Red List of Czech spiders: 3rd edition, adjusted according to evidence-based national conservation priorities

Article (PDF Available)inBiologia 70(5):645-666 · May 2015with 631 Reads
DOI: 10.1515/biolog-2015-0079
Abstract
The knowledge on spiders of the Czech Republic has substantially improved since the second version of the national Red List was published, mainly due to large-scale field records and the establishment of an extensive, searchable electronic database of both retrospective and prospective records. Meanwhile, Central European spiders have undergone substantial changes in abundance and distribution. In this report, an updated Red List is presented and compared with the previous editions from 1992 and 2002. Here, we assessed all 879 spider species known to occur in the Czech Republic. For the first time, the abundance, area of occupancy and population trends were calculated for each of the species using the data from the Czech Arachnological Society recording scheme. Twenty-seven species (3% of the total) were classified as Regionally Extinct (RE), 94 (11%) as Critically Endangered, 113 (13%) as Endangered, 156 (18%) as Vulnerable, and 126 (14%) were classified as Least Concern species. Some species listed in the previous version of the Red List were found to live also in non-endangered habitats or to be more common than previously thought,and were thus removed from the list or reclassified to the lower Red List categories. Additionally, several species with dramatically decreasing abundance were identified, among them Ozyptila rauda, Agyneta equestris, Agyneta mollis, Kishidaia conspicua, Clubiona genevensis and Centromerus semiater. The results confirm that spiders are a highly threatened group of arthropods in the Czech Republic, and the updated Red List provides an important foundation for defining conservation priorities.
Biologia 70/5: 645—666, 2015
Section Zoology
DOI: 10.1515/biolog-2015-0079
Red List of Czech spiders: 3rd edition, adjusted according
to evidence-based national conservation priorities
Milan Řezáč1*, Antonín Kůrka2, Vlastimil Růžička3&PetrHeneberg4*
1Crop Research Institute, Biodiversity Lab, Drnovská 507,CZ-161 06 Prague, Czech Republic; e-mail: rezac@vurv.cz
217. listopadu 1173,CZ-293 02 Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic
3Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31,CZ-370 05 České
Budějovice, Czech Republic
4Charles University in Prague, Third Faculty of Medicine, Ruská 87,CZ-100 00 Prague, Czech Republic; e-mail:
petr.heneberg@lf3.cuni.cz
Abstract: The knowledge on spiders of the Czech Republic has substantially improved since the second version of the
national Red List was published, mainly due to large-scale field records and the establishment of an extensive, searchable
electronic database of both retrospective and prospective records. Meanwhile, Central European spiders have undergone
substantial changes in abundance and distribution. In this report, an updated Red List is presented and compared with
the previous editions from 1992 and 2002, assessing all 879 spider species known to occur in the Czech Republic. For
the first time, the abundance, area of occupancy and population trends were calculated for each of the species using the
data from the Czech Arachnological Society recording scheme. Twenty-seven species (3% of the total) were classified as
Regionally Extinct (RE), 92 (10%) as Critically Endangered, 115 (13%) as Endangered, 155 (18%) as Vulnerable, and 121
(14%) were classified as Least Concern species. Some species listed in the previous version of the Red List were found to
live also in non-endangered habitats or to be more common than previously thought, and were thus removed from the list
or reclassified to the lower Red List categories. Additionally, several species with dramatically decreasing abundance were
identified, among them Ozyptila rauda,Agyneta equestris,Agyneta mol lis,Kishidaia conspicua,Clubiona genevensis and
Centromerus semiater. The results confirm that spiders are a highly threatened group of arthropods in the Czech Republic,
and the updated Red List provides an important foundation for defining conservation priorities.
Key words: evidence-based conservation; extinction risk; invertebrate surveys; monitoring; Red List; spiders; threatened
species
Introduction
The impact of human development on landscape and
climate changes during the 20th and 21st centuries have
caused rapid and substantial changes to the distribu-
tion and abundance of spiders both in Central Europe
and elsewhere (Gobbi et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2011;
Leroy et al. 2013, 2014; Heneberg & Řezáč 2014; Tropek
et al. 2014; Košuliš et al. 2014). These changes have
prompted the establishment of a database of records on
spider occurrence and the need for a conservation re-
sponse. In the Czech Republic, the electronic faunistic
database was established at http://cas.zlej.net (cited
as 15 Oct. 2014) by the Czech Arachnological Soci-
ety (CAS), and it contains both prospectively added
records as well as retrospective data retrieved from
previously published literature, including gray litera-
ture such as various unpublished records. While the ex-
act location of sampling sites and sampling dates are
password-protected, the number of findings per grid
of the Czech faunistic grid mapping is publicly avail-
able, as well as the decades in which the records were
obtained. Establishment of such extensive and non-
selective evidence allowed us to address the actualiza-
tion of the Red List of Czech spiders.
The Red Lists of spiders are available for a num-
ber of European countries, including most countries in
Central Europe. Among them are the regularly updated
Red List of German spiders (Blick et al. in press.), the
recently formed Red List of Carpathian spiders (Gaj-
doš et al. 2014), and Red Lists of Poland (Star˛ega
et al. 2002), Slovakia (Gajdoš & Svatoň 2001), the
Austrian state of Carinthia (Komposch & Steinberger
1999), Belgian Flanders (Maelfait et al. 1998), Norway
(˚
Akra et al. 2006), Finland (Rassi et al. 1992), Sweden
(Ehnstr¨om et al. 1993), Great Britain (Merrett 1991)
and Italy (Gropali & Priano 1993). In the Czech Re-
public, the first version of the Red List of Czech spi-
ders, published by Buchar (1992), was allowed to con-
tain only 30 spider species, all required to represent
large and spectacular spider species occupying locally
highly endangered habitats. This approach rather re-
sembled the enactment of the nature protection law,
where prominent flagship species are generally priori-
c
2015 Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences
646 M. Řezáč et al.
tized over small ones and those with nontrivial species
determination (cf. current species-specific nature pro-
tection laws in nearly any country worldwide). Later,
Buchar & Růžička (2002) compiled a catalogue of Czech
spiders, and utilized its content in the construction of
the updated Red List of Czech spiders (Růžička 2005).
In this list, the IUCN criteria were applied for the first
time when selecting the species to be red-listed. How-
ever, Růžička had to use relatively limited knowledge
on the distribution of most spider species; thus, the se-
lection of species was still strongly biased. In this sec-
ond Red List, only one species, Lycosa singoriensis,was
suggested to be regionally extinct (RE), whereas seven
other species were known to be absent since 1950 but
were not listed as regionally extinct because of doubts
on whether the last individual of such species (usually
inconspicuous or resident in subterranean habitats) had
already died. Lycosa singoriensis is once again recog-
nized as a member of Czech spider fauna because it
re-colonized the southeastern parts of the Czech Re-
public in the early 2000s. Buchar & Růžička (2002) and
Růžička (2005) classified another 53 species as critically
endangered (CR), 85 species as endangered (EN), 71
species as vulnerable (VU), and 49 species as low risk /
near threatened (listed as the LC species in this manu-
script).
Although the first data on the distribution of spi-
ders in the Czech Republic date back to the late 19th
century, the data have started to strongly accumulate
since the 1990s with the onset of pitfall-trapping and
later with the government-stimulated onset of extensive
monitoring of the biodiversity present within the Czech
nature reserves. Over half of the Czech spider records
available represent the years 1990–2014. Thus, when
performing field work and when assessing the time- and
site-matched datasets contained in the CAS database,
we noticed that a significant part of the 2005 Red List
is outdated, and does not reflect actual trends in the
distribution and abundance of particular species.
In this report, we use the evidence-based approach
aimed to improve the 2005 Red List to reflect the exten-
sive evidence on the distribution, abundance and pop-
ulation trends of Czech spiders gained during the last
two decades.
Material and methods
We follow the nomenclature according to the World Spider
Catalog (2015). The exceptions are Dysdera lantosquensis
(valid species, Řezáč et al. 2008), Eresus illustris (valid
species, Kůrka et al. 2015), Enoplognatha bryjai (new
species, Řezáč & Heneberg in press.) and Heliophanus pouz-
dranensis (valid species, Kůrka et al. 2015).
Data sources
We used data on all Czech spider species (not only the en-
dangered ones) from the electronic database of the Czech
Arachnological Society. For species identified in the Czech
Republic only recently, the number of published records was
retrieved from current literature as summarized in the re-
cently published compendium by Kůrka et al. (2015). In
summary, 134,005 records of 879 species were analyzed, of
which 70,330 records of 820 species were registered in 1990–
2014.
Criteria
The modified IUCN criteria were followed at the regional
level as suggested by G¨ardenfors et al. (2001) as long as the
data available permitted.
For the presentation of distribution of species, a Cen-
tral European grid map was used. A 10’ ×6’ grid produces
grid fields of about 12 ×11 km. We evaluated the number
of grid squares, in which the species had been recorded.
We evaluated also the habitat status, categorized
as rare, disappearing, already rare and disappearing, or
widespread (Kučera 2005).
Further, we considered sensitivity to habitat degrada-
tion, such as eutrophication, changing habitat management,
steppes overgrown with shrubs and trees, Aeolian sands
overgrown with trees, particularly pine forest plantations,
or trampling (Thomas et al. 2001; Warren et al. 2001; Buch-
holz 2010; Řezáč & Heneberg 2014).
Population decline was expressed as a ratio of CAS
database records from 1990–2014 compared to the total
number of records since the 19th century. The number of
records obtained in 1990–2014 composes 52% of the total
number of records in the CAS database. Minor fluctuations
in the number of records may reflect the shift in interest of
local arachnologists for different habitats or different fam-
ilies. Nevertheless, anything above or below the arbitrar-
ily chosen 20–80% threshold was considered as a significant
shift reflecting the IUCN A2 criterion (IUCN 2012). Most
spidersarenotasprominentand frequently collected as,
e.g., butterflies (Fox et al. 2011), and they follow multiple
and often semifossorial life strategies. Thus, the population
changes observed based on the CAS database records were
considered only as the auxiliary criterion, which was cor-
roborated by the personal experience of the authors of this
study and our acknowledged colleagues. Sampling sites were
visited repeatedly throughout long periods of time to avoid
any bias caused by the uneven sampling intensity of species
contained in the CAS database.
The presence of suitable habitats occupied by identi-
cal species in the surrounding Central European countries,
i.e., Germany (Blick et al. in press.), Austria (Komposch
& Steinberger 1999), Slovakia (Gajdoš & Svatoň 2001) and
Poland (Star˛ega et al. 2002) were also considered. This cri-
terion involved an assessment of whether the regional ex-
tinction threat determined based on the presence/absence
data was affected by the existence of populations outside of
the region in question by providing potential for a rescue ef-
fect (G¨ardenfors et al. 2001; Keller et al. 2005). In particular,
the species bound to alpine regions are extremely rare in the
Czech Republic, but that is due to the very limited extent of
such habitats within the country. In contrast, many of the
rare steppe and Aeolian sands specialists are also rare at
similar sites in the nearby countries, although such habitats
are also considered as very limited in the Czech Republic.
We evaluated also the typical species-specific habitat
preferences and the occurrence of species in three phyto-
geographic districts of the Czech Republic, namely Ther-
mophyticum, Mesophyticum, and Oreophyticum (Buchar &
Růžička 2002).
Red list categories
RE – Regionally Extinct. These species were defined
solely by the threshold criterion of the absence of species-
specific records in the Czech Republic during the last 30
years (i.e., from 1984 onward).
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 647
Table 1. Summarized data on the new Red List of Czech spiders, indicating the total number of species in each suggested category and
the classification of the species according to status of their habitat. The abbreviations of Red List categories are explained in Material
and Methods.
Red list category Number of species Habitat status
Total Rare Disappearing Already rare Widespread
and disappearing
RE 26 19 7
CR 92 36 1 53
EN 115 45 13 59
VU 155 40 60 55
LC 121 40 61 18 2
ES 370 7 6 4 353
Total 879 187 141 196 355
Chao-1 estimate ±SD 923.6 ±12.6
CR – Critically Endangered. Species with less than 100
individuals recorded in the CAS database from the 19th cen-
tury onward, and which originated from sampling sites at
less than 10 grid squares, were recognized as potentially CR
species. These species represent those bound strictly to the
habitats limited in size and endangered by changes in the
cultural landscape, at risk of regional extinction in the ab-
sence of proper management measures.
EN – Endangered. Species with less than 100 individuals
recorded in the CAS database from the 19th century onward,
and which originated from sampling sites at 50 or less grid
squares, were recognized as potentially EN species.
VU – Vulnerable. Species with less than 500 individuals
were recorded in the CAS database from the 19th century
onward, and which originated from sampling sites at 50 or
less grid squares, were recognized as potentially VU species.
The EN and VU species represent infrequently found
taxa bound strictly to habitats limited in size, and endan-
gered by changes of the cultural landscape though not at
risk of immediate extinction. Species classified in these two
categories differ in the number of habitat types they are
able to colonize, in the extent of the habitats occupied,
in the endangerment of their habitats, in their sensitivity
to habitat degradation, and in their overall abundance in
the Czech Republic and abroad. Nowadays we have exten-
sive knowledge even about species of cryptic habitats such
as subterranean spaces (for example, Růžička et al. 2013)
or tree canopies (for example, Kubcová & Schlaghamerský
2002). Thus, probability of exaggeration of endangerment
in such species caused by lack of knowledge decreased.
LC – Least Concern. These species represent relatively
common species that are bound to narrowly defined habi-
tats and threatened by ongoing changes of the cultural land-
scape.
ES – Ecologically Sustainable. These species represent
ubiquitous species, synanthropic species, species utilizing
habitats present in stable or increasing extent and quality,
and those commonly colonizing newly emerging habitats.
To predict the total number of spider species of
the Czech Republic, we calculated the Chao-1 estima-
tor using the program available at http://www2.biology.
ualberta.ca/jbrzusto/rarefact.php (accessed 15 Oct
2014).
Results
The complete list of taxa included in the Red List is
given in Appendix 1, and the numbers in the particular
Red List categories are shown in Table 1. Of the total
879 taxa of the Czech arachnofauna evaluated (repre-
senting the whole Czech arachnofauna known at the
time of manuscript submission), 509 (57.9%) were cat-
egorized as RE, CR, EN, VU or LC. Of the Red-Listed
taxa, 26 (5.1% of the total number listed) were rec-
ognized as Regionally Extinct, 92 (18.1%) were Criti-
cally Endangered, 115 (22.6%) were Endangered, 155
(30.5%) were Vulnerable, and 121 (23.8%) were Least
Concern species.
Although the stability of the categories used in
the present and past versions of the Red List suggests
the possibility of identifying trends in the occurrence of
threatened and endangered taxa in the Czech Repub-
lic over time, in most cases, the changes in suggested
species categorization reflect the improvement in our
knowledge on these species and their habitat require-
ments. However, there are some exceptions represented,
e.g., by the reclassification of species with increasing
abundance such as Lycosa singoriensis (CRLC, re-
colonization of the Czech Republic in the 21st century),
Uloborus walckenaerius (CREN, 95% of records from
1990–2014), Talavera milleri (CREN, 43% of records
from 1990-2014), Porrhomma errans (CRES, 78% of
records from 1990–2014), Dysdera hungarica (CRES,
100% of records from 1990–2014), Zodarion italicum
(ENES, 100% of records from 1990–2014), Cheiracan-
thium punctorium (ENES, 87% of records from 1990–
2014), Tetragnatha shoshone (VUES, 100% of records
from 1990–2014 – although its habitats are restricted
only to those of conservation interest, the species is
considered as alien), Megalepthyphantes pseudocollinus
(ENLC, 100% of records from 1990–2014), Entele-
cara flavipes (VULC, 70% of records from 1990–
2014), Titanoeca schineri (VULC, 71% of records
from 1990–2014) and Theonina kratochvili (ENVU,
76% of records from 1990–2014). Similarly, species with
dramatically decreasing abundance were reclassified;
among them were Ozyptila rauda (VUCR, 0% of
records from 1990–2014), Agyneta equestris (NTEN,
9% of records from 1990–2014), Kishidaia conspicua
(VUEN, 0% of records from 1990–2014), Clubiona
genevensis (ENCR, 13% of records from 1990–2014),
Centromerus semiater (ESEN, 7% of records from
648 M. Řezáč et al.
Table 2. Indicators of area of occupancy, population status and population decline values of species classified according to the new
Red List of Czech spiders. This includes the total number of records of each species, number of squares of the Czech faunistic grid
mapping occupied, proportion of records from the years 1990–2014 relative to the total number of species-specific records [%], and the
Red List status of each species. To allow tabelization of the data including all 879 Czech spider species, the three indicators are shown
as categorized values.
