Artificial lighting triggers the presence of urban spiders and their webs on historical buildings

Mammola, Stefano; Isaia, Marco; Demonte, Daniele; Triolo, Paolo; Nervo, Marco

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.003

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…TBPs are sometimes attracted to natural barriers, such as rocks, cliffs or tree trunks [37][38][39][40] . Similarly, some spiders are more frequently found next to or prefer to construct their webs on man-made walls or fences [41][42][43][44] . Such a preference for natural or artificial barriers has been explained by better thermal/humidity conditions next to the barrier, the reflection of light from a bright barrier that attracts potential prey, protection against rain, or help in the stabilization of the trap.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do pit-building predators prefer or avoid barriers? Wormlions' preference for walls depends on light conditions

Scharf

Silberklang

Avidov

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ambush site selection by sit-and-wait predators is a complex process, involving biotic and abiotic considerations, which greatly affect hunting success and costs. Wormlions are fly larvae that dig pit-traps in loose soil and hunt the arthropod prey falling into their pits. They are abundant in urban environments, found below buildings that provide cover, and many of their pits are dug adjacent to walls. We examined here under what conditions wormlions prefer to dig their pits next to walls. We analysed our dataset in two ways: frequency comparisons among the different treatment combinations and a simulation null model assuming random movement. While the frequency comparisons suggested that wormlions avoided the walls under some cases, the simulation null model suggested that a combination of shallow sand and strong light in the centre led to an attraction towards the walls, independent of the wormlions' initial location. We suggest that wall attraction results from the certain amount of shade the walls provide. We also demonstrate that shallow sand and strong illumination are unfavourable microhabitats, either leading to more frequent movement or the digging of smaller pits. We locate our results within the broader context of sit-and-wait predators and of animals' attraction to barriers. In contrast to widely-foraging predators, sit-and-wait predators do not search for prey. Rather, they choose an ambush location and wait for the prey to enter their detection range before attacking it 1,2. This foraging mode allows sit-and-wait predators to save the energetic costs of searching and to survive long periods of shortage of prey by reducing their metabolic rate 3-5. Ambushing prey instead of searching can also lower the risk of predation on the sit-and-wait predator, due to the positive association between searching intensity and predation risk 6-8. This foraging mode's drawback, however, lies in the low encounter rate with prey, forcing such predators to be opportunistic foragers 1,9. Sit-and-wait predators must choose their ambush sites carefully. Because sit-and-wait predators count on the prey to reach them, they often select ambush sites rich in prey in order to maximize capture success 10-12. Sit-and-wait predators are therefore attracted to abiotic cues, which are either correlated with prey abundance or facilitate prey capture 13-16. However, in many other sit-and-wait predators, considerations related to minimizing ambush costs dominate over those related to high prey abundance. For example, sit-and-wait predators select sites that limit exposure to extreme thermal conditions 17-20. Trap-building predators (hereafter, TBPs) are a subgroup of sit-and-wait predators, which construct traps to facilitate the capture of prey 21,22. The most common trap-building predator groups are the web-building spiders and pit-building antlions or wormlions, presenting case studies of convergent evolution 21,23. The selection of suitable sites for trap construction and ambush for prey is even more important for this group of p...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do pit-building predators prefer or avoid barriers? Wormlions' preference for walls depends on light conditions

Scharf

Silberklang

Avidov

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within the built environment, Mammola et al (2018) document an abundance of spider webs on the ceilings of historic buildings due to the presence of incandescent artificial lighting that attracts moths and other insects. LP concerns have been raised in the construction of environmentally sensitive conservation subdivisions (Hostetler 2016) and for transportation corridors (Zhou, Hawkins, and Miles 2013).…”

Section: Lp In Local Planning and Policy: Theory And Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

City Light or Star Bright: A Review of Urban Light Pollution, Impacts, and Planning Implications

Pothukuchi

2021

Journal of Planning Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light pollution (LP) is a growing scourge in metropolitan areas yet is largely ignored by planners. It has negative impacts on the health of humans and of wildlife and threatens views of the night sky. This article reviews adverse impacts in multiple categories, highlights mitigation strategies, and makes the case for more engagement in planning scholarship and practice especially in the United States. Defining LP and balancing competing values in its mitigation are political acts, challenged by, among other things, lack of public awareness, the primacy of energy efficiency among factors in decision-making, and the association of more light with greater security.

show abstract

“…These include high spatial habitat heterogeneity (i.e. 'urban mosaic', Sattler et al 2010), with some new microhabitats (Bar-Ziv et al 2018), a warmer climate enhanced by the urban heat island (Youngsteadt et al 2016), and artificial light at night (Mammola et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spiders inhabit various urban microhabitats such as man-made structures (buildings, bridges, etc. ;Heiling 1999;Mammola et al 2018), cemeteries (Buchholz et al 2016;Kowarik et al 2016), gardens (Burkman and Gardiner 2015), or parks (Lowe et al 2016). It is also well known that some orb weavers and ground-dwelling species are attracted by artificial light, which is probably caused by high activity of invertebrates in the vicinity of lamps (Heiling 1999;Manfrin et al 2017;Czaczkes et al 2018;Mammola et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living in discarded containers: spiders explore a new niche created by littering in urban woodlands

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased urbanisation is leading to littering of the environment. However, some animals may adapt to live in such altered habitats. The aim of this study was to assess whether discarded containers can serve as a suitable microhabitat for spiders. The study was conducted in 10 woodland areas in the city of Wrocław, Poland. In September 2018, a total of 939 containers were collected, of which 33.5% contained evidence of spiders having resided therein: webs, dead or living spiders, exuviae or cocoons. A total of 22 species and several other taxa that could not be recognised so accurately were detected. The most common of these belonged to Linyphiidae and Theridiidae. Juveniles (N = 103) dominated over adults (N = 58), and females (N = 34) were more numerous than males (N = 24). In 15 containers, interspecies pairs were found. Among ecological guilds, sheet web spiders dominated (60%) followed by space web spiders (24%), ground hunters (9%), ambush hunters (3%), specialists (3%), and other hunters (2%). Spiders were significantly more often found in colourless (38.3%) and green (35.5%) than in brown bottles (25.2%). They were also more numerous in glass bottles for sweet drinks (50.0%) than in beer bottles (28.0%), and slightly more frequent than in glass vodka bottles (33.3%). Our study showed that discarded containers are fully exploitable microhabitats for spiders and are used by these animals for at least three different purposes: hunting, hiding and breeding, however the effect on their fitness remains unknown.

show abstract

Artificial lighting triggers the presence of urban spiders and their webs on historical buildings

Cited by 14 publications

References 54 publications

Do pit-building predators prefer or avoid barriers? Wormlions' preference for walls depends on light conditions

Do pit-building predators prefer or avoid barriers? Wormlions' preference for walls depends on light conditions

City Light or Star Bright: A Review of Urban Light Pollution, Impacts, and Planning Implications

Living in discarded containers: spiders explore a new niche created by littering in urban woodlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About