large trees (Omalos). (<b>B</b>) Dwarfed trees heavily browsed by goats (Omalos). (<b>C</b>) Bark of large tree covered by species of lichens from genus <span class="html-italic">Parmelina</span> (Gerakari). (<b>D</b>) Bark of large trees (Gerakari). (<b>E</b>) View of <span class="html-italic">Z. abelicea</span> population in Gerakari (Photos: G. Kozlowski).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The range of arachnida specimens (<b>A</b>) and species (<b>B</b>) per study site. The width of the violin plots represents the number of individuals (<b>A</b>) or species (<b>B</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3 Cont.
<p>The range of arachnida specimens (<b>A</b>) and species (<b>B</b>) per study site. The width of the violin plots represents the number of individuals (<b>A</b>) or species (<b>B</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The centroids determined from the NMDS analysis showing the numerical diversity among the samples for each study site for Acari. The center of each centroid is indicated by a lettered square representing the study site (i.e., O: Omalos, N: Niato, I: Impros, G: Gerakari, R: Rouvas, V: Viannou, K: Katharo and T: Thripti).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>A cluster analysis showing the similarity of study sites depending on their Acari communities.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Heatmap showing species frequency.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 21375 KiB  
Article
A New Genus of Prodidominae Cave Spider from a Paleoburrow and Ferruginous Caves in Brazil (Araneae: Prodidomidae)
by Igor Cizauskas, Robson de A. Zampaulo and Antonio D. Brescovit
Taxonomy 2024, 4(3), 574-586; https://doi.org/10.3390/taxonomy4030028 - 5 Aug 2024
Viewed by 1913
Abstract
A new monotypic genus of Prodidominae, Paleotoca gen. n., is proposed to include one cave species collected in a paleoburrow and ferruginous caves from Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Paleotoca diminassp. n. (♂♀). The new genus is closely related to [...] Read more.
A new monotypic genus of Prodidominae, Paleotoca gen. n., is proposed to include one cave species collected in a paleoburrow and ferruginous caves from Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Paleotoca diminassp. n. (♂♀). The new genus is closely related to other Neotropical Prodidominae by sharing the classic claw tuft clasper. Paleotoca gen. n. is diagnosed by the absence of a dorsal abdominal scutum, a ventral parallel rows of strong spines on the tibia and metatarsus I–II, a lack of a conductor, a discrete median apophysis on the bulb and a bifid retrolateral tibial apophysis in the male palp, a posterior extension that is beak-shaped, and folds of a copulatory duct ventrally visible in the female epigyne. Like other Prodidominae species from caves, P. diminassp. n. is a troglobitic spider with morphological characteristics that indicate specialization to live in subterranean environments, including reduction in cuticular pigments, eye loss, heavy spination and trichobothria. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Taxonomy, Systematics and Biogeography of Spiders)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp. n</b>., (<b>A</b>–<b>F</b>) male (IBSP 264705). (<b>A</b>) Habitus, dorsal view; (<b>B</b>) legs I–II, ventral view; (<b>C</b>) sternum, ventral view; left palp (<b>D</b>) prolateral view; (<b>E</b>) ventral view; (<b>F</b>) retrolateral view. Abbreviations: E—embolus; MA—median apophysis; RTA—retrolateral tibial apophysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp</b>. <b>n</b>., (<b>A</b>–<b>F</b>) male (IBSP 264704). (<b>A</b>) Carapace, dorsal view; (<b>B</b>) chellicerae, retromargin; (<b>C</b>) endites, promargin (arrows indicate teeth); (<b>D</b>) anterior lateral spinneret, detail; (<b>E</b>) posterior median spinneret, detail; (<b>F</b>) posterior lateral spinneret, detail. Abbreviations: Cy—cylindrical gland spigot; MaAm—major ampullate gland spigot; MiAm—minos ampullate gland spigot; Pi—piriform gland spigot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp</b>. <b>n</b>., (<b>A</b>–<b>F</b>) male (IBSP 264704). (<b>A</b>) Leg III, detail of claw, retrolateral view; (<b>B</b>) tricobothria, tibia leg III; left palp (<b>C</b>) ventral view; (<b>D</b>) retrolateral view; (<b>E</b>) palpal tibia, retrolateral view (arrows indicate tricobothria); (<b>F</b>) tricobothria, dorsal view. Abbreviations: E—embolus; MA—median apophysis; RTA—retrolateral tibial apophysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp</b>. <b>n</b>., (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>) male (IBSP 264705), left palp (<b>A</b>) ventral view; (<b>B</b>) retrolateral view. Abbreviations: E—embolus; MA—median apophysis; RTA—retrolateral tibial apophysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp. n</b>., (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>) female (IBSP 264705), genitalia (<b>A</b>) epigynum, ventral view; (<b>B</b>) vulva, dorsal view. Abbreviations: A—atrium; FD—fertilization duct; PS—primary spermathecae; CD—copulatory duct; PEx—posterior extension of epigynum.