Total number Number of grids Relative share of records Red list status
of records occupied from 1990–2014 (%)
RE CR EN VU LC ES
<10 <10 0 26 20 3 1 1** 1*
1–20 3 4 2 1** 1*
21–50 18 18 9 1
51–80 3 7 3 2
>80 33 19 3 7 16
10–99 <10 0 3 2
1–20 3 3 3 1 1**
21–50 2 20 9 3 2
51–80 4 15 16 1 5
>80 1 5 6 2 3
10-99 10-49 0 1*
1–20 4 5 8 2*
21–50 8 27 25 40
51–80 9 36 34 25
>80 6 4 8
10–99 50 21–50 2
51–80 2
100–499 <10 21–50 1
100–499 10-49 1–20 2 1
21–50 12 13 13
51–80 10 7 16
>80 2 4
100–499 50 1–20 1 2
21–50 6 55
51–80 2 5 95
>80 5
500 50 21–50 1 31
51–80 37
Explanations: *Synanthropic species. ** Species of subterranean habitats. Of that one synanthropic and one alien species. Of that
14 synanthropic and/or alien species. The abbreviations of Red List categories are explained in Material and Methods.
1990-2014) and Porrhomma convexum (ESLC, 11%
of records from 1990–2014).
One of the main criteria considered for the list-
ing of a particular species was the habitat status. With
two exceptions, all 509 listed species are limited to rare
and/or disappearing habitats, which are frequently nar-
rowly characterized by precise requirements for man-
agement, vegetation cover and bedrock type. All the
RE species were limited to rare or already rare and dis-
appearing habitats. Some listed species utilized habi-
tats, which are still relatively common but disappear-
ing. Such habitats hosted 1% of the CR species, 11% of
the EN species, 39% of the VU species and 50% of the
1W. Nentwig (in litt.) noticed that also Urozelotes rus-
ticus and Zelotes puritanus might be considered as species
introduced to Europe by humans. However, the conclusive
evidence is absent so far, Urozelotes rusticus has not been
found in the Czech Republic for 80 years and Zelotes pu-
ritanus occurs in the Czech Republic exclusively at sites of
high conservation interest.
LC species (Table 1). The ES species limited to the rare
and/or disappearing habitats represented prevalently
alien species, such as Tetragnatha shoshone, and species
with strong and/or increasing populations across Cen-
tral Europe, such as Xysticus acerbus,Hilaira excisa,
Walckenaeria acuminata,Theridion hemerobium,Par-
dosa hortensis and Porrhomma microps (Appendix 1,
Table 2 ) 1.
When considering habitat types, the highest share
of listed species resided in open habitats (76% of the
total open habitat specialists, of which 3.2% were rep-
resented by RE species) and wetlands (75% listed, 4.8%
RE species). Of the forest specialists, 46% were listed
(1.6% RE species). Of the subterranean species, 45%
were listed (6.9% RE species, but caution is needed
in the case of relatively infrequently collected species
of subterranean habitats). None of the synanthropic
species were listed, and only 1% of the ubiquitous
species and species utilizing multiple habitats were
listed (Table 3). The Czech Republic also hosts nine
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 649
Table 3. Distribution of the Czech spider species across ma jor habitat types.
Habitat type
Red list
status Open Wetlands Forests Alpine Subterranean Synanthropic Ubiquitous/multiple
Number of species
RE 11 9 3 1 2
CR 57 21 10 2
EN 62 38 14 2 1
VU 77 41 29 3 5
LC 53 32 30 5 1
ES 83 46 99 1 16 34 91
Total 343 187 185 9 29 34 92
The abbreviations of Red List categories are explained in Material and Methods. Open – any terrestrial habitats without trees and
shrubs or with only solitary trees and shrubs in lowlands and uplands. Wetlands – any wetlands, including fishponds, littoral zones
of lakes, fens and peat bogs. Forests – habitats with dominant tree or bush stratum. Alpine – open habitats in the alpine zone.
Subterranean – subterranean habitats like caves or scree slopes. Synanthropic – species living in synanthropic habitats (not necessarily
exclusively). Ubiquitous / multiple – species living in two or more of the previously listed habitat types.
Table 4. Occurence of the spider species in the Czech climatic-phytogeographic districts. The abbreviations of Red List categories are
explainedinMaterialandMethods.
Climatic phytogeographic district
Red list
status Oreo- Oreo- and Meso- Meso- and Thermo- All three Regularly or occasionally
phyticum Mesophyticum phyticum Thermophyticum phyticum zones at/in the buildings
Number of species
RE 6 6 14
CR 6 1 18 8 58
EN 19 8 19 19 49 2
VU 12 13 41 43 43 2 1
LC8 1143 39162 2
ES 10 61 54 140 10 50 45
Total 61 94 181 249 190 56 48
alpine spider species, eight of which are listed and one
of which is Regionally Extinct. However, alpine habitats
are highly limited across the country, and thus further
faunistic research is needed to confirm that all eight
alpine species deserve their current status.
When we analyzed the listed spider species accord-
ing to their occurrence in phytogeographic districts of
the Czech Republic (which was not among the criteria
used for the Red List formation), we noticed that 100%
of the RE species had its previous distribution range re-
stricted to only a single phytogeographic region, which
is also true for 90% of the CR species, 75% of the EN
species, 62% of the VU species, 55% of the LC species
but only 20% of the ES species (Table 4).
Despite being rare in the Czech Republic, sev-
eral species were not listed or were listed in a cat-
egory lower than that which would correspond to
their abundance, population trend and area of distri-
bution because they were common and/or increasing
in the surrounding countries. These species included,
for example, Uloborus walckenaerius,Xysticus acer-
bus,Mysmenella jobi,Megalepthyphantes pseudocolli-
nus and Arctosa maculata. Although the Red List pro-
vided reflects the species abundance in the surrounding
countries, overlap with the Red Lists of Germany, the
Carpathians (including Slovakia) and Poland is highly
limited (Fig. 1). Interestingly, there is only a single
species listed as RE, CR or EN in all four Red Lists
compared (Mecynargus morulus). The newly proposed
Red List of Czech spiders contains 76% of the species
listed in the Carpathians, 67% of the species listed
in Germany, and 54% of the species listed in Poland
(Fig. 1).
Discussion
The new Red List assessment was based on the most
comprehensive monitoring data available for Czech spi-
ders. The results are consistent with the previous as-
sessment based on the personal experience of the au-
thor of the previous Red List and confirm that spi-
ders are a highly threatened group in Central Eu-
rope, particularly in the Czech Republic (Růžička
2005). This study found 44% of spider species to
be either RE or threatened (CR, EN or VU). This
compares with 62% of bees (Straka 2005), 47% of
Czech native lampreys and fish (Lusk et al. 2004),
46% of Czech native vascular plant species (Grulich
650 M. Řezáč et al.
Fig. 1. Venn diagram showing the overlap between rare species classified as Regionally Extinct (RE), Critically Endangered (CR) and
Endangered (EN) in the new Red List of Czech spiders (CZ; this study), new Red List of Germany (DE; Blick et al. in press.), Red
List of Spiders of the Carpathian Mountains (Carpathians; Ga jdoš et al. 2014), and Red List of Poland (PL; Star˛ega et al. 2002). The
number of species listed as RE, CR or EN in one or more countries is indicated; for the small groups of species, the species names are
disclosed as well.
2012) and 33% of Czech bryophytes (Kučera et al.
2012).
A comparison with previous Red List assessments
of spiders shows that the number of species consid-
ered to be threatened (RE, CR, EN or VU) has grown
rapidly from 30 taxa (3.6% of Czech spider species;
Buchar 1992) and 210 species (25%; Růžička 2005) to
388 species (44%; this study). Three main factors, act-
ing frequently in combination but exerting different ef-
fects on different species, may be responsible for this
trend: continued decline, improved data and improved
inclusion criteria.
From the evaluation, it is clear that the abundance,
local distribution range area and population trends can-
not be used as the sole rationale for selecting red-listed
species in a diverse groups of species such as the spi-
ders, particularly for species with a limited likelihood
to be captured by the most widespread capture tech-
niques. Nevertheless, the databank of species records
is very helpful in setting threshold values to evaluate
the status of a particular species (Table 2). Repeated
monitoring at a set of well-defined transects would be
very helpful to corroborate the hitherto available data
on spider population trends. Similar pan-European pro-
grams exist already for birds (Reif et al. 2008; Musilová
et al. 2014) and attempts have also been conducted
for selected other taxa. Only such long-term systematic
monitoring at a representative selection of sites visited
repeatedly at regular time intervals (e.g., five years) can
provide a definitive answer on population trends of most
of the spider species, particularly those considered thus
farascommonorLeastConcern species. In addition
to the monitoring of natural habitats, usually in nature
reserves, attention should shift also to newly emerg-
ing habitats formed as a by-product of human activ-
ities. Post-industrial areas, particularly those affected
by mining, quarrying and military training possess a
yet overlooked potential to serve as replacement habi-
tats for very diverse biota, including spiders (Tropek
et al. 2010, 2014; Heneberg & Řezáč 2014). This po-
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 651
tential is still poorly reflected in the country-specific
regulatory laws (Damigos 2006; Heneberg 2013). The
construction of Red Lists should also reflect the con-
text of particular sites of occurrence of the rare species
as defined by Scolozzi et al. (2014). Connectivity and
land-use changes may have a strong influence on the
species-specific presence/absence data in sparsely oc-
curring habitats, particularly in relation to the urban-
ization or agriculture intensification pressures within
the increasingly human-dominated landscape.
In many instances, Red Lists act as drivers for bio-
diversity conservation both at the policy level and in
terms of practical management of threatened species
(Fox et al. 2011). They allow for the identification of
a network of priority sites for conservation and stim-
ulate further analyses of the taxa identified as threat-
ened (Evans et al. 2009; Leroy et al. 2014; Řezáč &
Heneberg 2014). This new Red List assessment thus
provides an important foundation for improved moni-
toring outcomes of nature protection areas within the
country and sets the threshold for further evaluations
of spider population trends in Central Europe.
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture
of the Czech Republic project MZe RO0415. V. Růžička
was supported by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, v.v.i., project RVO: 60077344. We thank Theo
Blick, Peter Gajdoš and Konrad Wisniewski for very help-
ful comments on the preliminary version of the Red List
and for sharing their unpublished data. We thank Vítězslav
Bryja, Jan Buchar, Petr Dolejš, Jan Erhart, Ivana Hrad-
ská, Vladimír Hula, Aleš Jelínek, Wolfgang Nentwig, Robert
Tropek and members of the Czech Arachnological Society
for suggestions on improvements of the 2005 Red List.
References
˚
Akra K., Hauge E. & Pommeresche R. 2006. Edderkopper –
Araneae, pp. 311–318. In: Kalas J.A., Viken A. & Bakken T.
(eds), Norsk rødliste 2006 [2006 Norwegian Red List], Arts-
databanken, Trondheim, 416 pp. ISBN-13: 978-82-92838-00-
6, ISBN-10: 82-92838-00-7
Blick T., Finch O.-D., Harms K.H., Kiechle J., Kielhorn K.H.,
Kreuels M., Malten A., Martin D., Muster Ch., N¨ahrig D.,
Platen R., R¨odel I., Scheidler M., Staudt A., Stumpf H. &
Tolke D. (in press). Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Spin-
nen (Arachnida: Araneae) Deutschlands: 3. Fassung, Stand:
April 2008/, einzelne Änderungen und Nachtr¨age bis Juli
2014. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 70/4, Bonn.
Buchar J. 1992. Pavoukovci (Arachnida), pp. 39–53. In: Škapec
L. (ed.), Červená kniha ohrožených a vzácných druhů rostlin
a živočichů ČSFR, 3.díl. Bezobratlí [Czechoslovak Red Data
Book], Príroda, Bratislava, 155 pp. ISBN: 80-07-00402-5
Buchar J. & Růžička V. 2002. Catalogue of spiders of the Czech
Republic. Peres, Praha, 351 pp. ISBN: 80-86360-25-3
Buchholz S. 2010. Ground spider assemblages as indicators for
habitat structure in inland sand ecosystems. Biodivers. Con-
serv. 19 (9): 2565–2595. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9860-7
Chen I.C., Hill J.K., Ohlem¨uller R., Roy D.B. & Thomas C.D.
2011. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels
of climate warming. Science 333 (6045): 1024–1026. DOI:
10.1126/science.1206432.
Damigos D. 2006. An overview of environmental valuation meth-
ods for the mining industry. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (3-4): 234–
247. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.06.005
Ehnstr¨om B., G¨ardenfors U. & Lindel¨ow Ä. 1993. R¨odlistade ev-
ertebrater I Sverige 1993. Databanken f¨or hotade arter, SLU,
Uppsala, 69 pp. ISBN: 91-88506-02-9
Evans A.M., McCaw J. & Beggs W. 2009. Could herbicide
used to control alien weeds be harming threatened New
Zealand spiders? J. Appl. Entomol. 133 (9-10): 767–770.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2009.01409.x
Fox R., Warren M.S., Brereton T.M., Roy D.B. & Robin-
son A. 2011. A new Red List of British butterflies. In-
sect Conserv. Divers. 4(3):159–172. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-
4598.2010.00117.x
Gajdoš P., Moscaliuc L.A. & Rozwalka R. (eds) 2014. Red list
of spiders (Araneae) of the Carpathian Mts., pp. 82–135. In:
Kadlečík J. (ed.), Draft Carpathian red list of forest habitats
and of species draft Carpathian list of invasive alien species,
Štátna ochrana prírody Slovenskej republiky, [State Nature
Conservancy of the Slovak Republic], Banská Bystrica, 234
pp. ISBN: 978-80-89310-81-4
Gajdoš P. & Svatoň J. 2001. Červený (ekosozologický) zoznam
pavúkov (Araneae) Slovenska [Red list of spiders of Slovakia],
pp. 80–86. In: Baláž D., Marhold K. & Urban P. (eds), Čer-
vený zoznam rastlín a živočichov Slovenska, Ochrana prírody,
20 (Suppl.), 160 pp. ISBN: 80-89035-05-1
ardenfors U., Hilton-Taylor C., Mace G.M. & Rodríguez
J.P. 2001. The application of IUCN Red List criteria at
regional levels. Conserv. Biol. 15 (5): 1206–1212. DOI:
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.00112.x
Gobbi M., Fontaneto D. & De Bernardi F. 2006. Influence
of climate changes on animal communities in space and
time: The case of spider assemblages along an alpine glacier
foreland. Global Change Biol. 12 (10): 1985–1992. DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01236.x
Gropali R. & Priano M. 1993/1992. Invertebrati non troglobi mi-
nacciati della fauna Italiana, pp. 183–424. In: Pavan M. (ed.),
Contributo per un “Libro rosso” della fauna e della flora mi-
nacciate in Italia, Istituto di Entomologia dell’Universitŕ di
Pavia, Pavia, 719 pp.
Grulich V. 2012. Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Repub-
lic. 3rd Ed. Preslia 84 (3): 631–645.
Heneberg P. 2013. Burrowing bird’s decline driven by EIA over-
use. Resources Policy 38 (4): 542–548. DOI: 10.1016/j.
resourpol.2013.09.001
Heneberg P. & Řezáč M. 2014. Dry sandpits and gravel-
sandpits serve as key refuges for endangered epigeic spi-
ders (Araneae) and harvestmen (Opiliones) of Central Eu-
ropean steppes aeolian sands. Ecol. Eng. 73: 659–670. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.101
IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1.
2nd ed. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland & Cam-
bridge, 32 pp. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1435-6
Keller V., Zbinden N., Schmid H. & Volet B. 2005. A case study
in applying the IUCN regional guidelines for national Red
Lists and justifications for their modification. Conserv. Biol.
19 (6): 1827–1834. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00257.x
Komposch C. & Steinberger K.-H. 1999. Rote Liste der Spinnen
arntens (Arachnida: Araneae), pp. 567–618. In: Holzinger
W.E., Mildner P., Rottenburg T. & Wieser C. (eds), Rote
Listen gef¨ahrdeter Tiere K¨arntens, Naturschutz in K¨arnten
Band 15.
Košulič O., Michalko R. & Hula V. 2014. Recent artificial vine-
yard terraces as a refuge for rare and endangered spiders in a
modern agricultural landscape. Ecol. Eng. 68: 133–142. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.030
Kubcová L. & Schlaghamerský J. 2002. Zur Spinnenfauna
der Stammregion stehenden Totholzes in s¨udm¨ahrischen
Auenw¨aldern. Arachnologische Mitteilungen 24: 35–61
Kučera T. (ed.) 2005. Červená kniha biotopů České republiky
[Red list of habitats of the Czech Republic]. http://www.
usbe.cas.cz/cervenakniha (accessed 7.3.2014)
Kučera J., Váňa J. & Hradílek Z. 2012. Bryophyte flora of the
Czech Republic: updated checklist and Red List and a brief
analysis. Preslia 84: 813–850.
