|
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 28
STATUS OF THE ROSEMARY WOLF SPIDER
IN FLORIDA
by
Jonathan Reiskind
Department of Zoology
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Supported by:
Jacksonville Endangered Species Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2747 Art Museum Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Research Work Order No. 21
May 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
INTRODUCTION 1
PROCEDURES 1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
LITERATURE CITED 8
LIST OF TABLES
Collecting dates and locations
Locality number and the presence of three
species of Lycosa
Table
1
2
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 A male of Lycosa ericeticola, the Rosemary
Wolf Spider
2 Rosemary Wolf Spider habitat (Locality #7 in
Ordway Reserve)
3 Map of Florida and Putnam County with area of
interest outlined
4 Map of area of interest
County with habitat and
Spider indicated
in northwest Putnam
range of Rosemary Wolf
Page
A. INTRODUCTION
The Rosemary Wolf Spider, Lycosa ericeticola Wallace, was
collected and described over forty years ago in and around the town of
Interlachen in Putnam County in a very unusual habitat (Wallace,
1942). Since that time it has been collected a couple of times in the
same area. No collections have been made since 1971 and the last 14
years have been a period of rapid development in the region,
especially within the city limits of Interlachen, where sand mining
has made incursions into several areas in which the spider was
originally found (in the area just south of State Highway 20 and east
of State Highway 315).
In this survey we have attempted to (1) identify likely habitats
for the occurrence of populations of the spider, (2) collect the
spider, find its distribution, estimate its numbers and determine its
phenology, and (3) find a way to identify the spider in the field (and
avoid the necessity of microscopic examination). In the first two
aspects we have been reasonably successful but the last still poses
problems.
B. PROCEDURES
Surveys of potential habitats (turkey-oak with an understory of
Rosemary, Ceratiola ericoides) were carried out in the summer and fall
of 1984 and winter through fall of 1985 by'visual examination of areas
east and west of Gainesville as well as using some aerial surveys,
with greatest attention given to the Interlachen region. Initially
- 1 -
A. INTRODUCTION
The Rosemary Wolf Spider, Lycosa ericeticola Wallace, was
collected and described over forty years ago in and around the town of
Interlachen in Putnam County in a very unusual habitat (Wallace,
1942). Since that time it has been collected a couple of times in the
same area. No collections have been made since 1971 and the last 14
years have been a period of rapid development in the region,
especially within the city limits of Interlachen, where sand mining
has made incursions into several areas in which the spider was
originally found (in the area just south of State Highway 20 and east
of State Highway 315).
In this survey we have attempted to (1) identify likely habitats
for the occurrence of populations of the spider, (2) collect the
spider, find its distribution, estimate its numbers and determine its
phenology, and (3) find a way to identify the spider in the field (and
avoid the necessity of microscopic examination). In the first two
aspects we have been reasonably successful but the last still poses
problems.
B. PROCEDURES
Surveys of potential habitats (turkey-oak with an understory of
Rosemary, Ceratiola ericoides) were carried out in the summer and fall
of 1984 and winter through fall of 1985 by'visual examination of areas
east and west of Gainesville as well as using some aerial surveys,
with greatest attention given to the Interlachen region. Initially
- 1 -
two locations in the city of Interlachen were singled out for repeated
collections. The first was an ecosystem almost completely dominated
by Rosemary with little other major vegetation (area #20 on Map 2).
The other was a turkey-oak community with a dense-to-moderate
understory Rosemary element (area #16 on Map 2). Findings in these
two areas in early April initiated a broadening of the search area to
the west, north and somewhat to the southwest of the center of
Interlachen.
Surveys of the occurrence of the spider were made using two
methods:
1. The first was night-light hunting over a period from
September, 1984 through October, 1985. The tapetum of each of the
spider's four posterior eyes brightly reflects light shown at it and
allows an efficient method to locate and collect these nocturnal
spiders. Within an hour one can survey hundreds of spiders this way
and determine the presence or absence of the wolf spider in
question. Table 1 lists the dates of the collecting trips and the
locations.
2. In addition four pitfall traps (utilizing a 50/50 mixture of
ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and 95% ethanol), two each at both
Interlachen locations (16 and 20), were set out in January and checked
and refilled on February 3, 17, and March 2.
C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Habitat Survey and Identification
The spider was reported to be "found in high, well-drained sandy
soil somewhat similar to high pine-turkey oak but with a high
- 2 -
proportion of Rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides) in the plant association"
(Wallace, 1982). Wallace (1942) reported that this species had been
collected "only in the area covered with Rosemary." Such habitats are
found in the hilly regions both east and west of Gainesville. Several
localities of this type of habitat within the city limits of
Interlachen were chosen for regular night-light and pitfall
collections during 1984-85 and other locations elsewhere (around
Melrose and west of Archer) were sampled in the spring and summer of
1985. A more detailed survey of those areas in which Rosemary is a
dominant plant and contiguous or near to the Interlachen central area
was made by visual survey as well as by utilizing aerial survey maps
and photographs from the LandSat and National High Altitude
Photography (U-2) programs. These areas vary a great deal in the
density of Rosemary although it is present throughout with the
exception of littoral areas around lakes and certain local wetter
mesicc) depressions. They are all characterized by the presence of
turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and often have longleaf pines (Pinus
palustris) as well. The estimated extent of these areas is outlined
in red on Map 2.
