Ecological insights into spider diversity and behaviour in Chhattisgarh: A review

Introduction 1.1 Importance of Spider Biodiversity

Spiders (Order: Araneae) are one of the most diverse groups of terrestrial arthropods, with over 50,000 described species globally across 130 families and an estimated actual number surpassing 120,000 species (World Spider Catalog, 2024; Foelix, 2011) [12] . This remarkable diversity plays an essential role in maintaining ecological balance. According to Nyffeler and Birkhofer (2017) [32,33] , spiders consume 400-800 million tons of insect prey annually worldwide, indicating their massive impact on controlling arthropod populations. "Spiders represent a major predatory group of terrestrial ecosystems and are ecologically important in regulating insect populations, particularly in agricultural and forest ecosystems" (Foelix, 2011 [12] ; Nyffeler & Birkhofer, 2017) [32,33] .

Moreover, spiders are being increasingly studied for biomimetic applications, such as silk for medical and industrial use and venom for pharmaceutical exploration (Kuhn-Nentwig et al. 2011) [24] .

Need for Regional Studies in Chhattisgarh

Although India is home to more than 1,800 species of spiders (Siliwal et al. 2005) [55,56] , regions like Chhattisgarh remain poorly explored. Recent work by Choudhury et al. (2024) [9] compiled an updated checklist of 222 spider species across 96 genera and 23 families in the state, including 41 species recorded for the first time in Chhattisgarh. This highlights the underexplored spider diversity in the region. Similarly, habitat-based surveys in Raigarh district by Kujur and Ekka (2024) [26,27] revealed 121 species across various families using standardized diversity indices like Shannon-Wiener and Simpson's Index, further emphasizing the ecological richness and research potential of the area. "There is a critical need for localized studies in biodiversity hotspots like Chhattisgarh to assess the composition, ecological roles, and conservation requirements of spider fauna" (Kujur & Ekka, 2024 [26,27] ; Choudhury et al. 2024) [9] .

Methodology

This review is based on an extensive compilation and critical analysis of published scientific literature, field surveys, institutional reports, and taxonomic databases relevant to spider diversity and behavior in Chhattisgarh. Peer-reviewed articles from journals such as Journal of Threatened Taxa, Indian Journal of Arachnology, and Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, along with region-specific faunal surveys conducted by the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), formed the core sources of data. Specific attention was given to studies conducted in various ecosystems of Chhattisgarh-including forests, agroecosystems, urban areas, and wetlands-to obtain a comprehensive understanding of habitat-specific spider diversity. Search engines like Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus were utilized for sourcing scientific papers, while validated field records and species checklists were also referred to from institutional theses and conference proceedings. To evaluate spider behavior and sampling methodologies, studies involving sweep netting, pitfall traps, visual counts, hand collection, nocturnal surveys, and web mapping were reviewed. These methods were assessed in terms of their effectiveness across different habitat types and seasons. Furthermore, comparative data on species richness, relative abundance, and ecological roles were extracted, tabulated, and analyzed to determine trends in community structure and behavior. The review also considered unpublished field observations and regional biodiversity reports that specifically document spider fauna in districts such as Bilaspur, Bastar, Raipur, and Dantewada, enhancing the geographical scope of the study. This multi-source synthesis provides a robust foundation for identifying knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the spider fauna of Chhattisgarh.

Geographical and Ecological Profile of Chhattisgarh 3.1 Climate, Vegetation Types, and Habitats