652 M. Řezáč et al.
Kůrka A., Řezáč M., Macek R. & Dolanský J. 2015. Pavouci
České republiky [Spiders of the Czech Republic]. Academia,
Praha, 624 pp. ISBN: 978-80-200-2384-1
Leroy B., Bellard C., Dubos N., Colliot A., Vasseur M., Cour-
tial C., Bakkenes M., Canard A. & Ysnel F. 2014. Forecasted
climate and land use changes, and protected areas: The con-
trasting case of spiders. Diversity and Distributions 20 (6):
686–697. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12191
Leroy B., Paschetta M., Canard A., Bakkenes M., Isaia M. &
Ysnel F. 2013. First assessment of effects of global change on
threatened spiders: Potential impacts on Dolomedes plantar-
ius Clerck) and its conservation plans. Biol. Conserv. 161:
155–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.022
Lusk S., Hanel L. & Lusková V. 2004. Red List of the ichthyofauna
of the Czech Republic: Development and present status. Folia
Zool. 53: 215–226.
Maelfait J.-P., Baert L., Janssen M. & Alderweireldt M. 1998. A
Red list for the spiders of Flanders. Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat.
Belg. Entomol. 68: 121/131–142.
Merrett P. 1991. Spiders (Araneae), pp. 126–217. In: Bratton J.H.
(ed.), British Red Data Book, 3. Invertebrates other than in-
sects, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough,
253 pp. ISBN: 1873701004
Musilová Z., Musil P., Zouhar J., Bejček V., Šťastný K. &
Hudec K. 2014. Numbers of wintering waterbirds in the
Czech Republic: long-term and spatial-scale approaches to
assess population size. Bird Study 61 (3): 321–331. DOI:
10.1080/00063657.2014.919573
Rassi P., Kaipainen H., Mannerkoski I. & Stehls G. (eds).
1992. Uhanalaisten el¨ainten ja kasvien seurantatoimikunnan
mietint¨o. Komiteanmietint¨o 1991: 30.Ymp¨arist¨oministeri¨o
Helsinki. [Report on the Monitoring of Threatened Animals
and Plants in Finland. Ministry of the Environment], 328 pp.
ISBN: 951-47-5265-1.
Reif J., Voříšek P., Šťastný K., Bejček V. & Petr J. 2008. Agri-
cultural intensification and farmland birds: new insights from
a central European country. Ibis 150 (3): 596–605. DOI:
10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00829.x
Řezáč M. & Heneberg P. 2014. Conservation status of the only
representative of infraorder Mygalomorphae (Araneae) in cul-
tivated regions of Central Europe. J. Insect. Conserv. 18 (4):
523–537. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-014-9668-y
Řezáč M. & Heneberg P. (in press). Enoplognatha bryjai n. sp. –
a bizzare cobweb spider of the Pannonian swamps. Zootaxa.
Řezáč M., Král J. & Pekár S. 2007. The spider genus Dys-
dera (Araneae, Dysderidae) in central Europe: revision
and natural history. J. Arachn. 35 (3): 432–462. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1636/H06-38.1
Růžička V. 2005. Araneae (pavouci), pp. 76–82. In: Farkač J.,
Král D. & Škorpík M. (eds), Červený seznam ohrožených
druhů České republiky, Bezobratlí [Red list of threatened
species in the Czech Republic, Invertebrates], Agentura
ochrany přírody a krajiny, Praha, 760 pp. ISBN: 80-86064-
96-4
Růžička V., Šmilauer P. & Mlejnek R. 2013. Colonization of
subterranean habitats by spiders in Central Europe. Int. J.
Speleol. 42 (2): 133–140. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/
1827-806X.42.2.5
Scolozzi R., Schirpke U., Morri E., D’Amato D. & Santolini R.
2014. Ecosystem services-based SWOT analysis of protected
areas for conservation strategies. J. Environ. Manage. 146:
543–551. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.04
Star˛ega W., Blaszak C. & Rafalski J. 2002. Arachnida Paj˛eczaki.
Czerwona lista gatunków [Arachnida, Spiders. Red list], pp.
133–140. In: Glowaci´nski Z. (ed.), Czerwona lista zwierz˛at
gin˛acych i zagro˙zonych w Polsce, Suplement [Red list of
threatened animals in Poland, Supplement], Instytut Ochrony
Przyrody PAN, Kraków, 155 pp. ISBN: 83-901236-8-1, ISBN:
83-88934-21-X
Straka J. 2005. Apoidea (včely), pp. 392–405. In: Farkač J., Král
D. & Škorpík M. (eds), Červený seznam ohrožených druhů
České republiky, Bezobratlí [Red list of threatened species in
the Czech Republic, Invertebrates]. Agentura ochrany přírody
a krajiny, Praha, 760 pp. ISBN: 80-86064-96-4
Thomas J.A., Bourn N.A.S., Clarke R.T., Stewart K.E., Sim-
cox D.J., Pearman G.S., Curtis R. & Goodger B. 2001.
The quality and isolation of habitat patches both deter-
mine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes.
Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 268 (1478): 1791–1796. DOI:
10.1098/rspb.2001.1693
Tropek R., Černá I., Straka J., Kadlec T., Pech P., Tichánek F.
& Šebek P. 2014. Restoration management of fly ash deposits
crucially influence their conservation potential for terrestrial
arthropods. Ecol. Eng. 73: 45–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.
2014.09.011
Tropek R., Kadlec T., Karesova P., Spitzer L., Kocarek P.,
Malenovsky I., Banar P., Tuf I.H., Hejda M. & Konvicka
M. 2010. Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as
an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and
plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 47 (1): 139–147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2009.01746.x
Warren M.S., Hill J.K., Thomas J.A., Asher J., Fox R., Huntley
B., Roy D.B., Telfer M.G., Jeffcoate S., Harding P., Jeffcoate
G., Willis S.G., Greatorex-Davies J.N., Moss D. & Thomas
C.D. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to oppos-
ing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65–69.
DOI: 10.1038/35102054
Received December 17, 2015
Accepted April, 2015
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 653
Appendix 1. Red List of Czech spiders, 3rdedition, and a complete checklist of Czech spiders. Acronyms of Red List categories are
explained in Material and Methods. Total number of records shows the total number of species-specific records in the CAS database.
Share of records from 1990–2014 (%) – share of records obtained in the years 1990–2014 relative to the total number of records.
Number of grids occupied – the number of grid squares, in which the species has been recorded. Distribution – phytogeographic
districts occupied: O = Oreophyticum, M = Mesophyticum, T = Thermophyticum. B – the occurrence at/in human buildings, I =
Considered as alien species in the Czech Republic. RL – status according to the Red List of Spiders of the Carpathian Mountains
(Carpathians; Gajdoš et al. 2014), new Red List of Germany (DE; Blick et al. in press.), and Red List of Poland (PL; Star˛ega et
al. 2002). Abs = Species absent in the respective country; DD = Data deficient; I = Considered as a neobiont in Germany; NE
= Threatened, but without fixation of the status in Germany. The order of families reflects the phylogenetic relationships (cf., for
example, K˚urka et al. 2015).
Family, species
Red list classification
Tot al nu mber of rec ord s
Share of records from 1990–2014 [%]
Number of grids occupied
Distribution
RL of Carpathians
RL of Germany
RL of Poland
Atypidae
Atypus affinis Eichwald, 1830 LC 188 58.0 28 M T LC EN
Atypus muralis Bertkau, 1890 EN 82 57.3 10 T LC EN EN
Atypus piceus (Sulzer, 1776) VU 122 68.0 22 M T LC EN
Scytodidae
Scytodes thoracica (Latreille, 1802) ES 10 80.0 4 B I ES
Pholcidae
Holocnemus pluchei (Scopoli, 1763) ES 2 100.0 1 B I I
Pholcus opilionoides (Schrank, 1781) ES 221 61.5 73 B ES
Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) ES 17 76.5 13 B I ES
Psilochorus simoni (Berland, 1911) ES 1 0.0 1 B I I
Segestriidae
Segestria bavarica C. L. Koch, 1843 VU 14 28.6 8 T LC DD
Segestria senoculata (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 361 52.1 125 O M T ES
Dysderidae
Dasumia carpatica (Kulczy´nski, 1882) EN 8 0.0 1 M VU Abs EN
Dysdera crocata C. L. Koch, 1838 ES 1 100.0 1 B I DD ES
Dysdera erythrina (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 173 38.7 46 M T ES
Dysdera hungarica Kulczy´nski, 1897 ES 11 100.0 2 T LC Abs
Dysdera lantosquensis Simon, 1882 ES 2 100.0 13 M T Abs
Dysdera moravica Řezáč, 2014 LC 24 87.5 7 T DD Abs
Harpactea hombergi (Scopoli, 1763) ES 279 53.4 61 M T ES
Harpactea lepida (C. L. Koch, 1838) ES 999 43.5 153 O M ES
Harpactea rubicunda (C. L. Koch, 1838) ES 726 48.5 96 M T ES
Oonopidae
Tapinesthis inermis (Simon, 1882) ES 3 100.0 3 B I DD
Triaeris stenaspis Simon, 1891 ES 1 100.0 1 B I I
Eresidae
Eresus illustris C. L. Koch, 1837 CR 1 100.0 1 T Abs
Eresus kollari Rossi, 1846 VU 210 55.7 35 T DD EN EN
Eresus moravicus Řezáč, 2008 CR 7 100.0 7 T LC Abs
Eresus sandaliatus (Martini & Goeze, 1778) CR 4 100.0 9 T EN
Uloboridae
Hyptiotes paradoxus (C. L. Koch, 1834) ES 63 41.3 41 M LC ES
Uloborus plumipes Lucas, 1846 ES 7 100.0 1 B I I
Uloborus walckenaerius Latreille, 1806 EN 19 94.7 2 T LC EN
Araneidae
Aculepeira ceropegia (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 487 82.1 126 M ES
Agalenatea redii (Scopoli, 1763) ES 72 77.8 27 T ES
Araneus alsine (Walckenaer, 1802) VU 69 55.1 41 M LC
654 M. Řezáč et al.
Araneus angulatus Clerck, 1757 LC 37 37.8 29 M NE
Araneus diadematus Clerck, 1757 ES 585 52.8 166 O M T ES
Araneus marmoreus Clerck, 1757 ES 343 70.3 105 M NE
Araneus nordmanni (Thorell, 1870) CR 8 0.0 6 O VU LC VU
Araneus quadratus Clerck, 1757 ES 406 70.9 132 M T ES
Araneus saevus (L. Koch, 1872) RE 1 0.0 1 O VU EN EN
Araneus sturmi (Hahn, 1831) LC 190 60.5 90 M T ES
Araneus triguttatus (Fabricius, 1793) LC 65 58.5 36 M ES
Araniella alpica (L. Koch, 1869) LC 71 50.7 42 O M ES
Araniella cucurbitina (Clerck, 1757) ES 524 58.2 169 M T ES
Araniella displicata (Hentz, 1847) VU 14 64.3 9 M ES
Araniella inconspicua (Simon, 1874) VU 5 20.0 5 M NE
Araniella opisthographa (Kulczy´nski, 1905) ES 117 90.6 52 M T ES
Argiope bruennichi (Scopoli, 1772) ES 486 99.4 165 M T ES
Cercidia prominens (Westring, 1851) ES 78 43.6 36 M T ES
Cyclosa conica (Pallas, 1772) ES 191 63.4 97 M T ES
Cyclosa oculata (Walckenaer, 1802) VU 23 56.5 14 M ES
Gibbaranea bituberculata (Walckenaer, 1802) LC 97 73.2 26 M T ES
Gibbaranea gibbosa (Walckenaer, 1802) VU 28 96.4 18 M T ES
Gibbaranea omoeda (Thorell, 1870) VU 21 66.7 13 M LC ES
Gibbaranea ullrichi (Hahn, 1835) RE 1 0.0 1 T LC EN VU
Hypsosinga albovittata (Westring, 1851) LC 77 41.6 30 M T LC
Hypsosinga heri (Hahn, 1831) VU 50 46.0 18 M VU
Hypsosinga pygmaea (Sundevall, 1831) LC 90 56.7 30 M VU
Hypsosinga sanguinea (C. L. Koch, 1844) ES 175 65.1 80 M T ES
Larinioides cornutus (Clerck, 1757) ES 19 73.7 14 M ES
Larinioides ixobolus (Thorell, 1873) ES 24 16.7 17 B ES
Larinioides patagiatus (Clerck, 1757) LC 115 41.7 56 M ES
Larinioides sclopetarius (Clerck, 1757) ES 57 43.9 37 B ES
Larinioides suspicax (O. P.-Cambridge, 1876) ES 190 64.7 76 M T LC LC
Leviellus thorelli (Ausserer, 1871) CR 6 100.0 1 T LC RE
Mangora acalypha (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 696 75.3 161 M T ES
Nuctenea silvicultrix (C. L. Koch, 1835) EN 11 54.5 8 O M VU LC VU
Nuctenea umbratica (Clerck, 1757) ES 144 54.2 62 M T ES
Parazygiella montana (C. L. Koch, 1834) ES 26 50.0 14 O LC DD
Singa hamata (Clerck, 1757) ES 125 52.8 56 M T ES
Singa nitidula C. L. Koch, 1844 LC 97 75.3 38 M T LC
St roe mi el l us st roe m i (Thorell, 1870) VU 9 44.4 6 M NE
Zilla diodia (Walckenaer, 1802) LC 74 66.2 32 M ES
Zygiella atrica (C. L. Koch, 1845) ES 37 27.0 24 B ES
Zygiella x-notata (Clerck, 1757) ES 9 11.1 8 B ES
Mimetidae
Ero aphana (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 50 56.0 22 B ES
Ero cambridgei Kulczy´nski, 1911 ES 22 50.0 13 M T VU ES VU
Ero furcata (Villers, 1789) ES 295 49.8 109 M T ES
Ero tuberculata (De Geer, 1778) EN 16 43.8 9 T LC ES
Tetragnathidae
Meta menardi (Latreille, 1804) ES 93 60.2 53 O M T ES
Metellina mengei (Blackwall, 1870) ES 297 63.0 127 O M T ES
Metellina merianae (Scopoli, 1763) ES 201 58.7 97 O M T ES
Metellina segmentata (Clerck, 1757) ES 679 48.2 152 O M T ES
Pachygnatha clercki Sundevall, 1823 ES 693 53.2 139 M T ES
Pachy gnat ha deg eer i Sundevall, 1830 ES 815 29.0 155 O M T ES
Pachygnatha listeri Sundevall, 1830 ES 861 57.6 152 M T ES
Tetragnatha dearmata Thorell, 1873 LC 66 51.5 36 M T LC
Tetragnatha extensa (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 304 66.8 112 M T ES
Tetragnatha montana Simon, 1874 ES 307 74.3 105 M T ES
Tetragnatha nigrita Lendl, 1886 LC 76 44.7 43 M T ES
Tetragnatha obtusa C. L. Koch, 1837 ES 110 69.1 59 M ES
Tetragnatha pinicola L. Koch, 1870 ES 432 71.3 143 M T ES
Tetragnatha shoshone Levi, 1981 ES 7 100.0 4 M T I EN EN
Tetragnatha striata L. Koch, 1862 EN 12 75.0 9 M T VU VU
Theridiosomatidae
Theridiosoma gemmosum (L. Koch, 1877) LC 21 100.0 11 M T LC LC VU
Mysmenidae
Mysmenella jobi (Kraus, 1967) EN 4 75.0 3 M VU NE DD
Trogloneta granulum Simon, 1922 VU 18 94.4 7 M LC LC DD
Anapidae
Comaroma simoni Bertkau, 1889 EN 2 100.0 1 O CR VU
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 655
Linyphiidae
Abacoproeces saltuum (L. Koch, 1872) ES 160 36.9 41 M ES
Acartauchenius scurrilis (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) VU 35 37.1 22 M T LC NE
Agnyphantes expunctus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) EN 4 50.0 3 O LC ES
Agy ne ta affi ni s (Kulczy´nski, 1898) ES 87 33.3 46 M ES
Agy ne ta ca ut a (O. P.-Cambridge, 1902) LC 73 64.4 31 O LC
Agyneta conigera (O. P.-Cambridge, 1863) ES 84 66.7 39 O LC ES
Agy ne ta d eco ra (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) RE 3 0.0 3 O ES
Agyneta equestris (L. Koch, 1881) EN 32 9.4 11 T EN VU
