Next Article in Journal
Improving Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Juvenile Performance and Intestinal Condition Through Lactic Acid Bacteria Feed Fermentation
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Key Genes Associated with Feed Utilization Efficiency in Penaeus vannamei Fed a Plant-Based Diet Using WGCNA
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/ani16101481
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparing Spider Sampling Methods in a Eucalypt Forest in Wet and Dry Conditions

by
Rachael Harris
*,
Robert Raven
,
Andrew Maxwell
and
Peter J. Murray
School of Science, Engineering & Digital Technologies, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba 4350, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2026, 16(10), 1481; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16101481
Submission received: 30 March 2026 / Revised: 29 April 2026 / Accepted: 11 May 2026 / Published: 12 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Wildlife)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Spiders have an important role as a generalist predator and prey in many ecosystems and are commonly used in environmental monitoring studies due to their sensitivity to subtle environmental changes including rainfall. This study examined how wet and dry conditions affect spider communities in the same location, in open forest, using the following three spider collection methods: nocturnal hand collection, pitfall traps, and ground vibration-based method. More spider species were collected during dry than wet conditions, although the most abundant common species remained consistent. Changes in the spider community were mostly due to rare species rather than changes in spider families. For the vibration-based method, a third of the spider species collected were found in both wet and dry conditions; however, two-thirds of the spider families collected were found in both wet and dry conditions, indicating rainfall affects species-level differences for spider populations. The abundance of spiders was greater in dry conditions and their response to vibration-based spider collection method differed depending on rainfall. These findings indicate that changes in environmental conditions such as rainfall may influence spider species populations and community compositions.

Abstract

Environmental variability, such as fluctuations in rainfall, can strongly influence spider population dynamics and assemblage composition. The study examined whether rainfall in the preceding three months, i.e., wet or dry conditions, using three different methods in the same sites within a eucalyptus forest, influenced the overall species and abundance of spiders captured and thus how wet or dry conditions influenced the overall spider assemblage and community structure. In south-east Queensland, Australia, rainfall is highly variable throughout the year and does not conform to distinct wet or dry seasons; therefore, “wet” and “dry” classifications in this study refer specifically to preceding rainfall conditions rather than seasonal categories. Sampling was conducted during dry conditions (75 mL of rain in the three months preceding collection) and during wet conditions (300 mL of rain in the three months preceding collection) to assess overall differences in spider richness, diversity and assemblage composition between wet and dry conditions by combining data from the three sampling methods. Species richness was significantly higher in dry conditions compared to the wet conditions. Diversity indices indicated that the more common spider species remained consistent between wet and dry conditions. Ordination analyses revealed changes between wet and dry conditions, primarily driven by fluctuations with less common spider species, rather than community changes at the family level. For vibration-based collections of spiders, only 30.5% of species overlapped between wet and dry conditions, whereas family-level overlap was 75%, indicating rainfall-driven changes occurred primarily at the species level rather than at the family level. Spider abundance was consistently higher under dry conditions across all methods. In vibration-based collections, 90% of species was collected within 60 min. However, using this method, species appeared more slowly under wet conditions, suggesting that rainfall may influence spider responses to vibrational stimuli. Survey method strongly influenced species richness with night hand collection of spiders resulting in the greatest number of species observed. Spider species richness and diversity collected using the vibration-based method were similar in wet and dry conditions and between sites. This supports the reliability of this method for sampling spiders that respond to vibrations and should be used complementarily with other survey methods.

1. Introduction

Spiders are among the most common, diverse, and abundant generalist predators in terrestrial ecosystems, playing critical roles in maintaining ecological balance [1,2,3]. Spider species vary in diel activity, occupy a range of vegetative strata, and differ widely in mobility [4,5,6]. As spiders are highly sensitive to any change in habitat structure, disturbance, and environmental conditions such as vegetation complexity, litter depth or microclimate characteristics (temperature, moisture, wind and light), they are often widely used as bioindicators of ecosystem health [3,6,7]. Alterations to spider assemblages can serve as an indicator of an ecological impact occurring at lower trophic levels [3,8]. However, spiders can be challenging to sample due to their diverse behaviours and use of microhabitats. Accurately characterising spider assemblages and community composition is essential for ecological research and conservation, as different survey methods often yield different estimates of species richness, abundance or the representation of functional guilds [5,6,9,10]. For many spider species, rainfall strongly influences activity patterns, population abundance, and prey availability [8]. However, increases in spider abundance may not occur immediately following rainfall events. As spider populations depend on many factors that influence prey availability and spider reproductive maturity, there is often a temporal lag between rainfall events, increases in vegetation productivity, increases in prey populations, and resulting increases in overall spider populations [8,11,12]. As no single survey method captures this diversity of spiders, methodological comparisons are vital to understanding biases and improving community assessments [13,14,15,16]. As spiders are crucial to ecosystems, it is important to understand how rainfall affects the ability of different survey methods to estimate spider diversity and abundance.
Traditional survey methods such as hand collection and pitfall trapping remain widely used when surveying spiders [16,17,18]. Nocturnal hand collection is effective for detecting visually active hunters but is strongly dependent on observer effort and the detectability of individual spiders [16,17,19,20]. In contrast, pitfall traps provide an efficient way of capturing mobile and ground-dwelling taxa but tend to under-sample less active or arboreal spider species [9,18,21,22,23]. Recently, vibration-based sampling was developed as a novel approach to surveying spiders, targeting spider species that may not be captured with the other two more conventional methods [6]. However, the consistency and repeatability of vibration-based sampling relative to the two traditional methods remain untested.
Environmental variability can influence ecological communities and the outcomes of biodiversity surveys to assess those communities [8,24]. Among climatic factors, rainfall is an important factor and affects various ecological processes in terrestrial ecosystems [8,25]. For spiders, rainfall affects abundance, activity, and detectability by altering prey availability, predator activity, vegetation growth, soil moisture and microclimatic conditions [26,27,28]. Invertebrate populations, the primary food source for many spiders, often fluctuate in response to climatic conditions [28]. Wet conditions typically promote plant growth and increased vegetation cover, which in turn provide more structural complexity (e.g., leaf litter, foliage) and more foraging and breeding sites for insects [8,27,29]. In turn, spiders can benefit from higher prey availability, resulting in a greater abundance and species richness during wet conditions [28,30]. Conversely, dry conditions can lead to reductions in vegetation cover resulting in simpler habitats that may not support the same diversity of spiders, and a reduction in insect populations leading to a decrease in food availability for spiders [8,28,30,31]. Variation in prey abundance or availability can directly influence spider behaviour, reproductive success and survival rates [29,32]. Additionally, other factors such as humidity and temperature, influenced by rainfall, can affect spider activity levels [33,34]. Spiders’ responses to prolonged rainfall can provide insights into the broader ecological impacts of climatic fluctuations [29]. Comparing the outcomes of spider surveys in the same sites conducted after prolonged dry and wet conditions provides an opportunity to assess how rainfall interacts with sampling methods and spider communities. These comparisons can reveal how environmental factors can influence the detectability and representation of spider species using different survey methods.
While traditional survey methods such as hand collection and pitfall trapping have been well-studied and documented in all different climates and conditions, there has been no assessment of vibration-based surveying, in relation to its repeatability and reliability in dry and wet environmental conditions [6,16,17,18]. Vibration-based collection relies on the transmission of soil substrate-borne vibration, which can be influenced by substrate composition and its moisture content. If vibration propagation characteristics affect spider responsiveness to the stimuli, environmental conditions such as rainfall may alter the effectiveness of vibration-based collections. To address this gap, this study compares three survey methods—pitfall trapping, nocturnal hand collection, and the vibration-based method, conducted in dry and wet conditions in the same sites within open forest. Thus, the aims are to (1) compare spider species richness and diversity determined using the three methods, (2) compare whether comparatively wet and dry conditions influence spider abundance and richness using these three sampling methods between the two survey rounds, (3) evaluate species accumulation patterns during vibration sampling at 10 min intervals and (4) assess the reliability of the vibration-based method as a complementary tool for spider surveys. Understanding the effects of prolonged rainfall on spider assemblages is important for successful management of biodiversity and conservation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted within the Karrawatha–Flinders Corridor, at Stewartdale, a 1200 ha property located 46 km south-west of Brisbane, in Queensland, Australia. The Karrawatha–Flinders Corridor spans 60 km of open eucalypt forest, and Stewartdale is adjacent to the White Rock Conservation Area in White Rock, Queensland, Australia. The study sites within open forest at Stewartdale is dominated by ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), grey gum (E. punctata), and blackbutt (E. pilularis) [35]. Stewartdale contains both regrowth and remnant dry sclerophyll forest, while open areas were primarily covered by the grass species Setaria sphacelate and Chloris gayana [35].

