Testing unbaited stygofauna traps for sampling performance

Bork, Jörg; Bork, Sabine; Berkhoff, Sven; Hahn, Hans Jürgen

doi:10.1016/j.limno.2007.10.001

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the deeper water samples detected only one additional stygofaunal taxon, and was also the substrate with the lowest total richness (Figure 3). This result agrees with previous traditional monitoring surveys using sampling techniques that were able to sample at various depths (Bork et al, 2008; Hahn, 2005). The drop in diversity in deeper water has generally been attributed to the decrease in oxygen and food supply with increasing depth (Figure S5; Brunke & Gonser, 1999; Datry et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Troglofaunasupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Except for a few examples—Switzerland (SWPO, 1998) and Australia (EPA (WA), 2003; NSW‐SGDEP, 2002)—predicting and monitoring the impacts of proposed developments on subterranean fauna are still rarely required within a regulatory setting (Danielopol & Griebler, 2007; Niemiller, Taylor, & Bichuette, 2018). In part, this is because several major impediments still exist that limit the ability to monitor and assess the diversity and distribution of stygofauna species (Cardoso et al, 2011; Mammola et al, 2019), including (i) specialist taxonomic expertise required to morphologically identify the small and highly adaptive forms of stygofauna (Bork et al, 2008; Dumas & Fontanini, 2001); (ii) DNA barcoding is often used to verify morphological species identification due to the high numbers of unknown and cryptic species (Bradford et al, 2010); (iii) subterranean environments are difficult to access and, in most cases, sampling is often limited to low‐yield methods that require specialist equipment (Saccò, Guzik, et al, 2022); (iv) visual observation and assessment is extremely challenging at subterranean sampling access points such as caves, springs and boreholes (see Section 2 for details; Sorensen et al, 2013). There is therefore a need for new methods that will increase the accessibility, efficiency and accuracy of subterranean monitoring (Gibson et al, 2019; Mammola et al, 2022; Saccò, Guzik, et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Taking eDNA underground: Factors affecting eDNA detection of subterranean fauna in groundwater

Heyde

White

Nevill

et al. 2023

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stygofauna are aquatic fauna that have evolved to live underground. The impacts of anthropogenic climate change, extraction and pollution on groundwater pose major threats to groundwater health, prompting the need for efficient and reliable means to detect and monitor stygofaunal communities. Conventional survey techniques for these species rely on morphological identification and can be biased, labour‐intensive and often indeterminate to lower taxonomic levels. By contrast, environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based methods have the potential to dramatically improve on existing stygofaunal survey methods in a large range of habitats and for all life stages, reducing the need for the destructive manual collection of often critically endangered species or for specialized taxonomic expertise. We compared eDNA and haul‐net samples collected in 2020 and 2021 from 19 groundwater bores and a cave on Barrow Island, northwest Western Australia, and assessed how sampling factors influenced the quality of eDNA detection of stygofauna. The two detection methods were complementary; eDNA metabarcoding was able to detect soft‐bodied taxa and fish often missed by nets, but only detected seven of the nine stygofaunal crustacean orders identified from haul‐net specimens. Our results also indicated that eDNA metabarcoding could detect 54%–100% of stygofauna from shallow‐water samples and 82%–90% from sediment samples. However, there was significant variation in stygofaunal diversity between sample years and sampling types. The findings of this study demonstrate that haul‐net sampling has a tendency to underestimate stygofaunal diversity and that eDNA metabarcoding of groundwater can substantially improve the efficiency of stygofaunal surveys.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Troglofaunasupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taking eDNA underground: Factors affecting eDNA detection of subterranean fauna in groundwater

Heyde

White

Nevill

et al. 2023

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar results were obtained from bore-holes in eastern Australia (Hancock & Boulton, 2009) and Western Australia (Eberhard et al, 2009). Only limited information is available from groundwater of South and North America or Asia (Pesce & Apostolov, 1985;Bruno et al, 2001;Lewis & Reid, 2007;Bork et al, 2008). Most of the stygobitic Copepoda known so far for Europe, have been collected in karstic aquifers, either from the saturated or unsaturated zone, or from the hyporheic or shallow phreatic zone along the rivers (up to about 8 m depth), as reported from the recent pan-European project PASCALIS (Dole-Olivier et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Copepoda From A Deep-Groundwater Porous Aquifer In Contact With Karst: Description Of A New Species, Paramorariopsis Brigitae N. Sp. (Copepoda, Harpacticoida)