Agyneta fuscipalpa (C. L. Koch, 1836) EN 12 0.0 6 T DD ES
Agyneta innotabilis (O. P.-Cambridge, 1863) VU 11 54.5 8 M LC ES
Agy ne ta mi l le ri (Thaler, Buchar & Kůrka, 1997) VU 44 34.1 3 O Abs
Agy ne ta mo l li s (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) LC 39 10.3 23 M LC
Agyneta ramosa Jackson, 1912 VU 30 80.0 12 M ES
Agyneta rurestris (C. L. Koch, 1836) ES 1025 45.4 187 O M T ES
Agyneta saxatilis (Blackwall, 1844) ES 345 36.2 100 M ES
Agyneta simplicitarsis (Simon, 1884) CR 14 21.4 3 T VU NE
Agy ne ta su bt il is (O. P.-Cambridge, 1863) VU 50 20.0 25 M LC
Allomengea scopigera (Grube, 1859) ES 65 24.6 28 O M LC ES
Allomengea vidua (L. Koch, 1879) LC 96 46.9 33 M VU ES
Anguliphantes angulipalpis (Westring, 1851) LC 125 34.4 31 M T ES
Anguliphantes tripartitus (Miller & Svatoň, 1978) ES 173 59.5 40 O LC NE
Aphileta misera (O. P.-Cambridge, 1882) VU 50 54.0 20 M LC EN VU
Araeoncus crassiceps (Westring, 1861) ES 47 29.8 25 M EN VU EN
Araeoncus humilis (Blackwall, 1841) ES 278 49.6 90 M T ES
Asthenargus helveticus Schenkel, 1936 ES 137 49.6 60 M EN ES VU
Asthenargus paganus (Simon, 1884) ES 25 40.0 12 O M ES
Asthenargus perforatus Schenkel, 1929 LC 13 38.5 8 O EN NE
Baryphyma pratense (Blackwall, 1861) CR 6 16.7 3 M T LC
Bathyphantes approximatus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 345 53.3 97 M T ES
Bathyphantes eumenis buchari Růžička, 1988 ES 68 67.6 18 O M DD EN VU
Bathyphantes eumenis eumenis (L. Koch, 1879) ES 14 50.0 4 O M DD Abs VU
Bathyphantes gracilis (Blackwall, 1841) ES 431 45.5 125 O M T ES
Bathyphantes nigrinus (Westring, 1851) ES 792 58.7 150 O M T ES
Bathyphantes parvulus (Westring, 1851) ES 467 55.9 102 M T ES
Bathyphantes setiger F. O. P.-Cambridge, 1894 EN 23 43.5 13 M EN
Bathyphantes similis Kulczy´nski, 1894 ES 44 25.0 15 O M VU VU VU
Bolephthyphantes index (Thorell, 1856) EN 3 33.3 2 O VU ES
Bolyphantes alticeps (Sundevall, 1833) ES 332 35.2 81 O M ES
Bolyphantes luteolus (Blackwall, 1833) VU 47 40.4 9 O ES
Canariphantes nanus (Kulczy´nski, 1898) CR 2 0.0 1 T Abs
Carorita limnaea (Crosby & Bishop, 1927) CR 2 0.0 1 O EN EN DD
Caviphantes saxetorum (Hull, 1916) CR 1 100.0 1 T CR EN
Centromerita bicolor (Blackwall, 1833) ES 274 28.5 83 O M ES
Centromerita concinna (Thorell, 1875) ES 35 31.4 13 M LC ES
Ce nt rom er us arc an us (O. P.-Cambridge, 1873) ES 362 46.1 65 O M ES
Centromerus brevipalpus (Menge, 1866) LC 23 47.8 11 M ES
Centromerus capucinus (Simon, 1884) EN 48 25.0 10 T VU NE
Centromerus cavernarum (L. Koch, 1872) ES 42 38.1 25 M LC ES
Centromerus dilutus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) RE 1 0.0 1 M VU ES
Centromerus incilium (L. Koch, 1881) VU 174 37.4 40 M T ES
Centromerus leruthi Fage, 1933 EN 7 42.9 6 M ES
Centromerus levitarsis (Simon, 1884) VU 36 55.6 19 M LC EN VU
Centromerus pabulator (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) ES 324 47.2 44 O ES
Centromerus persimilis (O. P.-Cambridge, 1912) EN 3 33.3 3 M T VU ES DD
Centromerus prudens (O. P.-Cambridge, 1873) CR 4 50.0 2 M VU ES DD
Centromerus sellarius (Simon, 1884) ES 293 31.1 64 O M ES VU
Centromerus semiater (L. Koch, 1879) EN 46 6.5 14 M EN VU
Ce nt rom er us se rra tu s (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) LC 24 20.8 12 M T ES DD
Centromerus silvicola (Kulczy´nski, 1887) ES 67 46.3 21 M VU ES DD
Centromerus sylvaticus (Blackwall, 1841) ES 1149 52.2 162 O M T ES
Ce rat in el l a bre vi pe s (Westring, 1851) ES 108 26.9 40 M ES
Ce rat in el l a bre vi s (Wider, 1834) ES 742 68.6 133 O M ES
Ceratinella major Kulczy´nski, 1894 LC 53 56.6 15 M T LC EN
Ceratinella scabrosa (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 159 69.2 29 M ES
Ceratinella wideri (Thorell, 1871) EN 8 37.5 7 M DD VU
Cinetata gradata (Simon, 1881) CR 3 100.0 2 M VU ES
Cnephalocotes obscurus (Blackwall, 1834) ES 194 51.5 54 O M ES
Collinsia distincta (Simon, 1884) EN 19 10.5 6 M LC VU
Dicymbium nigrum (Blackwall, 1834) ES 535 39.4 117 O M T ES
Dicymbium tibiale (Blackwall, 1836) LC 149 60.4 41 O M ES
Diplocentria bidentata (Emerton, 1882) VU 28 82.1 7 O M DD NE
Diplocephalus cristatus (Blackwall, 1833) ES 329 33.4 107 O M ES
Diplocephalus dentatus Tullgren, 1955 EN 11 54.5 2 M T VU EN DD
Diplocephalus helleri (L. Koch, 1869) ES 60 35.0 25 O M LC ES VU
656 M. Řezáč et al.
Diplocephalus latifrons (O. P.-Cambridge, 1863) ES 1050 33.9 143 O M ES
Diplocephalus permixtus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) LC 39 35.9 22 O M LC ES
Diplocephalus picinus (Blackwall, 1841) ES 580 38.4 127 O M T ES
Diplostyla concolor (Wider, 1834) ES 1967 64.4 195 O M T ES
Dismodicus bifrons (Blackwall, 1841) ES 262 59.9 114 O M ES
Dismodicus elevatus (C. L. Koch, 1838) LC 47 53.2 28 O M ES
Donacochara speciosa (Thorell, 1875) LC 61 83.6 25 M T LC VU
Drapetisca socialis (Sundevall, 1833) ES 277 29.2 88 O M ES
Drepanotylus uncatus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1873) LC 101 45.5 44 O M DD VU EN
Entelecara acuminata (Wider, 1834) ES 136 67.6 67 M ES
Entelecara congenera (O. P.-Cambridge, 1879) ES 128 70.3 65 M ES
Entelecara erythropus (Westring, 1851) ES 54 57.4 38 M LC ES
Entelecara flavipes (Blackwall, 1834) LC 20 70.0 10 M LC ES
Entelecara obscura Miller, 1971 RE 1 0.0 1 M Abs
Entelecara omissa O. P.-Cambridge, 1902 CR 3 100.0 1 T LC EN EN
Erigone atra Blackwall, 1833 ES 1120 38.6 213 O M T ES
Erigone dentipalpis (Wider, 1834) ES 628 37.9 156 O M T ES
Erigone jaegeri Baehr, 1984 CR 1 0.0 1 M DD EN
Erigonella hiemalis (Blackwall, 1841) ES 220 49.1 79 O M ES
Erigonella ignobilis (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) VU 68 58.8 22 O M VU EN
Erigonoplus globipes (L. Koch, 1872) EN 9 33.3 4 M T LC VU VU
Erigonoplus jarmilae (Miller, 1943) VU 58 41.4 15 T LC Abs
Evansia merens O. P.-Cambridge, 1900 VU 13 76.9 5 O M LC DD EN
Floronia bucculenta (Clerck, 1757) ES 167 60.5 72 M ES
Formiphantes lephthyphantiformis (Strand, 1907) ES 15 20.0 9 O M EN NE VU
Frontinellina frutetorum (C. L. Koch, 1834) EN 19 63.2 7 T VU VU
Glyphesis servulus (Simon, 1881) EN 7 28.6 4 M LC LC VU
Gnathonarium dentatum (Wider, 1834) ES 156 57.1 63 M T ES
Gonatium hilare (Thorell, 1875) EN 15 80.0 8 M LC ES
Gonatium paradoxum (L. Koch, 1869) LC 69 11.6 30 M ES
Gonatium rubellum (Blackwall, 1841) ES 233 45.1 69 O M ES
Gonatium rubens (Blackwall, 1833) LC 43 44.2 17 O ES
Gongylidiellum edentatum Miller, 1951 VU 34 32.4 20 M NE
Gongylidiellum latebricola (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 362 58.6 81 O M ES
Gongylidiellum murcidum Simon, 1884 VU 40 55.0 15 M T ES
Gongylidiellum vivum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) LC 175 53.1 69 O M ES
Gongylidium rufipes (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 225 65.8 95 M T ES
Helophora insignis (Blackwall, 1841) ES 288 42.0 81 M ES
Heterotrichoncus pusillus (Miller, 1958) RE 2 0.0 2 T CR Abs
Hilaira excisa (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 124 56.5 48 O M VU LC VU
Hylyphantes graminicola (Sundevall, 1830) LC 71 18.3 33 M LC LC
Hylyphantes nigritus (Simon, 1881) RE 1 0.0 1 T DD NE
Hypomma bituberculatum (Wider, 1834) ES 184 60.3 70 M T ES
Hypomma cornutum (Blackwall, 1833) LC 33 57.6 21 M T ES
Hypomma fulvum (B¨osenberg, 1902) RE 3 0.0 2 M VU DD
Hypsocephalus pusil lus (Menge, 1869) EN 43 76.7 4 T EN EN VU
Improphantes decolor (Westring, 1861) VU 2 50.0 2 M LC ES
Improphantes geniculatus (Kulczy´nski, 1898) EN 37 21.6 11 T LC EN
Improphantes improbulus (Simon, 1929) VU 12 91.7 3 M EN
Improphantes nitidus (Thorell, 1875) LC 54 46.3 31 M DD VU
Incestophantes crucifer (Menge, 1866) VU 11 27.3 9 M DD
Ipa keyserlingi (Ausserer, 1867) VU 159 37.1 25 M T LC VU
Ipa terrenus (L. Koch, 1879) CR 8 50.0 3 M T VU Abs
Jacksonella falconeri (Jackson, 1908) RE 2 0.0 1 T VU ES DD
Kaestneria dorsalis (Wider, 1834) LC 139 41.7 60 M ES
Kaestneria pullata (O. P.-Cambridge, 1863) VU 43 79.1 17 M VU
Kaestneria torrentum (Kulczy´nski, 1882) VU 3 66.7 3 O M LC Abs VU
Kratochviliella bicapitata Miller, 1938 VU 17 82.4 8 M VU DD VU
Labulla thoracica (Wider, 1834) ES 79 60.8 37 O M ES
Lasiargus hirsutus (Menge, 1869) VU 13 53.8 7 M VU VU DD
Lepthyphantes leprosus (Ohlert, 1865) ES 241 44.4 79 B ES
Lepthyphantes minutus (Blackwall, 1833) ES 108 52.8 49 M T ES
Lepthyphantes nodifer Simon, 1884 LC 80 31.3 33 O M ES
Lepthyphantes notabilis Kulczy´nski, 1887 ES 109 51.4 29 O M T LC NE
Leptorhoptrum robustum (Westring, 1851) ES 182 33.5 60 O M ES
Lessertia dentichelis (Simon, 1884) LC 1 0.0 1 B VU DD VU
Linyphia hortensis Sundevall, 1830 ES 514 55.3 129 M T ES
Linyphia tenuipalpis Simon, 1884 CR 1 0.0 1 T EN
Linyphia triangularis (Clerck, 1757) ES 989 61.5 191 M T ES
Lophomma punctatum (Blackwall, 1841) LC 139 55.4 52 M ES
Macrargus carpenteri (O. P.-Cambridge, 1894) VU 27 33.3 11 M VU ES
Macrargus rufus (Wider, 1834) ES 799 42.9 142 O M ES
Mansuphantes arciger (Kulczy´nski, 1882) LC 17 35.3 9 O M VU LC
Mansuphantes mansuetus (Thorell, 1875) ES 534 60.7 93 M ES
Maro lehtineni Saaristo, 1971 RE 1 0.0 1 O DD EN
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 657
Maro lepidus Casemir, 1961 EN 18 83.3 7 O M EN EN
Maro minutus O. P.-Cambridge, 1906 VU 29 41.4 15 O M LC VU VU
Maro sublestus Falconer, 1915 EN 13 23.1 5 O M DD EN
Maso gallicus Simon, 1894 CR 3 0.0 1 M EN
Maso sundevalli (Westring, 1851) ES 446 58.5 126 O M T ES
Mecopisthes silus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) LC 33 39.4 21 M EN ES DD
Mecynargus foveatus (Dahl, 1912) CR 1 100.0 1 T VU VU
Mecynargus morulus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1873) EN 28 17.9 2 O EN EN EN
Megalepthyphantes col linus (L. Koch, 1872) EN 19 26.3 7 T LC EN VU
Megalepthyphantes nebulosus (Sundevall, 1830) ES 64 17.2 38 B ES
Megalepthyphantes pseudocollinus Saaristo, 1997 LC 3 100.0 3 T Abs
Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882) ES 1 100.0 4 M T I I
Metopobactrus ascitus (Kulczy´nski, 1894) CR 2 50.0 2 T VU Abs
Metopobactrus prominulus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) VU 21 52.4 12 O M ES
Micrargus apertus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 51 82.4 27 O M ES VU
Micrargus georgescuae Millidge, 1976 ES 70 97.1 16 O M LC ES
Micrargus herbigradus (Blackwall, 1854) ES 1255 49.6 188 O M T ES
Micrargus subaequalis (Westring, 1851) ES 123 48.8 49 M T ES
Microctenonyx subitaneus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) EN 1 100.0 1 T LC NE
Microlinyphia impigra (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) VU 39 69.2 26 M T LC LC VU
Microlinyphia pusilla (Sundevall, 1830) ES 359 49.6 132 O M T ES
Microneta viaria (Blackwall, 1841) ES 959 51.7 179 O M T ES
Midia midas (Simon, 1884) EN 7 71.4 4 M T VU EN EN
Minicia marginella (Wider, 1834) VU 75 54.7 22 M T LC
Minyriolus pusil lus (Wider, 1834) ES 129 39.5 47 O M ES
Mioxena blanda (Simon, 1884) LC 8 12.5 4 T VU ES VU
Moebelia penicillata (Westring, 1851) ES 33 45.5 21 O M T ES
Mughiphantes mughi (Fickert, 1875) ES 139 34.5 16 O ES
Mughiphantes pulcher (Kulczy´nski, 1881) LC 23 60.9 12 O M LC ES EN
Nematogmus sanguinolentus (Walckenaer, 1841) VU 54 50.0 17 T LC VU
Neriene clathrata (Sundevall, 1830) ES 697 67.4 182 M T ES
Neriene emphana (Walckenaer, 1841) ES 134 54.5 57 M ES
Neriene furtiva (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) RE 3 0.0 2 T LC VU
Neriene montana (Clerck, 1757) ES 171 49.7 88 M T ES
Neriene peltata (Wider, 1834) ES 164 60.4 68 M ES
Neriene radiata (Walckenaer, 1841) ES 141 56.7 72 M ES
Notioscopus sarcinatus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) LC 150 36.0 37 M VU
Nusoncus nasutus (Schenkel, 1925) ES 16 68.8 6 O M LC ES VU
Obscuriphantes obscurus (Blackwall, 1841) ES 80 57.5 47 O M ES
Oedothorax agrestis (Blackwall, 1853) ES 166 36.7 69 O M ES
Oedothorax apicatus (Blackwall, 1850) ES 485 54.6 119 M T ES
Oedothorax fuscus (Blackwall, 1834) ES 108 20.4 40 M ES
Oedothorax gibbifer (Kulczy´nski, 1882) VU 15 73.3 9 M LC Abs EN
Oedothorax gibbosus (Blackwall, 1841) ES 509 44.4 121 M ES
Oedothorax retusus (Westring, 1851) ES 487 42.3 108 M T ES
Oreoneta tatrica (Kulczy´nski, 1915) ES 48 39.6 13 O EN ES EN
Oreonetides quadridentatus (Wunderlich, 1972) LC 1 100.0 1 M DD
Oreonetides vaginatus (Thorell, 1872) EN 32 34.4 3 O LC NE EN
Oryphantes angulatus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1881) VU 21 66.7 9 O VU EN VU
Ostearius melanopygius (O. P.-Cambridge, 1879) ES 52 48.1 27 M T I ES
Palliduphantes alutacius (Simon, 1884) ES 195 81.5 37 M T Abs
Palliduphantes ericaeus (Blackwall, 1853) EN 1 100.0 1 O ES
Palliduphantes insignis (O. P.-Cambridge, 1913) LC 62 71.0 10 T ES
Palliduphantes pallidus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 493 38.1 99 M T ES
Panamomops affinis Miller & Kratochvíl, 1939 VU 61 41.0 15 M T LC ES
Panamomops fagei Miller & Kratochvíl, 1939 VU 29 69.0 14 M T LC
Panamomops inconspicuus (Miller & Valešová, 1964) EN 65 58.5 11 T VU VU DD
Panamomops latifrons Miller, 1959 RE 7 0.0 2 T LC Abs
Panamomops mengei Simon, 1926 ES 145 63.4 21 M LC ES
Panamomops sulcifrons (Wider, 1834) VU 8 25.0 6 M LC ES
Parapelecopsis nemoralis (Blackwall, 1841) VU 6 66.7 4 M T NE
Pelecopsis elongata (Wider, 1834) LC 95 53.7 38 M ES
Pelecopsis mengei (Simon, 1884) EN 42 88.1 5 T LC VU VU
Pelecopsis parallela (Wider, 1834) ES 45 48.9 23 M LC ES
Pelecopsis radicicola (L. Koch, 1872) ES 223 61.0 49 O M ES
Peponocranium orbiculatum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1882) EN 19 52.6 13 O M LC VU VU