2.2. Sampling Methods

There were two rounds of spider surveys that occurred across 14 months. The first round of surveying for spiders using pitfall traps and night collection was conducted in spring from 2 September to 1 October 2020 and the second round occurred in summer from 13 January to 25 February 2021 [6]. The first round using the vibration-based spider collection method was conducted in spring on 15–16 October 2020 and the second round occurred in spring on 4–5 November 2021. There were delays in the second round of collection due to COVID-19 lockdowns, seasonality and availability of access to the Stewartdale property. In the three months prior to the first round of spider collections (June, July and August 2020), there was a total of 75.2 mm of rain, whilst for the three months prior to the second round (November, December 2020 and January 2021) there was a total of 300.2 mm of rainfall [36,37]. The total rainfall during the first round was 5.4 mm and during the second round it was 99 mm [36,37]. The total rainfall for the three months prior to using the vibration-based spider collection method in November (August, September, and October 2021) was 194.8 mm [37]. The mean minimum to mean maximum monthly temperatures for September in 2020 were 10.3 °C to 27.5 °C and in October 13.0 °C to 29.7 °C for the first round of spider collections [38,39]. The mean monthly temperatures for January were 19.2 °C to 30.4 °C, 19.2 °C to 31.5 °C in February and in November 17.2 °C to 27.8 °C for the second round of spider collections [40,41,42].
In open dry sclerophyll woodland, four vegetatively similar 30 × 30 m (900 m2) sites were marked with white reflective tape at each corner. These four sites had an adjacent 30 × 30 m area and were labelled site A and site B (Figure 1). Site A was used for a combination of the night hand collection of spiders, pitfall traps and vibration-based spider collection method (Figure 1). Site B was used for the vibration-based spider collection method to test if the vibration-based spider collection method was impacted by the night collection of spiders and pitfall trapping. Each of these four sites were labelled DR1, DR2, RL, and RH. An ethical exemption to collect spiders was approved by the University of Southern Queensland Animal Ethics Committee (exemption ID 20EXE004).

2.3. Nocturnal Hand Collection

The night collection was conducted within the bounds of the 900 m2 site for one hour once a fortnight for three consecutive fortnights for each round of spider collections. The nocturnal hand collection at each site was split into two 30 min intervals whereby two people collected spiders found above 0.5 m while another person focused on collecting spiders from vegetation below knee height and within the leaf litter on the ground. After 30 min, the roles were exchanged and the collection of spiders continued for another 30 min. At each of the four sites spiders were collected into 50 mL yellow screw cap labelled specimen containers containing 70% ethanol. This procedure was followed in rounds 1 and 2.

2.4. Pitfall Trap Collection

At each of the four sites, six plastic pitfall traps (600 mL, 6 cm diameter) containing 100 mL of propylene glycol were installed outside the 900 m2 site (Figure 1). The traps were positioned 5 m apart in two parallel rows beginning at the back corner of each site. Each pitfall trap had a shelter placed above it to prevent entry or minimise disruption to the pitfall trap by rain, reptiles, amphibians, or small mammals. These shelters were made from a face-down plastic plate with three wooden skewers placed evenly apart around the perimeter of the plate. The spiders captured in the pitfall traps were collected every fortnight on the day of the nocturnal spider collections, with a total of 1008 trap nights for each round. Each pitfall trap was emptied into another 600 mL container, and the pitfall trap was reset with the lid and shelter both back in place.

2.5. Vibration-Based Collection

The vibration-based spider collection method used a John Deere tractor (model 6520SE idling at 750–800 rpm, Deere and Company, Moline, IL, USA) as the vibration source at each of the four sites after the pitfall trapping and the nocturnal hand collections were completed. Vegetation was cleared in an area large enough to include the tractor with a 1 m bare strip around the tractor to ensure visibility of any spiders attracted to the vibration. Between midday and dusk, the tractor was parked in the cleared area with the engine left to idle and spiders were collected for 60 min (as six 10 min collections) at each collection site. Three people were stationed at the front, middle and rear of the right side of the tractor for collections. Spiders were only captured if they were moving towards the tractor in the cleared space. Spiders were collected in a 50 mL yellow screw cap container containing 70% ethanol. This was repeated for each of the four sites for rounds 1 and 2.