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp</b>. <b>n</b>., (<b>A</b>–<b>D</b>) female (IBSP 264705), (<b>A</b>) habitus, dorsal view; (<b>B</b>) spinnerets, lateral view; (<b>C</b>) genitalia, ventral view; (<b>D</b>) vulva, dorsal view. Abbreviations: ALS—anterior lateral spinnerets; FD—fertilization duct; CD—copulatory duct; PEx—posterior extension of epigynum; PIn—postepigastric invaginations; PLS—posterior lateral spinnerets; PMS—posterior median spinnerets; PS—primary spermathecae.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp. n</b>., (<b>A</b>–<b>F</b>) female (IBSP 264705), (<b>A</b>) carapace, dorsal view; chelicerae, (<b>B</b>) ventral view; (<b>C</b>) detail, retromargim; (<b>D</b>) detail, promargin; (<b>E</b>) endites, promargin (arrow indicates teeth); (<b>F</b>) epigine, ventral view. Abbreviations: A—atrium; PEs—promarginal escort seta, PEx—promarginal rake seta, PRk—promarginal rake seta, PWh—promarginal whisker seta.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp. n</b>., (<b>A</b>–<b>F</b>) female (IBSP 264705) pedipalp, detail of claw, (<b>A</b>) prolateral view; (<b>B</b>) retrolateral view; (<b>C</b>) tricobothria, dorsal view; (<b>D</b>) tarsal organ, dorsal view; (<b>E</b>) leg III, claw, prolateral view; (<b>F</b>) leg I, claw, prolateral view.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p><span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp</b>. <b>n</b>. (male) observed in a paleoburrow (Cave AP-0038).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>A</b>) Atlantic Forest view; (<b>B</b>) rupestrian field view; (<b>C</b>) cave entrance, epigean view; (<b>D</b>) wall with claw marks from ground sloth; (<b>E</b>) entrance area, cave view; (<b>F</b>) cave conduit approximately 90 cm long.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Map showing collection records of <span class="html-italic">Paleotoca diminas</span> <b>sp</b>. <b>n</b>. (Prodidomidae) in caves of Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Minas Gerais, Brazil.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 3875 KiB  
Article
The Effects of Wild Boar Rooting on Epigeic Arthropods in Oak Forests
by Jakub Špoula, Dominik Stočes, Jakub Drimaj and Ondřej Mikulka
Forests 2024, 15(7), 1169; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15071169 - 5 Jul 2024
Viewed by 897
Abstract
The distribution of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) on almost all continents brings with it a number of negative impacts, the intensity of which depend on the local population density. One of these impacts is the rooting of the soil surface as [...] Read more.
The distribution of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) on almost all continents brings with it a number of negative impacts, the intensity of which depend on the local population density. One of these impacts is the rooting of the soil surface as part of their foraging behavior, which represents an ecologically valuable disturbance to the forest ecosystem. In this study, conducted in 2022 and 2023, we placed 50 pitfall traps across 10 plots at 10 model sites to compare epigeic arthropod communities in areas affected by wild boar rooting with those unaffected by rooting activity. Our findings demonstrate the presence or absence of rooting is a highly significant factor in shaping arthropod epigeic community assemblies. Rooted plots predominantly hosted species from the taxons Araneae, Carabidae, Elateridae, and Diplopoda, whereas plots without rooting were significantly associated with the taxons Tenebrionidae, Opiliones, Gryllidae, and Geotrupidae. Diptera, and Staphylinidae were not affected by wild boar rooting activity. Throughout the study, a decreasing trend in species diversity was observed. Wild boar rooting notably impacted the composition of epigeic assemblages. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wildlife in Forest Ecosystems: Game Damage vs. Conservation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study site.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>pCCA analysis: association of arthropods and environmental disturbance across 10 plots, observed from 2022 to 2023. Large filled triangles symbolize the disturbance, small filled triangles represent the arthropods, and filled circles represent plots.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>General impact of rooting on epigeic assemblages between years 2022 and 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>pDCCA analysis: application of the Shannon–Wiener diversity index to epigeic assemblages used to elucidate the directional trends of affected sites over the 2022 to 2023 study period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Sample-size-based rarefaction and extrapolation curve of epigeic assemblages in rooted and unrooted areas using taxa richness.</p>
Full article ">
11 pages, 2836 KiB  
Article
The Potential Implications of Sex-Specific Differences in the Intestinal Bacteria of the Overwintering Wolf Spider Pardosa astrigera (Araneae: Lycosidae)
by Ningkun Li, Quan Yuan, Yaru Qi, Pengfeng Wu, Shuyan Cui and Guo Zheng
Insects 2024, 15(7), 490; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15070490 - 30 Jun 2024
Viewed by 1642
Abstract
Gut microbiota can promote the resistance of host arthropods to low-temperature stress. Female Pardosa astrigera have a lower anti-freeze compound level and weaker resistance to cold temperatures than the males in winter, which implies that their intestinal bacteria may be different during overwintering. [...] Read more.