Peponocranium praeceps Miller, 1943 EN 3 66.7 3 O M T VU EN EN
Piniphantes pinicola (Simon, 1884) CR 1 100.0 1 O DD EN
Pityohyphantes phrygianus (C. L. Koch, 1836) ES 217 51.6 89 O M ES
Pocadicnemis carpatica (Chyzer, 1894) VU 8 37.5 6 O M VU ES
Pocadicnemis juncea Locket & Millidge, 1953 ES 151 57.6 48 M T ES
Pocadicnemis pumila (Blackwall, 1841) ES 518 58.1 133 M T ES
Poeciloneta variegata (Blackwall, 1841) LC 36 77.8 20 M ES
Porrhomma cambridgei Merrett, 1994 VU 2 100.0 1 T DD
Porrhomma campbel li F. O. P.-Cambridge, 1894 VU 17 23.5 8 O M ES DD
658 M. Řezáč et al.
Porrhomma convexum (Westring, 1851) LC 35 11.4 21 O M ES VU
Porrhomma egeria Simon, 1884 ES 67 47.8 33 O M ES EN
Porrhomma errans (Blackwall, 1841) ES 9 77.8 2 T ES DD
Porrhomma microcavense Wunderlich, 1990 EN 1 100.0 1 M ES
Porrhomma microphthalmum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 196 56.1 70 M T ES VU
Porrhomma microps (Roewer, 1931) ES 64 100.0 10 M T DD ES
Porrhomma montanum Jackson, 1913 VU 96 80.2 8 M T LC ES
Porrhomma myops Simon, 1884 ES 20 95.0 10 O M LC NE
Porrhomma oblitum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 25 68.0 12 M T ES DD
Porrhomma omissum Miller, 1971 RE 1 0.0 1 T Abs
Porrhomma pal lidum Jackson, 1913 ES 80 43.8 42 O M ES
Porrhomma profundum Dahl, 1939 EN 1 0.0 1 O M T LC Abs
Porrhomma pygmaeum (Blackwall, 1834) ES 221 35.3 67 M T ES
Porrhomma rosenhaueri (L. Koch, 1872) CR 3 100.0 1 M DD VU EN
Prinerigone vagans (Audouin, 1826) CR 2 0.0 2 T LC ES
Pseudocarorita thaleri (Saaristo, 1971) VU 23 95.7 6 M ES
Pseudomaro aenigmaticus Denis, 1966 LC 3 100.0 1 B NE EN
Saaristoa abnormis (Blackwall, 1841) EN 35 25.7 10 O M DD ES
Saaristoa firma (O. P.-Cambridge, 1905) ES 24 75.0 16 O M VU ES VU
Saloca diceros (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 176 42.0 44 O M LC ES VU
Saloca kulczynskii Miller & Kratochvíl, 1939 LC 19 10.5 3 O Abs VU
Satilatlas britteni (Jackson, 1913) RE 1 0.0 1 M EN VU
Savignia frontata Blackwall, 1833 EN 5 0.0 3 M NE
Scotargus pilosus Simon, 1913 ES 14 28.6 9 M LC NE EN
Semljicola faustus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1900) EN 13 23.1 8 O M VU DD
Silometopus elegans (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) VU 62 35.5 20 M LC LC VU
Silometopus reussi (Thorell, 1871) ES 23 43.5 16 M LC ES
Sintula corniger (Blackwall, 1856) LC 69 53.6 28 O M LC VU
Sintula spiniger (Balogh, 1935) EN 1 100.0 1 T VU Abs
Sisicus apertus (Holm, 1939) CR 2 100.0 1 O LC Abs DD
Stemonyphantes conspersus (L. Koch, 1879) RE 3 0.0 2 O LC
Stemonyphantes lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 228 19.7 60 M T ES
Styloctetor romanus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) EN 11 27.3 5 M T EN VU VU
Styloctetor stativus (Simon, 1881) VU 20 15.0 14 M LC
Syedra gracilis (Menge, 1869) VU 8 50.0 5 T ES
Syedra myrmicarum (Kulczy´nski, 1882) EN 2 100.0 1 M LC NE EN
Tal l us i a exp e rt a (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 319 37.0 82 O M ES
Tapinocyba affinis Lessert, 1907 ES 148 19.6 55 O M T ES
Tapinocyba biscissa (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) LC 7 42.9 6 M VU
Tapinocyba insecta (L. Koch, 1869) ES 214 61.2 69 M T ES
Tapinocyba pallens (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) EN 2 100.0 2 O M ES
Tapinocyboides pygmaeus (Menge, 1869) VU 60 46.7 14 M T ES
Tapinopa longidens (Wider, 1834) ES 82 36.6 49 M ES
Taranucnus setosus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1863) EN 37 59.5 9 M LC VU VU
Tenuiphantes alacris (Blackwall, 1853) ES 927 61.6 124 O M ES
Tenuiphantes cristatus (Menge, 1866) ES 857 68.5 138 O M ES
Tenuiphantes flavipes (Blackwall, 1854) ES 1132 49.1 147 M T ES
Tenuiphantes mengei (Kulczy´nski, 1887) ES 664 44.3 152 O M T ES
Tenuiphantes tenebricola (Wider, 1834) ES 1297 45.2 164 O M ES
Tenuiphantes tenuis (Blackwall, 1852) ES 138 33.3 54 M T ES
Tenuiphantes zimmermanni (Bertkau, 1890) VU 16 6.3 4 M LC ES
Theonina cornix (Simon, 1881) VU 25 36.0 13 T LC VU
Theonina kratochvili Miller & Weiss, 1979 VU 21 76.2 5 T VU Abs
Thyreosthenius biovatus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) VU 7 71.4 7 M T LC NE
Thyreosthenius parasiticus (Westring, 1851) ES 119 61.3 63 O M ES
Tiso vagans (Blackwall, 1834) ES 133 42.1 51 O M ES
Tmeticus affinis (Blackwall, 1855) CR 2 50.0 2 M EN VU
Trematocephalus cristatus (Wider, 1834) ES 338 69.8 110 M T ES
Trichoncoides piscator (Simon, 1884) RE 2 0.0 2 T EN Abs
Trichoncus affinis Kulczy´nski, 1894 VU 17 58.8 6 M LC EN EN
Trichoncus auritus (L. Koch, 1869) VU 77 57.1 14 T LC LC
Trichoncus hackmani Millidge, 1955 EN 6 16.7 3 M T VU VU
Trichoncyboides simoni (Lessert, 1904) VU 5 40.0 2 M EN
Trichopterna cito (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) VU 195 53.3 36 M T VU VU
Trichopternoides thorelli (Westring, 1861) LC 14 21.4 11 M VU EN EN
Troxochrus scabriculus (Westring, 1851) ES 43 30.2 21 M ES
Typhochrestus digitatus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) LC 92 52.2 28 M T LC ES
Walckenaeria acuminata Blackwall, 1833 ES 69 40.6 38 O M ES
Walckenaeria alticeps (Denis, 1952) ES 87 93.1 25 M ES
Walckenaeria antica (Wider, 1834) ES 295 55.9 74 O M T ES
Walckenaeria atrotibialis (O. P.-Cambridge, 1878) ES 577 52.3 116 O M T ES
Walckenaeria capito (Westring, 1861) LC 54 50.0 29 M NE
Walckenaeria corniculans (O. P.-Cambridge, 1875) ES 119 76.5 34 M ES
Walckenaeria cucullata (C. L. Koch, 1836) ES 368 55.7 89 O M ES
Walckenaeria cuspidata Blackwall, 1833 ES 165 47.3 59 O M ES
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 659
Walckenaeria dysderoides (Wider, 1834) ES 204 60.3 63 M T ES
Walckenaeria furcillata (Menge, 1869) ES 219 63.5 57 M T ES
Walckenaeria kochi (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) LC 92 39.1 39 M VU
Walckenaeria mitrata (Menge, 1868) ES 109 65.1 34 M ES VU
Walckenaeria monoceros (Wider, 1834) EN 22 18.2 5 T VU ES
Walckenaeria nodosa O. P.-Cambridge, 1873 VU 28 25.0 16 M DD EN VU
Walckenaeria nudipalpis (Westring, 1851) ES 204 52.9 61 O M ES
Walckenaeria obtusa Blackwall, 1836 ES 167 40.7 65 O M T ES
Walckenaeria simplex Chyzer, 1894 VU 82 14.6 15 T LC
Walckenaeria unicornis O. P.-Cambridge, 1861 LC 47 51.1 25 M T LC ES
Walckenaeria vigilax (Blackwall, 1853) ES 59 66.1 25 O M T ES
Wubanoides uralensis lithodytes Schikora, 2004 ES 14 71.4 8 O LC
Nesticidae
Nesticus cel lulanus (Clerck, 1757) ES 138 62.3 72 B ES
Theridiidae
Achaeridion conigerum (Simon, 1914) CR 2 100.0 1 M NE
Anelosimus vittatus (C. L. Koch, 1836) ES 46 60.9 28 M LC ES
Asagena meridionalis Kulczy´nski, 1894 RE 1 0.0 1 T EN Abs
Asagena phalerata (Panzer, 1801) ES 135 42.2 72 O M T ES
Coleosoma floridanum Banks, 1900 ES 2 100.0 2 B I I
Crustulina guttata (Wider, 1834) ES 160 40.6 72 M ES
Cryptachaea riparia (Blackwall, 1834) ES 78 44.9 56 M T ES
Dipoena braccata (C. L. Koch, 1841) VU 14 64.3 7 T EN
Dipoena coracina (C. L. Koch, 1837) EN 13 38.5 6 T NE
Dipoena erythropus (Simon, 1881) CR 3 33.3 3 T VU VU
Dipoena melanogaster (C. L. Koch, 1837) ES 115 81.7 38 T ES
Dipoena nigroreticulata (Simon, 1879) EN 6 66.7 3 M T VU LC VU
Dipoena torva (Thorell, 1875) EN 8 87.5 4 T DD DD VU
Enoplognatha bryjai Řezáč, 2015 CR 4 100.0 2 T Abs
Enoplognatha caricis (Fickert, 1876) CR 11 100.0 4 M T DD EN DD
Enoplognatha latimana Hippa & Oksala, 1982 ES 84 85.7 26 M T ES
Enoplognatha mordax (Thorell, 1875) CR 1 0.0 1 M VU NE VU
Enoplognatha ovata (Clerck, 1757) ES 728 56.2 185 M T ES
Enoplognatha serratosignata (L. Koch, 1879) CR 1 100.0 1 T LC
Enoplognatha thoracica (Hahn, 1833) ES 217 47.0 72 M T ES
Episinus angulatus (Blackwall, 1836) ES 86 75.6 42 M T ES
Episinus truncatus Latreille, 1809 LC 100 64.0 32 T ES
Euryopis episinoides (Walckenaer, 1847) RE 2 0.0 1 T Abs
Euryopis flavomaculata (C. L. Koch, 1836) ES 337 65.0 74 M T ES
Euryopis laeta (Westring, 1861) EN 13 38.5 5 M T EN EN
Euryopis quinqueguttata Thorell, 1875 EN 29 51.7 6 T LC VU
Euryopis saukea Levi, 1951 CR 7 57.1 3 T VU LC
Heterotheridion nigrovariegatum (Simon, 1873) VU 62 74.2 14 T VU
Kochiura aulica (C. L. Koch, 1838) RE 1 0.0 1 T LC
Lasaeola prona (Menge, 1868) CR 12 0.0 5 T LC EN VU
Lasaeola tristis (Hahn, 1833) LC 53 73.6 31 M ES
Neottiura bimaculata (Linnaeus, 1767) ES 671 63.6 193 M T ES
Neottiura suaveolens (Simon, 1879) VU 47 78.7 12 T NE
Nesticodes rufipes (Lucas, 1846) ES 1 100.0 1 B I I
Ohlertidion ohlerti (Thorell, 1870) EN 35 82.9 7 O VU ES
Paidiscura pallens (Blackwall, 1834) ES 89 56.2 42 M ES
Parasteatoda lunata (Clerck, 1757) ES 152 57.2 87 M T ES
Parasteatoda simulans (Thorell, 1875) ES 81 69.1 33 M T ES
Parasteatoda tabulata (Levi, 1980) ES 2 100.0 2 B I I
Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch, 1841) ES 36 38.9 16 B I I
Pholcomma gibbum (Westring, 1851) ES 133 56.4 43 M ES
Phycosoma inornatum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1861) CR 2 100.0 2 M VU VU
Phylloneta impressa (L. Koch, 1881) ES 498 81.3 129 O M T ES
Phylloneta sisyphia (Clerck, 1757) ES 254 74.0 116 O M ES
Platnickina tincta (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 299 78.9 102 M T ES
Robertus arundineti (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 213 54.9 79 M T ES
Robertus lividus (Blackwall, 1836) ES 938 58.3 184 O M T ES
Robertus neglectus (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 59 30.5 26 M T ES
Robertus scoticus Jackson, 1914 LC 68 32.4 29 O LC ES
Robertus truncorum (L. Koch, 1872) LC 61 55.7 14 O ES
Robertus ungulatus Vogelsanger, 1944 RE 2 0.0 1 M VU EN VU
Rugathodes bel licosus (Simon, 1873) ES 91 65.9 39 O M LC NE
Rugathodes instabilis (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) VU 32 93.8 15 M T LC LC
Sardinidion blackwalli (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 7 85.7 6 B VU ES