Collecting the Rosemary Wolf Spider
Males of Lycosa were found in the late summer and fall of 1984
but none turned out to be the Rosemary Wolf Spider. Several
penultimate males were collected at that time and raised to their
adult stage in the laboratory, but also turned out to be the same,
closely related, species, Lycosa timuqua Wallace. It was not until
the Spring of 1985 that Lycosa ericeticola was found. The first one
- 3 -
was collected at Interlachen site #20 on March 8 as a penultimate male
and it was not until 31 March 1985, when it molted in the laboratory
into an adult male, that definite identification was possible.
Three species in the Lycosa lenta group are found in the general
habitat examined: Lycosa ericeticola Wallace, L. ammophila Wallace,
and L. timuqua Wallace. While L. timuqua is found in association with
each of the other, the first two species appear to exclude one
another. The locality numbers on Map 2 and the species of the Lycosa
lenta group found at each are presented in Table 2.
From April through early August numerous males of the spider were
collected in the Interlachen area, southeast of Melrose and in the
Ordway Preserve (northwest of Interlachen). Map 2 charts the presence
or absence of the Rosemary Wolf Spider over the areas surveyed while
Table 2 lists the species found at each. In only one case (locality
4) was the Rosemary Wolf Spider found in habitats in which there was
no Rosemary, thus they seem closely associated with that plant species
or the factors responsible for its presence. Yet some "ideal" habitat
areas (e.g. localities 12, 19, 21) were devoid of this species,
although L. ammophila was abundant. Only at localities that produced
male specimens was it possible to definitively establish the presence
of L. ericeticola and/or L. ammophila. Thus the species found at
localities 13, 14 and 23 of those sampled remain unknown. Locality 23
is at the southern end of the known distribution while localities 13
and 14 are in the region where L. ammophila and L. ericeticola either
overlap, abut, or hybridize. The difficulty in characterizing the
females, especially in this region, makes the last alternative a
tantalizing one.
- 4 -
No adult spiders were collected in the pitfall traps. This was
clearly due to the time (mid-winter) of these collections. But few
spiders at all were collected even though they were present in the
environment. This inefficient method of collection was discontinued
in the Spring and Summer.
Field Identification of the Rosemary Wolf Spider
One of the difficulties in both surveying and protecting the
Rosemary Wolf Spider is its close resemblance to -other wolf spiders of
the Lycosa lenta group: black venter, a brownish mottled appearance
on the dorsum of its carapace, unbanded legs, and an abdominal dorsum
of light tan with a darker central region. This is similar to several
other related species, especially L. ammophila. In fact the only
means by which this species can be distinguished from several others
is by the male genitalia, a method requiring a dissecting scope (or a
good lens with adequate light). With a little practice males of L.
ericeticola were relatively easy to identify in a vial with a 10x hand
lens. It was soon apparent in this survey that if a better method of
identification could be developed future assessment of the status of
the species would be much more rapid and accurate, requiring less
effort and expertise.
Toward these ends photographs were taken of live specimens and
pattern cues searched for. Figure 1 is the dorsal view of a male
spider and is the typical pattern. No diagnostic field method has
been found to distinguish this species from others in its species
group.
- 5 -
D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Status of the Species
The Rosemary Wolf Spider is abundant in an area of approximately
2,000 to 3,000 hectares about 1/10 of which is in the Ordway Preserve
of the University of Florida. The species appears to be quite common
within this area and, although no accurate measure of density is
possible at this time, a rough estimate of about 1 adult/square meter
during the year is not out of line. It is interesting to note that no
specimens were collected in what looked like ideal habitat just to the
west and south of the range of species. Those areas were repeatedly
surveyed at the height of the season and we are confident that the
species does not exist there. The cause of this absence is not known
but may be historical or due to the competitive interaction with L.
ammophila.
2. Status of the Habitat
The Rosemary dominant habitats around Interlachen and between
Interlachen and Melrose are being developed into subdivisions rapidly,
with an extensive dirt road system being built and mobile and
permanent homes being built. At present this development does not
seem to have seriously reduced the habitat of the spider just west of
Interlachen. However there have been some areas sand mined, which
results in the complete destruction of the habitat in those
locations. One of the areas being sand mined is that of the original
collecting site of the species (about 100 m SW of the center of
Interlachen) and another is the area near Keuka. At present there is
no indication that the present industrial and residential development
- 6 -
of the region is seriously impacting the habitat of the Rosemary Wolf
Spider. This does not mean that future development will not have a
detrimental effect.