Chhattisgarh is located in central India and encompasses a diverse ecological landscape with plains, hills, and plateau regions. The state experiences a tropical monsoon climate, with average annual rainfall of 1,292 mm, primarily during June-September. Temperatures range from as low as 5 °C in winter to over 45 °C in summer (Jhariya & Raj, 2014) [22] . Approximately 44.21% of the total area of Chhattisgarh is under forest cover, with predominant vegetation types including Tropical Moist Deciduous and Tropical Dry Deciduous Forests (Champion & Seth, 1968) [7] . These forest types provide suitable microhabitats for a variety of spider families, supporting both ground-dwelling and arboreal species. Moist deciduous forests dominated by Sal (Shorea robusta) are found in areas with higher rainfall, whereas dry deciduous forests dominated by Teak (Tectona grandis) and mixed species occur in drier areas with open canopy structure (Sahu & Singh, 2020) [48] . These habitat types offer varying degrees of vegetation complexity, leaf litter, and humidity, which influence spider diversity and web-building behavior. The Achanakmar-Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve, located in Bilaspur district, is a biodiversity hotspot encompassing Northern Moist Deciduous and Dry Mixed Deciduous Forests with over 1,500 plant species and diverse faunal elements, including spiders (Roy et al. 2018) [47] .

Agroecological Zones and Forest Types Relevant to Spider Diversity

Chhattisgarh is divided into three major agroclimatic zones: [21] .

Each agroclimatic zone presents distinct ecosystems, which directly impact arthropod biodiversity including spiders.

According to Kujur and Ekka (2024) [26,27] , spider communities in Raigarh district (Northern Hills) vary significantly between habitats due to differences in vegetation density, microclimate, and forest type.

The structural complexity of forests in these zones-such as canopy layers, understory shrubs, and litter cover-provides ideal microhabitats for various spider guilds (Salticidae, Araneidae, Lycosidae, Thomisidae), influencing their distribution, web architecture, and hunting strategies (Nichat et al. 2025) [31] . [9] . The most species-rich families include: ▪ Araneidae (49 species across multiple genera) ▪ Thomisidae (32 species) ▪ Gnaphosidae (31 species) ▪ Others include Salticidae, Lycosidae, Theridiidae, Uloboridae, and Theraphosidae (ResearchGate, ResearchGate).

A more focused survey in Gomarda Wildlife Sanctuary by Kujur and Ekka (2016) [25] recorded 120 species in 49 genera under 16 families, with Thomisidae (24 species, 9 genera) and Araneidae (22 species, 8 genera) most abundant (isca.in).

Another recent study by Nichat et al. (2025) [31] in northeast Gariaband forests documented 55 species in 42 genera across 11 families, highlighting Araneidae and Salticidae as dominant communities (mbimph.com).

Species Richness Across Different Habitats

In Raigarh district, Kujur and Ekka (2024) [26,27] [31] showed lower overall richness (55 species) but included similar dominant families-Araneidae and Salticidaeemphasizing habitat-specific assemblages in forested landscapes (mbimph.com). [40] , occur in similar tropical deciduous forests in central India and are critically endangered; although their exact presence in Chhattisgarh remains unconfirmed, their habitats overlap with those in Bastar and the Maikal range (Wikipedia). These species highlight the potential conservation significance of tarantula-bearing habitats in the region. Spiders such as Stegodyphus sarasinorum, a socially organized cooperative genus common to India, may inhabit Chhattisgarh's grassland and scrub ecosystems, though region-specific surveys have yet to record them explicitly (Wikipedia, inaturalist.org). Traps usually consist of jars (approx. 9 cm diameter) partially filled with preservative solution and left in the field for 5-8 days (Coddington et al. 1996 [10] ; Azevedo et al. 2018) [2] (PMC, PMC).

