Search

International audience; Rising greenhouse gas emissions are causing increasing worldwide impacts and changes on climate patterns, sea level, food production, human lives and livelihoods. Maintaining or improving the ability of coastal aquatic ecosystems and oceans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is a crucial aspect for climate mitigation. The vegetated coastal ecosystems are able to catch and to sequestrate carbon, the so-called Blue Carbon. These ecosystems are key exchange zones that mediate the biogeochemical cycles across the continent, the ocean and the atmosphere. Given the importance of these ecosystems in biogeochemical cycles and their sensitivity to natural and anthropogenic pressures, the carbon cycle within and between compartments (e.g. pelagos, benthos…) and across the interfaces (e.g. atmosphere, ocean…) need to be addressed. On a regional scale, in the extended urban area of La Rochelle located on the French Atlantic coast (La Rochelle metropolitan area), lack in situ measurements within the wetlands and littoral zone make very uncertain their role as a sink or a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. We will first present a vast research project “La Rochelle Territoire Zéro Carbone” project (https://www.agglo-larochelle.fr/projet-de-territoire/territoire-zero-carbone), that target the ambition of carbon neutrality in La Rochelle metropolitan area by 2040 through a holistic approach (from measuring CO2 to raising people's awareness and assessing the impact of exogenous natural factors). Second, we will present some first results on the Blue Carbon dynamics within the freshwater and salt marshes, and seagrasses.

Lycosa piochardi Simon, 1876 Figs 1, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D, G, 7D, G, 9C–L, 10C–L, 11E–F, 12D, 13–18, 21C–D, 22C–D, 23–27 Lycosa piochardi Simon, 1876: 72, pl. 3 figs 8–9 (♂ ♀, Syria). Tarentula piochardi infraclara Strand, 1915: 167 (♀, Israel). Syn. nov. Tarentula piochardi – Kulczyński 1911: 51, pl. 2 figs 60–61 (♀, Lebanon). Lycosa piochardi infraclara – Roewer 1955: 269. Lycosa piochardi – Nentwig et al. 2019: 40, fig. 6a–b (♀). — Nadolny & Zamani 2020: 209, fig. 19 (♀). — Zamani et al. 2021: 284, figs 7a–f, 8a–o (♀, Iran). Lycosa piochardi infraclara – Nentwig et al. 2019: 40, fig. 6c–e (♀, subspecies inquirenda). Diagnosis Male Tegular apophysis tip (TAT) bent posteriorly at ~90° (in L. hyraculus sp. nov. TA unbent posteriorly). CTA (Fig. 2D) serrated (in L. hyraculus CTA smooth-edged), not wider than TA (in L. praegrandis, Fig. 2E, CTA wider than TA). Tip of conductor membranous, triangular, smooth-edged (in the similar L. praegrandis it is semicircular and unevenly toothed) (Figs 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D, 7D, 12D, 13). Female Epigyne: septal pedicel reduced, septum subtriangular to trapezoidal, proportions vary greatly! Copulatory openings narrow, at anterior end of septum. Distal part of spermatheca (Fig. 10C–L) bent dorso-ventrally (in the similar L. praegrandis it is bent distally, so that the left spermatheca twists counterclockwise, Fig. 10M). Head of spermatheca elongated, not much wider than spermatheca. Both sexes distinguished from other levantine Lycosa by habitus: ocular area Holotype SYRIA • ♀; 1876; M.Ch. Piochard de la Brûlerie leg.; MNHN 2076 (not examined). Paratypes SYRIA • 5 ♀♀; same collection data as for holotype; MNHN 1266 (examined) Other material examined EGYPT – Sinai • 1 ♀; Al-Qusaymah (Kadesh Barnea); [30.668° N, 34.366° E]; 13 Nov. 1967; P. Amitai leg.; HUJ INV-AR20838 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20839 • 1 ♀; Mt. Catherine; [28.56° N, 33.95° E]; 16 Aug. 1968; Tsabar leg.; HUJ INV-AR20860 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 17 Jul. 1968; HUJ INV-AR20862 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 16 Aug. 1968; HUJ INV-AR20861 ISRAEL and PALESTINE – Coastal Plain • 1 ♂; Ashdod sands; [31.763° N, 35.633° E]; 19 Jun. 2020; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20734 • 1 ♂; Be’eri; [31.42° N, 34.48° E]; 22 Sep. 2011; HUJ INV-AR20923 • 1 ♀; east Holon (near Yamit 2000); [32° N, 34.793° E]; 20 Jul. 2017; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20735 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 28 Jul. 2018; HUJ INV-AR20782 • 1 juv.; ETSEL memorial monument, Lod; [31.9404° N, 34.8658° E]; 28 May 2014; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20779 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20780 • 1 ♀; Gaza area; [31.5° N, 34.46° E]; 1942; HUJ INV-AR20895 • 1 ♂; grove near Drezner st., Tel Aviv; [32.1295° N, 34.808° E]; 18 Jun. 2019; I.Armiach Steinpress leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20730 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20731 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20732 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20733 • 1 ♀; Hadera sands; [32.461° N, 34.885° E]; 23 Aug. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20759 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20760 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding;col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20761 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 4 Jul. 2019; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20787 • 1 ♀; Hatsor; [31.77° N, 34.71° E]; 2008; HUJ INV-AR20897 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20898 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20899 • 1 ♀; Jaffa-Rehoboth; [31.95° N, 34.78° E]; May 1913; I. Aharoni leg.; SMFD2184 • 1 ♀; Kfar Bialik; [32.82° N, 35.087° E]; 17 Sep. 2018; HUJ INV-AR20913 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 7 Sep. 2018; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20950 • 1 ♀; Mavo Ashdod; [31.84° N, 34.7° E]; 24 Aug. 2015; HUJ INV-AR20926 • 1 ♂; Nitzanim; [31.739° N, 34.623° E]; 11 Jul. 2017; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20683 • 1 ♂; Nitzanim sands; 7 Aug. 2017; B. Shacham leg.; HUJ INV-AR20572 • 1 ♀; Oranim boarding School, Rishon LeTsiyon; [31.944° N, 34.805° E]; 24 Aug. 2013; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20762 • 1 ♀; Ramat-Gan; [32.08° N, 34.81° E]; 1947; A. Shulov leg.; HUJ INV-AR 20526 • 1 ♂; Rehovot; [31.8992° N, 34.8363° E]; 5 Sep. 2019; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20788 • 1 ♀; Savyon; [32.04° N, 34.87° E]; 29 Sep. 1972; HUJ INV-AR20937 • 1 ♀; Superland, Rishon LeTsiyon; [31.9748° N, 34.74235° E]; 6 Sep. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20790 • 1 ♀; Talmei Menashe; [31.941° N, 34.853° E]; 28 May 2014; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20781 • 1 juv.; Tel Akko; [32.9212° N, 35.0877° E]; 20 Aug. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20736 • 1 ♀; Tel Baruch, Tel Aviv; [32.13° N, 34.789° E]; 22 Aug. 2020; D. Simon leg.; HUJ INV-AR20584 • 1 ♀; Tel Kofer, Tel Aviv; [32.04° N, 34.807° E]; 12 Oct. 2018; I.Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20685 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20686 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20687 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20688 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20689 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20690 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20691 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20692 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20693 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20694 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20695 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20696 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20697 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20698 • ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20699 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20700 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20701 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20702 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20703 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20704 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20705 • 1 ♀; Tel Michal, Herzlia; [32.162° N, 34.8° E]; 16 Jun. 2017; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; col. sub; HUJ INV-AR20716 • 1 ♀; Tira; [32.234° N, 34.934° E]; 17 Jun. 2019; A. Topper leg.; col. sub; HUJ INV-AR20548 • 1 juv.; Yashresh nature reserve, Rehovot; [31.9155° N, 34.8304° E]; 9 Mar. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20813. – Dead Sea Area • 1 ♀; Ein Feshkha; [31.716° N, 35.451° E]; 15 May 1935; A. Shulov leg.; HUJ INV-AR20530 • 1 ♀; Hawat Einot Kedem; [31.928° N, 35.4301° E]; 2 Jun. 2019; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20621 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20622 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20623 • 1 ♀; Jericho; [31.85° N, 35.46° E]; 12 Dec. 1987; P.Amitai leg.; HUJ INV-AR20837 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 10 Nov. 1971; with juv.; HUJ INV-AR20904. – Galilee • 1 ♀; Adamit; [33.081° N, 35.21° E]; 10 Aug. 1964; HUJ INV-AR20903 • 1 ♀; Ahihud forest; [32.92° N, 35.19° E]; 10 Oct. 2017; B. Shacham leg.; HUJ INV-AR20556 • 1 ♀; Biq`at Qedesh; [33.13° N, 35.54° E]; 13 May 2015; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20588 • 1 ♂; Dishon; [33.085° N, 35.519° E]; 14 Aug. 2014; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20589 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20590 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20591 • ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20592 • 1 ♀; Eilon; [33.059° N, 35.224° E]; 24 Jul. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20763 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20764 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20765 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20766 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20767 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20768 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20769 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20770 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20771 • 1 ♂; Har Eliezer; [33.044° N, 35.55° E]; Sep. 1995; HUJ INV-AR20955 • 1 ♀; Kfar HaHoresh; [32.7° N, 35.27° E]; 9 Oct. 1968; Gershoni leg.; HUJ INV-AR20679 • 1 ♂; Kfar Kisch; [32.67° N, 35.45° E]; 19 Aug. 2008; HUJ INV-AR20917 • 1 ♀; Moreshet; [32.825° N, 35.232° E]; 23 Sep. 2018; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20924 • 1 juv.; Mt. Meron; [32.99° N, 35.41° E]; 9 Apr. 1967; Pener leg.; sub. female; HUJ INV-AR20853 • 1 ♂; Nahal Snir; [33.235° N, 35.676° E]; 9 Jul. 1992; R. Kasher leg.; HUJ INV-AR20854 • 1 ♀; Nahal Tzippori; [32.75° N, 35.19° E]; 30 Apr. 2018; D. Ben Natan leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20576 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20577 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; I. Tesler leg.; HUJ INV-AR20821 • 1 ♀; north Yiftah; [33.134° N, 35.548° E]; 9–17 Sep. 2015; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20633 • 1 juv.; Ramot Naftali; [33.1° N, 35.547° E]; 13 May 2014; sub. female.; HUJ INV-AR20905 • 1 ♀; Safed; [32.966° N, 35.491° E]; 2 Oct. 1967; Blondheim leg.; HUJ INV-AR20574 • 1 ♀; Yavne’el; [32.697° N, 35.5° E]; 1 Aug. 2019; Y. Zvik leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20869 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20870 • 1 ♂; Yuvalim; [32.877° N, 35.27° E]; 3 Aug. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20785 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 30 Apr. 2017; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20783 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; 3 Aug. 2018; HUJ INV-AR20786 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 30 Apr. 2017; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20784 • 1 ♂; Zar’it; [33.085° N, 35.51° E]; 9–18 Aug. 2014; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20634 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 18 Aug. 2014; HUJ INV-AR20594 • 1 ♂; Zavit cave; [33.038° N, 35.306° E]; 23 Aug. 2018; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20598. – Golan Heights • 1 ♀; Horvat Susita; [32.777°, 35.663° E]; 26 Jul. 2018; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20607 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20608 • ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20609 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20610 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20611 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20612 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20613 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; sub. female; HUJ INV-AR20614 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20615 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20664 • 1 ♀; Nahal Yehudiya; [32.926° N, 35.7003° E]; 24 May 2015; B. Shacham leg.; HUJ INV-AR20567 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; [32.9221° N, 35.678° E]; 3 Jun. 2015; HUJ INV-AR20569 • 1 juv.; Odem Forest; [33.22° N, 35.75° E]; 14 Jun. 1972; P. Amitai leg.; sub. female; HUJ INV-AR20841 • 1 ♀; Qatsrin; [32.988° N, 35.677° E]; 7 Oct. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.v; HUJ INV-AR20791 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20792 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20793 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20794 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20795 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20796 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20797 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20798 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20799 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20800 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20801 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20802 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20803 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20804 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20805 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20806 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20807 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20808 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20809 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20810 • 1 ♂; Waset (Wassit); [33.139° N, 35.733° E]; 19 Jul. 1970; HUJ INV-AR20918. – Hermon • 1 juv.; Hermon; [33.3° N, 35.78° E]; 23 Jun. 2017; N. Givon leg.; HUJ INV-AR20834 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; [33.28° N, 35.75° E]; 6 Apr. 1967; P. Amitai leg.; sub. female; HUJ INV-AR20847 • 1 ♀; Hermon; [33.29° N, 35.759° E]; 1400 m a.s.l.; 2 Jun. 2017; A. Uzan leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20549 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; [33.28° N, 35.75° E]; 6 Apr. 1971; HUJ INV-AR20949 • 1 juv.; Hermon; [33.3043° N, 35.7882° E]; 2000 m a.s.l.; 9 Sep. 1971; Lebovits leg.; dolina; HUJ INV-AR20832 • 1 juv.; Hermon (dolina near peak 2072); 23 Jun. 2017; N. Givon leg.; HUJ INV-AR20833 • 1 ♀; Hermon (near upper chairlift station); [33.306° N, 35.784° E]; 9 Jun. 2019; D. David leg.; HUJ INV-AR20583 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; [33.3061° N, 35.7851° E]; 14 Jul. 2019; EGR, MC; HUJ INV-AR20674 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; [33.304° N, 35.789° E]; 23 Jun. 2017; I.Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20758 • 1 ♀; Nabi Hazuri; [33.251° N, 35.729° E]; 24 Aug. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20772 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20773 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20774 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20775 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20776. – Emeq Yizra'el • 1 ♀; Kfar Baruh Reservoir; [32.643° N, 35.218° E]; 16 Sep. 2019; I.Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20710 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20711 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20712 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20713 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20714 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20715 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; [32.641° N, 35.219° E]; 6 Feb. 2018; HUJ INV-AR20789 • 1 juv.; Sarid; [32.6674° N, 35.229° E]; 22 Jun. 2020; Y. Zvik leg.; sub. female; HUJ INV-AR20962. – Jordan Valley • 1 ♀; Ashdot Ya’akov; [32.66° N, 35.578° E]; 5 Aug. 1972; Zevi leg.; HUJ INV-AR20894 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; Oct. 1971; with eggsac; HUJ INV-AR20957 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20958 • 1 ♀; Ein Sukkot; [32.365° N, 35.547° E]; 11 May 2017; B. Shacham leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20557 • 1 ♀; Karei Deshe; [32.862° N, 35.536° E]; 16 Sep. 2013; HUJ INV-AR20910 • 1 ♀; Maoz Haim; [32.4935° N, 35.5517° E]; 30 Jan. 1943; A. Shulov leg.; HUJ INV-AR20534 • 1 ♀; Menahemia; [32.664° N, 35.5538° E]; 22 Sep. 2019; Y. Zvik leg.; HUJ INV-AR20871 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; 24 May 2017; sub. female; HUJ INV-AR20927 • 1 ♂; Nahal Hagal; [32.631° N, 35.554° E]; 21 Jun. 2015; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20921 • 1 ♀; Sde Eliyahu; [32.441° N, 35.514° E]; 23 Jun. 2019; Y. Zvik leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20872 • 1 ♀; Southern Jordan Valley; [32.2471° N, 35.5588° E]; 23Apr. 2017; B. Shacham leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20564 • 1 juv.;same collection data as for preceding; [32.0446° N, 35.5166° E]; 24 Apr. 2017; HUJ INV-AR20566. – Judea • 1 juv.;`Ayn ad Duyuk (near Jericho); [31.8959° N, 35.4222° E]; 8 Jun. 1978; P. Amitai leg.; sub. female; HUJ INV-AR20848 • 1 ♀; Alon; [31.833° N, 35.352° E]; Jan. 2016; D. Waysman leg.; HUJ INV-AR20585 • 1 ♀; Arad; [31.26° N, 35.21° E]; 9 Dec. 2015; HUJ INV-AR20953 • 1 ♀; Arad Cemetery; [31.273° N, 35.229° E]; 31 Jul. 2018; J. Ballesteros Chaves leg.; HUJ INV-AR20822 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20823 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20824 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20825 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20826 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20827 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20828 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20829 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preced, Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 27-43, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Simon E. 1876. Etudes arachnologiques. 4 e memoire. VII. Revision des especes europeennes du groupe de la Lycosa tarentula Rossi. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (5) 6: 57 - 91.","Strand E. 1915. Dritte Mitteilung uber Spinnen aus Palastina, gesammelt von Herrn Dr J. Aharoni. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte 81 (A 2): 134 - 171.","Kulczynski W. 1911. Fragmenta Arachnologica. XVI, XVII. Bulletin international de l'Academie des Sciences de Cracovie 1911: 12 - 75.","Roewer C. F. 1955. Katalog der Araneae von 1758 bis 1940, bzw. 1954. 2. Band, Abt. a (Lycosaeformia, Dionycha [excl. Salticiformia]). 2. Band, Abt. b (Salticiformia, Cribellata) (Synonyma-Verzeichnis, Gesamtindex). Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels.","Nentwig W., Blick T., Gloor D., Jager P. & Kropf C. 2019. Tackling taxonomic redundancy in spiders: the infraspecific spider taxa described by Embrik Strand (Arachnida: Araneae). Arachnologische Mitteilungen 58: 29 - 51. https: // doi. org / 10.30963 / aramit 5809","Nadolny A. A. & Zamani A. 2020. A new species of wolf spiders of the genus Lycosa (Aranei: Lycosidae) from Iran. Zoosystematica Rossica 29 (2): 205 - 212. https: // doi. org / 10.31610 / zsr / 2020.29.2.205","Zamani A., Nadolny A. A., Esyunin S. L. & Marusik Y. M. 2021. New data on the spider fauna of Iran (Arachnida: Araneae), part VIII. Zoosystematica Rossica 30 (2): 279 - 297. https: // doi. org / 10.31610 / zsr / 2021.30.2.279","Linnaeus C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species cum characteribus differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Holmiae. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 542","Koch C. L. 1838. Die Arachniden. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744"]}