2.6. Identification

The contents of each collection container containing spiders were poured into a 100 mm Petri dish with 70% ethanol, the Petri dish was then placed under a Nikon dissection microscope (Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and spiders were identified using 10× magnification. Whether the spider was male, female, or too juvenile to determine, its gender was recorded. Photographs were taken of the dorsal and ventral sides of each spider for later reference. For the pitfall trap spider collection, spiders were kept in separate containers for each site and labelled accordingly. These processes were repeated for each site and for rounds 1 and 2. Spiders of all instars were identified and checked by Dr Robert Raven, who has over 40 years of experience as a professional arachnologist. Young spiders of different ages were linked by a sequence from very young to adult. A placeholder name was used for species that could not be identified at that time in the format of the first three letters of the genus followed by a number that represented individual species, e.g., Habronestes sp. 1 was written as Habronestes hab1. This designation does not denote or suggest a new species unknown to science.

2.7. Statistical Analyses

The data were analysed using a two-way ANOVA with model terms for the site, the condition (wet or dry), and the survey methods to determine the Shannon’s diversity index, Simpsons diversity index and species richness. This was completed using R (version 4.0.5), with the R packages “readxl”, “ggplot”, “emmeans”, “multcomp”, “vegan”, and “tidyverse”. The analyses compared the following three survey methods: night collection, pitfall traps, and vibration-based spider collection conducted at site A for both wet and dry conditions (Table 1). Vibration sites A and B were also compared in both wet and dry conditions (Table 2). Significance was expressed in different superscript groupings (“a”, “b” and/or “c”) with a pooled SEM and confidence level under each Table.

3. Results

The total number of spiders collected at Stewartdale (N = 4383) across the two rounds, i.e., collection periods, were identified into a total of 35 families, 151 genera, and 268 species (the complete list of spider species is given in Appendix A). A total of 2413 spiders were captured in night collection, 539 spiders in pitfall traps, and 1431 spiders were captured in the vibration-based method. Spider species richness differed significantly between wet and dry conditions (F1,15 = 11.144, p = 0.0045). In contrast, spider species diversity did not differ between wet and dry conditions when measured using the Shannon’s diversity index (F1,24 = 2.45, p = 0.13), and the Simpsons index (F1,21 = 0.28, p = 0.60) (Table 1).
The data from the two vibration-based collection sites at each location were analysed to assess the species richness and diversity (using Shannon’s diversity index and Simpsons diversity index) between wet and dry conditions. Species diversity did not differ between wet and dry conditions when measured using Shannon’s diversity index (F1,13 = 0.07, p = 0.80) or Simpsons diversity index (F1,13 = 0.001, p = 0.997). Similarly, the species richness did not differ between wet and dry conditions (F1,13 = 015, p = 0.70) or between collection sites A and B (F1,13 = 1.77, p = 0.21) for the vibration-based collection method (Table 2).
Combining data from sites A and B, for the vibration-based spider collection method, confirmed that the spider species composition varied between wet and dry conditions, with more unique spider species collected using this method in dry than wet conditions. Furthermore, only 30.5% of the spider species captured using the vibration-based spider collection method were captured in both wet and dry conditions. In contrast, the number of unique families found was higher in wet conditions than in dry conditions, with 65.3% of families captured in both wet and dry conditions. Spider family composition showed six families unique to wet conditions, with all families recorded in dry conditions also present in wet. In contrast, species-level patterns differed with 10 additional unique species recorded under dry conditions compared to wet conditions (Figure 2).
Night collection samples form a distinct cluster on the right, while pitfall trap and vibration-based method samples are more dispersed and partially overlap. There was some similarity of spider family assemblages between wet and dry conditions for the three spider collection methods (Figure 3).
Spider abundance varied by site and time with RHA’s consistently higher abundances, particularly under dry conditions, while DR1A and DR2A remained relatively low across all time collection periods. Differences between wet and dry conditions were site-dependent, with dry conditions generally higher at the start of the time collection period, and with wet conditions having a higher abundance towards the end of the time collection period (Figure 4).
Spider abundance varied by site and time, with RHB showing a strong peak under dry conditions within the first 10 min of collection, while wet conditions were generally higher towards the end of the time collection period. DR1B and DR2B remained relatively low, whereas RLB showed a clear increase in abundance under wet conditions over time, particularly at 50–60 min (Figure 5).
Night collection had the highest species richness in both wet and dry conditions, with a very similar species richness in pitfall traps and vibration-based collection for both wet and dry conditions (Figure 6).
Spider abundance varied by site and time, with a general trend across sites of a higher spider abundance for wet conditions at the start of the collection period and lower at the end, and conversely, lower spider abundance for dry conditions at the start of the collection period and higher at the end (Figure 7).
In dry conditions, there was a greater species richness than in wet conditions (Figure 8). In wet and dry conditions, species richness had not reached a plateau by the 60 min collection period (Figure 8).
In dry conditions there was a greater species richness than in wet conditions. In dry conditions there was a steady increase in spider species richness across the six weeks with no clear plateau, while wet conditions slowed after four weeks, starting to plateau from week 6 (Figure 9).

