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.

1. Farmland ponds are a highly threatened freshwater habitat which has undergone dramatic losses during the last 200 years due to land drainage schemes and agricultural intensification. Agri-environment schemes (AES) incentivize farmers to adopt farming methods to benefit biodiversity, yet there are a paucity of data evaluating the success of artificially created AES ponds as analogues of natural ponds in an attempt to recreate lost environments. 2. We examined variation in environmental parameters and aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate communities between 38 natural ponds and 91 artificial ponds that were created in southwest Ireland (n = 129). 3. Artificial ponds in agricultural grassland did not replicate natural ponds in adjacent semi-natural habitats differing significantly in size, pH, conductivity, productivity (indicated by submerged and emergent plant cover including algae) and surrounding vegetation structure that is, sward height. These differences significantly influenced aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate community structure with a suite of indicator taxa in both natural and artificial ponds. 4. The conservation value of artificial ponds in agricultural grasslands should not be underestimated as they had 43% higher aquatic species richness and 33% higher aquatic species abundance than natural ponds in adjacent semi-natural habitats. 5. Synthesis and applications. We demonstrate that artificial agri-environment scheme ponds created in agricultural grasslands, whilst not direct analogues of natural ponds in adjacent semi-natural habitats, do fulfil a role in preserving high local biodiversity albeit representing a different community of species. Creation of ponds in farmland as well as in adjacent natural habitats could provide a wider range of environmental conditions and richer associated macroinvertebrate communities, increasing landscape connectivity and further enhancing regional biodiversity. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

congress repor