Key to large lycosids (Geolycosa, Hogna, Lycosa) of Israel and Palestine 1. First eye row as wide as second eye row (PME). Second eye row narrower than half of front of the carapace. Posterior eyes arranged in trapezoid................................................................................. 2 – First eye row narrower than second eye row (PME). Second eye row wider than half of front of carapace. Posterior eyes arranged in rectangle................................................................................. 3 2. Base of epigyne septum as wide as half of length of pedicel. Terminal apophysis with prolateral spur that is longer than half of width of bulb (incl. spur)................................................................................................................... Geolycosa vultuosa (C.L. Koch, 1838) Figs 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A – Base of epigyne septum as wide as length of pedicel. Terminal apophysis with prolateral spur that is shorter than half of width of bulb (incl. spur).............................................................................................................................................................. Hogna effera (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1872) Fig. 8F 3. Epigyne septum hammer-shaped, pedicel long. Terminal apophysis with prolateral spur......................................................................................................... Hogna (cf.) graeca (Roewer, 1951) Fig. 8E – Epigyne septum trapezoid, pedicel greatly reduced to absent. Terminal apophysis without prolateral spur........................................................................................................... Lycosa Latreille, 1804 …4 4. Ocular area less than one third of length of carapace. Tegular apophysis tip curving posteriorly at ~90°. Left spermatheca not twisting clockwise................................................................................ 5 – Ocular area longer than one third of length of carapace. Tegular apophysis tip directed retrolaterally and not curving posteriorly. Left spermatheca twisting clockwise................................................... 6 5. Crest of tegular apophysis ½ width of tegular apophysis. Conductor tip acute. Base of spermathecae parallel or subparallel, not helical...................................................... Lycosa piochardi Simon, 1876 Figs 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D, G, 7D, G, 9C–L, 10C–L, 11E–F, 12C, 13–18 – Crest of tegular apophysis>½ width of tegular apophysis. Conductor tip blunt. Base of spermathecae helical, twisting counterclockwise... Lycosa praegrandis C.L. Koch, 1836 Figs 2E, 9M, 10M, 12A (Not yet known from the southern Levant. May be present in nearby areas) 6. Tegular apophysis tip and crest of tegular apophysis distinct from one another. Septal pedicel present. Atria of epigyne visible........................................................................................................................... Lycosa hyraculus sp. nov. Figs 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, F, 7C, F, 8C–D, 9B, 10B, 11C–D, 12C, 19 – Tegular apophysis tip indistinct from the crest and continuing line of crest of tegular apophysis........................................................ Lycosa gesserit sp. nov. Figs 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B, 12B, 20 – Septal pedicel absent. Atria of epigyne not visible........... Lycosa sp. Figs 6E, 7E, 9A, 10A, 12A–B, Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 10-11, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Koch C. L. 1838. Die Arachniden. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","Simon E. 1876. Etudes arachnologiques. 4 e memoire. VII. Revision des especes europeennes du groupe de la Lycosa tarentula Rossi. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (5) 6: 57 - 91.","Koch C. L. 1836. Die Arachniden. Dritter Band. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744"]}

Genus Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904 Type species Geolycosa latifrons Montgomery, 1904. Diagnosis Large lycosids; carapace elevated anteriorly; PME and ALE forming rectangle; septal pedicel on epigyne and spur on TA long (Zyuzin & Logunov 2000). Description Leg I strongest, nearly as long as IV, with thick scopulae on three terminal joints. Chelicerae large. Cephalic region of cephalothorax raised. 1 st eye row as wide as 2 nd eye row (PME). Otherwise, similar to Lycosa (Montgomery 1904). The type species with elongated epigynal septum and elongated palpal TA (Wallace 1942). Natural history Burrowing lycosids, not venturing far from their burrow (except mature males) (Wallace 1942). Distribution In its current composition Geolycosa is nearly cosmopolitan, recorded in all continents, except Antarctica, in tropical to temperate latitudes. Relationships Geolycosa is a polyphyletic genus, as shown by Piecentini et al. (2019). The morphology is possibly a convergence across Lycosinae, due to adaptation to a digging lifestyle. The type species is from North America, and it might not be related to the Old-World species. Composition 72 species are recorded in the World Spider Catalog (2022)., Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 11-12, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Montgomery T. H. 1904. Descriptions of North American Araneae of the families Lycosidae and Pisauridae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 56: 261 - 325.","Zyuzin A. A. & Logunov D. V. 2000. New and little-known species of the Lycosidae from Azerbaijan, the Caucasus (Araneae, Lycosidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 11: 305 - 319.","Wallace H. K. 1942. A revision of the burrowing spiders of the genus Geolycosa. The American Midland Naturalist 27 (1): 1 - 62. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 2421024","World Spider Catalog. 2022. World Spider Catalog. Version 22.5. Natural History Museum Bern. Available from http: // wsc. nmbe. ch [accessed 9 Dec. 2021]. https: // doi. org / 10.24436 / 2"]}