Gut microbiota can promote the resistance of host arthropods to low-temperature stress. Female Pardosa astrigera have a lower anti-freeze compound level and weaker resistance to cold temperatures than the males in winter, which implies that their intestinal bacteria may be different during overwintering. This study primarily compared the intestinal bacterial communities between the two sexes of P. astrigera in a temperate region using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Our findings indicated that the Chao1 and Shannon indices of intestinal bacteria in females were significantly higher than those in males, while the Simpson index in females was significantly lower than that in males. The male intestinal bacterial community was characterized by Proteobacteria and Actinobacteriota at the phylum level and by Pseudomonas and Rhodococcus at the genus level, with total relative abundances of 89.58% and 85.22%, respectively, which were also significantly higher than those in females, whose total relative abundances were 47.49% and 43.68%, respectively. In contrast, the total relative abundances of Bacteroidota and Firmicutes were significantly lower in males (4.26% and 4.75%, respectively) than in females (26.25% and 22.31%, respectively). Noteworthy divergences in bacterial communities were also found through an LEfSe analysis between females and males. Additionally, the results of the PICRUSt2 analysis showed that six out of eleven level-2 pathways related to key metabolic functions were significantly (or marginally significantly) higher in females than males, and five other level-2 pathways were significantly (or marginally significantly) lower in females than males. Our results imply that significant gender differences exist in intestinal bacterial communities of overwintering P. astrigera. We suggest that Pseudomonas versuta (belonging to Proteobacteria) and Rhodococcus erythropolis (belonging to Actinobacteriota) may have the potential to play key roles in overwintering P. astrigera. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Other Arthropods and General Topics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Venn diagram based on the genera (<b>a</b>) and species (<b>b</b>) of intestinal bacteria from two sexes of <span class="html-italic">Pardosa astrigera</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) for the visualization of intestinal bacterial community dissimilarities between the two sexes of <span class="html-italic">Pardosa astrigera</span> based on OTU data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The intestinal bacterial compositions at the phylum (<b>a</b>) and genus levels (<b>b</b>) of <span class="html-italic">Pardosa astrigera</span>. Taxa with less than 1% membership in the samples of each sex are grouped within “Others”.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The intestinal bacterial compositions and differences at the phylum (<b>a</b>) and genus levels (<b>b</b>) in two sexes of <span class="html-italic">Pardosa astrigera</span>. Red represent the females and blue represent the males. Differences based on the independent <span class="html-italic">t</span>-test and a two-tailed <span class="html-italic">p</span> values less than 0.05 were considered significant (with bootstrap values of 95%). <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 indicates significant difference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Cladogram of bacterial biomarkers in two sexes of <span class="html-italic">Pardosa astrigera</span> based on the LEfSe analysis. (<b>a</b>) Cladogram showing the relationships among taxa (from the inner to outer rings, phylum, class, order, family, and genus). Female-enriched taxa (red dots), male-enriched taxa (blue dots), and taxa enriched closely in two sexes (yellow dots). (<b>b</b>) Bar plot showing the different taxa with an LDA score &gt; 4 and <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of the predicted functions of the intestinal bacteria of <span class="html-italic">Pardosa astrigera</span>. The difference based on an independent sample <span class="html-italic">t</span>-test. <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 indicates significant difference.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 10599 KiB  
Article
Identification and Evolutionary Analysis of the Widely Distributed CAP Superfamily in Spider Venom
by Hongcen Jiang, Yiru Wang, Guoqing Zhang, Anqiang Jia, Zhaoyuan Wei and Yi Wang
Toxins 2024, 16(6), 240; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins16060240 - 24 May 2024
Viewed by 1810
Abstract
Venom plays a crucial role in the defense and predation of venomous animals. Spiders (Araneae) are among the most successful predators and have a fascinating venom composition. Their venom mainly contains disulfide-rich peptides and large proteins. Here, we analyzed spider venom protein families, [...] Read more.
Venom plays a crucial role in the defense and predation of venomous animals. Spiders (Araneae) are among the most successful predators and have a fascinating venom composition. Their venom mainly contains disulfide-rich peptides and large proteins. Here, we analyzed spider venom protein families, utilizing transcriptomic and genomic data, and highlighted their similarities and differences. We show that spiders have specific combinations of toxins for better predation and defense, typically comprising a core toxin expressed alongside several auxiliary toxins. Among them, the CAP superfamily is widely distributed and highly expressed in web-building Araneoidea spiders. Our analysis of evolutionary relationships revealed four subfamilies (subA-subD) of the CAP superfamily that differ in structure and potential functions. CAP proteins are composed of a conserved CAP domain and diverse C-terminal domains. CAP subC shares similar domains with the snake ion channel regulator svCRISP proteins, while CAP subD possesses a sequence similar to that of insect venom allergen 5 (Ag5). Furthermore, we show that gene duplication and selective expression lead to increased expression of CAP subD, making it a core member of the CAP superfamily. This study sheds light on the functional diversity of CAP subfamilies and their evolutionary history, which has important implications for fully understanding the composition of spider venom proteins and the core toxin components of web-building spiders. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Transcriptomic and Proteomic Study on Animal Venom: Looking Forward)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The distribution of venom protein families in Araneae. <b>Left</b>: The evolutionary tree of Araneae, with Araneoidea and RTA clades marked in yellow and blue, respectively. <b>Right</b>: Statistical overview of venom protein families. The presence of color indicates the presence of family, while the absence of color indicates the absence of family. Brown: spider cationic peptides (SCs); green: spider neurotoxins (SNs); cyan: venom proteins (VPs).