Simitidion simile (C. L. Koch, 1836) VU 26 65.4 10 M T ES
Steatoda albomaculata (De Geer, 1778) LC 54 55.6 23 M NE
Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 223 45.7 75 B ES
Steatoda castanea (Clerck, 1757) ES 33 48.5 19 B I DD
660 M. Řezáč et al.
Steatoda grossa (C. L. Koch, 1838) ES 36 36.1 17 B I I
Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 8 87.5 2 B I I
Theonoe minutissima (O. P.-Cambridge, 1879) LC 25 76.0 17 M LC VU
Theridion betteni Wiehle, 1960 LC 65 73.8 33 M LC DD
Theridion boesenbergi Strand, 1904 CR 2 0.0 1 T ES
Theridion hemerobium Simon, 1914 ES 29 100.0 20 M T LC VU
Theridion melanurum Hahn, 1831 ES 33 39.4 19 B LC DD
Theridion mystaceum L. Koch, 1870 ES 84 71.4 34 B ES
Theridion pictum (Walckenaer, 1802) LC 67 37.3 33 M T ES
Theridion pinastri L. Koch, 1872 ES 115 70.4 52 M T ES
Theridion varians Hahn, 1833 ES 377 66.6 131 B ES
Dictynidae
Altel la biuncata (Miller, 1949) EN 28 53.6 15 T EN EN DD
Archaeodictyna consecuta (O. P.-Cambridge, 1872) CR 5 0.0 2 T DD EN EN
Archaeodictyna minutissima (Miller, 1958) CR 20 45.0 6 T DD Abs
Argenna patula (Simon, 1874) CR 1 0.0 1 T EN NE
Argenna subnigra (O. P.-Cambridge, 1861) ES 51 51.0 25 M T ES
Brommella falcigera (Balogh, 1935) EN 8 25.0 6 T VU EN EN
Cicurina cicur (Fabricius, 1793) ES 796 51.5 141 M T ES
Dictyna arundinacea (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 263 62.4 108 M T ES
Dictyna civica (Lucas, 1850) ES 10 80.0 6 B I ES
Dictyna latens (Fabricius, 1775) VU 19 52.6 8 T NE VU
Dictyna major Menge, 1869 RE 1 0.0 1 O VU EN EN
Dictyna pusilla Thorell, 1856 ES 128 56.3 76 M ES
Dictyna szaboi Chyzer, 1891 CR 1 100.0 1 T Abs
Dictyna uncinata Thorell, 1856 ES 245 50.6 83 M T ES
Dictyna vicina Simon, 1873 CR 1 0.0 1 T DD Abs
Emblyna brevidens (Kulczy´nski, 1897) CR 1 100.0 1 T LC Abs
Emblyna mitis (Thorell, 1875) VU 8 25.0 6 B VU EN
Lathys humil is (Blackwall, 1855) ES 27 74.1 10 T ES
Lathys nielseni (Schenkel, 1932) CR 4 50.0 3 M EN
Lathys stigmatisata (Menge, 1869) VU 14 85.7 11 T LC VU
Mastigusa arietina (Thorell, 1871) VU 8 50.0 7 O M T DD VU
Nigma flavescens (Walckenaer, 1830) ES 160 47.5 70 M T ES
Nigma walckenaeri (Roewer, 1951) ES 36 36.1 17 B ES
Titanoecidae
Titanoeca psammophila Wunderlich, 1993 CR 9 100.0 1 T LC EN DD
Titanoeca quadriguttata (Hahn, 1833) ES 401 57.6 83 M T LC ES VU
Titanoeca schineri L. Koch, 1872 LC 92 70.7 18 T Abs
Titanoeca tristis L. Koch, 1872 RE 1 0.0 1 T EN Abs
Hahniidae
Ant is tea el ega ns (Blackwall, 1841) LC 339 48.7 84 M ES
Cryphoeca silvicola (C. L. Koch, 1834) ES 315 45.1 104 O M ES
Hahnia candida Simon, 1875 EN 1 100.0 1 T VU
Hahnia difficilis Harm, 1966 VU 10 40.0 7 O VU ES
Hahnia helveola Simon, 1875 LC 78 12.8 23 M ES
Hahnia microphthalma Snazell & Duffey, 1980 LC 1 100.0 1 M LC
Hahnia montana (Blackwall, 1841) ES 26 57.7 16 O VU ES
Hahnia nava (Blackwall, 1841) ES 193 54.9 50 M T ES
Hahnia ononidum Simon, 1875 LC 30 43.3 18 M ES
Hahnia picta Kulczy´nski, 1897 CR 7 28.6 1 T LC LC
Hahnia pusil la C. L. Koch, 1841 ES 357 44.8 80 M LC ES
Argyronetidae
Argyroneta aquatica (Clerck, 1757) VU 83 69.9 35 O M VU VU
Cybaeus angustiarum L. Koch, 1868 ES 516 39.9 84 O M ES
Amaurobiidae
Amaurobius erberi (Keyserling, 1863) CR 1 100.0 1 T LC Abs
Ama uro bi us f en es tra li s (Str¨om, 1768) ES 579 43.4 126 M ES
Ama uro bi us f ero x (Walckenaer, 1830) ES 52 38.5 28 B ES
Amaurobius jugorum L. Koch, 1868 VU 139 64.0 32 M T LC EN
Callobius claustrarius (Hahn, 1833) ES 1068 51.7 144 O M ES
Agelenidae
Agelena labyrinthica (Clerck, 1757) ES 139 56.8 67 M ES
Allagelena gracilens (C. L. Koch, 1841) ES 97 73.2 57 M T ES
Coelotes atropos (Walckenaer, 1830) LC 156 30.8 18 O EN
Coelotes terrestris (Wider, 1834) ES 2818 54.5 209 O M T ES
Eratigena agrestis (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 150 44.7 31 M T ES
Eratigena atrica (C. L. Koch, 1843) ES 117 38.5 41 B ES
Histopona torpida (C. L. Koch, 1837) ES 1306 49.5 146 O M ES
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 661
Inermocoelotes inermis (L. Koch, 1855) ES 1287 28.5 116 O M ES
Tegenaria campestris (C. L. Koch, 1834) ES 85 58.8 38 M T ES
Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757) ES 103 25.2 52 B I ES
Tegenaria ferruginea (Panzer, 1804) ES 240 53.8 97 B ES
Tegenaria silvestris L. Koch, 1872 ES 427 46.8 102 O M ES
Textrix denticulata (Olivier, 1789) LC 126 53.2 24 T ES VU
Zodariidae
Zodarion germanicum (C. L. Koch, 1837) ES 204 36.8 48 M T VU VU
Zodarion italicum (Canestrini, 1868) ES 2 100.0 2 T I ES
Zodarion rubidum Simon, 1914 ES 38 73.7 7 T I ES
Lycosidae
Acantholycosa lignaria (Clerck, 1757) EN 13 53.8 8 O EN EN
Acantholycosa norvegica sudetica (L. Koch, 1875) VU 106 46.2 17 O DD VU EN
Alopecosa accentuata (Latreille, 1817) ES 474 42.0 65 M T ES
Alopecosa aculeata (Clerck, 1757) VU 69 56.5 14 M VU
Alopecosa cuneata (Clerck, 1757) ES 582 34.9 120 M T ES
Alopecosa cursor (Hahn, 1831) EN 35 22.9 7 T LC VU
Alopecosa fabrilis (Clerck, 1757) CR 8 50.0 5 M VU VU
Alopecosa inquilina (Clerck, 1757) LC 70 41.4 36 M LC LC
Alopecosa pinetorum (Thorell, 1856) EN 19 78.9 7 O LC VU
Alopecosa psammophila Buchar, 2001 CR 8 100.0 1 T Abs
Alopecosa pulverulenta (Clerck, 1757) ES 942 35.9 167 O M T ES
Alopecosa schmidti (Hahn, 1835) EN 98 19.4 19 T VU VU VU
Alopecosa solitaria (Herman, 1879) EN 45 86.7 6 T LC Abs VU
Alopecosa striatipes (C. L. Koch, 1839) CR 12 66.7 4 T EN EN
Alopecosa sulzeri (Pavesi, 1873) VU 206 45.6 27 T EN
Alopecosa taeniata (C. L. Koch, 1835) ES 652 64.7 95 O ES
Alopecosa trabalis (Clerck, 1757) ES 293 47.1 61 M T ES
Arctosa alpigena lamperti Dahl, 1908 EN 38 36.8 10 O EN EN
Arctosa cinerea (Fabricius, 1777) CR 32 37.5 14 M LC EN
Arctosa figurata (Simon, 1876) VU 190 28.4 28 M T VU DD
Arctosa leopardus (Sundevall, 1833) LC 93 39.8 40 M T ES
Arctosa lutetiana (Simon, 1876) VU 121 17.4 20 M T LC VU
Arctosa maculata (Hahn, 1822) EN 26 53.8 16 M LC LC
Arctosa perita (Latreille, 1799) EN 14 50.0 9 M T ES
Aulonia albimana (Walckenaer, 1805) ES 689 42.1 145 M T LC VU VU
Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata (Ohlert, 1865) VU 178 83.1 20 M Abs
Lycosa singoriensis (Laxmann, 1770) LC 29 13.8 23 T ES
Pardosa agrestis (Westring, 1861) ES 181 59.7 70 M T VU
Pardosa agricola (Thorell, 1856) CR 1 0.0 1 M ES
Pardosa alacris (C. L. Koch, 1833) ES 290 94.1 56 M T ES
Pardosa amentata (Clerck, 1757) ES 1377 51.3 258 O M T LC
Pardosa bifasciata (C. L. Koch, 1834) VU 409 35.9 36 T LC ES EN
Pardosa ferruginea (L. Koch, 1870) EN 8 62.5 5 O ES
Pardosa hortensis (Thorell, 1872) ES 116 55.2 37 T Abs EN
Pardosa hyperborea (Thorell, 1872) EN 14 28.6 5 O ES
Pardosa lugubris (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 1731 57.3 233 O M T Abs EN
Pardosa maisa Hippa & Mannila, 1982 CR 4 50.0 1 T ES
Pardosa monticola (Clerck, 1757) LC 111 17.1 56 M T LC EN VU
Pardosa morosa (L. Koch, 1870) EN 22 31.8 14 O M LC Abs
Pardosa nebulosa (Thorell, 1872) CR 1 100.0 1 T ES
Pardosa nigriceps (Thorell, 1856) VU 61 19.7 30 M T VU
Pardosa paludicola (Clerck, 1757) VU 109 23.9 46 M T ES
Pardosa palustris (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 659 30.7 156 O M T ES
Pardosa prativaga (L. Koch, 1870) ES 602 55.5 115 M T ES
Pardosa pullata (Clerck, 1757) ES 1312 40.8 226 O M T ES
Pardosa riparia (C. L. Koch, 1833) ES 414 47.3 81 O M T ES
Pardosa saltans opfer-Hofmann, 2000 ES 115 82.6 30 M T LC Abs EN
Pardosa saltuaria (L. Koch, 1870) VU 107 24.3 2 O LC VU EN
Pardosa sordidata (Thorell, 1875) EN 74 71.6 20 O LC EN VU
Pardosa sphagnicola (Dahl, 1908) VU 166 81.3 36 O LC VU VU
Pardosa wagleri (Hahn, 1822) CR 6 83.3 2 T ES
Pi rat a pirat icus (Clerck, 1757) ES 334 44.0 118 O M T VU
Pirata piscatorius (Clerck, 1757) VU 168 51.8 68 M LC VU
Pirata tenuitarsis Simon, 1876 LC 124 46.0 41 M ES
Piratula hygrophila (Thorell, 1872) ES 1426 64.9 192 O M T LC VU
Piratula knorri (Scopoli, 1763) VU 55 40.0 35 M ES
Piratula latitans (Blackwall, 1841) ES 407 36.9 117 M T ES
Piratula uliginosus (Thorell, 1856) VU 295 70.5 70 O M ES VU
Trochosa robusta (Simon, 1876) LC 354 34.7 44 M T LC VU
Trochosa ruricola (De Geer, 1778) ES 536 39.6 124 M T ES
Trochosa spinipalpis (F. O. P.-Cambridge, 1895) LC 620 49.0 98 O M T ES
Trochosa terricola Thorell, 1856 ES 2372 51.9 206 O M T ES
662 M. Řezáč et al.
Xerolycosa miniata (C. L. Koch, 1834) ES 149 59.7 49 M T ES
Xe rol yc os a nemoral is (Westring, 1861) ES 920 49.2 199 O M T ES
Pisauridae
Dolomedes fimbriatus (Clerck, 1757) VU 164 58.5 41 O M LC
Dolomedes plantarius (Clerck, 1757) CR 7 71.4 4 M EN EN
Pisaura mirabilis (Clerck, 1757) ES 956 70.6 189 M T ES
Oxyopidae
Oxyopes ramosus (Martini & Goeze, 1778) LC 83 57.8 31 M LC
Thomisidae
Coriarachne depressa (C. L. Koch, 1837) LC 55 43.6 37 M T ES
Cozyptila blackwal li (Simon, 1875) VU 21 66.7 7 T EN
Diaea dorsata (Fabricius, 1777) ES 410 60.5 137 M T ES
Diaea livens Simon, 1876 EN 6 16.7 5 M T VU DD
Ebrechtella tricuspidata (Fabricius, 1775) ES 145 83.4 43 M T ES
Heriaeus graminicola (Doleschall, 1852) LC 6 83.3 2 T EN VU
Heriaeus oblongus Simon, 1918 EN 35 57.1 7 T DD EN EN
Misumena vatia (Clerck, 1757) ES 422 70.6 142 M T ES
Ozyptila atomaria (Panzer, 1801) ES 225 35.6 62 M T ES
Ozyptila brevipes (Hahn, 1826) EN 8 12.5 8 M LC VU
Ozyptila claveata (Walckenaer, 1837) LC 296 33.1 50 M T ES
Ozyptila praticola (C. L. Koch, 1837) ES 284 68.7 72 M T ES
Ozyptila pul lata (Thorell, 1875) VU 56 39.3 9 T LC VU
Ozyptila rauda Simon, 1875 CR 23 0.0 7 M T LC VU EN
Ozyptila scabricula (Westring, 1851) VU 115 25.2 30 M T ES VU
Ozyptila simplex (O. P.-Cambridge, 1862) LC 30 43.3 11 M T ES
Ozyptila trux (Blackwall, 1846) ES 433 50.8 110 O M ES
Pistius truncatus (Pallas, 1772) LC 60 63.3 29 M T ES
Synema globosum (Fabricius, 1775) LC 55 56.4 28 M T ES VU
Thomisus onustus Walckenaer, 1805 VU 84 66.7 21 M T ES VU
Tmarus piger (Walckenaer, 1802) VU 55 61.8 26 T ES VU
Tmarus stellio Simon, 1875 EN 3 100.0 2 T Abs
Xysticus acerbus Thorell, 1872 ES 36 55.6 21 M T ES
Xysticus audax (Schrank, 1803) ES 309 55.7 114 O M T ES
Xysticus bifasciatus C. L. Koch, 1837 ES 342 41.2 119 O M T ES
Xysticus cristatus (Clerck, 1757) ES 776 46.1 201 O M T ES
Xysticus marmoratus Thorell, 1875 CR 12 16.7 5 T VU Abs
Xysticus erraticus (Blackwall, 1834) ES 230 27.8 64 M T ES
Xysticus ferrugineus Menge, 1876 EN 12 33.3 3 T EN DD
Xysticus gallicus Simon, 1875 EN 4 50.0 4 O VU ES DD
Xysticus kempeleni Thorell, 1872 CR 4 50.0 3 M LC VU DD
Xysticus kochi Thorell, 1872 ES 391 55.5 108 M T ES
Xysticus lanio C. L. Koch, 1835 ES 122 57.4 53 M T ES
Xysticus lineatus (Westring, 1851) CR 3 0.0 3 M T LC VU EN
Xysticus luctator L. Koch, 1870 VU 67 38.8 27 M T LC VU
Xysticus luctuosus (Blackwall, 1836) ES 74 40.5 40 M LC
Xysticus ninnii Thorell, 1872 EN 70 27.1 14 T LC VU DD
Xysticus obscurus Collett, 1877 CR 4 25.0 2 O VU Abs DD
Xysticus robustus (Hahn, 1832) VU 98 25.5 23 M T LC VU
Xysticus sabulosus (Hahn, 1832) VU 20 55.0 10 M T LC EN VU
Xysticus striatipes L. Koch, 1870 VU 46 41.3 22 M T LC
Xysticus ulmi (Hahn, 1831) ES 325 66.5 99 M T ES
Anyphaenidae
Anyphaena accentuata (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 190 58.9 68 M T ES
Anyphaena furva Miller, 1967 EN 4 50.0 2 T EN LC
Clubionidae
Clubiona alpicola Kulczy´nski, 1882 ES 68 38.2 12 O LC ES EN
Clubiona brevipes Blackwall, 1841 LC 56 58.9 25 T LC ES
Clubiona caerulescens L. Koch, 1867 ES 84 33.3 55 M T ES
Clubiona comta C. L. Koch, 1839 ES 102 55.9 46 M T ES
Clubiona corticalis (Walckenaer, 1802) EN 7 14.3 5 M ES
Clubiona diversa O. P.-Cambridge, 1862 LC 101 50.5 36 O M T ES VU
Clubiona frutetorum L. Koch, 1867 LC 25 16.0 20 M LC ES
Clubiona genevensis L. Koch, 1866 CR 16 12.5 7 T LC EN EN
Clubiona germanica Thorell, 1871 VU 48 22.9 23 M T VU
Clubiona juvenis Simon, 1878 CR 6 83.3 3 M T LC EN EN
Clubiona kulczynskii Lessert, 1905 VU 27 44.4 17 O DD EN
Clubiona leucaspis Simon, 1932 VU 4 100.0 3 T ES
Clubiona lutescens Westring, 1851 ES 371 56.9 131 M T ES
Clubiona marmorata L. Koch, 1866 VU 26 57.7 14 M ES
Clubiona neglecta O. P.-Cambridge, 1862 ES 154 39.6 76 M T ES
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 663
Clubiona norvegica Strand, 1900 CR 5 80.0 2 O EN VU
Clubiona pallidula (Clerck, 1757) ES 153 45.1 76 M T ES
Clubiona phragmitis C. L. Koch, 1843 ES 166 66.3 61 M T ES
Clubiona pseudoneglecta Wunderlich, 1994 CR 1 0.0 1 T LC NE
Clubiona reclusa O. P.-Cambridge, 1863 ES 404 69.8 129 O M ES
Clubiona saxatilis L. Koch, 1866 EN 5 80.0 4 M T LC LC
Clubiona similis L. Koch, 1867 CR 5 20.0 4 M T LC NE
Clubiona stagnatilis Kulczy´nski, 1897 ES 222 75.7 80 M ES
Clubiona subsultans Thorell, 1875 LC 104 24.0 55 M ES
Clubiona subtilis L. Koch, 1867 LC 47 51.1 29 M ES
Clubiona terrestris Westring, 1851 ES 311 49.2 94 M ES
Clubiona trivialis C. L. Koch, 1843 ES 119 52.9 57 O M ES
Sparassidae
Micrommata virescens (Clerck, 1757) ES 258 62.0 103 M ES
Philodromidae
Philodromus albidus Kulczy´nski, 1911 ES 107 68.2 45 M T ES DD
Philodromus aureolus (Clerck, 1757) ES 206 56.8 94 M T ES
Philodromus buchari Kubcová, 2004 LC 2 100.0 6 T DD
Philodromus cespitum (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 323 76.5 101 M T ES
Philodromus collinus C. L. Koch, 1835 ES 280 59.3 121 O M T ES
Philodromus dispar Walckenaer, 1826 ES 129 52.7 65 M T ES
Philodromus emarginatus (Schrank, 1803) LC 42 31.0 27 M NE
Philodromus fuscomarginatus (De Geer, 1778) VU 27 22.2 19 M ES
Philodromus histrio (Latreille, 1819) EN 2 100.0 4 M T LC VU
Philodromus margaritatus (Clerck, 1757) VU 39 33.3 26 M T ES
Philodromus marmoratus Kulczy´nski, 1891 EN 1 100.0 2 T LC Abs
Philodromus poecilus (Thorell, 1872) CR 1 0.0 1 T EN
Philodromus praedatus O. P.-Cambridge, 1871 LC 13 84.6 9 M T ES DD
Philodromus rufus Walckenaer, 1826 EN 7 42.9 2 T ES
Thanatus arenarius Koch, 1872 VU 56 64.3 12 T LC VU VU
Thanatus atratus Simon, 1875 VU 66 16.7 12 M T EN DD
Thanatus formicinus (Clerck, 1757) LC 136 42.6 41 M T LC
Thanatus pictus L. Koch, 1881 CR 1 0.0 1 T VU EN VU
Thanatus sabulosus (Menge, 1875) CR 8 12.5 3 T VU LC VU
Thanatus striatus C. L. Koch, 1845 LC 79 46.8 37 M T LC LC VU
Thanatus vulgaris Simon, 1870 ES 2 100.0 2 B I LC I
Tibellus macellus Simon, 1875 CR 11 18.2 1 T EN Abs
Tibellus maritimus (Menge, 1875) VU 35 71.4 13 M LC
Tibellus oblongus (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 284 60.2 101 M T ES
Salticidae
Aelurillus v-insignitus (Clerck, 1757) ES 358 46.1 108 M ES
Afraflacilla epiblemoides (Chyzer, 1891) CR 1 100.0 1 T DD Abs
Asianellus festivus (C. L. Koch, 1834) LC 234 26.9 48 M T LC VU
Ballus chalybeius (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 243 65.8 92 M T ES
Carrhotus xanthogramma (Latreille, 1819) VU 29 41.4 13 T LC ES VU
Chalcoscirtus brevicymbialis Wunderlich, 1980 VU 54 68.5 9 T VU EN
Dendryphantes hastatus (Clerck, 1757) LC 26 19.2 25 M NE
Dendryphantes rudis (Sundevall, 1833) ES 126 67.5 63 M ES
Euophrys frontalis (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 342 70.2 115 M T ES
Evarcha arcuata (Clerck, 1757) ES 731 70.7 194 M T ES
Evarcha falcata (Clerck, 1757) ES 559 57.1 167 M T ES
Evarcha laetabunda (C. L. Koch, 1846) VU 103 51.5 35 M T LC
Hasarius adansoni (Audouin, 1826) ES 5 80.0 2 B I I
Heliophanus aeneus (Hahn, 1832) LC 80 51.3 42 M T LC
Heliophanus auratus C. L. Koch, 1835 LC 61 67.2 21 M T LC
Heliophanus cupreus (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 459 66.7 125 M T ES
Heliophanus dampfi Schenkel, 1923 VU 42 61.9 18 O VU EN EN
Heliophanus dubius C. L. Koch, 1835 ES 55 50.9 38 M ES
Heliophanus flavipes (Hahn, 1832) ES 199 63.3 75 M T ES
Heliophanus lineiventris Simon, 1868 CR 11 72.7 3 T EN DD
Heliophanus patagiatus Thorell, 1875 CR 1 100.0 1 M LC EN
Heliophanus pouzdranensis Miller, 1958 CR 2 50.0 1 T Abs
Heliophanus simplex Simon, 1868 CR 1 100.0 1 T Abs
Leptorchestes berolinensis (C. L. Koch, 1846) VU 13 53.8 8 T EN VU
Macaroeris nidicolens (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 62 83.9 19 T I I