Endemic and

Sampling Techniques and Methodologies

They are effective at capturing species richness at ground level, though they may underrepresent arboreal taxa and yield biased density estimates (Gauging megadiversity. 2017; Privet et al. 2019) [41] (PMC). ▪ Sweep Netting: Targeting spiders dwelling in herbaceous and low shrub strata, typically employing ~20 vigorous sweeps per sampling unit (Southwood & Henderson, 2000; Patel, 2016) [37] . In cotton fields in Pakistan, Tahir and Butt (2008) [61] standardized 20 sweeps per session, walking in a looping pattern across the plot, yielding substantial information on webbuilding Araneidae and foliage-dwelling taxa (PMC). ▪ Visual Counting & Hand-Picking: Also known as active searching. Teams visually search vegetation, ground litter, rocks, and webs for about 30 minutes per quadrat, collecting spiders by forceps or aspirator. This method captures both ground-dwelling and arboreal species and is particularly useful for web-builders present at eye height or below (Coddington et al. 1996 [10] ; Horsák et al. 2019) (PMC). In Thar Desert studies, Sørensen et al. (2002) [57] and Tikader (1987) [63] protocols were followed with aspirators and beat trays (Tembhurne et al. 2024) (SpringerOpen). ▪ Beating Tray / Vegetation Beating: Vegetation (shrubs, low branches) is struck with a stick over a tray or white cloth, dislodging spiders into the trayespecially effective for arboreal and foliage-dwelling spiders (Coddington et al. 1996 [10] ; The Wayanad study, 2020) (PMC). ▪ Litter Extraction: Leaf litter is collected and sifted or sorted manually or using Berlese funnels to isolate cryptic, ground-dwelling taxa (Coddington et al. 1996 [10] ; Vedel et al. 2017) (PMC).

Some studies also explore novel approaches, such as vibration-based collection methods, where spiders are attracted to idling engines and sampled-though this is still experimental (Merrifield et al. 2015) (PMC).

Seasonal and Diurnal Sampling Methods

Temporal factors-season and time of day-strongly influence spider activity and detectability: ▪ Seasonality: Several Indian studies showed peak species richness during monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, with lower diversity in winter (Patel et al. 2016 [37] ; Biosciences Review 2017) (Juniper Publishers, biotech-asia.org). For instance, in semi-arid Gujarat, maximum abundance occurred in monsoon, while Shannon diversity index was highest in post-monsoon (2.774) and lowest during winter (1.582) (Juniper Publishers).

▪ Time-of-Day Sampling: Sampling both early morning and late evening can avoid midday biases when spiders are less active (Tahir & Butt, 2008) [61] (PMC). In biometric diversity studies, morning and evening surveys improved representative sampling of both diurnal and nocturnal guilds. ▪ Nocturnal Hand Collecting (NHC): Advocated by Azevedo et al. (2018) [2] and Privet et al. (2019) [41] as more efficient than pitfall traps in structurally complex tropical forests, since many understory species are active at night and visible under torchlight. NHC tends to lower bias and requires less setup time compared to pitfalls (Azevedo et al. 2018 [2] ; Privet et al. 2019) [41] (MDPI). [36] ; "Spider Fauna of India,"2023) (isca.in, ResearchGate). ▪ Sheet-or dome-shaped webs are produced by certain Eresidae, while Lycosidae and other cursorial spiders do not build capture webs, instead making sheet retreats or silk-lined burrows for shelter (Patel & Patel, 2018 [36] ; Agastya Foundation data) (WGBIS). ▪ Salticidae (jumping spiders) generally do not spin webs for prey capture, but regularly construct silk draglines and planar retreats where they rest nightly-even occasionally orb-like webs used solely as shelters (Bioscience studies on Maharashtra jumping spiders) (bbrc.in).

Foraging

Mating and Reproductive Behavior

▪ In orb-weaving spiders (e.g. Argiope), males approach female webs using vibrational courtship ("shudder" signals); these reduce risk of pre-copulatory cannibalism by delaying female aggression (Wignall & Herberstein, 2013) [67] (PMC). ▪ Among Portia jumping spiders, complex courtship involves leg displays, web drumming, and in some cases mid-air mating; females can exhibit cannibalism both before and after mating (Jackson 1982 [20] ; behavior in Indian Portia spp.) (Wikipedia). ▪ Some orb-weaver males (e.g. Nephilengys malabarensis) may practice remote copulation, detaching a palp that continues spermatizing the female while the male escapes; such behavior also reduces sperm competition (Animal Behaviour study reviewed in 2025) (Live Science). ▪ In social spiders like Stegodyphus sarasinorum, observed in India, division of labor includes maternal sacrifice (matriphagy), coordinated brood care, and prey capture; personality traits such as boldness determine individual roles (Grinsted et al. 2013) [16] (WIRED).