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Ancestral state reconstruction of the venom expression phenotype. The species abbreviations are detailed in <a href="#toxins-16-00240-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. The pie chart shows the expression proportion of each venom protein family. The different venom protein families are represented by different colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Phylogenetic analysis of the CAP superfamily. Evolutionary tree of CAP superfamily members of 14 spiders, 1 scorpion (Cscu), 1 fungus (Pkud), 1 roundworm (Name), 1 insect (Vvel), and 1 snake (Nnaj). The branches of different subfamilies are represented by different colors. Orange: subA; cyan: subB; green: subC; purple: subD. The branches of the fungi, roundworms, insects, and snakes are marked with dotted lines. The protein ID ranges of Araneoidea are labeled with subfamily colors, and those of non-spider species are labeled with gray. The outer circle from inside to outside shows the length of the amino acid sequence (AA), theoretical pI, instability index, and subcellular localization of each protein.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of CAP domains among four CAP subfamilies. (<b>A</b>) Structural diagram of each subfamily. Signal peptide: green triangle; CAP domain: blue rectangle; Hinge domain: yellow rectangle; ICR domain: purple rectangle. (<b>B</b>) Seq logos of four conserved CAP motifs. The size of each letter corresponds positively to the frequency of occurrence of that specific amino acid type at the given location. (<b>C</b>) Multiple sequence alignment of CAP domains, five proteins of each subfamily are selected. Conserved sites are marked with a Clustal color style. Conserved His sites that bind to bivalent cations are marked with blue triangles. (<b>D</b>) Three-dimensional structure of CAP domains of each spider CAP subfamily.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of spider CAP subD and insect venom allergen 5 (Ag5). (<b>A</b>) Multiple sequence alignment between spider CAP subD and insect Ag5. Ag5 proteins are indicated by orange arrows, and the conserved cysteine residues are marked in red. (<b>B</b>) Three-dimensional structure of the unique C-terminal domain of spider CAP subD members.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of spider CAP subC and snake svCRISP. (<b>A</b>) Multiple sequence alignment between spider CAP subC and snake svCRISP. The svCRISP proteins are indicated by orange arrows, and the conserved cysteine residues are marked in red. The two extra short fragments are marked with blue boxes. (<b>B</b>) Three-dimensional structure of subC CRD domain, with the red arrows pointing to the spatial position of the two extra short fragments. (<b>C</b>) Three-dimensional structure of snake svCRISP CRD domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The copy number, expression, and domain analysis of CAP subfamilies. (<b>A</b>) The copy number of CAP subfamily members per species. The red stars mark spiders with more than 10 copies of CAP subD. The gray and blue background colors represent the outgroup and Araneoidea respectively. (<b>B</b>) The expression ratio of four subfamilies in 7 species. (<b>C</b>) Phylogenetic relationship and domains of CAP subD proteins. The labels highlighted in red are highly expressed CAP genes (tpm &gt; 100).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Chromosome positions and collinearity of CAP genes. (<b>A</b>) CAP gene array of each species on the chromosome; different subfamilies are represented by arrows of different colors (orange: subA; blue: subB; green: subC; purple: subD). (<b>B</b>) The collinear analysis of 6 spiders. CAP genes are highlighted with thin blue lines. The CAP subfamily sites are marked with triangles in the same color as (<b>A</b>).</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 2827 KiB  
Article
Influence of Vineyard Inter-Row Management on Grapevine Leafhoppers and Their Natural Enemies
by Elena Cargnus, Seyedeh Fatemeh Kiaeian Moosavi, Davide Frizzera, Chiara Floreani, Pietro Zandigiacomo, Giovanni Bigot, Davide Mosetti and Francesco Pavan
Insects 2024, 15(5), 355; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15050355 - 14 May 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1075
Abstract
Inter-row management in vineyards can influence the abundance of grapevine pests and their natural enemies. In 2013–2015, in a vineyard in northeastern Italy, the influence of two vineyard inter-row management strategies (i.e., alternate mowing, AM, and periodical tillage, PT) on the population dynamics [...] Read more.
Inter-row management in vineyards can influence the abundance of grapevine pests and their natural enemies. In 2013–2015, in a vineyard in northeastern Italy, the influence of two vineyard inter-row management strategies (i.e., alternate mowing, AM, and periodical tillage, PT) on the population dynamics of grapevine leafhoppers Hebata vitis and Zygina rhamni and their natural enemies, the mymarid Anagrus atomus and spiders (Araneae), and other hymenopteran parasitoids, were studied with different survey approaches. The infestations of both leafhoppers were lower in AM than PT due to the reduced leafhopper oviposition and higher nymph mortality in AM. This occurred although leafhopper egg parasitization by A. atomus was greater in PT than AM according to a density-dependent relationship with the leafhopper egg amount. Hymenopteran parasitoids other than A. atomus were the most abundant in AM, probably due to the higher availability of nectar and pollen than in PM. The significantly higher population densities of hunting spiders in AM than PT can be associated with the higher predation of leafhopper nymphs. Therefore, the study demonstrated that the alternate mowing of vineyard inter-rows enhances the abundance of natural enemies, such as spiders and hymenopteran parasitoids, and can contribute to grapevine leafhopper pest control. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management of Arthropod Pests in Agroecosystems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Experimental design adopted in the study vineyard, planted with two clones (Cl. 297 and Cl. R3) of Sauvignon Blanc, with alternate mowing (AM) and periodical tillage (PT) of inter-rows in comparison. The plots are delimited with the red lines (modified from Google Earth).