Geolycosa vultuosa (C.L. Koch, 1838) Figs 1, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 21A, 22A Lycosa vultuosa C.L. Koch, 1838: 102, figs 407–408 (D ♂ ♀). Lycosa infernalis Motschulsky, 1849: 289, pl. 2 figs 1–2 (D ♂; N.B.: considered a nomen dubium by Zyuzin & Logunov 2000: 309). Trochosa infernalis Thorell, 1875: 172 (D ♀). Arctosa vultuosa – Simon 1864: 346. Trochosa infernalis – Lendl 1887: 37, 51, figs 1–15 (♂ ♀). Mimohogna vultuosa – Roewer 1955: 279. Lycosa vultuosa – Fuhn & Niculescu-Burlacu 1971: 202, figs 98a–b, 99a–f (♂ ♀). — Miller 1971: 154, pl. xxiii fig. 24, pl. xxiv fig. 5 (♂ ♀). — Loksa 1972: 51, figs 44c, 46c–d (♂ ♀). — Mcheidze 1997: 226, figs 474–475 (♂ ♀). Geolycosa vultuosa – Zyuzin & Logunov 2000: 308, figs 5–6, 10 (T ♂ ♀ from Lycosa). — Kovblyuk et al. 2012: 246, figs 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 30, 36, 39, 43 (♂ ♀). Diagnosis Large lycosids (carapace> 5 mm). 1 st eye row as wide as 2 nd eye row (PME). Front of cephalothorax square from above. 1 st eye row 0.5 width of bulb. The only species of Geolycosa in the Levantine region (Figs 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A). The only species in the Levant with a similar habitus is Hogna effera (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1872). It is generally smaller, with septal pedicel as long as width of septum base, TA smaller than 0.5 width of bulb. Material examined ISRAEL – Galilee • 2 ♂♂; Karmiel; [32.9168° N, 35.2946° E]; 30 Dec. 2016; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20960, HUJ INV-AR20961. Natural history This is a burrowing species, found mainly in open, herbaceous habitats (Mcheidze 1997). Hibernation takes place in the burrow (at least in the north of its range) (Mcheidze 1997), juveniles emerge in springtime. Maturation takes about a year (Mcheidze 1997). The species is preyed upon by pompiliids, scorpions and centipedes, and the eggs are subject to mite infestations (Mcheidze 1997). The specimens examined in this study were found active in daytime in an urban meadow: one on the surface, the other in a burrow with a turret made of soil (Figs 7A, 19A, 21A, 22, Table 4). Distribution AZERBAIJAN, BULGARIA, GEORGIA, HUNGARY, IRAN, RUSSIA, TURKEY, UKRAINE (World Spider Catalog 2022), ISRAEL. According to Mcheidze (1997), also SYRIA. Records ISRAEL: Galilee (Karmiel) (Fig. 1). Relationships Geolycosa vultuosa is related to Geolycosa charitonovi (Mcheidze, 1997) and Geolycosa dunini Zyuzin & Logunov, 2000 (Zyuzin & Logunov 2000). The type species of Geolycosa (G. latifrons Montgomery, 1904) is of Nearctic distribution. It may not be congeneric with the Palearctic species ascribed to Geolycosa. As the revision work needed to find the correct phylogenetic placement of G. vultuosa is widely beyond the scope of this work, we refrained from moving G. vultuosa to a different genus., Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 12-13, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Koch C. L. 1838. Die Arachniden. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","Motschulsky V. 1849. Note on two venomous spiders from southern Russia. Bulletin of the Imperial Society of Naturalists in Moscow 1: 289 - 290.","Zyuzin A. A. & Logunov D. V. 2000. New and little-known species of the Lycosidae from Azerbaijan, the Caucasus (Araneae, Lycosidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 11: 305 - 319.","Thorell T. 1875. Descriptions of several European and North African spiders. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar 13 (5): 1 - 204.","Simon E. 1864. Histoire Naturelle des Araignees (Araneides). Librairie encyclopedique de Roret, Paris. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 47654","Lendl A. 1887. A Trochosa infernalis (Motsch.) parzasarol es parzasi szerveirol. Uber die Begattung und die Copulationsorgane von Trochosa infernalis Motsch. Termeszetrajzi Fuzetek 11 (1): 30 - 40, 51 - 57.","Roewer C. F. 1955. Katalog der Araneae von 1758 bis 1940, bzw. 1954. 2. Band, Abt. a (Lycosaeformia, Dionycha [excl. Salticiformia]). 2. Band, Abt. b (Salticiformia, Cribellata) (Synonyma-Verzeichnis, Gesamtindex). Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels.","Fuhn I. E. & Niculescu-Burlacu F. 1971. Fam. Lycosidae. In: Fauna Republicii Socialiste Romania 260 Arachnida Volumul V, Fascicula 3. Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucharest.","Miller F. 1971. Pavouci-Araneida. Klic zvireny CSSR 4: 51 - 306.","Loksa I. 1972. Araneae II. Fauna Hungariae 109: 1 - 112.","Mcheidze T. S. 1997. Spiders of Georgia: Systematics, Ecology, Zoogeographic Review. Tbilisi Univ.","Kovblyuk M. M., Otto S., Marusik Y. M. & Ponomarev A. V. 2012. Redescription of the Caucasian species Geolycosa charitonovi (Mcheidze, 1997) (Araneae: Lycosidae), with the first description of the male. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 15 (8): 245 - 252. https: // doi. org / 10.13156 / arac. 2012.15.1.245","Simon E. 1876. Etudes arachnologiques. 4 e memoire. VII. Revision des especes europeennes du groupe de la Lycosa tarentula Rossi. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (5) 6: 57 - 91.","Koch C. L. 1836. Die Arachniden. Dritter Band. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","World Spider Catalog. 2022. World Spider Catalog. Version 22.5. Natural History Museum Bern. Available from http: // wsc. nmbe. ch [accessed 9 Dec. 2021]. https: // doi. org / 10.24436 / 2","Montgomery T. H. 1904. Descriptions of North American Araneae of the families Lycosidae and Pisauridae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 56: 261 - 325."]}

Lycosa sp. Figs 1, 6E, 7E, 9A, 10A, 11A–B Diagnosis Female Epigyne: septal pedicel absent, septum trapezoidal, broader proximally, as wide as long. Copulatory openings not visible in ventral view (only Lycosa in the Levant without visible copulatory openings!) (Figs 6E, 7E, 9A, 10A, 11A–B). Male Unknown. Material examined ISRAEL – Arava Valley • ♀; Nahal Amatsyahu; [30.835° N, 35.275° E]; 13 Nov. 1988; B. Shalmon leg.; HUJ INV-AR20573. Description Female FEMALE MEASUREMENTS. AME diameter: 0.45; ALE diameter: 0.3; PME diameter: 1.1; PLE diameter: 1; carapace length: 7.1; carapace width: 5.2; carapace maximal height: 3; abdomen length: 10.7; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 5.7, 2.7, 4.2, 3.7, 2.4; leg II: 5.4, 2.7, 4, 3.9, 2.3; leg III: 5.1, 2.5, 3.7, 4.9, 2.4; leg IV: 6.6, 2.4, 5.2, 7, 2.9. CARAPACE. Ocular area>⅓ length of carapace, distinctly raised, making the carapace between PLE and fovea appear slightly concave in profile. COLOR. Carapace cream colored, darker on margins, with chocolate brown median bands, connecting to dark ocular area. Sternum yellow. Chelicerae reddish-brown. Abdomen cream colored with light brown chevrons dorsad. Abdomen venter with black patch posterior to epigastric fold, connecting to two parallel black bars stretching towards spinnerets (Π shaped patch). Spinnerets yellow. Legs yellow, infused with brown dorsad, yellow ventrad with two black bands on tibia, to reddish-brown distad, Coxae and trochanters yellow. Pedipalps yellow, to dark brown distad (Figs 6E, 7E). GENITALIA. Epigyne longer than wide. Septal pedicel absent, septum connects directly to epigyne. Septum trapezoidal, wider proximally, about as long as proximal part of epigyne. Copulatory openings not seen in ventral view. Spermatheca spiral-shaped, distal part arching laterally. Head of spermatheca slightly wider than sperm duct, oval, positioned anterior to copulatory opening (Figs 9A, 10A, 11A–B). LEGS. Metatarsus I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical triplet. Tibia I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical pair. Tarsus with scopula. Natural history A single female was collected in the hyperarid desert (annual precipitation L. gesserit sp. nov. and L. hyraculus sp. nov. Additionally, it is the only other specimen in our dataset, apart from the L. gesserit male, to exhibit a ventral patch on the abdomen shaped like the letter Π. As we could not know whether this is a new species or the female of L. gesserit, it is described here as Lycosa sp. only. Notes We executed at least five field trips to the locality where this specimen was collected, at different dates, and couldn’t find a single specimen of Lycosa any more. Since 1988, when the specimen was collected, intensive agriculture has changed the area, and this might have eradicated the habitat of this species., Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 25-27, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Koch C. L. 1836. Die Arachniden. Dritter Band. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","Simon E. 1876. Etudes arachnologiques. 4 e memoire. VII. Revision des especes europeennes du groupe de la Lycosa tarentula Rossi. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (5) 6: 57 - 91."]}

Lycosa gesserit sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: A5A1F6AD-14B4-488F-BC74-A2B5E240A86B Figs 1, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B, 12B, 23–24 Diagnosis Male Recognized by pedipalp structure: TAT not bent posteriorly, directed retrolaterally. Contrasts with L. hyraculus sp. nov. by having TAT shorter than TAC (TAT as long as TAC in L. hyraculus sp. nov.). Contrasts with all other known males of Lycosa, with TAT bent posteriorly (Figs 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B). Female Unknown. Etymology Species named after the order of Bene Gesserit, from Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel, Dune. Type material Holotype ISRAEL – Negev • ♂; Har Karkom; [30.28° N, 34.74° E]; 7 Sep. 2017; E. Gavish-Regev; col. sub.; collected at night; HUJ INV-AR20631. Description Male HOLOTYPE MEASUREMENTS.AME diameter:0.2;ALE diameter:0.18;PME diameter:0.8;PLE diameter:0.7; carapace length: 6.6; carapace width: 4.8; carapace maximal height: 2.1; abdomen length: 5.2; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 5.5, 2.5, 4.9, 5.5, 2.8; leg II: 5.1, 2.3, 4.6, 5.3, 2.9; leg III: 4.9, 2.4, 4.1, 5.9, 2.3; leg IV: 6, 2.6, 5.5, 8.2, 3.4. CARAPACE. Ocular area>⅓ length of carapace, distinctly raised, making the carapace between PLE and fovea appear slightly concave in profile. COLOR. Carapace cream colored, with dark brown median bands, darker on margins, connecting to dark ocular area. Perimeter light brown. Sternum grey. Chelicerae reddish-brown. Abdomen yellow infused with light brown dorsad, cardiac mark brown, darker on margins. Abdomen venter with black patch surrounding epigastric fold, connecting to two parallel black bars stretching towards spinnerets (Π shaped patch). Spinnerets brown. Legs cream colored, infused with brown dorsad, yellow-grey ventrad, to reddish-brown distad, with two black bands on tibia. Coxae dark grey, trochanters brown. Pedipalps yellow, to dark brown distad (Figs 6B, 7B, 8B). GENITALIA. Genital opening sclerotized, similar to subadult epigyne. Cymbium reddish-brown. Tegular apophysis (TA) lying flat on bulb, oriented retrolaterally. TAT highly sclerotized, dark brown, not bent posteriorly (unlike most other species of Lycosa), but slightly bent ventrad. Crest of TA (CTA) with smooth edge, and abrupt, rounded end at base of TAT. TAT shorter than width of CTA. Tip of conductor membranous, triangular, with smooth edges. Synembolus with large, slightly sclerotized lobe (SEL), on retrolateral edge (Figs 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 12B). LEGS. Metatarsus I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical triplet. Tibia I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical pair. Tarsus with scopula. Natural history This species is nocturnal. A single juvenile male was collected at night, in September, at 650 m a.s.l., in a stony plain near Har Karkom, a secluded tableland in the hyperarid desert (annual precipitation L. hyraculus sp. nov., it makes a burrow with a trapdoor. Shares habitat with L. piochardi. Reproductive season unknown. Distribution ISRAEL. Possibly endemic to the Har Karkom tableland or found throughout hyperarid zone. Records ISRAEL: Negev (Har Karkom) (Fig. 1). Relationships According to our molecular phylogeny, this species is the sister taxon of Lycosa hyraculus sp. nov., and closely related to Lycosa oculata, Lycosa aff. oculata 1 and Lycosa aff. oculata 2 (Figs21–24). Cephalothorax is similar to Lycosa macrophthalma Nadolny & Zamani, 2020 and it might be related to it as well. The single known male specimen was raised in the laboratory for two molts. This has probably affected the size of the adult spider. Even though we have observed an aberrant morphology in the genitalia of females grown in lab conditions, we have not observed the same in males, either of L. piochardi or of L. hyraculus sp. nov. We consider it highly probable that the diagnostic characters in the male’s pedipalp were not affected by the laboratory conditions. Although genitalia of other males of Lycosa grown in our laboratory did not show distortions (see discussion about distortions of female genitalia), we cannot dismiss the possibility that the pedipalps of specimens in the wild are somewhat different to the type specimen, which was raised in the laboratory. Notes The locality where the type was found is a remote and not easily reachable nature reserve, encircled by army training areas, that are closed to the public most of the year. There are only few occasions every year that access to the public is possible. As of the writing of this paper, we have not succeeded in collecting additional specimens., Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 14-17, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Koch C. L. 1838. Die Arachniden. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","Simon E. 1876. Etudes arachnologiques. 4 e memoire. VII. Revision des especes europeennes du groupe de la Lycosa tarentula Rossi. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (5) 6: 57 - 91.","Nadolny A. A. & Zamani A. 2020. A new species of wolf spiders of the genus Lycosa (Aranei: Lycosidae) from Iran. Zoosystematica Rossica 29 (2): 205 - 212. https: // doi. org / 10.31610 / zsr / 2020.29.2.205"]}

