Coexistence of species of two amphipod genera:Niphargus timavi(Niphargidae) andGammarus fossarum(Gammaridae)

Abstract

The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Old museum samples and recent taxonomy: A taxonomic, biogeographic and conservation perspective of the Niphargus tatrensis species complex (Crustacea: Amphipoda)

“…Although temperature preferences have never been studied in detail, researchers have argued that various niphargid species are euryhaline (Jersche 1963;Sket 1977) or able to cope with scarce food (Hervant et al 1997(Hervant et al , 1999a, low oxygen concentrations (Hervant and Mathieu 1995;Hervant et al 1999b;Sket 1977) and low pH (Simčič and Brancelj 2006). By contrast, niphargids seem to be poor competitors (Fišer et al 2007b;Sket 1981), which supports an alternative hypothesis to explain fragmentation of the ancestral population. This view assumes a widely distributed ancestral population living in both surface and subterranean waters (Fišer et al 2006b;Sket 1958;.…”

“…PostPleistocene warming could have resulted in extensive changes to the crustacean fauna along the Danube and Drava rivers, including the arrival of 'paleo-invasive' species. The reproductive potential of gammarid species seems to be higher than that of niphargids (Fišer et al 2007b), which could have formed the basis for competitive exclusion of the studied niphargids (Fišer et al 2007b;Grabowski et al 2007;Savage 1981) and consequently led to fragmentation of the range of the ancestral population. Other Niphargus species within the area (Nesemann et al 1995) also could have played an important role in competition by occupying possible refugia or distributional pathways such as interstitial spaces in large rivers.…”

“…The assumption is based on the premise that two morphologically similar, closely related species compete for the same food and space, which will result in a competitive exclusion of the weaker competitor in a relatively short period of time (Fišer et al 2007b;Ginet 1965; but see also Fišer 2006b). Next, as pointed out, the term monophyly may not be applicable at the species level; for this reason we operate with the related term 'exclusive' (e.g.…”

The giant cryptic amphipod species of the subterranean genus Niphargus (Crustacea, Amphipoda)

“…Productivity determines species richness and species composition of the subterranean community over different scales (Eme et al., ; Schneider, Christman, & Fagan, ). Moreover, the precipitation regime defines fluctuations of water level and discharge, which may dictate the reproductive cycle (Fišer et al., ; Mathieu & Turquin, ). The two ecological factors jointly define environmental conditions and may directly or indirectly affect the distribution of a species (Araujo & Peterson, ).…”

Conservation problems with hypothelminorheic Niphargus species (Amphipoda: Niphargidae)

“…Mapping the seep-spring network might greatly improve understanding of water flows in this area, and this is of crucial importance for understanding the interconnectivity of individual habitat patches. Some annual variation in the studied parameters may be expected (Culver et al, 2006) and the effect of this variation on the composition of the fauna is worth further study (Fisˇer et al, 2007). Identifying a polygon with two species might help to address several issues that could serve as guidelines for future conservation policy in this habitat.…”