Subterranean ecosystems are among the most widespread environments on Earth, yet we still have poor knowledge of their biodiversity. To raise awareness of subterranean ecosystems, the essential services they provide, and their unique conservation challenges, 2021 and 2022 were designated International Years of Caves and Karst. As these ecosystems have traditionally been overlooked in global conservation agendas and multilateral agreements, a quantitative assessment of solution-based approaches to safeguard subterranean biota and associated habitats is timely. This assessment allows researchers and practitioners to understand the progress made and research needs in subterranean ecology and management. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature focused on subterranean ecosystems globally (terrestrial, freshwater, and saltwater systems), to quantify the available evidence-base for the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We selected 708 publications from the years 1964 to 2021 that discussed, recommended, or implemented 1,954 conservation interventions in subterranean ecosystems. We noted a steep increase in the number of studies from the 2000s while, surprisingly, the proportion of studies quantifying the impact of conservation interventions has steadily and significantly decreased in recent years. The effectiveness of 31% of conservation interventions has been tested statistically. We further highlight that 64% of the reported research occurred in the Palearctic and Nearctic biogeographic regions. Assessments of the effectiveness of conservation interventions were heavily biased towards indirect measures (monitoring and risk assessment), a limited sample of organisms (mostly arthropods and bats), and more accessible systems (terrestrial caves). Our results indicate that most conservation science in the field of subterranean biology does not apply a rigorous quantitative approach, resulting in sparse evidence for the effectiveness of interventions. This raises the important question of how to make conservation efforts more feasible to implement, cost-effective, and long-lasting. Although there is no single remedy, we propose a suite of potential solutions to focus our efforts better towards increasing statistical testing and stress the importance of standardising study reporting to facilitate metaanalytical exercises. We also provide a database summarising the available literature, which will help to build quantitative knowledge about interventions likely to yield the greatest impacts depending upon the subterranean species and habitats of interest. We view this as a starting point to shift away from the widespread tendency of recommending conservation interventions based on anecdotal and expert-based information rather than scientific evidence, without quantitatively testing their effectiveness.

-In order to determine the influence of lentic habitats and macrophyte stands on the plankton development and seston flux, an investigation of zooplankton was carried out in the karst Jankovac flowthrough system (Papuk Nature Park, Croatia). The system was characterized by low abundance (1-116 ind.L x1 ) and high diversity of identified zooplankton. Eighty-six taxa were recorded, comprising 57 rotifers, 15 cladocerans, 8 copepods and 6 members of other groups of organisms. The spatial oscillations of environmental parameters and biocoenosis assemblage revealed statistically significant differences between lotic and lentic habitats, as well as between vegetated and non-vegetated stations. These differences mainly respond to higher concentration of food resources and zooplankton/zooseston abundance and biomass in lentic, especially vegetated, habitats. This is also proved by results of principal component analysis (PCA), which suggested that the main drivers of development of the planktonic community were the food resources and the avoidance of flow velocity. Accordingly, shoreline areas with submerged macrophyte stands of Hippuris vulgaris L. were the most productive parts, represented by highest zooplankton abundance, biomass and biodiversity. Flow velocity significantly affected crustaceans assemblage, so that higher abundances of the larger cladocerans and copepods were achieved in vegetated stations with low flow velocity, while rotifers showed to be rheotolerance organisms. On the other hand, the longitudinal discontinuum of the stream channel by two man-made reservoirs could offer new habitats to enrich seston with organic particles and bioseston. The results of our study pronounce the need for further monitoring of this hydrosystem, especially considering biodiversity and microhabitats conservation.

The ai m of this study was to examine the combined effect of water transparency and narrow macrophyte belts on zooplankton assemblages in two oxbow lakes (Krapina River, Croatia). Samples were collected in open water and among helophytes in the littoral zone from April until September 2008. Rotifers were the most abundant group of zooplankton in both lakes, and dominated in the Krapina oxbow lake 1 (KO1). Lake KO1 had significantly lower transparency, lower percentage macrophyte cover and higher chlorophyll a concentration than Krapina oxbow lake 2 (KO2). In lake KO1, variation in the horizontal distribution of cladocerans and rotifers in terms of their abundance seemed to be determined by competition between Bosmina longirostris and Keratella cochlearis, initiated by oscillation in transparency and detritus availability. In lake KO2, with higher transparency and higher percentage macrophyte cover, the abundance of small-and large-bodied cladocerans increased in the littoral zone simultaneously with higher transparency, suggesting fish predation. Results of this study indicated that small differences in transparencies between the two lakes caused significant differences in horizontal distribution of the zooplankton assemblage. Even narrow helophyte belts offered a refuge to zooplankton, although lower transparencies reduced the effectiveness of macrophytes as a refuge from predators. IntroductionThe li ttoral zones of lakes and rivers often include macrophyte covered areas that provide a high diversity of microhabitats in comparison with the open water. Types of microhabitats also differ between emergent and submergent macrophyte species, and between the sections of rizosphere, stems and leaves (DUGGAN et al., 2001;KUCZYŃSKA-KIPPEN and KLIMASZYK, 2007). Percentage, density and biomass of macrophyte cover in freshwater communities have a significant influence on abiotic (temperature, oxygen concentration, light conditions) and biotic (competition, predation, food availability) factors (CAZZANELLI et al., 2008; EST-LANDER et al., 2009). Macrophyte biomass and cover area increase with lake size and decline as the littoral zone becomes steeper (KALF, 2002).

No abstract