Lycosa hyraculus sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 8BA7C78F-E972-41B9-B7AC-C65ECA9B67E2 Figs 1, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, F, 7B, F, 8B–D, 9B, 10B, 11C–D, 12C, 19, 21B, 22B, 23–24 Diagnosis Male TER not bent posteriorly, directed retrolaterally. Contrasts with L. gesserit sp. nov. by having TAT as long as CTA (TAT as shorter than CTA in L. gesserit). Contrasts with all other known males of Lycosa, with TER bent posteriorly (Figs 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, F, 7C, 19). Female Recognized by combination of characters: ocular area:>⅓ length of carapace, distinctly raised, making the carapace between PLE and fovea appear slightly concave in profile. Epigyne: septal pedicel reduced, septum trapezoidal, broader proximally, wider than long. Copulatory openings narrow, at anterior end of septum. Carapace resembles L. oculata, L. suboculata, and L. macrophthalma, but in these species the septum is longer than wide. Carapace also resembles Lycosa sp., but in this species the copulatory openings are not visible in ventral view. Epigyne similar to L. piochardi and L. baulnyi, but in these species the ocular area is not distinctly raised, and is Hyrax. This species often leaves the entrance to its burrow open. This behavior reminded the authors of an Israeli nursery rhyme, in which “the little hyrax forgot to close the door”. Type material Holotype ISRAEL – Negev • ♂; Sede Zin; [30.854° N, 34.773° E]; 13 Aug. 2016; I. Steves leg.; HUJ INV-AR20818. Paratype ISRAEL – Negev • ♀; same collection data as for holotype; HUJ INV-AR20817. Other material examined EGYPT – Sinai • 1 juv.; Al-Qusaymah (Kadesh Barnea); [30.668° N, 34.366° E]; 13 Nov. 1967; P. Amitai leg.; HUJ INV-AR20840 • ISRAEL – Negev • 1 ♀; Ha-Ro’a Campsite; [30.876° N, 34.784° E]; 14 Jun. 2015; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20658 • 1 ♂; Haluqim ridge; [30.86° N, 34.77° E]; 24 Jul. 2018; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20663 • 1 juv.; Hawat Even Ari; [30.786° N, 34.77° E]; 3 Jan. 2018; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20942 • 1 ♂; Mamshit; 7 Nov. 2017; A. Uzan leg.; HUJ INV-AR20553 • 1 juv.; Midreshet Ben-Gurion; [30.854° N, 34.773° E]; 22 Oct. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20737 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20738 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20739 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20740 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20741 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20742 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20743 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20744 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20745 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20746 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20747 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20748 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20749 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20750 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20757 • 1 ♂; Mishor Yamin; [31.003° N, 35.1° E]; 11 May 2014; S. Aharon leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20855 • 1 ♂; Shivta camp; [30.9245° N, 34.6244° E]; 22 Oct. 2018; O. Erlichman leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20835 • 1 juv.; Tel Jaulan, Yeruham; [30.985° N, 34.904° E]; 10 Oct. 1962; P. Amitai leg.; HUJ INV-AR20836 • 1 ♀; Yeruham; [30.985° N, 34.9° E]; 1 Apr. 2017; A. Novikova leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR 20523 • 1 juv.; same locality as for preceding; 29 Jul. 2018; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20616 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20620 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20617 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20618 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20619 • 1 ♀; same locality as for preceding; 2 Jun. 2016; E. Zvik; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20665 • 1 juv.; same locality as for preceding; 19 Jul. 2019; Y. Zvik leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20868 • 1 ♂; Yeruham Park; 2 Jun. 2016; Y. Zvik leg.; HUJ INV-AR20874 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20875. Description Male HOLOTYPE MEASUREMENTS. AME diameter: 0.4; ALE diameter: 0.35; PME diameter: 1.25; PLE diameter: 0.99; carapace length: 9.71; carapace width: 7.28; carapace maximal height: 3.59; abdomen length: 6.9; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 7.9, 3.54, 6.45, 6.48, 3.67; leg II: 7.31, 3.7, 5.58, 6.93, 3.76; leg III: (missing), 2.88, 5.03, 6.82, 3.57; leg IV: 8.99, 3.56, 7.14, 9.35, 4.07. VARIATION IN MALES COLLECTED AS ADULTS (n = 2, all other male adults collected as juveniles). AME diameter: 0.28–0.44; PME diameter: 0.9–1.19; carapace length: 0.78–10.03; carapace width: 0.59–7.75; carapace maximal height: 2.78–3.36; abdomen length: 5.9–6.5; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 6.44–7.7, 3.02– 3.68, 5.5–6.7, 5.84–7.3, 3–3.23; leg II: 6.19–8.2, 2.7–3.6, 5–6.36, 5.66–7.36, 3.1–3.8; leg III: 5.85–7.66, 2.4–3.36, 4.5–5.72, 6.2–7.58, 2.8–3.43; leg IV: 7.5–9.42, 2.8–3.59, 6.06–10, 8.03–10.33, 4.03–4.26. CARAPACE. Ocular area>⅓ length of carapace, distinctly raised, making the carapace between PLE and fovea appear slightly concave in profile. COLOR. Carapace cream colored, with light brown median bands, radiated and darker on margins, connecting to dark ocular area. Perimeter light brown. Sternum black. Chelicerae reddish-brown. Abdomen yellow infused with light brown dorsad, cardiac mark brown, darker on margins. Abdomen venter black posterior to epigastric fold. Genital opening brown. Spinnerets black. Legs cream colored, infused with brown dorsad, yellowish ventrad, to reddish-brown distad, with two black bands on tibia. Coxae dark grey, trochanters brown. Pedipalps yellow, to dark brown distad (Figs 6C, 7C, 8C–D). COLOR VARIATION IN MALES (n = 5). Abdominal black patch sometimes traspezoidal, narrow distad; sometimes short, not reaching spinnerets. Spinnerets sometimes grey, brown or yellow. GENITALIA. Genital opening sclerotized, similar to subadult female epigyne. Cymbium reddish-brown. Tegular apophysis (TA) lying flat on bulb, oriented retrolaterally. TAT highly sclerotized, dark brown, not bent posteriorly (unlike most other species of Lycosa), slightly bent ventrad. CTA with smooth edge, and abrupt, rounded end at base of TAT. Tip of conductor membranous, triangular, with smooth edges. Synembolus with small, slightly sclerotized lobe (SEL), on retrolateral edge (Figs 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 19). LEGS. Metatarsus I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical pair. Tibia I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical pair. Tarsus with scopula. Female PARATYPE MEASUREMENTS. AME diameter: 0.44; PME diameter: 1.6; carapace length:10.97; carapace width: 7.96; carapace maximal height: 3.96; abdomen length: 10.88; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 8.18, 3.75, 6.07, 5.62, 3.1; leg II: 7.56, 3.7, 5.56, 6.03, 3.1; leg III: 6.34, 3.28, 5, 6.72, 3.29; leg IV: 8.25, 3.66, 6.84, 8.66, 3.75. VARIATION OF AN ADDITIONAL FEMALE COLLECTED AS ADULT (n = 1, all other female adults collected as juveniles). AME diameter: 0.55; PME diameter: 1.35; carapace length: 10.7; carapace width: 8.2; carapace maximal height: 4.02; abdomen length: 9.98; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 8, 3.9, 6.3, 5.5, 3.17; leg II: 8.06, 4, 5.87, 6.26, 3.6; leg III: 7.45, 3.6, 5.56, 6.94, 3.53; leg IV: 9.64, 3.7, 7.46, 10.2, 4.23. CARAPACE. Similar to male. COLOR. Similar to male. No significant variation observed (Figs 6F, 7F, 8C). GENITALIA. Epigyne longer than wide. Septal pedicel reduced, narrower than septum. Septum trapezoidal, wider proximally, about as long as proximal part of epigyne. Copulatory openings narrow, flanking septal pedicel. Spermatheca dark brown, compact, distal part arching laterally. Head of spermatheca distinctly wider than sperm duct, subcircular, positioned anterior to copulatory opening (Figs 9B, 10B, 11C–D). LEGS. Similar to male. Natural history This species is nocturnal. Females were collected March, June, August and September. Males collected June, August and September. Subadult females were collected April and June. Subadult males were collected May, July and September. Juveniles were collected January, June, July and October (Table 4). Reproductive season unknown. This species inhabits loess soils in arid desert environments (annual precipitation 75–200 mm). The burrow usually with a modification in the form of a thin, flexible door made of silk and soil, and hinged to the entrance with silk. Rarely an object such as a piece of soil crust or a flat stone can be used as a door. The door is often left open. The spiders are usually found at night, standing near the burrow, rarely on rocks or vegetation. Captive specimens accept a wide variety of insects, similar to other species of Lycosa (Steves et al. 2017) (Figs 8C–D, 21B, 22B). Distribution EGYPT, ISRAEL. Records EGYPT: Sinai (Al-Qusaymah (Kadesh Barnea)). ISRAEL: Negev (Ha-Ro’a Campsite, Haluqim ridge, Hawat Even Ari, Mamshit, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, Mishor Yamin, Sede Zin, Shivta camp, Yeruham) (Fig. 1). Relationships According to our molecular phylogey, this species is the sister taxon of Lycosa gesserit sp. nov., and closely related to Lycosa oculata, Lycosa aff. oculata 1 and Lycosa aff. oculata 2. The cephalothorax is morphologically similar to Lycosa macrophthalma Nadolny & Zamani, 2020 and the species might be related to it as well (Figs 23–24)., Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 18-25, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Koch C. L. 1838. Die Arachniden. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","Simon E. 1876. Etudes arachnologiques. 4 e memoire. VII. Revision des especes europeennes du groupe de la Lycosa tarentula Rossi. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (5) 6: 57 - 91.","Koch C. L. 1836. Die Arachniden. Dritter Band. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","Steves I., Pinshow B., Berliner P. & Krasnov B. R. 2017. The Possible Role of Trapdoors in Maintaining Favorable Thermal and Hydric Conditions in Spider Burrows. PhD thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Available from https: // primo. bgu. ac. il / [accessed 17 Jun. 2022].","Nadolny A. A. & Zamani A. 2020. A new species of wolf spiders of the genus Lycosa (Aranei: Lycosidae) from Iran. Zoosystematica Rossica 29 (2): 205 - 212. https: // doi. org / 10.31610 / zsr / 2020.29.2.205"]}