Marpissa muscosa (Clerck, 1757) ES 34 38.2 21 M ES
Marpissa nivoyi (Lucas, 1846) VU 52 86.5 10 T VU
Marpissa pomatia (Walckenaer, 1802) EN 9 33.3 6 M T LC EN VU
Marpissa radiata (Grube, 1859) VU 48 89.6 14 M T LC VU VU
Mendoza canestrinii (Ninni, 1868) EN 3 100.0 2 T EN Abs
Myrmarachne formicaria (De Geer, 1778) VU 25 56.0 12 T ES VU
Neon levis (Simon, 1871) CR 2 50.0 1 M LC EN
664 M. Řezáč et al.
Neon rayi (Simon, 1875) EN 36 52.8 8 T VU EN
Neon reticulatus (Blackwall, 1853) ES 245 61.2 99 M T ES
Neon valentulus Falconer, 1912 VU 34 47.1 19 M LC VU EN
Pellenes nigrociliatus (Simon, 1875) VU 47 53.2 15 T LC EN VU
Pellenes tripunctatus (A759Walckenaer, 1802) LC 117 39.3 30 T ES VU
Philaeus chrysops (Poda, 1761) VU 118 54.2 29 T LC EN EN
Phlegra bresnieri (Lucas, 1846) RE 2 0.0 1 T Abs
Phlegra cinereofasciata (Simon, 1868) EN 21 52.4 4 T LC Abs
Phlegra fasciata (Hahn, 1826) ES 258 43.4 83 M T LC ES
Pseudeuophrys erratica (Walckenaer, 1826) ES 60 41.7 41 M T LC ES
Pseudeuophrys lanigera (Simon, 1871) ES 14 92.9 3 B I I
Pseudeuophrys obsoleta (Simon, 1868) VU 72 54.2 13 T EN VU
Pseudicius encarpatus (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 35 77.1 17 M T ES EN
Salticus cingulatus (Panzer, 1797) LC 34 44.1 27 M ES
Salticus scenicus (Clerck, 1757) ES 291 59.5 101 B ES
Salticus zebraneus (C. L. Koch, 1837) ES 164 77.4 68 M T ES
Sibianor aurocinctus (Ohlert, 1865) LC 121 61.2 63 M T ES
Sibianor larae Logunov, 2001 EN 1 100.0 1 O EN DD
Sibianor tantulus (Simon, 1868) EN 1 100.0 1 M DD LC
Sitticus atricapillus (Simon, 1882) VU 3 100.0 1 O LC
Sitticus caricis (Westring, 1861) VU 54 50.0 25 M EN
Sitticus distinguendus (Simon, 1868) EN 6 66.7 5 T LC VU VU
Sitticus dzieduszyckii (L. Koch, 1870) EN 9 44.4 6 T VU RE EN
Sitticus floricola (C. L. Koch, 1837) LC 158 69.0 57 M LC ES
Sitticus penicillatus (Simon, 1875) EN 35 57.1 12 T LC EN
Sitticus pubescens (Fabricius, 1775) ES 185 51.4 76 B ES
Sitticus rupicola (C. L. Koch, 1837) LC 26 50.0 2 O LC VU
Sitticus saltator (O. P.-Cambridge, 1868) VU 21 52.4 8 M T VU LC VU
Sitticus saxicola (C. L. Koch, 1846) VU 30 73.3 10 O M LC EN VU
Sitticus terebratus (Clerck, 1757) VU 9 33.3 7 O M LC
Sitticus zimmermanni (Simon, 1877) CR 2 0.0 2 M T LC EN
Synageles hilarulus (C. L. Koch, 1846) EN 14 28.6 4 T LC VU VU
Synageles subcingulatus (Simon, 1878) CR 1 100.0 1 M LC Abs
Synageles venator (Lucas, 1836) ES 111 66.7 59 M T ES VU
Talavera aequipes (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 115 40.0 42 M T ES
Talavera aperta (Miller, 1971) LC 12 66.7 9 M T LC ES
Talavera milleri (Brignoli, 1983) EN 7 42.9 2 T VU EN
Talavera parvistyla Logunov & Kronestedt, 2003 EN 8 37.5 5 O DD EN
Talavera petrensis (C. L. Koch, 1837) VU 46 52.2 26 M T LC ES
Talavera thorelli (Kulczy´nski, 1891) CR 8 100.0 2 O M DD VU
Yllenus arenarius Menge, 1868 CR 1 100.0 1 T EN VU
Miturgidae
Zora armillata Simon, 1878 CR 2 100.0 3 T VU EN EN
Zora distincta Kulczy´nski, 1915 RE 1 0.0 1 O EN Abs EN
Zora manicata Simon, 1878 VU 162 58.6 18 T LC EN
Zo ra ne mo ral is (Blackwall, 1861) ES 244 41.8 66 M T ES
Zora parallela Simon, 1878 EN 2 100.0 2 T VU EN
Zora pardalis Simon, 1878 CR 1 0.0 1 T LC Abs
Zora silvestris Kulczy´nski, 1897 ES 165 45.5 59 M ES
Zora spinimana (Sundevall, 1833) ES 1350 69.8 231 O M T ES
Eutichuridae
Cheiracanthium campestre Lohmander, 1944 LC 8 100.0 3 T VU NE VU
Cheiracanthium effossum Herman, 1879 VU 2 0.0 2 T LC CR
Cheiracanthium elegans Thorell, 1875 EN 5 40.0 4 T LC EN
Cheiracanthium erraticum (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 126 73.0 68 M T ES
Cheiracanthium mildei L. Koch, 1864 ES 4 100.0 5 B I I
Cheiracanthium montanum L. Koch, 1877 EN 10 50.0 5 T LC EN
Cheiracanthium oncognathum Thorell, 1871 VU 13 23.1 7 M T LC VU
Cheiracanthium pennyi O. P.-Cambridge, 1873 EN 2 50.0 1 T EN
Cheiracanthium punctorium (Villers, 1789) ES 15 86.7 4 T LC ES EN
Cheiracanthium virescens (Sundevall, 1833) LC 38 55.3 19 M T ES
Liocranidae
Agroeca brunnea (Blackwall, 1833) ES 1045 63.3 128 M ES
Agroeca c up rea Menge, 1873 LC 408 38.2 40 T ES
Agroeca l us at ic a (L. Koch, 1875) VU 23 60.9 7 T LC VU
Agro eca pro xi ma (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) ES 77 45.5 35 O M LC ES