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Densities of <span class="html-italic">Hebata vitis</span> nymphs (<b>a</b>) and adults (<b>b</b>) recorded from May to August in the three years of study in the alternate mowing and periodical tillage treatments (AM and PT, respectively). The asterisks in the top center of each graph indicate the years in which the total nymphs (<b>a</b>) and adults (<b>b</b>) significantly differed between the treatments (see ANOVA reported in Results). The asterisks in correspondence with each date indicate the significant differences between treatments in that specific sampling. * = significant differences at 0.05 using ANOVA; (*), i.e., asterisk in brackets = difference close to the significance level (<span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.065).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Densities of <span class="html-italic">Zygina rhamni</span> nymphs (<b>a</b>) and adults (<b>b</b>) recorded from May to August in the three years of study in the alternate mowing and periodical tillage treatments (AM and PT, respectively). The asterisks in the top center of each graph indicate the years in which the total nymphs (<b>a</b>) and adults (<b>b</b>) significantly differed between the treatments (see ANOVA reported in Results). The asterisks in correspondence with each date indicate the significant differences between treatments in that specific sampling. * = significant differences at 0.05 using ANOVA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Leafhopper eggs per leaf (total, hatched, and parasitized by <span class="html-italic">Anagrus atomus</span>) counted in the laboratory and percentage of those parasitized (%). (<b>b</b>) Densities of <span class="html-italic">Anagrus atomus</span> recorded on yellow sticky traps from May to August in the three years of study in the alternate mowing and periodical tillage treatments (AM and PT, respectively). In (<b>a</b>), * and ** = significant differences at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, and NS = not significant, using ANOVA. In (<b>b</b>), the asterisks in the top center of each indicate the years in which the total captures significantly differed between the treatments (see ANOVA reported in Results). The asterisks in correspondence with each date indicate the significant differences between treatments in that specific sampling.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Densities of (<b>a</b>) Ichneumonoidea and (<b>b</b>) Chalcidoidea excl. Mymaridae recorded on yellow sticky traps from May to August in the three years of study in the alternate mowing and periodical tillage treatments (AM and PT, respectively). The asterisks in the top center of each graph indicate, for each taxon, the years in which the total captures significantly differed between the treatments (see ANOVA reported in Results).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Densities of spiders, web-builders (<b>a</b>) and hunters (<b>b</b>), recorded by drop cloth method from May to August in the three years of study in the alternate mowing and periodical tillage treatments (AM and PT, respectively). The asterisks in the top center of each graph indicate, for each hunting group, the years in which the total captures significantly differed between the treatments (see ANOVA reported in Results).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Densities of total spiders on yellow sticky traps from May to August in the three years of study in the alternate mowing and periodical tillage treatments (AM and PT, respectively). The asterisk in the top center of the graph indicates that, in 2015, the total captures significantly differed between the treatments (see ANOVA reported in Results).</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 368 KiB  
Review
White Mustard, Sweet Alyssum, and Coriander as Insectary Plants in Agricultural Systems: Impacts on Ecosystem Services and Yield of Crops
by Gedyon Tamiru Mena and Janina Gospodarek
Agriculture 2024, 14(4), 550; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040550 - 30 Mar 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2318 | Correction
Abstract
The main reason for adding plants to accompany the main crop is to protect it from pests and diseases. We reviewed the effectiveness of white mustard (Sinapis alba L.), sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima L.), and coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) in [...] Read more.
The main reason for adding plants to accompany the main crop is to protect it from pests and diseases. We reviewed the effectiveness of white mustard (Sinapis alba L.), sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima L.), and coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) in this regard. White mustard proximity had a strong positive influence on the occurrence of Syrphidae, parasitoids, Coccinellidae, and Carabidae, as well as on the fertility of Syrphidae and the longevity of parasitoids—all of which are essential for biological pest control. It also reduced many pests and diseases. The influence of S. alba on yield depends on the spacing used and the species of protected plant. Sweet alyssum positively affected the occurrence of Syrphidae, Coccinellidae, Anthocoridae, epigeal, and soil fauna, as well as the longevity of parasitoids and Anthocoridae. Its effect on the crop yield is variable, depending on the references consulted. The sensitivity of L. maritima to Phyllotreta spp. excludes it as a companion plant for hosts of these pests. Coriander positively affected the occurrence of Chrysopidae, Coccinellidae, Staphylinidae, and Aranea, as well as the longevity of parasitoids and the egg-laying of Syrphidae. It also reduced some crop pests. Introduction of the reviewed plants can improve the biodiversity of beneficial entomofauna that can help control pests and reduce diseases, with benefits to crop and yield. The use of synthetic insecticides can thus be greatly reduced, though it is not always possible to avoid them completely. Full article
9 pages, 7668 KiB  
Article
On the Identity of Neostenotarsus guianensis (Caporiacco, 1954), with a Redescription of the Holotype Male and the First Records from Guyana (Araneae: Theraphosidae)
by Danniella Sherwood and Ray Gabriel
Arthropoda 2024, 2(1), 76-84; https://doi.org/10.3390/arthropoda2010006 - 1 Mar 2024
Viewed by 1341
Abstract
Herein, we redescribe Neostenotarsus guianensis (Caporiacco, 1954) nearly seven decades after its original description. In the original description of Neostenotarsus scissistylus Tesmoingt & Schmidt, 2002, we found characters incongruent with N. guianensis, namely, the purported presence of serration on the prolateral keels [...] Read more.