4. Discussion

This study examined how rainfall in the months preceding collection creating either a comparatively wet condition or dry condition, using a vibration-based collection method, night hand collection of spiders and pitfall traps, influences overall spider assemblage and community composition. Species richness was significantly higher in dry conditions compared to wet conditions. The Shannon’s species diversity index was significantly different between wet and dry conditions for night collection and pitfall traps, but not for the vibration-based method; however, the Simpsons species diversity index was not significantly different between wet and dry conditions across all three methods (Table 1). This indicates that changes in species richness were driven mainly by rare species/singletons while the dominant taxa remained relatively consistent. Rainfall influences vegetation structure, microclimatic conditions and prey availability, all of which may selectively affect less abundant species with a narrow ecological niche [8,27]. Conversely, our findings also indicate a degree of resilience in the core spider assemblage relative to short-term environmental variability, consistent with previous Australian studies [8,30].
Spider community composition varied between wet and dry conditions. Ordination analyses revealed separation of assemblages between wet and dry conditions (Figure 3). While there was some overlap between wet and dry conditions, wet conditions tended to cluster slightly apart from the collections of spiders in dry conditions, indicating temporal variation in species composition. In contrast, sampling method showed substantial overlap within the ordination space, with no clear separation between methods suggesting strong site-level family composition. Species overlap analyses indicated species turnover within vibration-based collections (Figure 2). Only 30.5% of species were recorded in both wet and dry conditions using the vibration-based method, whereas the family composition remained comparatively stable with 75% overlap between conditions. No spider families were exclusive to dry conditions, with six families exclusively found in wet conditions (Figure 2). This suggests that rainfall in the months preceding collection may influence the species level rather than the family level, reflecting shifts in species-specific activity patterns. Spiller and Schoener [26] and Langlands, Brennan and Pearson [8] had comparable patterns of seasonal turnover, where the amount of rainfall has altered species presence without changing the overall community structure.
Spider species richness and diversity estimates differed among survey methods. Nocturnal hand collection of spiders consistently resulted in the highest species richness in both wet and dry conditions, possibly due to the presence of known visually active foliage-dwelling spiders and increased sampling time and effort [6,17]. In contrast spiders collected in pitfall traps and by the vibration-based collection method had lower species richness but comparable species diversity indices, suggesting these methods sample a narrower section of this spider community (Table 1). Pitfall traps have biases towards capturing mobile, ground-active spider species whilst underestimating arboreal or less-active taxa, particularly under varying environmental conditions [18,22]. Vibration-based collection of spiders also has a bias towards species that are behaviourally reactive to the vibration [6]. However, across all methods, spider species richness was higher in dry than in wet conditions (Figure 6). Although prolonged wet conditions can increase prey availability and vegetation structural complexity (leaf litter or foliage) which can in turn be beneficial for spider abundance, wet periods can also increase shelter availability and reduce the need for spiders to move with lower foraging activity due to factors such as wind, saturation and humidity [8,27,29]. Conversely, dry conditions can also promote reduced shelter availability, increase foraging movement, and increase ground surface activity which in turn can increase the probability of capturing spiders [8,28,30,31]. Whilst there were significant species-level differences between collection methods, there was considerable overlap between methods at the spider family level (Figure 3).
The vibration-based spider collection method demonstrated consistency between wet and dry conditions and between sampling sites (Table 2). Species richness and diversity of spiders did not differ significantly between wet and dry conditions, nor between sites A and B, indicating the method is relatively robust to relatively short-term environmental variability. This suggests that vibration-based collections of spiders provide repeatable estimates of spider diversity for the species responsive to vibrational stimuli supporting its reliability as a complementary survey method.
During the 60 min collection of spiders at the vibration-based spider collection sites A and B, spider abundance was higher at sites RL and RH than at sites DR1 and DR2 (Figure 4 and Figure 5). This may have been influenced by site topography as RL and RH spider collection locations were located at the base of a slope, whereas DR1 and DR2 spider collection locations were situated on slope crests. Slope position may affect spider movement or energetic costs associated with responding to vibrational stimuli potentially influencing the likelihood of individuals reaching the vibration source. Although further research is required to confirm this mechanism, this observed pattern suggests that small-scale habitat features may influence spider responsiveness during vibration-based spider surveys. Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 7 demonstrate that even visually similar open forest sites can differ in spider richness and abundance. These results indicate that fine-scale environmental factors, such as slope, may influence spiders’ community composition. As a result, studies conducted on a single site may underestimate the diversity and abundance of spiders in that location. Comparatively, spider abundance was higher in wet conditions in week 2 and declined over the following four weeks, whereas abundance in dry conditions increased from week 2 and peaked in week 6 (Figure 7). This pattern suggests that wet/dry conditions influence spider activity over time, potentially affecting movement behaviour and capture rates in pitfall traps.
The spider species accumulation curves for dry conditions indicated that the vibration-responsive species were detected early in the sampling period in the first 20 min of sampling (Figure 8). This was followed by a progressively slower rate of accumulation between 20 and 40 min. By 60 min, the curve has begun to plateau with only a small increase (five new species) in the last 10 min of sampling, indicating even less accumulation past the 60 min mark. Approximately 90% of species observed were collected within 50 min of sampling (Figure 8). In contrast, the wet condition spider species accumulation curve increased rapidly in the first 20 min of sampling, increased by three additional species between 30 and 40 min, and then had 12 new species in the last 10 min sampling period between 50 and 60 min, suggesting sampling had not yet reached a plateau (Figure 8). This could suggest a delayed response by spiders to vibrational stimuli in wet conditions. The propagation speed of vibration waves across soil are highly dependent on substrate properties and moisture levels. For example, Aicher and Tautz [43] demonstrated that surface waves from vibration travelled faster in wet sand than in dry sand. Furthermore, a study by Wu et al. [44] indicated that spiders may not respond to vibration waves exceeding approximately 60 m s−1, whereas responses were observed when vibration wave speeds were below 60 m s−1 within frequencies between 20 and 200 Hz. This is thought to be because the wave length at lower speeds is more comparable to the size of the spider facilitating mechanoreception detection [44]. Variation in substrate moisture between wet and dry conditions may therefore influence vibrational transmission properties, potentially altering spider responsiveness to the vibrations from the tractor contributing to a delayed accumulation of spider species during surveys in wet conditions.
Pitfall trap spider species accumulation curves showed continued increases in species richness over time in both dry and wet conditions (Figure 9). In dry conditions, spider species richness increased steadily, across the six weeks with no clear plateau. In contrast, spider species accumulation in wet conditions slowed after four weeks, potentially indicating less accumulation beyond 6 weeks of sampling. Differences in accumulation patterns of wet and dry conditions may reflect conditional differences in activity with a greater number of ground-active spiders in dry conditions than in wet conditions. These results suggest trapping duration influences sampling completeness across environmental conditions and indicates a longer deployment period may be required for sampling completeness using pitfall traps. While we have characterised the two rounds presented comparatively as a wet condition or dry condition, rainfall alone is unlikely to be the sole driver of observed variation in spider abundance, diversity, and assemblage composition. Other uncontrolled variables may have contributed to the patterns observed as spider activity, life stage and distribution, and community structures are known to fluctuate with seasonal cycles and environmental conditions.