Lycosa hyraculus sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 8BA7C78F-E972-41B9-B7AC-C65ECA9B67E2 Figs 1, 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, F, 7B, F, 8B–D, 9B, 10B, 11C–D, 12C, 19, 21B, 22B, 23–24 Diagnosis Male TER not bent posteriorly, directed retrolaterally. Contrasts with L. gesserit sp. nov. by having TAT as long as CTA (TAT as shorter than CTA in L. gesserit). Contrasts with all other known males of Lycosa, with TER bent posteriorly (Figs 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, F, 7C, 19). Female Recognized by combination of characters: ocular area:>⅓ length of carapace, distinctly raised, making the carapace between PLE and fovea appear slightly concave in profile. Epigyne: septal pedicel reduced, septum trapezoidal, broader proximally, wider than long. Copulatory openings narrow, at anterior end of septum. Carapace resembles L. oculata, L. suboculata, and L. macrophthalma, but in these species the septum is longer than wide. Carapace also resembles Lycosa sp., but in this species the copulatory openings are not visible in ventral view. Epigyne similar to L. piochardi and L. baulnyi, but in these species the ocular area is not distinctly raised, and is Etymology Species name from Hyrax. This species often leaves the entrance to its burrow open. This behavior reminded the authors of an Israeli nursery rhyme, in which “the little hyrax forgot to close the door”. Type material Holotype ISRAEL – Negev • ♂; Sede Zin; [30.854° N, 34.773° E]; 13 Aug. 2016; I. Steves leg.; HUJ INV-AR20818. Paratype ISRAEL – Negev • ♀; same collection data as for holotype; HUJ INV-AR20817. Other material examined EGYPT – Sinai • 1 juv.; Al-Qusaymah (Kadesh Barnea); [30.668° N, 34.366° E]; 13 Nov. 1967; P. Amitai leg.; HUJ INV-AR20840 • ISRAEL – Negev • 1 ♀; Ha-Ro’a Campsite; [30.876° N, 34.784° E]; 14 Jun. 2015; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; HUJ INV-AR20658 • 1 ♂; Haluqim ridge; [30.86° N, 34.77° E]; 24 Jul. 2018; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20663 • 1 juv.; Hawat Even Ari; [30.786° N, 34.77° E]; 3 Jan. 2018; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20942 • 1 ♂; Mamshit; 7 Nov. 2017; A. Uzan leg.; HUJ INV-AR20553 • 1 juv.; Midreshet Ben-Gurion; [30.854° N, 34.773° E]; 22 Oct. 2018; I. Armiach Steinpress leg.; HUJ INV-AR20737 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20738 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20739 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20740 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20741 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20742 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20743 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20744 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20745 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20746 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20747 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20748 • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20749 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20750 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20757 • 1 ♂; Mishor Yamin; [31.003° N, 35.1° E]; 11 May 2014; S. Aharon leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20855 • 1 ♂; Shivta camp; [30.9245° N, 34.6244° E]; 22 Oct. 2018; O. Erlichman leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20835 • 1 juv.; Tel Jaulan, Yeruham; [30.985° N, 34.904° E]; 10 Oct. 1962; P. Amitai leg.; HUJ INV-AR20836 • 1 ♀; Yeruham; [30.985° N, 34.9° E]; 1 Apr. 2017; A. Novikova leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR 20523 • 1 juv.; same locality as for preceding; 29 Jul. 2018; E. Gavish-Regev leg.; col. juv.; HUJ INV-AR20616 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20620 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20617 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20618 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20619 • 1 ♀; same locality as for preceding; 2 Jun. 2016; E. Zvik; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20665 • 1 juv.; same locality as for preceding; 19 Jul. 2019; Y. Zvik leg.; col. sub.; HUJ INV-AR20868 • 1 ♂; Yeruham Park; 2 Jun. 2016; Y. Zvik leg.; HUJ INV-AR20874 • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; HUJ INV-AR20875. Description Male HOLOTYPE MEASUREMENTS. AME diameter: 0.4; ALE diameter: 0.35; PME diameter: 1.25; PLE diameter: 0.99; carapace length: 9.71; carapace width: 7.28; carapace maximal height: 3.59; abdomen length: 6.9; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 7.9, 3.54, 6.45, 6.48, 3.67; leg II: 7.31, 3.7, 5.58, 6.93, 3.76; leg III: (missing), 2.88, 5.03, 6.82, 3.57; leg IV: 8.99, 3.56, 7.14, 9.35, 4.07. VARIATION IN MALES COLLECTED AS ADULTS (n = 2, all other male adults collected as juveniles). AME diameter: 0.28–0.44; PME diameter: 0.9–1.19; carapace length: 0.78–10.03; carapace width: 0.59–7.75; carapace maximal height: 2.78–3.36; abdomen length: 5.9–6.5; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 6.44–7.7, 3.02– 3.68, 5.5–6.7, 5.84–7.3, 3–3.23; leg II: 6.19–8.2, 2.7–3.6, 5–6.36, 5.66–7.36, 3.1–3.8; leg III: 5.85–7.66, 2.4–3.36, 4.5–5.72, 6.2–7.58, 2.8–3.43; leg IV: 7.5–9.42, 2.8–3.59, 6.06–10, 8.03–10.33, 4.03–4.26. CARAPACE. Ocular area>⅓ length of carapace, distinctly raised, making the carapace between PLE and fovea appear slightly concave in profile. COLOR. Carapace cream colored, with light brown median bands, radiated and darker on margins, connecting to dark ocular area. Perimeter light brown. Sternum black. Chelicerae reddish-brown. Abdomen yellow infused with light brown dorsad, cardiac mark brown, darker on margins. Abdomen venter black posterior to epigastric fold. Genital opening brown. Spinnerets black. Legs cream colored, infused with brown dorsad, yellowish ventrad, to reddish-brown distad, with two black bands on tibia. Coxae dark grey, trochanters brown. Pedipalps yellow, to dark brown distad (Figs 6C, 7C, 8C–D). COLOR VARIATION IN MALES (n = 5). Abdominal black patch sometimes traspezoidal, narrow distad; sometimes short, not reaching spinnerets. Spinnerets sometimes grey, brown or yellow. GENITALIA. Genital opening sclerotized, similar to subadult female epigyne. Cymbium reddish-brown. Tegular apophysis (TA) lying flat on bulb, oriented retrolaterally. TAT highly sclerotized, dark brown, not bent posteriorly (unlike most other species of Lycosa), slightly bent ventrad. CTA with smooth edge, and abrupt, rounded end at base of TAT. Tip of conductor membranous, triangular, with smooth edges. Synembolus with small, slightly sclerotized lobe (SEL), on retrolateral edge (Figs 2C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 19). LEGS. Metatarsus I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical pair. Tibia I ventral spination: 2 pairs + apical pair. Tarsus with scopula. Female PARATYPE MEASUREMENTS. AME diameter: 0.44; PME diameter: 1.6; carapace length:10.97; carapace width: 7.96; carapace maximal height: 3.96; abdomen length: 10.88; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 8.18, 3.75, 6.07, 5.62, 3.1; leg II: 7.56, 3.7, 5.56, 6.03, 3.1; leg III: 6.34, 3.28, 5, 6.72, 3.29; leg IV: 8.25, 3.66, 6.84, 8.66, 3.75. VARIATION OF AN ADDITIONAL FEMALE COLLECTED AS ADULT (n = 1, all other female adults collected as juveniles). AME diameter: 0.55; PME diameter: 1.35; carapace length: 10.7; carapace width: 8.2; carapace maximal height: 4.02; abdomen length: 9.98; leg I (Fe, Pa, Ti, Mt, Tr): 8, 3.9, 6.3, 5.5, 3.17; leg II: 8.06, 4, 5.87, 6.26, 3.6; leg III: 7.45, 3.6, 5.56, 6.94, 3.53; leg IV: 9.64, 3.7, 7.46, 10.2, 4.23. CARAPACE. Similar to male. COLOR. Similar to male. No significant variation observed (Figs 6F, 7F, 8C). GENITALIA. Epigyne longer than wide. Septal pedicel reduced, narrower than septum. Septum trapezoidal, wider proximally, about as long as proximal part of epigyne. Copulatory openings narrow, flanking septal pedicel. Spermatheca dark brown, compact, distal part arching laterally. Head of spermatheca distinctly wider than sperm duct, subcircular, positioned anterior to copulatory opening (Figs 9B, 10B, 11C–D). LEGS. Similar to male. Natural history This species is nocturnal. Females were collected March, June, August and September. Males collected June, August and September. Subadult females were collected April and June. Subadult males were collected May, July and September. Juveniles were collected January, June, July and October (Table 4). Reproductive season unknown. This species inhabits loess soils in arid desert environments (annual precipitation 75–200 mm). The burrow usually with a modification in the form of a thin, flexible door made of silk and soil, and hinged to the entrance with silk. Rarely an object such as a piece of soil crust or a flat stone can be used as a door. The door is often left open. The spiders are usually found at night, standing near the burrow, rarely on rocks or vegetation. Captive specimens accept a wide variety of insects, similar to other species of Lycosa (Steves et al. 2017) (Figs 8C–D, 21B, 22B). Distribution EGYPT, ISRAEL. Records EGYPT: Sinai (Al-Qusaymah (Kadesh Barnea)). ISRAEL: Negev (Ha-Ro’a Campsite, Haluqim ridge, Hawat Even Ari, Mamshit, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, Mishor Yamin, Sede Zin, Shivta camp, Yeruham) (Fig. 1). Relationships According to our molecular phylogey, this species is the sister taxon of Lycosa gesserit sp. nov., and closely related to Lycosa oculata, Lycosa aff. oculata 1 and Lycosa aff. oculata 2. The cephalothorax is morphologically similar to Lycosa macrophthalma Nadolny & Zamani, 2020 and the species might be related to it as well (Figs 23–24).

Genus Lycosa Latreille, 1804 Type species Lycosa tarantula (Linnaeus, 1758). Diagnosis Large lycosids; anterior eye row clearly shorter than PME; epigyne septum tongue-shaped or rhomboid, confined to posterior half of epigyne; septal pedicel reduced or absent; TA wide and flat, ending with a distal process (TAT) directed retrolaterally to posteriorly (Zyuzin & Logunov 2000). Description Large lycosids (body length over 12 mm). Carapace sloping posterior to ocular area. Carapace margins with thick pubescence (Zyuzin 1990). Chelicerae with three retromarginal teeth. AER recurved. PME wider than AER. Abdomen venter usually with black markings. Sexual dimorphism weak. Posterior part of epigynal septum widened and clearly outlined. Septal pedicle fused with genital groove or wholly absent. This contrasts with other large Lycosinae (Hogna, Geolycosa), having a clearly outlined pedicle. Cymbium asymmetrical. Tegular apophysis wide and flat, with an elongated distal process, directed retrolaterally to posteriorly. Embolus thin, long, with narrow epiconductor. Natural history Generalist predators, typical of open habitats. Most species are burrowing, but some seem to be vagrant (Planas et al. 2013). The burrow entrance is usually modified with a door or a turret (an elevated structure made of silk and vegetation, surrounding the entrance). Activity is mostly nocturnal. Reproductive season recorded in the summer and autumn. Distribution Known from the Mediterranean Basin, eastern Europe, Middle East, central Asia and Japan (World Spider Catalog 2022). Relationships Lycosa s. str. is related to Hogna Simon 1885 (Piacentini & Ramírez 2019). According to Zyuzin & Logunov (2000), Lycosa is closely allied with Alopecosa pictilis (Emerton, 1885), A. sibirica (Kulczyn´ski, 1908), A. solivaga (Kulczyn´ski, 1901) and A. hirtipes (Kulczyn´ski, 1908)., Published as part of Steinpress, Igor Armiach, Cohen, Mira, Pétillon, Julien, Chipman, Ariel D. & Gavish-Regev, Efrat, 2022, Lycosa Latreille, 1804 (Araneae, Lycosidae) of Israel, with a note on Geolycosa Montgomery, 1904, pp. 1-54 in European Journal of Taxonomy 832 (1) on pages 13-14, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.832.1877, http://zenodo.org/record/6916850, {"references":["Linnaeus C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species cum characteribus differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Holmiae. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 542","Zyuzin A. A. & Logunov D. V. 2000. New and little-known species of the Lycosidae from Azerbaijan, the Caucasus (Araneae, Lycosidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 11: 305 - 319.","Zyuzin A. A. 1990. Studies on burrowing spiders of the family Lycosidae (Araneae). I. Preliminary data on structural and functional features. Acta Zoologica Fennica 190: 419 - 422.","Montgomery T. H. 1904. Descriptions of North American Araneae of the families Lycosidae and Pisauridae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 56: 261 - 325.","Koch C. L. 1838. Die Arachniden. C. H. Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, Nurnberg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 43744","Simon E. 1876. Etudes arachnologiques. 4 e memoire. VII. Revision des especes europeennes du groupe de la Lycosa tarentula Rossi. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (5) 6: 57 - 91.","Planas E., Fernandez-Montraveta C. & Ribera C. 2013. Molecular systematics of the wolf spider genus Lycosa (Araneae: Lycosidae) in the Western Mediterranean Basin. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 67 (2): 414 - 428. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2013.02.006","World Spider Catalog. 2022. World Spider Catalog. Version 22.5. Natural History Museum Bern. Available from http: // wsc. nmbe. ch [accessed 9 Dec. 2021]. https: // doi. org / 10.24436 / 2","Piacentini L. N. & Ramirez M. J. 2019. Hunting the wolf: a molecular phylogeny of the wolf spiders (Araneae, Lycosidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 136: 227 - 240. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2019.04.004"]}

High diversity in tropical compared to temperate regions has long intrigued ecologists, especially for highly speciose taxa like terrestrial arthropods in tropical rainforests. Previous studies showed that arthropod herbivores account for much tropical diversity, yet differences in the diversity of predatory arthropods between tropical and temperate systems have not been properly quantified. Here, we present the first standardized tropical–temperate forest quantification of spider diversities, a dominant and mega‐diverse taxon of generalist predators. Spider assemblages were collected using a spatially replicated protocol including two standardized sampling methods (vegetation sweep netting and beating). Fieldwork took place between 2010 and 2015 in metropolitan (Brittany) and overseas (French Guiana) French territories. We found no significant difference in functional diversity based on hunting guilds between temperate and tropical forests, while species richness was 13–82 times higher in tropical versus temperate forests. Evenness was also higher, with tropical assemblages up to 55 times more even than assemblages in temperate forests. These differences in diversity far surpass previous estimates and exceed tropical–temperate ratios for herbivorous taxa., To deepen our knowledge of latitudinal gradient in predatory arthropods diversity, we conducted an unpreceded quantification of tropical and temperate spider diversity difference using a standardized statistical rarefaction approach. We did not find any differences in functional diversity among biomes, while the ratio of spider diversity we measured was up to 30 times what was previously proposed for predators through indirect comparisons (result consistent between diversity metrics and sampling methods). This original result calls for a reanalysis of the relationship between predatory arthropod diversity, plant species richness, and phylogenetic diversity.

Aim Species distribution models (SDMs) have emerged as essential tools in the equipment of many ecologists, useful to explore species distributions in space and time and answering an assortment of questions related to biogeography, climate change biology and conservation biology. Historically, most SDM research concentrated on well-known organisms, especially vertebrates. In recent years, these tools are becoming increasingly important for predicting the distribution of understudied invertebrate taxa. Here, we reviewed the literature published on main terrestrial arthropod predators (ants, ground beetles and spiders) to explore some of the challenges and opportunities of species distribution modelling in mega-diverse arthropod groups. Location Global. Methods Systematic mapping of the literature and bibliometric analysis. Results Most SDM studies of animals to date have focused either on broad samples of vertebrates or on arthropod species that are charismatic (e.g. butterflies) or economically important (e.g. vectors of disease, crop pests and pollinators). We show that the use of SDMs to map the geography of terrestrial arthropod predators is a nascent phenomenon, with a near-exponential growth in the number of studies over the past ten years and still limited collaborative networks among researchers. There is a bias in studies towards charismatic species and geographical areas that hold lower levels of diversity but greater availability of data, such as Europe and North America. Conclusions Arthropods pose particular modelling challenges that add to the ones already present for vertebrates, but they should also offer opportunities for future SDM research as data and new methods are made available. To overcome data limitations, we illustrate the potential of modern data sources and new modelling approaches. We discuss areas of research where SDMs may be combined with dispersal models and increasingly available phylogenetic and functional data to understand evolutionary changes in ranges and range-limiting traits over past and contemporary time-scales.

(IF 5.24; Q1); International audience; Salt marshes are under increasing anthropogenic pressures that have been reported to affect the diet of fish (e.g., change in prey composition and availability), eventually resulting in alterations in their nursery function. Most studies in Europe are based on fish gut content analysis, which only reflect a small proportion of pressures to salt marshes, and do not necessarily reflect long-term disturbances. In this study, we investigated the impact of salt-marsh vegetation type on trophic network structures (i.e., fish diet and trophic position). Primary producers (particulate organic matter, microphytobenthos, and dominant terrestrial plants), potential aquatic and terrestrial prey, and fish of two dominant species (sea bass and thinlip mullet) were sampled during the summer of 2010 in four creeks from two sites from Western France (the Mont-Saint-Michel Bay and the Seine Estuary). Analysis was undertaken using C and N stable-isotope compositions. Tested response variables (diet and trophic position) suggested a dominant site effect and a weaker effect of surrounding vegetation type. Site effect was attributed to differences in anthropogenic nitrogen inputs (with a steep increase in the Mont-Saint-Michel Bay) and tidal regime between the two bays, with more marine signatures associated with a higher frequency and duration of tidal flooding events in the Seine Estuary. A second hypothesis is that invasive Elytrigia acuta , which has recently replaced typical salt-marsh vegetation in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay, negatively impacted the native salt-marshes nursery function by modifying the access to terrestrial prey on this site. The trophic position of the sea bass and the thinlip mullet was unchanged by local salt-marsh vegetation, and considered consistent with their diet. This study highlights the relevance of stable-isotopes analyses for assessing long-term and integrative effects of changes in vegetation resulting from human disturbances in salt marshes.

Despite their ecological importance and diversity, spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) are underrepresented in conservation policies in comparison to other groups. We review all extant conservation tools focusing on spiders in Europe, highlighting general patterns, limitations, gaps, and future directions. We assembled a comprehensive online database reporting all available information concerning the legal protection and conservation status of 4,154 spider species. Existing international legislation has limited coverage, with only one species listed in the Bern Convention and EU Habitats Directive. At the national and subnational levels, 178 species are formally mentioned in the legislation of 19 European countries. Moreover, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) includes assessments for 301 species worldwide, 164 of these threatened and eight native to Europe. In addition, spiders are mentioned in Regional Red Lists and Red Books in 28 out of 42 European countries considered in this review. Northern and Central European countries have the highest percentage of species assessed at the regional level in Red Lists and Red Books. The Mediterranean basin has the highest spider diversities in Europe but conservation efforts are lacking, both in terms of assessments and national or subnational legislation. Among European species, Dolomedes plantarius, Argyroneta aquatica and Eresus kollari are the most frequently mentioned in European conservation measures, possibly due to their ecological traits and their strict association with declining habitats. Considering the current threats to spiders in Europe, the protection of large areas of suitable habitat should be considered as the most effective approach to spider conservation.

" Biological control is considered a promising way to reduce pesticide use in cropping systems. In this study we aimed to assess biological control and natural enemy communities in a diversity of organic and conventional wheat fields. We also aimed to evaluate economic and labor aspects of cropping systems studied. Twenty pairs of organic and conventional fields were studied in Brittany, France in 2016. Data on carabid abundance and species richness, as well as pest predation rates were collected in fields; crop management and machinery used were also surveyed. We identified 2 organic crop management types and 3 conventional types. Results were not equal for all types of each category. One type of organic crop management, associated with less work for farmers and more economic profit, was beneficial to carabid beetles. Predation rate was lower only in one type of conventional crop management compared with other management types. This study underlines the need to account for the diversity of crop management strategies to assess socio-economic and ecological aspects in organic and conventional farming systems."

Agraecina salsicola Bosmans & Boubakri sp. n. (Figs 1–4) Type material. Holotype ♂ and 2♂ paratypes from TUNISIA, Ariana, Kalaât Landaluz (3702’51’’N, 1006’20’’E), spring 2018, pitfalls in salt marsh, leg. A. Boubakri, deposited in MNHN. Diagnosis. Agraecina salsicola sp. n. is closely related to A. hodna from Algeria, but clearly differs by the strongly elongated tibial apophysis and the relatively short median apophysis (Figs 2–3). Etymology. The species was collected in a salt marsh, hence the name salsicola. Description. Measurements (n=3; holotype in parentheses): Total length 4.2–5.0 (5.0); prosoma 1.60–2.15 (1.81) long, 1.16–1.60 (1.56) wide. Leg measurements in Table 1. Colour: Carapace yellowish-brown, with anastomosing greyish stripes; legs yellowish-brown; abdomen pale grey, somewhat darkened antero-dorsally (Fig. 1). Eyes: Anterior median eyes slightly smaller than other eyes, separated by half their diameter, from the anterior lateral eyes by their diameter; posterior eyes separated by their diameter. Chelicerae with 3 pro- and 2 retromarginal small teeth. Legs spinous, as in all other species of the genus, typically tibiae and metatarsi with 3 and 2 pairs of ventral spines, respectively. Male palp (Figs 2–4): Tibial apophysis elongated, nearly linear, 1.6 times longer than the tibia’s length without apophysis, in lateral view with 2 bends; median apophysis S-shaped, relatively short compared to other Agraecina species; embolus threadlike, representing one-fifth of a circle, as in the other species of the genus. Female: Unknown. Distribution. Only known from the type locality (Fig. 5). Habitat. A coastal salt marsh dominated by Salicornia europaea L., Atriplex halimus L. and Tamarix canariensis L. (Figs 6–7).

International audience; Despite their high functional role as abundant predators, the drivers of centipede assemblages remain poorly known in forests, especially in France. Using replicated depletion quadrats, we sampled five forests distributed over the Armorican Massif. A total of 5209 individuals belonging to 20 species was collected between 2015 and 2017. Assemblage composition was surprisingly constant across parcels, with only different dominant species in the oldest parcel (Berce, Pays-de-Loire) and in the forest of Cerisy (Normandy). The latter hosted two exclusive species, likely because of both biogeographic and abiotic conditions, Geophilus truncorum and Lithobius aeruginosus. Species richness was overall close among sites and parcels, and therefore little influenced by tree age or dominant species. Individual densities varied between site pair-matched parcels, probably because of differences in temporal forest continuity rather than differences in tree ages. In quadrats, the presence of numerous ants strongly affected the number of centipedes, with global densities divided by an average factor of 7. Also at small spatial scale, we did not find a strong vertical stratification of centipede species in terms of presence-absence, with only 2 species exclusive of soil and none for litter, but with important differences in the relative abundance of dominant species. This study suggests that centipedes are important components of the forest soil and litter fauna, should be more frequently studied in French forests and have a potential of bio-indicators of local conditions in these habitats, as well as of temporal forest continuity.

International audience

International audience; Despite the huge diversity tropical arthropods represent, factors shaping their communities are still poorly known, especially at small spatial scales. In this study, we aimed at providing ecological and methodological insights from a short and intensive field sampling of spiders, a highly diverse group of predators. We investigated how sampling methods, habitat type and day-time affect diversity and composition of spider assemblages. The standardized sampling protocol was applied in a tropical rainforest in French Guiana, where both ground- and vegetation-dwelling (up to 2.5 meters) assemblages were sampled during day and night using supposedly complementary methods at low and high (granitic hills called inselbergs) elevations. Observed and estimated richness of vegetation-dwelling spiders, as well as their species composition, did not differ between methods (sweep netting us. beating). Species richness was much lower in pitfall traps than in litter samples, which suggests a low mobility of ground-dwelling spiders and reveals the inadequacy of the former method compared to the latter. Spider assemblage in the vegetation of inselberg was two times poorer than in lowland forests and dominated by different families, probably due to harsher habitat conditions there. Strongly different patterns were here highlighted between vegetation and ground-dwelling spider assemblages, the latter being less diversified than in the vegetation which deserves further attention.

International audience; Despite the expected increase in extreme flood frequency, the manner in which terrestrial arthropods cope with regular submersion of their habitat remains poorly understood in meadows, especially in temperate floodplains. Here, we studied the recolonization dynamics of arthropods after a severe spring flood in the Loire Valley (France). We carried out analyses at the community (order or family identification level) and species scales, focusing on the assemblages of two dominant and diverse groups: carabids and spiders. Our objectives were the following: (i) to describe the temporal changes in community structure after flooding and (ii) to assess the influence of landscape configuration on recolonization patterns of species and their functional traits. Fieldwork was performed along three sampling transects, by using 75 pitfall traps, in 2012. A total of 14 767 arthropods belonging to 87 families were trapped, including 5538 spiders (55 species) and 3396 carabids (66 species). Multivariate analyses discriminated assemblages from flooded and non-flooded habitats and revealed changes over time in arthropod families and species after flood withdrawal. In particular, wolf spiders (Lycosidae) were the first to recolonize, whereas other groups clearly avoided flooded sites. Our results also revealed that short distances to hedgerows, and to a lesser extent, distance to woodlands, favoured the recolonization of large and ground-running spiders. In conclusion, our study shows the short-term resilience of certain groups or stenotopic species to flooding and also the relevance of multi-taxon-based studies. The presence of hedgerows has to be considered carefully in management plans because of their role of refuge during flooding. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International audience; Discriminating closely related species can become a taxonomical challenge if a clear morphological diagnosis is lacking. Two subspecies have been recognized in Pardosa agrestis (Westring, 1861); however, their validity is still debated. To resolve this dilemma, quantitative and qualitative traits were measured for 30 females and 30 males per site from ten localities throughout Western Europe (11 measurements on each individual) and compared between subspecies. Mean annual temperature and geographical coordinates from all sites were also included in the statistical models in order to test for variations in size over the distribution range of each subspecies. We found significant differences in body size and size of copulatory organs as well as accurate criteria of discrimination between P. a. agrestis and P. a. purbeckensis F.O.P. Cambridge, 1895, suggesting that these taxa are two valid morphological species, occurring sympatrically. We also showed that temperatures did not directly influence the size of individuals, but that one species had smaller individuals at higher latitudes (following the converse Bergmann's rule), and that both species had larger individuals in centrally sampled populations (fitting to the centre hypothesis). (C) 2014 The Linnean Society of London

Ecological determinants of a meadow community of Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea Laparosticti (Manche, France). Beetles belonging to the group of Scarabaeoidea Laparosticti represent an important component of grazed meadows, particularly in contributing to their structural biodiversity. They are indeed functioning elements that recycle organic matter coming from herbivore dejections. This study aimed at characterizing the whole assemblage of Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea Laparosticti and at determining respective influence of two main ecological factors, i.e. the type of herbivore (cow or horse) and the type of grazed meadow (meso-hygrophilous or xerophilous), on the distribution (in terms of presence/absence and abundances) of coprophagous beetles. Sampling were carried out in the "Reserve naturelle nationale du Domaine de Beauguillot" (Manche, France) during 2005 by using the standard trapping "Cebo-Superficie-Rejilla". A total of 12,621 individuals belonging to 26 species were collected. A strong effect of herbivore type was highlighted, as numerous species were found to be exclusively or mainly present in cow dung. The effect of meadow type slightly occurred, being important only in case of statistical interactions with herbivore type.

Poster

Salt marshes are simple ecosystems characterized by extreme conditions; two abiotic factors appear to structure habitats: regular submergence and the resulting soil salinity. These ecosystems support highly specialized species that have a high conservation value. In the last ten years, invasion by Elymus athericus (Poaceae) has led to a major change in vege- tation cover (including changes in micro-habitats architecture) in salt marshes of the Mont-Saint-Michel Bay (France). In this study, we tried to determine whether ecological structure and high conservation value of invaded salt marshes had been preserved using spiders as indicators. The functional groups, abundances and flood resistance abilities of spider communities were compared between initial and invaded stations during 2002 and 2003. Invasion by E. athericus had both positive and negative consequences for spider communities, in particular for the dominant halophilic species. Pardosa purbeckensis populations clearly declined in habitats invaded by E. athericus, whereas Arctosa fulvolineata seemed to ben- efit greatly from the invasion. Functional groups were strongly affected by the plant invasion. Relation between the habi- tat change (vegetal invasion) and changes in the spider communities (both in terms of functional groups and halophilic species) confirms the high value of this taxon as bioindicators. Lastly, we suggest using abundances of P. purbeckensis as a parameter likely to help monitoring further salt marsh evolutions (such as management).

Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-25T12:17:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016-11-23 Villanova Univ, Dept Biol, Villanova, PA 19085 USA Museu Nacl Hist Nat & Ciencia, Lisbon, Portugal Univ Brasilia, Dept Zool, Inst Ciencias Biol, BR-70910900 Brasilia, DF, Brazil Smithsonian Inst, Natl Museum Nat Hist, Washington, DC 20560 USA Sorbonne Univ, Museum Natl Hist Nat, ISYEB, Paris, France Univ Nacl Tucuman, San Miguel De Tucuman, Argentina King Saud Univ, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Cornell Univ, Ithaca, NY USA Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Diadema, Brazil Upper Austrian Museum, Ctr Biol, Linz, Austria Villanova Univ, Villanova, PA 19085 USA Univ Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria Plazi, Bern, Switzerland Univ Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil Zool Forsch Museum A Koenig, Bonn, Germany Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belem, Para, Brazil Russian Acad Sci, St Petersburg, Russia Pontificia Univ Catolica Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Museo Reg Sci Nat, Turin, Italy Univ Fed Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Royal Museum Cent Africa, Tervuren, Belgium Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Mexico City, DF, Mexico Univ Innsbruck, Inst Ecol, Innsbruck, Austria Hasselt Univ, Hasselt, Belgium Univ Fed Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil Univ Fed Espirito Santo, Vitoria, ES, Brazil Univ Nacl Misiones, Felix De Azara, Argentina Albany Museum, Grahamstown, South Africa Natl Museum, Bloemfontein, South Africa Senckenberg Nat Hist Sammlungen, Dresden, Germany Univ Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, SP, Brazil Stephen F Austin State Univ, Nacogdoches, TX 75962 USA Landesmuseum, Leonding, Austria Univ Camerino, Camerino, Italy Univ Fed ABC, Sao Bernardo, Brazil Univ Estadual Londrina, Museu Zool, Londrina, Parana, Brazil Senckenberg Res Inst, Frankfurt, Germany Museo Civ Storia Nat, Carmagnola, Italy Polskiej Akad Nauk, Muzeum & Inst Zool, Warsaw, Poland Museo Civ Storia Nat, Genoa, Italy Russian Acad Sci, Inst Zool, St Petersburg, Russia Univ Estadual Paulista, Sao Vicente, Brazil Sorbonne Univ, ISYEB, Museum Natl Hist Nat, Paris, France Port Elizabeth Museum, Port Elizabeth, South Africa Sam Noble Museum, Norman, OK USA Harvard Univ, Museum Comparat Zool, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA North West Univ, Potchefstroom, South Africa Museu Nacl, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil Nat Hist Museum, Basel, Switzerland Senckenberg Nat Kundemuseum, Gorlitz, Germany North Carolina Museum Nat Sci, Raleigh, NC USA Univ Rennes 1, Rennes, France Univ Sao Paulo, Museu Zool, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Amer Museum Nat Hist, New York, NY 10024 USA Univ Huddersfield, Huddersfield, W Yorkshire, England North Dakota State Univ, Fargo, ND USA Univ Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Fac Sci Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia DPTC PC, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil Louisiana State Univ, Museum Nat Sci, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA Zool Survey India, Kolkata, India Univ Tennessee, Chattanooga, TN USA Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA Univ Luterana Brasil, Museu Ciencias Nat, Canoas, Brazil Univ Firenze, Florence, Italy Univ Ovidius Constanta, Constanta, Romania Univ Mississippi, Oxford, MS USA Royal Belgian Inst Nat Sci, Brussels, Belgium Univ New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA Inst Nacl de Pesquisas da Amazonia, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil Univ Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa Univ Fed Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil CIBIO Ctr Invest Biodiversidade & Recursos Genet, Vairao, Portugal Museum Hist Nat, Geneva, Switzerland Univ Fed Mato Grosso, Cuiaba, Brazil Univ Austral Chile, Valdivia, Chile Univ Malaysia, Sarawak, Malaysia Indian Inst Sci, Bangalore, Karnataka, India Scottish Assoc Marine Sci, Oban, Argyll, Scotland Sam Houston State Univ, Huntsville, TX 77340 USA Museo Nacl Ciencias Nat, Madrid, Spain Sorbonne Univ, CR2P, Museum Natl Hist Nat, Paris, France Drexel Univ, Acad Nat Sci, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA Univ Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 USA Ctr Pesquisas Cacau, Itabuna, Brazil Univ Torino, Turin, Italy Soc Hist Nat Alcide dOrbigny, Aubiere, France Wolfden Sci Consulting, Murcia, Spain Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Macae, Brazil Univ Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA Inst Humboldt, Villa De Leyva, Colombia Escuela Politec Nacl, Quito, Ecuador Calif Acad Sci, San Francisco, CA 94118 USA Museum Dept Hist Nat Var, Toulon, France Nat Environm & Wildlife Soc, Angul, India Univ Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 USA Kyoto Univ, Kyoto, Japan Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, Museo Argentino Ciencias Nat Bernardino Rivadavia, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina Univ Fed Paraiba, Joao Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil Univ Fed Parana, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil Nat Hist Museum Narodini Museum, Prague, Czech Republic Nat Hist Museum Zimbabwe, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Ateneo Manila Univ, Quezon City, Philippines Pontificia Univ Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia RACINE, St Maugan, France Univ Paris 06, Sorbonne Univ Paris, ISYEB, Paris, France Ocean Univ China, Qingdao, Peoples R China Museo Nacl Hist Nat Paraguay, San Lorenzo, Paraguay Univ Carabobo, Valencia, Venezuela Natl Ctr Biol Sci, Bengaluru, India Univ Nebraska, Lincoln, NE USA CENAK Ctr Nat Kunde, Hamburg, Germany Ohio Hist Connect, Columbus, OH USA Univ Fed Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil Univ Malaga, Malaga, Spain Chinese Acad Sci, Qingdao, Shandong, Peoples R China Benemerita Univ Autonoma Puebla, Puebla, Mexico Natl Polytech Inst, Ctr Res & Adv Studies, Irapuato, Mexico Field Museum Nat Hist, Chicago, IL 60605 USA Univ Texas El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968 USA Univ Fed Lavras, Lavras, Brazil Nat Hist Museum, Vienna, Austria La Sierra Univ, Riverside, CA USA Univ San Francisco Quito, Quito, Ecuador Univ Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China CUNY, New York, NY 10021 USA CAS, Inst Vertebrate Biol, Brno, Czech Republic Sorbonne Univ, MECADEV, Museum Natl Hist Nat, Paris, France Univ Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, Brazil Zool Staatssammlung Munchen, Munich, Germany Univ Michigan, Dearborn, MI 48128 USA Smithsonian Inst, Natl Museum Nat Hist, Washington, DC USA Helmholtz Ctr Environm Res, Leipzig, Germany Santa Rosa Jr Coll, Santa Rosa, CA USA George Washington Univ, Washington, DC 20037 USA Inst Teknol Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia Earlham Coll, Richmond, IN USA Senckenberg Forschungsinst & Nat Museum, Frankfurt, Germany Univ Estadual Londrina, Londrina, Parana, Brazil Univ Koblenz Landau, Koblenz, Germany Nat Hist Museum, London, England Ditsong Natl Museum Nat Hist, Pretoria, South Africa Bombay Nat Hist Soc, Bombay, Maharashtra, India Philipps Univ Marburg, Marburg, Germany Hess Landesmuseum, Darmstadt, Germany Smithsonian Conservat Biol Inst, Washington, DC USA Univ Pannonia, Keszthely, Hungary Staatliches Museum Nat Kunde, Stuttgart, Germany UFT, Tocantins, Portugal Museum Nat Kunde, Berlin, Germany Nat Hist Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden Hikarigaoka, Munakata, Japan Inst Agr & Environm Sci, Tartu, Estonia Univ Los Andes, Merida, Venezuela Bat Jungle, Monteverde, Costa Rica Texas A&M Univ, College Stn, TX USA Yale Univ, New Haven, CT USA Univ Estadual Paulista, Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, Brazil Museo Nacl Hist Nat, Montevideo, Uruguay Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, Fdn Miguel Lillo, San Miguel De Tucuman, Argentina Roger Tory Peterson Inst Nat Hist, Jamestown, VA USA Univ Fed Reconcavo Bahia, Cruz Das Almas, Brazil South China Normal Univ, Guangzhou 510631, Guangdong, Peoples R China Museu Ciencias Tecnol PUCRS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Univ Fed Tocantins, Porto Nacl, Brazil Univ Toronto, Scarborough, ON, Canada Univ Nacl Colombia, Inst Ciencias Nat, Bogota, Colombia Natl Museum Philippines, Manila, Philippines NOVA Univ Lisbon, Caparica, Portugal Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, SK, Canada Deutsch Zentrum Marine Biodiversitatsforsch, Hamburg, Germany Ctr Invest Biol Noroeste, La Paz, Mexico Naturalis Biodivers Ctr, Leiden, Netherlands Univ Douala, Douala, Cameroon Vet & Farmaceut Univ Brno, Brno, Czech Republic Univ Swaziland, Kwaluseni, Eswatini Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil Univ Claude Bernard, Lyon, France Museum Vertebrate Zool, Berkeley, CA USA Smithsonian Inst, Washington, DC 20560 USA Nat Hist Museum & Inst, Chiba, Japan Senckenberg Biodiversitat & Klima Forschunsgzentr, Frankfurt, Germany Marquette Univ, Milwaukee, WI 53233 USA Univ Firenze, Museo Storia Nat, Florence, Italy Univ Fed Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil Fed Univ ABC, Sao Bernardo, Brazil Univ Fed Goias, Goiania, Go, Brazil Univ Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, AK USA Egerton Univ, Egerton, Kenya Museo Hist Nat, Lima, Peru IKIAM Univ Reg Amazon, Tena, Ecuador Univ Hyogo, Sanda, Japan Inst Rech Dev, Paris, France Univ Sao Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil Niedersachs Landesbetrieb Wasserwirtschaft Kusten, Hannover, Germany Univ Complutense Madrid, Madrid, Spain Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, Ctr Nacl Patagon, Puerto Madryn, Argentina Roosevelt Univ, Coll Profess Studies, Chicago, IL 60605 USA Western Kentucky Univ, Bowling Green, KY 42101 USA Univ Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy Univ Fed Acre, Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil Univ Fed Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil Inst Bio & Geociencias Noroeste Argentino, Salta, Argentina Inst Venezolano Invest Cient, Caracas, Venezuela Umweltbundesamt, Vienna, Austria Penclen, Plumelec, France CNRS MNHN UPMC, Ctr Rech Paleobiodivers & Paleoenvironm, Paris, France Staatl Museum Nat Kunde, Stuttgart, Germany Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, Museo Argentino Ciencias Nat Bernardino Rivada, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina Ctr Biol Gest Populat INRA, Montferrier Sur Lez, France Loyola Univ Chicago, Chicago, IL USA Pontificia Univ Catolica Rio do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Durban Museum Nat Sci, Durban, South Africa Univ Estado Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil Brigham Young Univ, Provo, UT 84602 USA Museo Hist Nat La Salle, Caracas, Venezuela Univ Vet Med Hannover, Hannover, Germany Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW, Australia Texas Tech Univ, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA Francis Marion Univ, Florence, SC USA Univ Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA Univ Connecticut, Groton, CT USA Fed Univ ABC, Santo Andre, SP, Brazil Univ Fed Uberlandia, Uberlandia, MG, Brazil Fed Univ Para, Belem, Para, Brazil Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven, CT USA Univ Texas Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019 USA Senckenberg Deutsch Entomol Inst, Muncheberg, Germany CSIRO, Natl Res Collect, Canberra, ACT, Australia Univ Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa Univ Ulsan, Ulsan, South Korea Univ Estadual Sao Paulo, Botucatu, SP, Brazil Senckenberg Forsch Inst & Nat Museum, Frankfurt, Germany Ocean Univ China, Inst Marine Biodivers & Evolut, Qingdao, Shandong, Peoples R China Univ Fed Para, Altamira, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Assis, Brazil UPMC, Ctr Rech Paleobiodiversite & Paleoenvironm, CNRS, MNHN, Paris, France Tech Univ Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany Charles Univ Prague, Dept Zool, Prague, Czech Republic Univ Nacl Expt los Llanos Occident Ezequiel Zamor, Guanare, Venezuela Long Isl Univ, Brooklyn, NY USA Univ Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan Pontificia Univ Catolica Ecuador, Museo Zool, Escuela Ciencias Biol, Quito, Ecuador Indiana Univ Penn, Indiana, PA USA IRD, Dakar, Senegal State Museum Nat Hist Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany Univ Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France Univ Ghent, Ghent, Belgium Univ Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Karlsruhe Inst Technol, Karlsruhe, Germany Ctr Cellular & Mol Biol, Hyderabad, India Univ Fed ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil Yale Peabody Museum Nat Hist, New Haven, CT USA Univ Innsbruck, Mondsee, Austria Bethune Cookman Univ, Daytona Beach, FL USA Natl Museum Nat & Sci, Tokyo, Japan Zool Garten Koln, Cologne, Germany Univ Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, SP, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Sao Vicente, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Assis, Brazil

Species assemlblages are stuctured by biotic and abiotic factors acting at local and landscape scales. In floodplains, assemblages are also exposed to perturbations, mainly due to flooding and management. These perturbations, are particularly important in the meadows of the Loire Valley which are managed by cutting and grazing and host rare animal and plant species sensitive to management and flooding.The main factors structuring arthropod (spiders and carabids) and plant assemblages were studied in the Loire Valley during three field campains between 2011 and 2013. Regarding arthropods, we demonstrated that plant biomass is an important driver of local carabid species richness and density. This underlines the existence of a "bottom-up" control of carabid diversity. Besides, carabids seem more sensitive than spiders to spring floods, spiders and carabids being considerabely less impacted than other arthropods. We also found recolonisation process to be dependant of the landscape configuration, mainly the hedges that act as a refuge.Meadow management by cutting has long been recognized to have a huge, mostly negative, impact on arthropods assemblages. Our study demonstrated that delaying cutting date for birds conservation, has only short term impact: large carabids are negatively affected by late cutting and spiders by early cutting.A better knowledge of habitat spatial repartition is essential to improve the understanding of factors structuring assemblages at large scale. In flooded meadows, the main factors are wetness (linked to flooding) and management. In our study, we defined habitat types presents in the Loire Valley. Besides, we successfully mapped those habitats coupling a phytosociological approach and remote sensing techniques.Whereas we demonstrated the importance of flooding and management, their relative importance remains poorly known. We found stochastic perturbations, such as flooding, being a more important driver of arthropod and vegetation diversity and density than management. Nevertheless, the relative contribution of local and landscape (composition and structure) factors in alpha and beta diversities varied greatly with groups and diversity component under study.Our work is unique, by its amplitude along a major river catchment regarding arthropods. Unless our study confirmed the importance of some classical drivers at local and large scale, it also demonstrated that wetness, and so flooding, are the main drivers of assemblages. The major importance of landscape against local factors on arthropods was also confirmed, including for spiders. Finally, our work underlines the need of large scale approach in management and conservation planning of biodiversity in flooded meadows., Les assemblages d'espèces sont contraints par de nombreux facteurs biotiques et abiotiques s'exerçant aux échelles locales et paysagères. En plaine alluviale, ils sont de plus exposés à des perturbations liées aux crues et à la gestion des milieux. Ces deux facteurs sont particulièrement importants au sein des prairies inondables de la vallée de la Loire qui sont le plus souvent gérées par la fauche (mais aussi par le pâturage) et hébergent des espèces animales et végétales considérées comme patrimoniales et sensibles à la gestion et à l'inondation.Les déterminants des assemblages d'arthropodes (araignées et carabiques) et de plantes ont été étudiés sur la Vallée de la Loire et les Basses Vallées Angevines lors de trois campagnes de terrain entre 2011 et 2013. Concernant les arthropodes épigés, nous avons pu démontrer qu'à l'échelle locale, la biomasse végétale est un facteur déterminant de la diversité de carabiques soulignant un contrôle « bottom-up » de cette dernière. Ce groupe apparaît en outre être plus sensible que les araignées à l'effet des crues de printemps (ces deux groupes restant les moins sensibles parmi les arthropodes). L'effet des inondations reste cependant dépendant de la configuration paysagère locale et notamment de la présence de haies.La gestion des prairies par la fauche est depuis longtemps reconnue comme ayant un impact fort, le plus souvent négatif, sur les communautés d'arthropodes. Cette étude a démontré que les effets des retards de fauches mis en place pour la conservation de l'avifaune se font sentir uniquement à court terme : ils se révèlent négatifs pour les carabiques de grande taille alors que les fauches précoces le sont pour les araignées.La connaissance des habitats est essentielle à la compréhension des facteurs influençant les communautés à large échelle. Dans les plaines inondables, les facteurs régissant les assemblages d'espèces végétales sont l'humidité (liée au régime de crue) et la gestion. Dans cette étude, nous avons défini les types d'habitats prairiaux présents en Vallée de la Loire et démontré la pertinence du couplage d'une approche phytosociologique et de la télédétection pour la cartographie large échelle des habitats.Si les impacts de la gestion et des crues ont été démontrés individuellement, leur importance relative reste peu connue. Il apparaît que les perturbations stochastiques telles que les crues constituent des déterminants de la diversité et de la densité d'arthropodes et de végétation bien plus importants que la gestion. Cependant, la part relative des facteurs locaux et paysagers (occupation du sol et configuration) dans les variations de diversités (alpha et beta) varie fortement selon les groupes et la composante de diversité étudiée.Notre travail constitue une première en termes de linéaire de bassin versant couvert dans le cadre d'une étude portant sur les assemblages d'arthropodes. Si elle confirme l'importance de certains facteurs aux échelles locales et paysagères, notre étude démontre en outre l'importance centrale de l'humidité et donc des crues dans la structuration des assemblages ainsi que le rôle majeur du paysage. Enfin, notre travail souligne la nécessité d'une approche large échelle dans la gestion des milieux prairiaux en zone inondable.