Contribution of rare and common species to subterranean species richness patterns

Abstract

AimCommon species contribute more to species richness patterns (SRPs) than rare species in most studies. Our aim was to test this hypothesis using a novel model system, species living exclusively in subterranean habitats. They consist of mainly rare species (small ranges), only a few of them being common (large ranges), and challenge whether rare species are less important for the development of SRPs in this environment. We separately analyzed aquatic and terrestrial species.LocationWestern Balkans in southeastern Europe.MethodsWe assembled two datasets comprising 431 beetle and 145 amphipod species, representing the model groups of subterranean terrestrial and aquatic diversity, respectively. We assessed the importance of rare and common species using the stepwise reconstruction of SRPs and subsequent correlation analyses, corrected also for the cumulative information content of the subsets based on species prevalence. We applied generalized linear regression models to evaluate the importance of rare and common species in forming SRPs. Additionally, we analyzed the contribution of rare and common species in species‐rich cells.ResultsPatterns of subterranean aquatic and terrestrial species richness overlapped only weakly, with aquatic species having larger ranges than terrestrial ones. Our analyses supported higher importance of common species for forming overall SRPs in both beetles and amphipods. However, in stepwise analysis corrected for information content, results were ambiguous. Common species presented a higher proportion of species than rare species in species‐rich cells.Main ConclusionWe have shown that even in habitats with the domination of rare species, it is still common species that drive SRPs. This may be due to an even spatial distribution of rare species or spatial mismatch in hotspots of rare and common species. SRPs of aquatic and terrestrial subterranean organisms overlap very little, so the conservation approaches need to be habitat specific.

How did subterranean amphipods cross the Adriatic Sea? Phylogenetic evidence for dispersal–vicariance interplay mediated by marine regression–transgression cycles

“…This scenario, as elaborated with several alternatives (Boutin & Coineau, 1990;Holsinger, 1994Holsinger, , 2000, has been used as an explanation for the origin and distribution of many subterranean taxa (Baratti, Filippelli, Nardi, & Messana, 2010;Boulanouar, Yacoubi, Messouli, & Coineau, 1995;Coineau, 1994;Kupriyanova et al, 2009;Page et al, 2016;. By contrast, the more classical view of marine regressions-transgressions as an alternation between processes of dispersal and vicariance has received little attention in subterranean biology, most likely due to the presumed low dispersal capacity of subterranean organisms (Bregović, Fišer, & Zagmajster, 2019;Trontelj et al, 2009). Few studies to date have invoked this scenario to explain species distributions (Bauzà-Ribot, Jaume, Fornós, Juan, & Pons, 2011;Cánovas et al, 2016;Guy-Haim, Simon-Blecher, Frumkin, Naaman, & Achituv, 2018;Stokkan et al, 2018), and none of these studies explicitly modelled biogeographical patterns using iterative cycles of regression and transgression.…”

Cave-adapted campodeids (Hexapoda, Diplura, Campodeidae) from the Dinarides and adjacent karst regions

“…The Dinarides is a region with high endemicity of troglobionts from many different terrestrial arthropod groups (Bedek et al, 2011;Hlavač et al, 2017). The geographical ranges of these troglobionts are generally small and fragmented (Trontelj et al, 2009;Zagmajster et al, 2014;Bregović et al, 2019). Our data on cave-dwelling campodeids in the Dinarides and adjacent regions revealed a somewhat different pattern.…”

Fundamental research questions in subterranean biology

“…Recent macroecological studies have shown that historical climatic variability, spatial heterogeneity, and energy contribute to species richness patterns of subterranean taxa in Europe. However, the contributions of these factors vary regionally and across taxa (Eme et al ., 2015; Bregović & Zagmajster, 2016; Bregović, Fišer, & Zagmajster, 2019; Mammola et al ., 2019 a ). At a landscape scale, linking environmental factors with speciation, extinction, and dispersal dynamics (Q29), as well as diversification processes (Q30), remains challenging and requires the use of phylogenetic methods and a large number of specimens for DNA analysis (Stern et al ., 2017).…”