5. Conclusions

In this study rainfall influenced spider assemblage primarily at the species level rather than the family level, with a higher species richness recorded during dry conditions, whilst family composition remained relatively stable between wet and dry conditions. Differences between wet and dry conditions were mainly driven by changes in less common species, whereas the most common species remained relatively stable. This indicates resilience among the core (more common) spider assemblage but sensitivity from less abundant species. Sampling method also significantly influenced estimates of spider density, with night collection having the greatest species richness. Despite this, the vibration-based spider collection method had consistency in species richness between sites A and B and between wet and dry conditions, supporting the methods’ reliability for detecting spider species responsive to vibration-based sampling. Accumulation curves showed that sampling duration requirements may differ slightly between wet and dry conditions, but that 60 min using vibration is sufficient for collecting 90% of spider species collected using this method. Reduced spider abundance captured from the vibration-based spider collection method in wet conditions compared to dry may reflect moisture-induced changes in vibration transmission, which could either delay spider responses or decrease reactivity to the vibrational stimuli. The sampling duration needed for pitfall traps needs to be longer than 6 weeks; there was a reduced abundance of spiders in wet than in dry conditions. These results show how environmental conditions and survey method used can shape the observed pattern of spider richness, diversity and assemblage composition. Implementing multiple survey methods whilst also accounting for environmental conditions should provide a comprehensive understanding of spider community dynamics and can improve the reliability of biodiversity surveys. As the vibration-based spider collection method is a relatively new survey method, further research is needed to better define its scope and limitations and underlying mechanisms. It is recommended that the ground vibrations the tractor produces be characterised to further understand the mechanisms driving spider responses to vibration-based collections. Additionally, the influence of environmental variable such as temperature and soil moisture on spider responses to vibration-based sampling should also be investigated. Advancing understanding of vibrational wave transmission and spider behavioural responses will strengthen the reliability of the vibration-based spider collection method and help clarify the conditions under which this method is most effective and improve its application in ecological surveys.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.H., P.J.M., R.R. and A.M.; methodology, R.H., P.J.M., R.R. and A.M.; formal analysis, R.H.; investigation, R.H., P.J.M., R.R. and A.M.; resources, R.H., P.J.M., R.R. and A.M.; data curation, R.H. and R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.H.; writing—review and editing, P.J.M., R.R. and A.M.; visualisation, R.H.; supervision, P.J.M., R.R. and A.M.; project administration, P.J.M. and R.H.; acquisition of study site and other resources, P.J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

An ethical exemption to use spiders (being invertebrates) was approved by University of Southern Queensland Animal Ethics Committee (exemption ID 20EXE004) on 6 August 2020.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon reasonable request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Queensland) and thank Brett Chambellant, Bob Green and David Jones for the use of the property to conduct the research, use of the John Deere tractor and other amenities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
COVID-19Coronavirus disease of 2019
ANOVAAnalysis of variance
NMDSNon-metric multidimensional scaling
SEMStandard error of the mean
RHRachael’s Hill
RLRobert’s Lane
DR1David’s Ridge 1
DR2David’s Ridge 2