Brancelj¹

Studies on Freshwater Copepoda: A Volume in Honour of Bernard Dussart

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fauna from four wells supplying water to a nearby city was collected over one year at approximately two-week intervals. Three of the wells collect water from a depth of 10-26 m and one from a depth of 33-96 m. Representatives of 35 taxa were collected. Some of them are epigean and were transported from a nearby river. The most abundant group was Copepoda, where 15 taxa were recognized; all but one were stygobionts. There was a noticeable difference between the fauna from the shallow and from the deep wells. In the former, Elaphoidella charon Chappuis, 1936 and Diacyclops languidoides (Lilljeborg, 1901) prevailed, while in the deep well the most abundant species were Graeteriella unisetigera (Graeter, 1908), Ceuthonectes serbicus Chappuis, 1924, and Paramorariopsis brigitae n. sp. The latter was relatively common, 70 specimens being collected (51 %%; 19 &&), with the maximum number of 10-12 specimens per sampling in September/November. A detailed description of the new species is presented, together with some information on its ecology and specific morphological adaptations, which are similar to those in the two already known species from the same genus (P. anae Brancelj, 1991 and P. irenae Brancelj, 2006). RÉSUMÉ La faune de quatre puits alimentant une ville proche en eau a été collectée pendant un an à raison d'une fois toutes les deux semaines approximativement. Trois des puits ont été échantillonnés à une profondeur de 10-26 m et le dernier à une profondeur de 33-96 m. Les représentants de 35 taxons ont ainsi été récoltés. Certains sont épigés et proviennent d'une rivière proche. Le groupe le plus abondant est représenté par les Copépodes, dont 15 taxons ont été identifiés, tous sauf un sont des stygobiontes. Une différence notable a été observée entre la faune des puits peu profonds et celle du puits profond. Dans les premiers, Elaphoidella charon Chappuis, 1936 et Diacyclops languidoides (Lilljeborg, 1901) dominaient, tandis que dans le 1

show abstract

“…To sample invertebrates, unbaited stratified trap systems (Table 1) were installed in wells (Hahn 2005, Bork et al 2008. The wells were arranged in transects from the slope of the hill towards the brook in intervals of approximately 50 meters, ending up with the last well directly next to the brook.…”

Section: Sampling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A proposal for a groundwater habitat classification at local scale

Gutjahr¹,

Schmidt²,

Hahn³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distribution of groundwater invertebrate communities in porous aquifers (and their habitats) varies on spatial scales and many attempts have been made to classify these on various scales. The new data-based approach, presented here, classifies the complex distribution of groundwater habitats on a local scale (i.e. along transects of < 100 m) and merges the latest classification approaches at this scale. Data from a regional (i.e. approximately 100 km 2) biogeographic groundwater survey was analysed in terms of stability of: community structure, different intensities of surface water influence, and occurrence, together with the distribution of stygobites within those groundwater ecosystems. On the investigated local scale, the faunistic communities' composition is mainly depending on surface water influence, coupled with immi-sion of dissolved oxygen and organic matter. Derived from this finding, five types of faunistic habitats are proposed: (I) Stressed groundwater habitats, (II) Stable groundwater habitats, (III) Rain fed groundwater habitats , (IV) Surface water fed groundwater habitats, and (V) Hyporheic habitats.

show abstract

Testing unbaited stygofauna traps for sampling performance

Cited by 10 publications

References 25 publications

Taking eDNA underground: Factors affecting eDNA detection of subterranean fauna in groundwater

Taking eDNA underground: Factors affecting eDNA detection of subterranean fauna in groundwater

Copepoda From A Deep-Groundwater Porous Aquifer In Contact With Karst: Description Of A New Species, Paramorariopsis Brigitae N. Sp. (Copepoda, Harpacticoida)

A proposal for a groundwater habitat classification at local scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About