Apostenus fuscus Westring, 1851 ES 300 30.7 58 M T ES
Liocranoeca striata (Kulczy´nski, 1882) LC 66 87.9 12 M T DD ES
Liocranum rupicola (Walckenaer, 1830) ES 157 38.9 54 B ES
Sagana rutilans Thorell, 1875 EN 12 33.3 7 T LC EN
Scotina celans (Blackwall, 1841) VU 33 97.0 7 T ES
Scotina palliardii (L. Koch, 1881) VU 37 40.5 8 O M T LC LC EN
Updated Red List of Czech spiders 665
Trachelidae
Cetonana laticeps (Canestrini, 1868) EN 14 35.7 6 T ES
Phrurolithidae
Phrurolithus festivus (C. L. Koch, 1835) ES 525 62.5 141 M T ES
Phrurolithus minimus C. L. Koch, 1839 VU 47 46.8 16 M T ES
Phrurolithus pullatus Kulczy´nski, 1897 VU 131 71.0 11 T LC VU
Phrurolithus szilyi Herman, 1879 CR 2 5.0 1 T LC Abs
Gnaphosidae
Aphantaulax cincta (L. Koch, 1866) EN 1 100.0 2 T EN Abs
Berlandina cinerea (Menge, 1872) EN 31 64.5 10 T LC EN VU
Callilepis nocturna (Linnaeus, 1758) VU 44 56.8 21 M T ES
Callilepis schuszteri (Herman, 1879) VU 111 33.3 25 T VU
Civizelotes caucasius (L. Koch, 1866) CR 1 100.0 1 T EN Abs
Civizelotes gracilis (Canestrini, 1868) EN 2 100.0 4 T ES
Civizelotes pygmaeus Miller, 1943 VU 64 62.5 14 T ES
Cryptodrassus hungaricus (Balogh, 1935) CR 8 37.5 3 T ES
Drassodes cupreus (Blackwall, 1834) LC 86 73.3 27 M ES
Drassodes lapidosus (Walckenaer, 1802) ES 762 40.4 108 M T ES VU
Drassodes pubescens (Thorell, 1856) ES 488 42.2 111 M T ES VU
Drassyllus lutetianus (L. Koch, 1866) ES 216 54.2 64 M T ES
Drassyllus praeficus (L. Koch, 1866) ES 184 57.1 62 M T LC
Drassyllus pumilus (C. L. Koch, 1839) EN 83 79.5 15 M T EN Abs
Drassyllus pusillus (C. L. Koch, 1833) ES 274 56.2 98 M T EN EN
Drassyllus villicus (Thorell, 1875) VU 150 40.7 28 T ES
Drassyllus vinealis (Kulczy´nski, 1897) CR 4 0.0 2 T LC
Echemus angustifrons (Westring, 1861) VU 30 53.3 14 M T EN
Gnaphosa badia (L. Koch, 1866) EN 16 56.3 4 O Abs
Gnaphosa bicolor (Hahn, 1833) VU 120 15.8 25 M T LC VU
Gnaphosa inconspecta Simon, 1878 CR 2 50.0 1 T VU VU
Gnaphosa lapponum (L. Koch, 1866) VU 34 11.8 1 O VU EN DD
Gnaphosa lucifuga (Walckenaer, 1802) LC 173 60.7 30 T DD Abs
Gnaphosa lugubris (C. L. Koch, 1839) VU 137 38.0 24 T VU EN VU
Gnaphosa microps Holm, 1939 EN 17 47.1 5 O EN VU
Gnaphosa modestior Kulczy´nski, 1897 CR 2 100.0 1 T EN DD
Gnaphosa montana (L. Koch, 1866) VU 50 66.0 25 O Abs
Gnaphosa nigerrima L. Koch, 1877 EN 31 19.4 14 M LC ES
Gnaphosa opaca Herman, 1879 VU 146 60.3 14 T LC VU
Haplodrassus bohemicus Miller & Buchar, 1977 CR 10 80.0 2 T LC DD
Haplodrassus cognatus (Westring, 1861) VU 19 47.4 15 M T VU DD
Haplodrassus dalmatensis (L. Koch, 1866) VU 26 73.1 11 T EN EN
Haplodrassus kulczynskii Lohmander, 1942 VU 92 37.0 20 T ES
Haplodrassus minor (O. P.-Cambridge, 1879) EN 8 87.5 4 M T ES
Haplodrassus moderatus (Kulczy´nski, 1897) EN 14 57.1 6 M VU ES
Haplodrassus signifer (C. L. Koch, 1839) ES 725 48.7 132 O M T ES
Haplodrassus silvestris (Blackwall, 1833) ES 341 40.5 68 M T EN
Haplodrassus soerenseni (Strand, 1900) LC 102 21.6 27 M ES
Haplodrassus umbratilis (L. Koch, 1866) ES 126 38.9 48 M LC Abs
Kishidaia conspicua (L. Koch, 1866) EN 16 0.0 6 M T EN
Micaria aenea Thorell, 1871 EN 5 40.0 3 O LC VU
Micaria albovittata (Lucas, 1846) RE 3 0.0 3 T ES
Micaria dives (Lucas, 1846) EN 24 50.0 6 M T VU VU
Micaria formicaria (Sundevall, 1831) VU 36 80.6 13 M T VU EN
Micaria fulgens (Walckenaer, 1802) LC 178 30.9 57 M T LC EN
Micaria guttulata (C. L. Koch, 1839) EN 17 29.4 5 T ES
Micaria lenzi osenberg, 1899 CR 2 50.0 2 T VU
Micaria nivosa L. Koch, 1866 VU 25 12.0 8 M VU Abs
Micaria pulicaria (Sundevall, 1831) ES 280 52.9 90 O M T LC ES
Micaria silesiaca L. Koch, 1875 VU 9 11.1 6 M LC VU
Micaria sociabilis Kulczy´nski, 1897 CR 5 100.0 1 T ES
Micaria subopaca Westring, 1861 ES 35 40.0 18 M T ES
Phaeocedus braccatus (L. Koch, 1866) CR 6 33.3 3 T LC NE
Scotophaeus quadripunctatus (Linnaeus, 1758) ES 39 35.9 28 B ES VU
Scotophaeus scutulatus (L. Koch, 1866) ES 47 38.3 27 B I
Sosticus loricatus (L. Koch, 1866) ES 15 0.0 11 B LC LC
Trachyzelotes pedestris (C. L. Koch, 1837) ES 207 68.6 35 M T ES
Urozelotes rusticus (L. Koch, 1872) RE 1 0.0 1 M VU VU
Zelotes aeneus (Simon, 1878) LC 20 45.0 10 M T EN
Zelotes apricorum (L. Koch, 1876) LC 67 80.6 16 M T LC Abs
Zelotes atrocaeruleus (Simon, 1878) CR 11 0.0 3 T ES
Zelotes aurantiacus Miller, 1967 LC 107 54.2 23 T ES
Zelotes clivicola (L. Koch, 1870) ES 167 66.5 53 O M LC
Zelotes electus (C. L. Koch, 1839) LC 227 50.2 40 M T VU NE DD
666 M. Řezáč et al.
Zelotes erebeus (Thorell, 1871) VU 134 26.9 26 M T Abs
Zelotes exiguus (M¨uller & Schenkel, 1895) VU 42 40.5 11 T ES
Zelotes latreillei (Simon, 1878) ES 228 57.5 82 M T ES
Zelotes longipes (L. Koch, 1866) LC 220 36.4 30 M T ES
Zelotes petrensis (C. L. Koch, 1839) ES 624 49.2 104 M T VU EN DD
Zelotes puritanus Chamberlin, 1922 EN 41 39.0 8 M T LC Abs DD
Zelotes segrex (Simon, 1878) CR 20 65.0 3 T EN Abs
Zelotes subterraneus (C. L. Koch, 1833) ES 644 55.3 112 O M T ES
  • ... In total, 2620 individuals and 208 species of moths, 3932/71 spi- ders, 4172/62 ground beetles, 13764/13 ants, 305/11 orthopteroids, 397/8 centipedes, 48/6 millipedes, and 66/1 woodlice were recorded. Out of the 380 species of recorded taxa, 15 species (almost 4% of the total) are included in the national red lists (7 NT, 5 VU, 2 EN, and 1 CR; Farkač et al., 2005;Řezáč et al., 2015;S1). Roughly 55% of the re- corded species occurred in both wavy and flattened plots, while 30% and 15% of all species were exclusively sampled in the wavy and flat- tened plots, respectively. ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Heterogeneity of environmental conditions is the crucial factor supporting biodiversity in various habitats, including post-mining sites. The effects of micro-topographic heterogeneity on biodiversity and conservation potential of arthropod communities in post-industrial habitats had not been studied before now. At one of the largest European brown coal spoil heaps, we sampled eight groups of terrestrial arthropods with different life strategies (moths, spiders, ground beetles, ants, orthopteroids, centipedes, millipedes, and woodlice), in successionally young plots (5-18 y), with a heterogeneous wavy surface after heaping, and compared the communities with plots flattened by dozing. A combination of the standardized quantitative sampling, using two different methods, and a paired design of the plot selection enabled a robust analysis. Altogether, we recorded 380 species of the focal arthropods, 15 of them nationally threatened. We revealed the importance of the micro-topographic heterogeneity for the formation of the biodiversity of arthropods in their secondary refuges. The communities with higher biodiversity and conservation value were detected in the plots with heterogeneous surfaces; exceptions were ground beetles and millipedes. The surface flattening, often the first step of technical reclamation projects, thus suppress biodiversity of most terrestrial arthropods during the restoration of post-mining sites. Since the communities of both surface types differed, the proportional presence on both surfaces could be more efficient in supporting the local biodiversity. We suggest reducing the surface dozing for the cases with other concerns only, to achieve a proportional representation of both surface types. Such a combination of different restoration approaches would, thus, efficiently support high biodiversity of groups with various needs.
  • ... However, they are also found outdoors, mostly in gardens, on bushes and in forests -especially under tree bark -in rock crevices or under stones (Szinetár & Horváth 2006, Machač & Tuf 2016. In places they can be quite common and the species is not regarded as endangered ( Řezáč et al. 2015Řezáč et al. , Blick et al. 2016 ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    The European spiders of the year 2017, Nuctenea umbratica (Clerck, 1757), and 2018, Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758), are presented. Both species were originally bark-dwellers, but became more and more synanthropic. Their appearance and characteristics (e.g., ecology, habitat, phenology) are briefly described. The modality of the voting is given as well as the decisive criteria for the win.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Spiders and pseudoscorpions on old pedunculate oaks (Quercus robur) with tree cavities were studied in a Central European floodplain (South Moravia, Czech Republic). Altogether 322 specimens from 47 spider taxa and 71 specimens of six pseudoscorpion species were collected during 2010 and 2011 from tree cavities using two methods. More specimens and species of spiders were obtained from flight interception traps and more specimens and species of pseudoscorpions were obtained from pitfall traps. Remarkable records represent typical cavity dwellers, i.e. the spider Midia midas (Simon, 1884), the pseudoscorpions Larca lata (Hansen, 1884) and Apocheiridium ferum (Simon, 1879), the latter occurs mostly under tree bark. Five arachnid species are listed in the Czech red list: Midia midas, Leptorchestes berolinensis (C. L. Koch, 1846), Dipoena erythropus (Simon, 1881), Larca lata and Dendrochernes cyrneus (L. Koch, 1873).
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    Traditional woodland management created a dynamic mosaic of differently aged patches providing favorable conditions for a variety of arthropods. After the abandonment of historical ownership patterns providing traditional management and deliberate transformation to high forest after the World War II, large areas of forest became darker and more homogeneous. This had significant negative consequences for biodiversity [1-4]. Recently introduced coppicing interventions that could open otherwise homogeneous and dark forest stand are reintroduced in some protected locations around southern Moravia of the Czech Republic. An important question is whether newly introduced active interventions maintained by selective logging and coppicing may constitute conditions suitable for overall biodiversity of spiders including forest as well as open habitat specialists. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of active logging interventions on spiders in formerly coppiced oak-hornbeam forests in the Děvín National Nature Reserve (SE Czech Republic), which were conserved for overal 80 years without any active management. In particular, we studied the effect of canopy thinning on species richness, abundance, functional diversity and its evenness, conservation value, degree of rareness and community composition of spiders. Sampling was based on 15 vegetation plots distributed equally among three thinning intensities (Fig. 1): strong thinning, moderate thinning and control (no management). The spiders were collected using pitfall traps during vegetation season of 2016. We used three pitfall traps per plot, placed five meters from each other across the diagonal of each research plot. Altogether, we collected 3,683 adult spiders representing 21 families, 70 genera, and 116 species. Of these, 38 species were classified as having a preference for forest habitats and 65 species were classified as having a preference for open habitats including forests with a higher level of canopy openness. The records contained a total of 23 species (20%) listed in the Red List of Threatened Species of spiders in the Czech Republic [5]. In general, we discovered a substantially diversified spider assemblage with a large presence of rare species characteristic for endangered open and xeric habitats as well as species of well preserved forest ecosystems. The species richness and conservation indicators increased with canopy openness. The species richness was also positively correlated with diversity of undergrowth vegetation. The abundance of spiders had the highest values in the moderate thinning plots. However, this was mainly caused by several eudominant representatives of common forest species such as Pardosa lugubris and Trochosa terricola. Functional diversity was significantly higher in open habitats with strong canopy thinning, however, the functional traits (e.g. spider hunting strategies and body size) were equally dispersed in all canopy thinning variants. Moreover, the evenness of the functional diversity negatively depended on the coverage and density of herb vegetation. The presented research showed that return to active management can be an appropriate strategy for biodiversity conservation in oak woodlands. However, the logging activities should not be applied by large scale clearings. The strong community changes of spiders highlight the importance of complexity of lowland forests maintained by active interventions and various traditional managements as shown also in other studies [6,7]. We propose an active forest management in oak forest reserves as suitable conservation tool to prevent the generally observed decline of woodland biodiversity in the landscapes of Central Europe.
  • Article
    The absence of evidence regarding the ecosystem services of habitats affected by sand mining has had direct effects on the destiny of landscapes affected by human disturbances. Active sand pits and gravel-sand pits cover 0.1% of the study area, the Czech Republic. In many sand pits, various types of oligotrophic wetlands may form; these range from periodic pools to peat bogs and purposefully formed water bodies. In the present study, we aimed to provide the first conclusive evidence of ability of sand pit wetlands to serve as secondary strongholds for both common and threatened wetland-associated epigeic spiders. We examined 21 anthropogenic wetlands in Czech sand pits and gravel-sand pits using pitfall trapping (17,764 trap-days) for the presence of spiders, and characterized various abiotic variables and the cover and composition of plants in the analyzed microhabitats. We found 5,842 individuals from 224 spider species, including 52 Red-Listed species and one previously undescribed Scutpelecopsis sp. All types of examined anthropogenic wetlands were associated with low dominance and high entropy, with the least stable assemblages present in gravel-sand pit tailing ponds. The examined anthropogenic wetlands hosted 60% of the species that were previously found in (near-)natural wetlands within the study region, and hosted numerous species that were absent from (near-)natural wetlands. During the sampling period, four study sites were affected by severe June floods, which caused prominent changes in species-specific spider abundances but caused a disappearance of only a few species, including Pardosa prativaga and Xerolycosa miniata. Oligotrophic anthropogenic wetlands occurring in sand pits and gravel-sand pits serve as local biodiversity hotspots, and their value should be taken into consideration when planning restoration and rehabilitation of areas affected by sand and gravel-sand mining.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    A rich population of the Giant Riverbank Wolf Spider (Arctosa cinerea) was observed on the naturalised stretch of the Bečva river. The Red List of the Czech Spiders evaluates this species as critically endangered. Not only this rare spider occurs at the site, but other endangered invertebrates also find appropriate conditions here and thus the locality should be protected. The realisation of the plan to build a dam near the village of Skalička would lead to the changes of the water regime that could cause the extermination of the Giant Riverbank Wolf Spider at the Bečva river.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Studies of subterranean habitats in Slovakia revealed two rare linyphiid spider species new to the country, Pseudomaro aenigmaticus Denis, 1966 and Pseudocarorita thaleri (Saaristo, 1971). Pseudomaro aenigmaticus was recorded in the Malé Karpaty Mountains in western Slovakia. A male was captured in the limestone Plavecká Cave and a female was found in a granitoid mesovoid shallow substratum (MSS) in the Jajcajov jarok Valley. One pair of Pseudocarorita thaleri was found in the MSS in the Belinské skaly Nature Monument in the Cerová vrchovina Highland in southern Slovakia. This study also presents the characteristic habitus and habitats of the recorded spiders.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    This study reports the first records of two spider species for Hungary: Cyclosa sierrae Simon, 1870 (Araneidae) and Porrhomma oblitum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) (Linyphiidae). Cyclosa sierrae also represents the first record of this species from Central Europe. Furthermore, we provide evidence about the occurence of Dysdera lata Reuss, 1834 and Philodromus marmoratus Kulczyński, 1891 in Hungary and for six further species we report new data: Brigittea vicina (Simon, 1873) (Dictynidae), Iberina microphthalma (Snazell & Duffey, 1980) (Hahniidae), Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882) (Linyphiidae), Pulchellodromus ruficapillus (Simon, 1885) (Philodromidae), Lasaeola prona (Menge, 1868) (Theridiidae) and Diaea livens Simon, 1876 (Thomisidae). Comments on the distribution, biology and taxonomy of the ten mentioned spider species are provided.
  • Article
    During faunistic research of reed beds associated with lakes in the Pannonian region of Czechia we found an Enoplognatha species with spectacular morphology of the male chelicerae. Despite this species being found in an arachnologically well researched area, and that the European species of the genus Enoplognatha have been recently revised (Bosmans & Van Keer 1999), it appears to be a new species. Bosmans and Van Keer (1999) divided the 29 European and Mediterranean Enoplognatha species into five phenetic groups. Based of the presence of additional teeth on the male basal cheliceral segments, the folium on the dorsal abdomen, and moderately long legs, Enoplognatha bryjai n. sp. (as well as E. monstrabilis Marusik & Logunov, 2001 from Baikal) belongs to the nigromarginata species group. The remaining western Palearctic species of this group are E. mordax (Thorell, 1875), E. mariae Bosmans & Van Keer, 1999, E. nigromarginata (Lucas, 1846), and E. caricis (Fickert, 1876).
  • Article
    The knowledge of the flora of the Czech Republic has substantially improved since the second version of the national Red List was published, mainly due to large-scale field recording during the last decade and the resulting large national databases. In this paper, an updated Red List is presented and compared with the previous editions of 1979 and 2000. The complete updated Red List consists of 1720 taxa (listed in Electronic Appendix 1), accounting for more then a half (59.2%) of the native flora of the Czech Republic. Of the Red-Listed taxa, 156 (9.1% of the total number on the list) are in the A categories, which include taxa that have vanished from the flora or are not known to occur at present, 471 (27.4%) are classified as critically threatened, 357 (20.8%) as threatened and 356 (20.7%) as endangered. From 1979to 2000 to2012, there has been an increase in the total number of taxa included in the Red List (from 1190to 1627 to 1720) and in most categories, mainly for the following reasons: (i) The continuing human pressure on many natural and semi-natural habitats is reflected in the increased vulnerability or level of threat to many vascular plants; some vulnerable species therefore became endangered, those endangered critically threatened, while species until recently not classified may be included in the Red List as vulnerable or even endangered. (ii) Some increase in the number of species in particular categories can be attributed to the improved knowledge of taxonomically difficult groups for which previously only incomplete species lists were available. In addition, some native species were recently discovered as new to the country's flora or described as new to science, and the status of their populations made Red-Listing necessary. (iii) Also improvements in our knowledge of the flora made the expertjudgment more precise and some species were included in the list because their long-lasting vulnerability was recognized. In contrast, 23 taxa considered extinct or missing were rediscovered. This is almost one third of the number of extinct or missing taxa in the first version of the Red List published in 1979.
  • Article
    Using data from the Czech Republic, we studied the distribution of spiders in soils, crevice systems, scree and caves, i.e. subterranean habitats at depths spanning from 10 cm to 100 m. In total, we found 161 species. The number of species declines with increasing habitat depth, with a major drop in species richness at the depth of 10 meters. Thirteen species exhibit morphological adaptations to life in subterranean habitats. At depths greater than 10 meters, spider assemblages are almost exclusively composed of troglomorphic species. We propose a hypothesis of evolution of troglomorphisms at spiders during Quaternary climatic cycles.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Capsule Two nationwide monitoring schemes, the International Waterbird Census (IWC) and Atlas of Wintering Birds (AWB), provide comparable estimates of national population sizes of wintering waterbirds. Differences between these estimates for several species can be explained by differences in their migratory strategy. Aims We tested whether species-specific variables, i.e. the total numbers, distribution and migration strategy affected the accuracy of wintering population estimates provided by two different monitoring schemes, the IWC and AWB. Methods Estimates of the numbers of 81 waterbird species are compared, using data from IWC (mid-January) and AWB (December, January and February) in the Czech Republic between 1982 and 1985. Log-linear Poisson regression analysis was used to estimate missing IWC data from long-term IWC data series (1966–2013) using Trends and Indices for Monitoring data software. A series of generalized linear models was estimated to analyse the effect of species-specific variables on the presence of overlap between IWC and AWB national population estimates. Results The range of numbers recorded by IWC data overlap the range of AWB numbers in 22 of the 53 investigated species recorded by both monitoring schemes. Numbers of most other species based on the IWC counts were lower when compared with those generated from AWB data and included several widespread species, e.g. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla and White-throated Dipper Cinclus cinclus. In contrast, population size estimates based on IWC counts were higher than those generated from AWB estimates for one species, the Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca. The differences between IWC and AWB estimates were significantly higher in late-departing and early-arriving migrants. There was no effect of species distribution and population size. Conclusions Based on a single-country data sample, we support the relevance of the IWC Census methodology to produce estimates of wintering waterbird numbers and to calculate 1% thresholds for waterbird species, which we use to indicate nationally important wetland sites for future conservation and protection in the Czech Republic.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Purse-web spiders Atypus spp. (Araneae: Atypidae) are the only representatives of the archaic spider infraorder Mygalomorphae in the Central European fauna. These burrow-dwelling spiders are red-listed in all Central European countries. Atypus muralis occurs on relics of continental steppes, A. piceus on dry submediterranean grassland and dry herb-rich forest fringes, while A. affinis inhabits sparse dwarf dry forests, usually those dominated by oaks. Long-term sustainability of their habitats in the relatively humid Central European climate was maintained by grazing. Since the 1950s, pasturing was terminated across most of Central Europe, which led to immediate overgrowth of pastures by aggressive grasses and woody plants. Grazing was later reinstated in some reserves, but in cases of poorly controlled grazing intensity, footsteps had immediate detrimental effects on the residual populations of purseweb spiders and other invertebrates. Therefore, grazing intensity needs to be regulated, considering its double-edge effects on the biota of xerothermophilic habitats. Nests of European Atypus species have never been found in habitats subject to recent or even regular disturbation. Thererore, they may serve as reliable indicators of well preserved xerothermic habitats. Their nests are easy to detect, and the European Atypus spiders can be utilized as model species for monitoring impacts of conservation management. Monitoring population dynamics of Atypus requires establishing permanent study plots of uniform size, documentation of vegetation by phytocenological relevé, counting their density (number of purse-webs found in the plot) and age structure (diameter of purse webs).