Appendix A

Table A1. Complete species list of spiders collected in open forest at Stewartdale, south-east Queensland, Australia. Some of the spiders are deposited in the Queensland Museum, Queensland, Australia, and some in Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change, Hamburg, Germany. Registration numbers will be determined by Queensland Museum staff and is not yet finalised, i.e., the specimens are yet to receive registration numbers. We have assigned numbers to new species that have been described.
Table A1. Complete species list of spiders collected in open forest at Stewartdale, south-east Queensland, Australia. Some of the spiders are deposited in the Queensland Museum, Queensland, Australia, and some in Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change, Hamburg, Germany. Registration numbers will be determined by Queensland Museum staff and is not yet finalised, i.e., the specimens are yet to receive registration numbers. We have assigned numbers to new species that have been described.
FamilyGenus and Species
AmmoxenidaeGenus A Sp.1
AmurobiidaeDadurus dad1
AraneidaeAcroaspis acr1
Anepsion peltoides
Arachnura higginsi
Araneus acuminatus
Araneus albotriangularis
Araneus ara1
Araneus ara10
Araneus ara11
Araneus ara12
Araneus ara13
Araneus ara2
Araneus ara3
Araneus ara4
Araneus ara5
Araneus ara6
Araneus ara7
Araneus ara8
Araneus ara9
Araneus arenaceus
Araneus cytarachnoides
Araneus lodiculus
Araneus lutulentus
Argiope keyserlingi
Argiope protensa
Austracantha minax
Celaenia cel1
Cyclosa cyc1
Cyclosa trilobata
Cyclosa vallata
Cyrobil darwini
Cyrtophora exanthematica
Cyrtophora hirta
Dolophones dol1
Dolophones turrigera
Hortophora hor1
Hortophora transmarina
Larinia montagui
Larinia phthisica
Leviana dimidiatus
Neoscona theisii
Ordgarius monstrosus
Phonognatha graeffi
Phonognatha pho1
Phonognatha wagneri
Plebs eburnus
Poecilopachys australasia
Poltys pol1
Trichonephila edulis
ArkyidaeArkys ark1
Arkys walckenaeri
ClubionidaeClubiona clu1
Clubiona clu2
Clubiona clu3
CorinnidaeBattalus bat1
Iridonyssus formicans
Iridonyssus murrayman
Iridonyssus kohouti
Iridonyssus leucostaurus
Nucastia nuc1
Nyssus albopunctatus
Nyssus coloripes
Nyssus jaredwardeni
Nyssus luteofinis
Nyssus paradoxus
Nyssus pseudomaculatus
Poecilipta janthina
Poecilipta kgari
Poecilipta kohouti
Poecilipta poe1
CycloctenidaeCycloctenus cyc1
DeinopidaeAsianopis subrufa
DesidaeBadumna bad1
Badumna bad2
Badumna bad3
Barahna bar1
Corasoides australis
DolomedidaeOrnodolomedes orn1
EutichuridaeCheiracanthium che1
Cheiracanthium che2
Cheiracanthium che3
Family 1Genus B sp.1
GnaphosidaeCeryerda cer1
Eilica eil1
Eilica eil2
Eilica eil3
Encoptarthria enc1
Encoptarthria enc2
Encoptarthria enc3
Encoptarthria enc4
Encoptarthria enc5
Encoptarthria enc6
Genus C sp.1
Genus D sp.1
Genus E sp.1
Genus F sp.1
Genus G sp.1
Genus H sp.1
Molycria dawson
Molycria mol1
Myandra mya1
Zelotes zel1
HahniidaeGenus Y sp.1
Genus Y sp.3
Hahniidae hah1
Hahniidae hah2
Hersiliidae
Lamponidae		Tamopsis tam1
Asadipus asa1
Centrothele cen1
Centrothele cen2
Genus I sp.1
Lamponata daviesae
Pseudolampona brookfield
Pseudolampona pse1
LinyphiidaeLaetesia lae1
Laperousea lap1
Laperousea lap2
LycosidaeAllocosa palabunda
Anomalosa ano1
Artoria art1
Artoria art2
Genus J sp.1
Genus L sp.1
Genus M sp.1
Genus N sp.1
Genus O sp.1
Tasmanicosa godeffroyi
Tasmanicosa tas1
Venator spenceri
Venatrix ven1
Venonia micarioides
MalkaridaeAnarchaea ana1
MiturgidaeArgoctenus arg1
Argoctenus arg2
Elassoctenus ela1
Genus P sp.1
Mituliodon tarantulinus
Miturga gilva
Mitzoruga insularis
Nuliodon fishburni
Thasyraea tha1
Tuxoctenus gloverae
Zora zor1
NicodamidaeAmbicodamus amb1
OonopidaeOpopaea opo1
OxyopidaeOxyopes elegans
Oxyopes oxy1
Oxyopes oxy2
Oxyopes oxy3
PhilodromidaeTibellus tenellus
PisauridaePerenethis per1
SalticidaeBavia ludicra
Cytaea cyt1
Genus Q sp.1
Genus R sp.1
Genus R sp.2
Genus R sp.3
Genus R sp.4
Genus S sp.1
Genus S sp.2
Genus S sp.3
Genus S sp.5
Holoplatys hol1
Holoplatys hol2
Holoplatys hol3
Holoplatys hol4
Holoplatys hol5
Holoplatys planissima
Maratus grissius
Maratus mar1
Maratus mar2
Maratus mar3
Maratus mar4
Maratus mar5
Maratus mar6
Maratus mar7
Maratus purcellae
Menemerus bivittatus
Myrmarachne myr1
Neon neo1
Opisthoncus opi1
Opisthoncus opi2
Opisthoncus opi3
Opisthoncus opi4
Opisthoncus opi5
Prostheclina pro1
Sandalodes bipenicillatus
Sandalodes san1
Sandalodes san2
Simaetha sim1
Zebraplatys zeb1
Zenodorus orbiculatus
Zenodorus zen1
SparassidaeDelena cancerides
Delena del1
Holconia immanis
Isopedella flavida
Neosparassus diana
Neosparassus salacius
Pediana regina
TetragnathidaeLeucauge decorata
Tetragnatha tet1
TheridiidaeAchaearanea ach1
Argyrodes alannae
Argyrodes antipodiana
Ariamnes colubrinus
Cryptachaea veruculata
Dipoena dip1
Dipoena dip2
Episinus bicornis
Euryopis elegans
Euryopis eur1
Euryopis eur2
Euryopis eur3
Genus T sp.1
Genus U sp.1
Genus V sp.1
Genus V sp.2
Genus W sp.1
Genus Z sp.1
Janula bicornis
Latrodectus hasselti
Parasteatoda decorata
Parasteatoda par1
Parasteatoda par2
Parasteatoda tepidariorum
Parasteatoda threadstripes
Phoroncidia pho1
Phoroncidia pho2
Probiscidula prb1
Rhomphaea cometes
Steatoda ste1
Theridion albostriata
Theridion pyramidale
Theridion theridides
Thwaitesia argentiopunctata
Thwaitesia nigropunctata
ThomisidaeBoomerangia boo1
Cymbacha cym1
Cymbacha saucia
Genus X sp.1
Runcinia elongata
Sidymella bicornis
Sidymella sid1
Stephanopis scabra
Tharrhalea multopunctata
Tmarus tma1
Tmarus tma3
Tmarus tma4
Zygometis xanthogaster
TrachelidaeOrthobula ort1
TrachycosmiidaeTrachycosmus tra1
TrochanteriidaeHemicloea hem1
UloboridaeMiagrammopes mia1
Miagrammopes sp1
Philoponella congregabilis
Philoponella phi1
ZodariidaeEuasteron enterprise
Habronestes hab1
Habronestes hab2
Habronestes hab3
Habronestes hab4
Habronestes hab5
Hetaerica scenica
Neostorena neo1
Notasteron lawlessi