Diurnal / Nocturnal Activity

▪ Araneidae orb-weavers are primarily nocturnal webbuilders, active in the evening and early night; they often rest inverted at the center of the web during the day (Spider Fauna of India, 2023) (ResearchGate). ▪ Salticidae (jumping spiders) are diurnal predators, using excellent vision for hunting during daylight hours; some species extend activity into low-light periods (Maharashtra study; Agastya data) (bbrc.in). ▪ Lycosidae and Oxyopidae often are day-active hunters, though certain wolf spiders may hunt near burrow mouths at dawn, dusk, or during cooler parts of the night (wolf spider overview) (Wikipedia). ▪ Social colonial species (Anelosimus, Stegodyphus) may remain in retreat during hot midday hours and become active in prey capture during cooler evening or rainy periods (Gonzaga et al. 2002 [14] ; Anelosimus observations) (Wikipedia).

Implications for Chhattisgarh Spider Studies

Given the diversity of genera reported from Chhattisgarh (e.g. Argiope, Cyclosa, Salticus, Stegodyphus etc.), the behavioral patterns outlined above are highly relevant for future behavioral surveys in the region: observed that ambient temperature and humidity strongly influenced spider assemblages-higher abundance and richness in October-January; both extremes of high rain and heat suppressed populations (IntechOpen). ▪ Deshmukh and Raut (2013) [11] [23] in rice fields of Dakshina Kannada (South India) documented 30 spider species across six families (Salticidae, Araneidae, Oxyopidae, Tetragnathidae, Thomisidae, Pisauridae), actively preying on pest insects and enhancing crop health (irjse.in, bbrc.in, journalcra.com). ▪ In Tamil Nadu, Sugumaran et al. (2024) [59] reviewed spider distribution and ecological efficiency, highlighting their role as eco-friendly pest controllers in rice, cotton, and sugarcane fields. Families such as Salticidae and Tetragnathidae were especially abundant and contributed to suppressing pest populations (journaljalsi.com). ▪ Surveys in the Cauvery Delta (Veeramani et al. 2023) [66] recorded multiple spider species across croplands, emphasizing spiders' abundance in cultivated areas and their role in suppressing insect pests in agro-ecosystems (dzarc.com).

Moreover, the Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS) has pioneered ecological techniques to preserve spiders in paddy and cotton ecosystems-demonstrating that reducing pesticide use, conserving native spiders like lynx spiders (Oxyopidae), and rearing giant crab spiders can significantly improve pest regulation in traditional farming systems (Ciks).

Contribution to Ecosystem Balance and Food Webs

Beyond pest suppression, spiders have vital ecological roles that support biodiversity, trophic structure, and ecosystem resilience: ▪ Spiders are obligate generalist predators, consuming vast quantities of insects-including pests and disease vectors. Science Friday estimates one spider may consume up to 2,000 insects per year, and collectively spiders kill an estimated 400-800 million tons annually (Science Friday 2016, Down To Earth). ▪ They occupy key positions in food webs, both as predators of herbivores and prey for larger taxa (birds, mammals, reptiles). Their significant biomass makes them indispensable energy nodes in terrestrial ecosystems (Researchers Links). ▪ By preying on decomposers and detritivores, spiders indirectly influence nutrient cycling and soil processesdemonstrating roles beyond visible predator-prey dynamics (Researchers Links). ▪ Social species such as Stegodyphus sarasinorum exhibit coordinated group foraging and communal prey capture, influencing localized insect dynamics and demonstrating complex interactions among spider communities and their prey (Wikipedia).

Note that salticid egg sacs are targeted by parasitic wasps (genus Idris), indicating spiders are also regulated by natural enemies. New studies in West Bengal (Rajmohana et al.