Herein, we redescribe Neostenotarsus guianensis (Caporiacco, 1954) nearly seven decades after its original description. In the original description of Neostenotarsus scissistylus Tesmoingt & Schmidt, 2002, we found characters incongruent with N. guianensis, namely, the purported presence of serration on the prolateral keels of the palpal bulb; a narrower apical third of the embolus; the absence of a patch of bristles on the retrolateral face of the palpal tibia and of a baso-retrolateral protuberance on metatarsus I; and a shorter and more apically situated megaspine on the retrolateral branch of the tibial apophyses. The characters from its original description are discussed. N. scissistylus stat. rev. has been revalidated until such time as the type material, or topotypic material, can be examined by future workers. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Holotype male <span class="html-italic">Neostenotarsus guianensis</span> (Caporiacco, 1954) (MNHN AR–4206): (<b>A</b>) habitus of specimen and labels, (<b>B</b>–<b>E</b>) palpal bulb (left hand side), (<b>B</b>) prolateral view, (<b>C</b>) retrolateral view, (<b>D</b>) dorsal view, (<b>E</b>) ventral view, and (<b>F</b>) palpal tibia, lateral view. Scale bars = 1 mm. Arrow denotes palpal tibial apophysis; a patch of bristles is viewable behind the apophysis. Photo credits: R. Gabriel.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Holotype male <span class="html-italic">Neostenotarsus guianensis</span> (Caporiacco, 1954) (MNHN AR–4206), tibia and metatarsus of leg I (left hand side): (<b>A</b>) prolateral view; (<b>B</b>) ventral view; (<b>C</b>) retrolateral view; (<b>D</b>) prolatero-ventral view; (<b>E</b>) position of metatarsus against the tibial apophysis; (<b>F</b>) details of baso-retrolateral metatarsal protuberance, ventral view; (<b>G</b>) dorsal view; (<b>H</b>) retrolateral view. Scale bars = 1 mm. Arrows indicate positions of baso-retrolateral metatarsal protuberances. Photo credits: R. Gabriel.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Non-type males of <span class="html-italic">Neostenotarsus guianensis</span> (Caporiacco, 1954) (BMNH 1939.3.24.46–58): (<b>A</b>) dorso-lateral view of opisthosoma, showing dorsal black colouration and edges of lateral pattern; (<b>B</b>) lateral view of opisthosoma, showing undulating pattern on lateral face. Scale bars = 1 mm. Arrows indicate undulating pattern on opisthosoma. Photo credits: D. Sherwood.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 9733 KiB  
Article
Vegetation Affects the Responses of Canopy Spider Communities to Elevation Gradients on Changbai Mountain, China
by Pengfeng Wu, Lingxu Xiang, Qiang Zhao, Shuyan Cui, Abid Ali, Donghui Wu and Guo Zheng
Insects 2024, 15(3), 154; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15030154 - 24 Feb 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2542
Abstract
Forest canopies, an essential part of forest ecosystems, are among the most highly threatened terrestrial habitats. Mountains provide ideal conditions for studying the variation in community structure with elevations. Spiders are one of the most abundant predators of arthropods in terrestrial ecosystems and [...] Read more.
Forest canopies, an essential part of forest ecosystems, are among the most highly threatened terrestrial habitats. Mountains provide ideal conditions for studying the variation in community structure with elevations. Spiders are one of the most abundant predators of arthropods in terrestrial ecosystems and can have extremely important collective effects on forest ecosystems. How the diversity and composition of canopy spider communities respond to elevation changes in temperate forests remains poorly understood. In this study, we collected canopy spiders from four elevation sites (800 m, 1100 m, 1400 m, and 1700 m) on Changbai Mountain using the fogging method in August 2016. With the methods of ANOVA analysis, transformation-based redundancy analysis, and random forest analysis, we explored the responses of canopy spider communities to elevation. In total, 8826 spiders comprising 81 species were identified and the most abundant families were Thomisidae, Clubionidae, Linyphiidae, and Theridiidae (77.29% of total individuals). Species richness decreased whereas evenness increased with increasing elevation, indicating that elevation has an important impact on community structure. The pattern of absolute abundance was hump shaped with increasing elevation. We found that the community compositions at the three taxonomic levels (species, family, and guild) along the elevation gradient were obviously altered and the variation in community composition was higher at low-elevation sites than at high-elevation sites. There were 19 common species (23.46%) among the four elevations. Regression and RDA results showed that vegetation variables contributed to the variation in the diversity and composition of canopy spiders. Furthermore, the influence of factors would be weakened with the taxonomic level increasing. Therefore, our findings greatly highlight the important role of vegetation in the diversity and composition of canopy spiders and the influence is closely related to the taxonomic level. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Insects in Mountain Ecosystems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Sampling sites on Changbai Mountain, China. (<b>A</b>) Location. (<b>B</b>,<b>C</b>) Fogging process and funnel-like trays. Elevation: Site 1 = 800 m, Site 2 = 1100 m, Site 3 = 1400 m, and Site 4 = 1700 m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Diversity of canopy spiders to elevation changes on Changbai Mountain, China. (<b>A</b>) Species richness (<sup>0</sup><span class="html-italic">D</span>). (<b>B</b>) Exponential Shannon diversity (<sup>1</sup><span class="html-italic">D</span>). (<b>C</b>) Inverse Simpson diversity (<sup>2</sup><span class="html-italic">D</span>). (<b>D</b>) Inverse Berger-Parker (<sup>3</sup><span class="html-italic">D</span>). (<b>E</b>) Pielou evenness index. Error bar means standard error (S.E.). The number of replicates was 4 (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 4). Lowercase letters indicate significant difference for multiple comparisons using LSD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Relative abundance of species ((<b>A</b>), absolute abundance greater than 4%), family ((<b>B</b>), top four families), and guild (<b>C</b>) of canopy spiders to elevation changes on Changbai Mountain, China. Error bar means standard error (S.E.). The number of replicates was 4 (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 4). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences for multiple comparisons using LSD. The tests of species in <a href="#insects-15-00154-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>A were examined using the Kruscal–Wallis test followed by the DUNN test for multiple comparisons.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Variation in the community composition of canopy spiders among elevations on Changbai Mountain, China. (<b>A</b>) Bray–Curtis dissimilarity within the four elevations. (<b>B</b>) NMDS for canopy spider communities based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity. The 95% confidence ellipses around group centroids. The number of replicates was 6 (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 6) in <a href="#insects-15-00154-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>A. The dashed line means three levels of dissimilarity, with the Bray–Curtis distance being 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 in <a href="#insects-15-00154-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>A.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Responses of absolute abundance (<b>A</b>), species richness (<b>B</b>), and exponential Shannon diversity (<b>C</b>) of canopy spiders to vegetation factors and their relative importance on species richness (<b>D</b>) on Changbai Mountain, China. Light blue bars represent significant levels at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and green bars represent significant levels at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05 in <a href="#insects-15-00154-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>D. **, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01; *, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05; ns, no significance.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Habitat factors influencing the community composition of canopy spiders based on RDA on Changbai Mountain, China. (<b>A</b>) Species level. (<b>B</b>) Family level. (<b>C</b>) Guild level. Abbreviations: ELE = elevation, TH = tree height, SH = shrub height, TC = tree coverage, SC = shrub coverage, HC = herb coverage. The 95% confidence ellipses around group centroids. Significant influencing factors derived from permutational tests are shown (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Venn diagram based on the composition of canopy spiders among elevations on Changbai Mountain, China. The different colors represent different elevations, and the different numbers indicate the shared and non-shared species among elevations.</p>
Full article ">
30 pages, 5004 KiB  
Article
The Effects of Vegetation Structure and Timber Harvesting on Ground Beetle (Col.: Carabidae) and Arachnid Communities (Arach.: Araneae, Opiliones) in Short-Rotation Coppices
by Jessika Konrad, Ralph Platen and Michael Glemnitz
Land 2024, 13(2), 145; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13020145 - 26 Jan 2024
Viewed by 1568
Abstract
Landscape complexity is a crucial factor for insect diversity in agricultural landscapes. Short-rotation coppices (SRCs) are characterised by high habitat heterogeneity. The impact of vegetation structure on the composition and diversity of ground beetle and arachnid communities was therefore investigated in four SRCs [...] Read more.
Landscape complexity is a crucial factor for insect diversity in agricultural landscapes. Short-rotation coppices (SRCs) are characterised by high habitat heterogeneity. The impact of vegetation structure on the composition and diversity of ground beetle and arachnid communities was therefore investigated in four SRCs and six reference plots. The study site was located in Hesse, Germany. The invertebrates were surveyed from 2011 to 2014 using pitfall traps, and the vegetation structure was quantified by estimating the percentage cover of 10 structural variables. The impact of the selected structural variables on community composition was analysed during grove growth as well as after a timber harvest. We found correlations between the cover percentages of structural variables and the quantitative and qualitative species composition in both animal groups (p ≤ 0.05). The share of individuals of forest species increased with rising shading and litter cover, while those of open land decreased. The opposite trends were found the year after the timber harvest. The SRCs showed a higher structural diversity compared to the reference biotopes (p ≤ 0.05). This was positively correlated (p ≤ 0.001) with species diversity and the variety of habitat preference groups in both animal groups. The high diversity within the habitat preference groups indicated a functional redundancy among species for both animal groups and, consequently, a high level of resilience within these communities. Little is known about the functional aspects of ground beetles and spiders in ecosystems, and detailed studies are urgently needed. We conclude that SRCs can contribute to the diversification of agricultural landscapes as an alternative to traditional crop cultivation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Land Consolidation and Land Ecology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the Haine study area (square) in the federal state of Hesse. Map of the Federal Republic of Germany with the individual federal states marked at a scale of 1:250,000. Adapted with permission from [<a href="#B43-land-13-00145" class="html-bibr">43</a>], 2011, © GeoBasis-DE/BKG, modified. SH = Schleswig–Holstein, HH = Hamburg, HB = Bremen, NI = Lower Saxony, MV = Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania, BE = Berlin, BB = Brandenburg, ST = Saxony–Anhalt, NW = North Rhine–Westphalia, SN = Saxony, TH = Thuringia, RP = Rhineland–Palatinate, SL = Saarland, BY = Bavaria, and BW = Baden–Württemberg.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Location of the study plots and position of the pitfall traps (one trap point represents five pitfall traps in a linear transect). FIE = arable field, FAL = fallow, HEA = headland, MEA = meadow, GRO = grove, SRC1–SRC4 = short-rotation coppices, and FOR = forest.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Mean percentage cover of selected structural variables (CovStructVar), calculated from 10 survey squares per study plot and year for the period 2011 to 2014. The year after the timber harvest in the SRCs is framed in black. FIE = arable field, FAL = fallow, GRO = grove, SRC1–SRC4 = short-rotation coppices, HEA = headland, FOR = forest, and MEA = meadow. The total degree of cover of the structural variables in the wooded plots SRC1–SRC4, GRO, and FOR may be &gt;100%, as the shade was added to the cover of the other structural variables.