References

  1. Michalko, R.; Pekár, S.; Entling, M.H. An updated perspective on spiders as generalist predators in biological control. Oecologia 2019, 189, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nyffeler, M.; Gibbons, J.W. Spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) feeding on snakes (Reptilia: Squamata). J. Arachnol. 2021, 49, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schwerdt, L.; Elena de Villalobos, A.; Miles, F.P. Spiders as potential bioindicators of mountain grasslands health: The Argentine tarantula Grammostola vachoni (Araneae, Theraphosidae). Wildl. Res. 2018, 45, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cobbold, S.M.; MacMahon, J.A. Guild mobility affects spider diversity: Links between foraging behavior and sensitivity to adjacent vegetation structure. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2012, 13, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Green, J. Sampling method and time determines composition of spider collections. J. Arachnol. 1999, 27, 176–182. [Google Scholar]
  6. Harris, R.; Raven, R.; Maxwell, A.; Murray, P.J. Vibration as a new survey method for spiders. Animals 2024, 14, 2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kim, H.; Sun, Y.; Kim, T.Y.; Moon, M.J. Biodiversity monitoring for selection of insect and spider bioindicators at local organic agricultural habitats in South Korea. Entomol. Res. 2020, 50, 493–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Langlands, P.R.; Brennan, K.E.C.; Pearson, D.J. Spiders, spinifex, rainfall and fire: Long-term changes in an arid spider assemblage. J. Arid Environ. 2006, 67, 36–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brennan, K.E.C.; Majer, J.D.; Reygaert, N. Determination of an optimal pitfall trap size for sampling spiders in a Western Australian Jarrah Forest. J. Insect Conserv. 1999, 3, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brennan, K.; Moir, M.; Majer, J. Exhaustive sampling in a Southern Hemisphere global biodiversity hotspot: Inventorying species richness and assessing endemicity of the little known Jarrah Forest spiders. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 10, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fischer, C.; Gerstmeier, R.; Wagner, T.C. Seasonal and temporal patterns of rainfall shape arthropod community composition and multi-trophic interactions in an arid environment. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 3742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, D.; Jackson, R.R. How temperature affects development and reproduction in spiders: A review. J. Therm. Biol. 1996, 21, 245–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tourinho, A.L.; Dias, S.C.; Lo-Man-Hung, N.F.; Pinto-da-Rocha, R.; Bonaldo, A.B.; Baccaro, F.B. Optimizing survey methods for spiders and harvestmen assemblages in an Amazonian upland forest. Pedobiologia 2018, 67, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Privet, K.; Courtial, C.; Decaëns, T.; Djoudi, E.; Vedel, V.; Frédéric, Y.; Pétillon, J. Spider assemblage structure in a neotropical rainforest-inselberg complex: Ecological and methodological insights from a small-scale intensive survey. Trop. Ecol. 2018, 59, 21–34. [Google Scholar]
  15. Churchill, T.B.; Arthur, J.M. Measuring spider richness: Effects of different sampling methods and spatial and temporal scales. J. Insect Conserv. 1999, 3, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Azevedo, G.H.F.; Faleiro, B.T.; Magalhães, I.L.F.; Benedetti, A.R.; Oliveira, U.; Pena-Barbosa, J.P.P.; Santos, M.T.T.; Vilela, P.F.; Maria, M.; Santos, A.J.; et al. Effectiveness of sampling methods and further sampling for accessing spider diversity: A case study in a Brazilian Atlantic rainforest fragment. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2014, 7, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Privet, K.; Vedel, V.; Fortunel, C.; Orivel, J.; Martinez, Q.; Cerdan, A.; Baraloto, C.; Pétillon, J. Relative efficiency of pitfall trapping vs. nocturnal hand collecting in assessing soil-dwelling spider diversity along a structural gradient of neotropical habitats. Diversity 2020, 12, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Uetz, G.W.; Unzicker, J.D. Pitfall trapping in ecological studies of wandering spiders. J. Arachnol. 1975, 3, 101–111. [Google Scholar]
  19. Coddington, J.A.; Young, L.H.; Coyle, F.A. Estimating spider species richness in a southern Appalachian cove hardwood forest. J. Arachnol. 1996, 24, 111–128. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sørensen, L.L.; Coddington, J.A.; Scharff, N. Inventorying and estimating subcanopy spider diversity using semiquantitative sampling methods in an Afromontane forest. Environ. Entomol. 2002, 31, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lange, M.; Gossner, M.M.; Weisser, W.W. Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by-catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2011, 2, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Topping, C.J.; Sunderland, K.D. Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat. J. Appl. Ecol. 1992, 29, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Work, T.T.; Buddle, C.M.; Korinus, L.M.; Spence, J.R. Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: Implications for biodiversity studies. Environ. Entomol. 2002, 31, 438–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Menéndez-Acuña, M.; Salas-Rodríguez, M.; Montiel-Parra, G.; Sotuyo, S.; Rosas-Echeverría, M.V. Seasonality and long-term effect of environmental variables on the orb weaver spider community of a tropical dry forest in the Balsas Basin, Mexico. Diversity 2023, 15, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Campuzano, E.F.; Ibarra-Núñez, G.; Machkour, M.R.S.; Morón-Ríos, A.; Jiménez, M.L. Diversity and seasonal variation of ground and understory spiders from a tropical mountain cloud forest. Insect Sci. 2020, 27, 826–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Spiller, D.A.; Schoener, T.W. Long-term variation in the effect of lizards on spider density is linked to rainfall. Oecologia 1995, 103, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Robertson, M.; Avilés, L. Rain, predators and vegetation lushness may structure web-building spider communities along precipitation gradients. Ecol. Entomol. 2019, 44, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lopes, M.C.; Araújo, V.F.; Vasconcellos, A. The effects of rainfall and vegetation on litterfall production in the semiarid region of northeastern Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2015, 75, 703–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brito Pitilin, R.; Prado-Junior, J.; Brescovit, A.D.; Tunes Buschini, M. Climatic conditions drive the abundance and diversity of spiders community in an Atlantic Forest fragment. Oecologia Aust. 2019, 23, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Churchill, T.B. Spiders as ecological indicators in the Australian tropics: Family distribution patterns along rainfall and grazing gradients. Bull. Br. Arachnol. Soc. 1998, 11, 325–330. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mavasa, R.; Yekwayo, I.; Mwabvu, T.; Tsvuura, Z. Preliminary patterns of seasonal changes in species composition of surface-active arthropods in a South African savannah. Austral Ecol. 2022, 47, 1222–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wise, D.H. Effects of an experimental increase in prey abundance upon the reproductive rates of two orb-weaving spider species (Araneae: Araneidae). Oecologia 1979, 41, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Blamires, S.J.; Sellers, W.I. Modelling temperature and humidity effects on web performance: Implications for predicting orb-web spider (Argiope spp.) foraging under Australian climate change scenarios. Conserv. Physiol. 2019, 7, coz083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Patel, M.; Patel, M. Seasonal variation in spider population in the semi arid area of north Gujarat. Biosci. Biotechnol. Res. Asia 2012, 9, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ford, J. Stewartdale Nature Refuge Koala Habitat Restoration in South Ripley, South East Queensland. Available online: https://emrprojects.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/stewartdale-nature-refuge-koala-habitat-restoration-in-south-ripley-south-east-queensland/ (accessed on 22 July 2021).
  36. Bureau of Meteorology. Daily Rainfall Amberley AMO. Available online: https://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2020&p_c=-320091654&p_stn_num=040004 (accessed on 15 August 2025).