3. General Conclusions on the Status of the Rosemary Wolf Spider
The Rosemary Wolf Spider (L. ericeticola) appears to be a species
restricted both by habitat and geography (and possibly competitively
by L. ammophila). Its restricted distribution may be a legacy of its
origin as a distinct species in the Pleistocene and not exclusively
due to environmental limitations. The isolation of populations on an
archipelago of islands in north and central Florida during the
interglacial periods of the early Pleistocene (MacNeil, 1950) probably
led to a high rate of speciation resulting in many new autochthonous
species of spiders in peninsula Florida (McCrone, 1963). Further
research will be required to clarify this situation.
- 7-
LITERATURE CITED
MacNeil, F. S. 1950. Pleistocene shorelines in Florida and
Georgia. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 221F:95-107.
McCrone, J. D. 1963. Taxonomic status and evolutionary history of
the Geolycosa pikei complex in the southeastern United States
(Araneae, Lycosidae). Amer. Midland Naturalist 70(1):47-73.
Wallace, H. K. 1942. A study of the lenta group of the genus Lycosa
with descriptions of new species (Araneae, Lycosidae). Amer.
Museum Novitates 1185:1-21, 28 figs.
1982. Threatened Rosemary Wolf Spider in Rare and
Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. 6 (ed. Richard Franz). pp.
123-124.
- 8 -
Table 1. Collecting dates and locations. Numbers in parentheses
refer to numbers on Map 2.
Date
Location
September 27, 1984
October 4, 1984
October 18, 1984
November 1, 1984
November 6, 1984
November 19, 1984
January 23, 1985
February 13, 1985
March 7, 1985
March 26, 1985
April 10, 1985
April 29, 1985
May 2, 1985
May 6, 1985
May 7, 1985
May 8, 1985
May 19, 1985
May 22, 1985
May 28, 1985
May 30, 1985
June 4, 1985
June 9, 1985
June 10, 1985
June 13, 1985
June 20, 1985
July 2, 1985
July 10, 1985
July 17, 1985
August 7, 1985
August 22, 1985
September 5, 1985
September 16, 1985
October 2, 1985
October 17, 1985
October 23, 1985
Alachua Co./Levy Co. line
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
SE Melrose
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Alachua Co./Levy Co. line
Interlachen
Ordway Preserve
Ordway Preserve
Ordway Preserve
Interlachen and Johnson
Interlachen and Johnson
Ordway Preserve
Putnam Hall
N Interlachen
N Interlachen and W Johnson
9 km W of Interlachen
9 km W of Interlachen
Ordway Preserve
Interlachen and 9 km W
Interlachen
6-9 km W of Interlachen
6-8 km W of Interlachen
Interlachen
6-8 km W of Interlachen
Interlachen and W
Interlachen and W
Interlachen and W
9 km W of Interlachen
(20)
(16)
(16, 20)
(16)
(16)
(16, 8)
(3, 2)
(7, 4)
(5, 6)
(16, 19, 3,
(17, 22, 21)
(5)
(1)
(17, 10)
(9, 10, 24)
(12)
(12)
(5)
(9, 12, 19)
(9, 19)
(11, 15, 18,
(15, 13)
(17)
(15, 13)
(17, 15, 14)
(17, 15, 14)
(17, 15)
(12)
- 9 -
22, 21)
12, 19)
Table 2. Locality number and the presence (+) of three species of
Lycosa (based on presence of males in the case of L. ericeticola and
L. ammophila, and either sex of L. timuqua). A question mark
indicates that only females have been collected and thus
identification cannot be certain.
Locality L. ericeticola L. ammophila L. timuqua
1 +
2 ? ? +
3 +
4 + + +
5 + +
6 + +
7 + +
8 + +
9 + +
10 + +
11 +
12 + +
13 ? ?
14 ? ? +
15 + +
16 + +
17 + +
18 + +
19 +
20 + +
21 +
22 + +
23 ? ? +
24 + +
- 10 -
Figure 1. A male of Lycosa ericeticola, the Rosemary Wolf Spider.
^..r N' --^' *'^
-. ., *y*.C--.". -"f
Figure 2. Habitat of the Rosemary Wolf Spider. (Locality #7 in
Ordway Reserve)
- 11 -
~as40
Figure 1. A male of Lycosa ericeticola, the Rosemary Wolf Spider.
^..r N' --^' *'^
-. ., *y*.C--.". -"f
Figure 2. Habitat of the Rosemary Wolf Spider. (Locality #7 in
Ordway Reserve)
- 11 -
~as40
Figure 3. Map of Florida and Putnam County (shaded) with area of
interest outlined (see Fig. 4).
a"'S
- 12 -
Figure 4.
Map of area of interest in northwest Putnam County. Dotted
line outlines the habitat in which Rosemary (Ceratiola
ericoides) is dominant. Numbers correspond to localities
referred to in Tables 1 and 2. The Rosemary Wolf Spider is
found in the shaded area.
- 13 -
|
RSS
HIDE