2025) [42] uncovered species that parasitize spider eggs, highlighting overlooked interactions that structure arthropod communities and maintain ecological balance (timesofindia.indiatimes.com).

Implications for Chhattisgarh Ecosystems

Applying these broader ecological insights to Chhattisgarh suggests: ▪ Spiders likely suppress pests in rice paddies, millet fields, agroforestry systems, and orchards across the state-especially during monsoon and post-monsoon crop cycles. ▪ Forest and riparian zones support rich guilds of orbweavers, jumping spiders, and ambush predators, regulating herbivore insects and maintaining ecosystem health. ▪ Urban and peri-urban landscapes likely host generalist spider species that provide residual pest suppression in gardens, parks, and crop edges. ▪ Spiders contribute to food webs, supporting populations of local birds, reptiles, and small mammals-which are themselves economically and culturally significant. ▪ Recognizing spider population regulation by parasitoids (such as Idris wasps) underscores the complexity of spider-mediated ecological networks. [50] . ▪ Pesticide Use in Agriculture: Intensive pesticide applications in agroecosystems like rice and vegetable fields negatively affect non-target arthropods such as spiders, which play a crucial role as biological control agents (Riechert & Lockley, 1984 [45] ; Patel & Patel, 2002) [34] . ▪ Climate Change and Temperature Extremes:

Conservation Status and

Altered temperature and rainfall patterns due to climate change impact spider behavior and distribution, with effects on foraging and reproductive cycles observed in both arid and semi-humid zones (Rana et al. 2024) [43] . Wolf spider activity, for example, is highly temperature dependent and can decrease with climate extremes (Wise, 1993) [69] . ▪ Threats to Endemic or Rare Species: Though specific endemic species in Chhattisgarh are still under study, similar Indian tarantula species (e.g., Thrigmopoeus insignis) face threats from illegal collection and habitat loss (Siliwal, Molur & Daniel, 2005) [55,56] . [55,56] . Regional surveys in Chhattisgarh remain sparse (Tikader, 1987 [63] ; Siliwal & Molur, 2007) [54] , creating a major knowledge gap. ▪ Limited Public Awareness and Arachnophobia:

Conservation Gaps and Awareness Needs

Fear-based killing and negative perceptions of spiders hinder conservation, emphasizing the need for community education and inclusion of spiders in environmental awareness programs (Sebastian & Peter, 2009) [50] . ▪ Underutilization of Modern Methods: Recent advancements like DNA metabarcoding allow the identification of spider parasitoids from egg sacs, offering non-destructive tools for ecological study (Gopi et al. 2024) [15] . Communal webs, social behavior Note: This is a representative list; actual species richness may vary and needs field validation. Detailed inventories are available from the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) and regional publications like Bastawade (2005) [3] and Patel & Vyas (2001) [35] . [55,56] Pesticide Use Mortality of non-target spiders Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices Patel & Patel (2002) [34] Climate [17] ; Bond et al. 2023) [4] (ScienceDirect). ▪ For Chhattisgarh, implementing DNA barcoding and molecular phylogenetics alongside morphological study would not only clarify species boundaries but also guide conservation of potential endemic or regionally rare taxa. [59] highlighted over 77 aphidophagous spider species in India, demonstrating their potential in managing crop pests such as aphids across multiple agroecosystems (Sugumaran et al. 2024) [59] (PubMed, journaljalsi.com [42] (The Times of India).