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Shannon exponential index for vegetation structure diversity (StructDiv) in the individual study years and plots. FIE = arable field, FAL = fallow, HEA = headland, MEA = meadow, GRO = grove, SRC1–SRC4 = short-rotation coppices, and FOR = forest. Circles indicate outliers between 1.5 and 3.0 interquartile range (IQR); asterisks are &gt;3.0 IQR.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Number of ground beetle species with different habitat preferences in the individual study years and plots. FIE = arable field, FAL = fallow, HEA = headland, MEA = meadow, GRO = grove, SRC1–SRC4 = short-rotation coppices, FOR = forest. Circles indicate outliers between 1.5 and 3.0 interquartile range (IQR); asterisks are &gt;3.0 IQR.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Shannon exponential indices of species diversity (SpecDiv) for ground beetles (<b>a</b>) and arachnids (<b>b</b>). Median for the whole study period 2011–2014. SRC1–SRC4 = short-rotation coppices (brown), HEA = headland, FIE = arable field, FAL = fallow, MEA = meadow, GRO = grove, and FOR = forest (grey). Circles indicate outliers between 1.5 and 3.0 interquartile range (IQR).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Shannon exponential indices of habitat preference diversity (HPDiv) for ground beetles (<b>a</b>) and arachnids (<b>b</b>). Median for the study period 2011–2014. SRC1–SRC4 = short-rotation coppices (brown), HEA = headland, FIE = arable field, FAL = fallow, MEA = meadow, GRO = grove, and FAL = forest (grey). Circles indicate outliers between 1.5 and 3.0 interquartile range (IQR); asterisks are &gt;3.0 IQR.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Ordination diagrams (1st and 2nd ordination axis) of ground beetles based on redundancy analyses (RDAs). Shown are the communities represented by plot symbols (annual sums of individuals from five pitfall traps per plot) in the plots SRC1–SRC4 per year of growth (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) as well as the reference biotopes examined in the same period in relation to five structural variables. The plot points were colour-coded and labelled with the corresponding colour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Ordination diagrams (1st and 2nd ordination axis) of arachnids based on redundancy analyses (RDAs). Shown are the communities represented by plot symbols (annual sums of individuals from five pitfall traps per plot) in the plots SRC1–SRC4 per year of growth (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) as well as the reference biotopes examined in the same period in relation to five structural variables. The plot points were colour-coded and labelled with the corresponding colour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Shade cover in the plots SRC1 (<b>a</b>) and SRC3 (<b>d</b>) and percentage of individuals of general forest species (FOR) of the ground beetle (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>) and arachnid (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) communities for the study years 2011–2014. Circles indicate outliers between 1.5 and 3.0 interquartile range (IQR); asterisks &gt;3 IQR. Statistically significant differences between the years can be seen in <a href="#app1-land-13-00145" class="html-app">Tables S22 and S23</a>. The vertical bars indicate timber harvest.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Percentage of individuals of arable (FIE) (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and grassland species (GRL) (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) of the arachnid and ground beetle communities in the plots SRC1–SRC4 for the study years 2011–2014. Circles indicate outliers between 1.5 and 3.0 interquartile range (IQR); asterisks &gt;3 IQR. Statistically significant differences between the years can be seen in <a href="#app1-land-13-00145" class="html-app">Tables S22 and S23</a>. The vertical bars indicate timber harvest.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Percentage of individuals of stenotopic (green) and eurytopic (brown) forest species for the arachnids in the plots (<b>a</b>) SRC1, (<b>b</b>) SRC2, (<b>c</b>) SRC3, and (<b>d</b>) SRC4. The individuals of the stenotopic (steno) forest species include moist forest (MFO), low mountain forest (LMF), wet forest (WFO), and acidophilous forest (AFO) species, and those of the eurytopic (eury) forest species were preliminary forest species (PFO) and forest species not bound to a specific forest type (FOR) and were totalled for five traps per study year. The time of timber harvesting is indicated by a vertical black line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Relation between the degree of shading and the percentage of individuals of xerophilic (x) arachnid species (<b>a</b>) and grassland species (GRL) of ground beetles (<b>b</b>). Linear simple regression for the plots SRC1–SRC4 in the study years 2011–2014 on the basis of sums of individuals from five traps per plot and year (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 80).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Relation between the percentage of individuals of arachnid species with the ecological type ‘slightly hygrophilic forests’ ((h)f) and the degree of shade cover (<b>a</b>) and the degree of litter cover (<b>b</b>). Linear simple regression for the plots SRC1–SRC4 in the study years 2011–2014 on the basis of sums of individuals from five traps per plot and year (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 80).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Relation between the Shannon indices of vegetation structure diversity and the Shannon indices of species and habitat preference diversity of ground beetles (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and arachnids (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) in SRC1 to SRC4 for the study years 2011–2014. Linear regression based on the diversity values per plot and year (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 40).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15 Cont.
<p>Relation between the Shannon indices of vegetation structure diversity and the Shannon indices of species and habitat preference diversity of ground beetles (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and arachnids (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) in SRC1 to SRC4 for the study years 2011–2014. Linear regression based on the diversity values per plot and year (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 40).</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop