Search

Species traits are an essential currency in ecology, evolution, biogeography, and conservation biology. However, trait databases are unavailable for most organisms, especially those living in difficult-to-access habitats such as caves and other subterranean ecosystems. We compiled an expert-curated trait database for subterranean spiders in Europe using both literature data (including grey literature published in many different languages) and direct morphological measurements whenever specimens were available to us. We started by updating the checklist of European subterranean spiders, now including 512 species across 20 families, of which at least 192 have been found uniquely in subterranean habitats. For each of these species, we compiled 64 traits. The trait database encompasses morphological measures, including several traits related to subterranean adaptation, and ecological traits referring to habitat preference, dispersal, and feeding strategies. By making these data freely available, we open up opportunities for exploring different research questions, from the quantification of functional dimensions of subterranean adaptation to the study of spatial patterns in functional diversity across European caves. Measurement(s) morphological trait • ecological trait Technology Type(s) literature extraction • observation Sample Characteristic - Organism Agelenidae • Amaurobiidae • Anapidae • Cybaeidae • Dysderidae • Hahniidae • Leptonetidae • Linyphiidae • Liocranidae • Mysmenidae • Nesticidae • Pholcidae • Pimoidae • Segestriidae • Sicariidae • Sparassidae • Symphytognathidae • Telemidae • Tetragnathidae • Theridiidae Sample Characteristic - Environment caves • subterranean habitats Sample Characteristic - Location Europe [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Macroecologists seek to identify drivers of community turnover (β-diversity) through broad spatial scales. However, the influence of local habitat features in driving broad-scale β-diversity patterns remains largely untested, owing to the objective challenges of associating local-scale variables to continental-framed datasets. We examined the relative contribution of local- versus broad-scale drivers of continental β-diversity patterns, using a uniquely suited dataset of cave-dwelling spider communities across Europe (35–70° latitude). Generalized dissimilarity modelling showed that geographical distance, mean annual temperature and size of the karst area in which caves occurred drove most of β-diversity, with differential contributions of each factor according to the level of subterranean specialization. Highly specialized communities were mostly influenced by geographical distance, while less specialized communities were mostly driven by mean annual temperature. Conversely, local-scale habitat features turned out to be meaningless predictors of community change, which emphasizes the idea of caves as the human accessible fraction of the extended network of fissures that more properly represents the elective habitat of the subterranean fauna. To the extent that the effect of local features turned to be inconspicuous, caves emerge as experimental model systems in which to study broad biological patterns without the confounding effect of local habitat features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

. 1. The European Habitats Directive is the main legislative work regarding Europe's nature conservation policy. It lists the protected habitats and species in the European Union. The species lists include 122 arthropods. 2. The current lists of arthropods (Annexes II and IV) present, possibly among other, five obvious biases: taxonomic, geographic, range, size and aesthetic biases. Species of selected taxa (Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Odonata and Orthoptera), from Northern or Central Europe, relatively widespread, of a large body size and attractive are favoured over species of other taxa, from southern and Mediterranean Europe, endemic or relatively small or inconspicuous. Such biases are obstacles to the effective protection of the European fauna. 3. Two main strategies should be followed to avoid these problems and therefore increase the effectiveness of conservation policies: (i) the adoption of objective and transparent criteria for the listing of protected species, and (ii) implement regular updates and amendments to the lists based on such criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]