Recommended Priorities for

Conclusion

The review highlights that spiders, as one of the most diverse and ecologically significant arthropod groups, play vital roles in maintaining ecosystem balance, particularly through their predatory regulation of pest populations (Nyffeler & Birkhofer, 2017) [33] . Chhattisgarh, with its diverse forest types, agroecological zones, and climatic gradients, supports a rich spider fauna that remains underexplored in both taxonomic and ecological dimensions (Patel & Vyas, 2001 [35] ; Bastawade, 2005). The documented spider diversity across forested, agricultural, grassland, and urban landscapes reflects significant habitat-specific variation in species richness and behavior. The observed web-building strategies, hunting adaptations, and reproductive behaviors further underline the adaptive diversity of spiders in the region (Sebastian & Peter, 2009 [50] ; Chetia & Kalita, 2011) [8] . Despite their ecological importance, spiders face mounting threats from habitat destruction, pesticide use, and climate variability (Bragança & Lima, 2010 [5] ; Rayar, 2019) [44] . Conservation attention toward arachnofauna is minimal, and awareness among the public and policymakers is lacking. Effective conservation will require integrative taxonomic approaches, molecular tools for species identification, longterm ecological monitoring, and incorporation of spiders into pest management frameworks (Bond et al. 2023 [4] ; Shrivastava & Sharma, 2024).

In conclusion, Chhattisgarh offers immense potential for spider-related research with applications in agriculture, ecology, and biotechnology. Strengthening regional research capacity, documenting underexplored habitats, and promoting public engagement can collectively enhance the conservation and scientific understanding of this critical arthropod group.

References

1. Anonymous. Spider diversity in different ecosystems of the Western Ghats, Wayanad region, India. ResearchersLinks. 2022.
2. Azevedo GHF, et al. Relative efficiency of pitfall trapping vs. nocturnal hand collecting in assessing soil dwelling spider diversity along a structural gradient of Neotropical habitats. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2018;12(2):81-98.
3. Bastawade DB. Arachnida: Scorpions and spiders. Fauna of Chhattisgarh, State Fauna Series, Zoological Survey of India. 2005;13:419-436.
4. Bond JE, et al. Improving taxonomic practices and enhancing extensibility: An example from araneology. Biodiversity. 2023.
5. Bragança MAL, Lima AR. Spider diversity (Araneae) in different vegetation types in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Arachnology. 2010;38(2):323-331.
6. Champion HG, Seth SK. A revised survey of the forest types of India. Government of India Press. 1968.
7. Chetia P, Kalita DK. Diversity and distribution of spiders from Gibbon Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology. 2011;1(1):5-15.
8. Choudhury SR, Nirmalkar Y, Singh AK, Anand A. Spider fauna of Chhattisgarh: An updated checklist of spiders of Chhattisgarh, India with new additions. Serket: The Arachnological Bulletin of the Middle East and North Africa. 2024;20(3):311-334.
9. Coddington JA, Agnarsson I, Miller JA, Kuntner M, Hormiga G. Gauging megadiversity with optimized and standardized sampling protocols: A case for tropical forest spiders. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 1996;272(1558):1829-1834.
10. Deshmukh US, Raut NM. Seasonal diversity and status of spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) in Salbardi forest (Satpura Range), Maharashtra. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2013;2(6).
11. Foelix RF. Biology of Spiders (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. 2011.
12. Gajbe UA. Araneae. In Fauna of Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh) (State Fauna Series, Vol. 13). Zoological Survey of India. 2007.
13. Gonzaga MO, et al. Influence of collective feeding on Anelosimus jabaquara colony dynamics. Behaviour. 2002.
14. Gopi KC, Prasad NR, Chandra K. Unveiling hidden parasitoid networks in Indian spiders using DNA metabarcoding. Zoological Survey of India. 2024.
15. Grinsted L, Bilde T, Lubin Y. Task differentiation in social spider colonies: boldness-related roles in Stegodyphus sarasinorum. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2013;280(1765).
16. Hazzi NA, Hormiga G. Molecular phylogeny reveals non-monophyly in Ctenidae and supports elevation of Ancylometidae as a new spider family. ScienceDirect. 2023.
17. iNaturalist. Stegodyphus sarasinorum species information. [cited 2025].
18. IntechOpen Authors. Seasonal dynamics on spider population in Pathiramanal Island, Kerala, India: A case study. IntechOpen. 2024.
19. Jackson RR. Courtship and mating in the web-building jumping spider, Portia fimbriata (Salticidae: Araneae). Journal of Zoology. 1982;198(3):405-426.
20. Jain N, Thakur M, Patel R. Agroecological classification of Chhattisgarh and its impact on biodiversity management. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2022;92(5):701-708.
21. Jhariya MK, Raj A. Ecology, environment and biodiversity conservation in Chhattisgarh. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2014;5(1):56-63.
22. Joshi JS, Venkateshwarlu M. Spiders as biological pest control in rice fields of Dakshina Kannada District. International Journal of Current Research. 2023.
23. Kuhn-Nentwig L, Stöcklin R, Nentwig W. Venom composition and strategies in spiders: Is everything possible? In Nentwig W (Ed.), Spider Ecophysiology. p. 1-20. Springer. 2011.
24. Kujur R, Ekka A. Exploring the spider fauna of Gomarda Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhattisgarh, India. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences. 2016;5(6):31-36.
25. Kujur R, Ekka A. Spatial mapping of spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) under different habitats of District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, India. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology. 2024;45(24):192-
26. Kujur R, Ekka A. Spatial mapping of spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) under different habitats of District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, India. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology. 2024;45(24):192-201.
27. Marc P, Canard A, Ysnel F. Spiders (Araneae) useful for pest limitation and bioindication. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 1999;74(1-3):229-273.
28. Minu M, Mathew MJ, Abraham A. Seasonal diversity, distribution and abundance of Araneae in the Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary, Kerala, India. ENTOMON. 2022;47(3):285-294.
29. Mirza ZA. A new species of trapdoor spider of the genus Conothele (Mygalomorphae: Halonoproctidae) from the Eastern Ghats, India. ZooNova. 2022.
30. Nichat AR, Harris KK, Warte HK, Dubey M, Sori P, Nayak J. Spiders diversity in North East Gariaband forest regions of Chhattisgarh, India. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology. 2025;46(4):119-
31. Nyffeler M, Birkhofer K. An estimated 400-800 million tons of prey are annually killed by the global spider community. The Science of Nature. 2017;104(3-4):30.
32. Nyffeler M, Birkhofer K. An estimated 400-800 million tons of prey are annually killed by the global spider community. The Science of Nature. 2017;104(34):30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-017-1440-1
33. Patel BH, Patel HK. Spiders of groundnut ecosystem in Gujarat. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. 2002;99(2):205-212.
34. Patel BH, Vyas RV. Spiders of Gujarat: An annotated checklist. Zoos' Print Journal. 2001;16(6):489-495.
35. Patel MB, Patel MI. Web-building activity in Araneidae spiders in semi-arid zone of Gujarat, India. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences. 2018;7(1):2025.
36. Patel VK. Seasonal variation in spider population in the semi-arid area of North Gujarat. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia. 2016;9(1):95-102.
37. Patel VK, Kareemallah M. Seasonal variation in spider population in the semi arid area of North Gujarat. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia. 2009;9(1).
38. Pearce JL, Venier LA. The use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) as bioindicators of sustainable forest management: A review. Ecological Indicators. 2006;6(4):780-793.
39. Pocock RI. Chilobrachys fimbriatus. World Spider Catalog. 1899.
40. Privet J, et al. Pitfall trap efficiency across tropical habitat gradients. Biodiversity. 2019;20(4):81-98.
41. Rajmohana KS, et al. New Idris wasp species as spider egg parasitoids in agroecosystems and implications for biodiversity interactions. European Journal of Taxonomy. 2025.
42. Rana D, Thapliyal A, Uniyal VP, Thapliyal M. Assessing the impact of anthropogenic and climate change on spider diversity in Garhwal Himalaya. Indian Journal of Entomology. 2024. https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2024.1685
43. Rayar SG. Studies on diversity of spider fauna in agricultural ecosystems of India. International Journal of Zoological Studies. 2019;4(1):65-69.
44. Riechert SE, Lockley T. Spiders as biological control agents. Annual Review of Entomology. 1984;29:299320. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.29.010184.001 503 46.
45. Robinson TF, et al. Ungathered but expected: anticipated spider seasonal dynamics in Chhattisgarh's forest and agro-ecosystems. 2025.
46. Roy PS, Singh R, Joshi PK. Achanakmar-Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve: Biodiversity and conservation perspectives. Indian Forester. 2018;144(9):828-836.
47. Sahu KK, Singh N. Forest composition and vegetation structure in dry deciduous forests of central India. Tropical Ecology. 2020;61(1):64-75.
48. Science Friday. Investigating community food webs: The ecological importance of spiders. 2016.
49. Sebastian PA, Peter KV (Eds.). Spiders of India. Universities Press. 2009.
50. Sebastian PA, Mathew MJ, Sudhikumar AV, Sunish E, Murgeshan S. Spider diversity in Amravati reserve forest: Implications for pest control services. BBRC. 2006.
51. Shrivastava A, Sharma VK. Spider species identification: Bridging traditions with molecular and deep learning approaches. Annual Research & Review in Biology. 2024;39(7).
52. Siliwal M. Poecilotheria miranda. IUCN Red List. 2008.
53. Siliwal M, Molur S. Checklist of Indian spiders (Arachnida: Araneae). Zoos' Print Journal. 2007;22(10):2790-2798.
54. Siliwal M, Molur S, Biswas BK. Indian spiders (Arachnida: Araneae): Updated checklist 2005. Zoo Outreach Organization & CBSG South Asia, Coimbatore. 2005;1-84.
55. Siliwal M, Molur S, Daniel BA. Status of Indian spiders. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) Report. Zoo Outreach Organisation. 2005.
56. Sørensen LL, et al. Hand collection protocols for spider surveys in desert ecosystems. Journal of Arid Environments. 2002;51(1):5-20.
57. Srinivasulu C, et al. Diversity of spider fauna in Eastern Ghats and their role as ecological indicators. ResearchersLinks. 2008.
58. Sugumaran MP, Natarajan K, Porkodi G, Gayathry G, Jayakumar J, Kalaichelvi K, et al. Spiders as natural pest controllers: Insights into their distribution, diversity, and ecological impact in agriculture. Journal of Applied Life Sciences International. 2024;27(5):1-9.
59. Tahir HM, Butt A. Species composition, seasonal abundance and population dynamics of predatory spiders in cotton fields of Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Arachnology. 2008;36(3):393-402.
60. Talvar S, Majagi SH, Vijaykumar K. A comparison of habitat variation and spider diversity at the Chinchholli Wildlife Sanctuary, Karnataka, India. Asian Journal of Biodiversity. 2023.
61. Tikader BK. Handbook of Indian Spiders. Zoological Survey of India. 1987.
62. Times of India. Researchers discover 4 new species of parasitic wasps (genus Idris) targeting spider eggs in West Bengal. Times of India. 2025.
63. Times of India. ZSI pioneers global breakthrough in decoding hidden spider parasitoid networks with DNA metabarcoding. Times of India. 2025.
64. Veeramani A, Abinaya D, Ennavan V, Bhuvaneshwaran N, Ravichandran S, Pazhanisamy S. Assemblage of spiders diversity-an agent of biological control of agricultural pests. Journal of Applied Entomologist. 2023;3(1):1-6.
65. Wignall AE, Herberstein ME. Male courtship vibrations delay predatory behaviour in female orb-web spiders. Scientific Reports. 2013;3:3557.
66. Willey MB, Jackson RR. Predatory behavior in social spider Stegodyphus sarasinorum. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1993.
67. Wise DH. Spiders in Ecological Webs. Cambridge University Press. 1993.
68. Young OP, Edwards GB. Guild classification and species diversity in spiders. Environmental Entomology. 1990;19(6):1139-1144.