  37. Bureau of Meteorology. Daily Rainfall Amberley AMO. Available online: https://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2021&p_c=-320091654&p_stn_num=040004 (accessed on 15 August 2025).
  38. Bureau of Meteorology. Greater Brisbane in September 2020: Below Average Rainfall, Some Warm Days. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/archive/202009.brisbane.shtml#:~:text=Greater%20Brisbane%20in%20September%202020,mm%20of%20rainfall%20on%20average (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  39. Bureau of Meteorology. Greater Brisbane in October 2020: Above Average Rainfall; Widespread Storms in the South-East. Available online: https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/archive/202010.brisbane.shtml (accessed on 15 August 2025).
  40. Bureau of Meteorology. Greater Brisbane in January 2021: Cooler than Usual; Average to Above Average Rainfall. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/archive/202101.brisbane.shtml (accessed on 15 August 2025).
  41. Bureau of Meteorology. Greater Brisbane in February 2021: Below to Near-Average Rainfall; Warm Nights Overall. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/archive/202102.brisbane.shtml (accessed on 15 August 2025).
  42. Bureau of Meteorology. Greater Brisbane in November 2021: A Very Wet Month; Cooler than Usual Days Overall. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/archive/202111.brisbane.shtml (accessed on 15 August 2025).
  43. Aicher, B.; Tautz, J. Vibrational communication in the fiddler crab, Uca pugilator. J. Comp. Physiol. A 1990, 166, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, J.; Miller, T.E.; Cicirello, A.; Mortimer, B. Spider dynamics under vertical vibration and its implications for biological vibration sensing. J. R. Soc. Interface 2023, 20, 20230365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 16 01481 g001
Figure 1. Layout of the survey methods used to collect spiders with sites A and B in four similar locations within eucalyptus forest on the property of Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 1. Layout of the survey methods used to collect spiders with sites A and B in four similar locations within eucalyptus forest on the property of Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g001
Animals 16 01481 g002
Figure 2. Proportionally accurate Venn diagram of unique spider families (left) and species (right) captured in wet compared to dry conditions using the vibration-based collection method at sites A and B within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 2. Proportionally accurate Venn diagram of unique spider families (left) and species (right) captured in wet compared to dry conditions using the vibration-based collection method at sites A and B within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g002
Animals 16 01481 g003
Figure 3. Bray–Curtis non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination showing dissimilarity of spider family assemblages between wet and dry conditions for the three spider collection methods used in eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 3. Bray–Curtis non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination showing dissimilarity of spider family assemblages between wet and dry conditions for the three spider collection methods used in eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g003
Animals 16 01481 g004
Figure 4. Comparison of the spider abundance for the four vibration-based spider collection A sites, i.e., DR1, DR2, RH, and RL, for each 10 min continuous sampling time for a total of 60 min, for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 4. Comparison of the spider abundance for the four vibration-based spider collection A sites, i.e., DR1, DR2, RH, and RL, for each 10 min continuous sampling time for a total of 60 min, for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g004
Animals 16 01481 g005
Figure 5. Comparison of the spider abundance for the four vibration-based spider collection B sites, i.e., DR1, DR2, RH, and RL, for each 10 min continuous sampling time for a total of 60 min, for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 5. Comparison of the spider abundance for the four vibration-based spider collection B sites, i.e., DR1, DR2, RH, and RL, for each 10 min continuous sampling time for a total of 60 min, for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g005
Animals 16 01481 g006
Figure 6. Spider species richness for the following three methods: night collection, vibration-based (site A), and pitfall traps for spiders collected under both wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 6. Spider species richness for the following three methods: night collection, vibration-based (site A), and pitfall traps for spiders collected under both wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g006
Animals 16 01481 g007
Figure 7. Spider abundance in pitfall trapping over 6 weeks for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions at each site within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 7. Spider abundance in pitfall trapping over 6 weeks for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions at each site within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g007
Animals 16 01481 g008
Figure 8. Species accumulation curve over 60 min for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions for vibration-based collections within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 8. Species accumulation curve over 60 min for spiders collected under wet and dry conditions for vibration-based collections within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g008
Animals 16 01481 g009
Figure 9. Species accumulation curve over 6 weeks for spiders collected in pitfall traps under wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Figure 9. Species accumulation curve over 6 weeks for spiders collected in pitfall traps under wet and dry conditions within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Animals 16 01481 g009
Table 1. Comparison of mean values for spider species richness and diversity indexes for the three survey methods used in wet and dry conditions, within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Table 1. Comparison of mean values for spider species richness and diversity indexes for the three survey methods used in wet and dry conditions, within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
MethodConditionShannon’s Diversity IndexSimpsons Diversity IndexSpecies RichnessNo. Species
Night collectionDry5.84 a0.976 a92.7 a181
Wet5.35 ab0.962 a70 b132
Pitfall trapsDry4.37 bc0.945 a30.2 c68
Wet4.13 c0.948 a26.8 c55
Vibration site ADry3.88 c0.904 a29.2 c70
Wet3.65 c0.915 a24.2 c56
Pooled SEM 0.2860.1213.82
Confidence level 0.950.950.95
a, b, c within each column means followed by the same superscript letter were not significantly different.
Table 2. Comparison of mean values for species richness and diversity indexes for the two sites where vibration-based spider collections took place in wet and dry conditions, within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
Table 2. Comparison of mean values for species richness and diversity indexes for the two sites where vibration-based spider collections took place in wet and dry conditions, within eucalyptus forest on the property Stewartdale in southeast Queensland.
MethodConditionShannon’s Diversity IndexSimpsons Diversity IndexSpecies RichnessNo. Species
Vibration site ADry3.87 a0.910 a27.6 a70
Wet3.83 a0.910 a25.9 a56
Vibration site BDry3.82 a0.919 a21.6 a43
Wet3.78 a0.919 a19.9 a53
Pooled SEM 0.130.0113.9
Confidence level 0.950.950.95
a within each column means followed by the same superscript letter were not significantly different.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Harris, R.; Raven, R.; Maxwell, A.; Murray, P.J. Comparing Spider Sampling Methods in a Eucalypt Forest in Wet and Dry Conditions. Animals 2026, 16, 1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16101481

AMA Style

Harris R, Raven R, Maxwell A, Murray PJ. Comparing Spider Sampling Methods in a Eucalypt Forest in Wet and Dry Conditions. Animals. 2026; 16(10):1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16101481

Chicago/Turabian Style

Harris, Rachael, Robert Raven, Andrew Maxwell, and Peter J. Murray. 2026. "Comparing Spider Sampling Methods in a Eucalypt Forest in Wet and Dry Conditions" Animals 16, no. 10: 1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16101481

APA Style

Harris, R., Raven, R., Maxwell, A., & Murray, P. J. (2026). Comparing Spider Sampling Methods in a Eucalypt Forest in Wet and Dry Conditions. Animals, 16(10), 1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16101481

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop