Getting the ‘most out of the hotspot’ for practical conservation of groundwater biodiversity

Iannella, Mattia; Fiasca, Barbara; Lorenzo, Tiziana Di; Cicco, Mattia Di; Biondi, Maurizio; Mammola, Stefano; Galassi, Diana M. P.

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01844

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, with a few recent exceptions (e.g. Fattorini et al ., 2020; Iannella et al ., 2021; Tanalgo, Oliveira & Hughes, 2021), prioritisation attempts have focused solely on taxonomic diversity measures. However, it is increasingly recognised that similar exercises should seek to achieve a delicate balance among multiple facets of diversity [taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity (Pollock, Thuiller & Jetz, 2017; Mazel et al ., 2018; Owen et al ., 2019b)] and other features including ecosystem services (Zhang et al ., 2015; Girardello et al ., 2019), natural resources (e.g.…”

Section: Current Knowledge and Research Trajectories For Conservation...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards evidence‐based conservation of subterranean ecosystems

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Current Knowledge and Research Trajectories For Conservation...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards evidence‐based conservation of subterranean ecosystems

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, area-based protection of subterranean ecosystems is mostly indirect, namely when subterranean resources overlap with surface protected land such as national parks and nature world heritage areas (Sánchez-Fernández et al, 2021). However, according to recent estimations, the current network of protected areas largely fails to protect subterranean biodiversity (Colado et al, 2022), emphasizing the importance of establishing protected areas and legislations able to account for the 3-dimensionality and specificities of subterranean ecosystems (Iannella et al, 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An expert-based global assessment of threats and conservation measures for subterranean ecosystems

Nanni

Piano

Cardoso

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subterranean ecosystems host unique biodiversity and deliver important services to humans. Yet, available data for subterranean ecosystems are limited in space and/or taxonomic scope and global monitoring programs are absent, preventing practitioners to develop effective conservation and management strategies. Expert opinion may help overcome some of these knowledge gaps. We designed a global survey to quantify the importance of anthropogenic impacts and conservation measures for subterranean ecosystems. We obtained 279 responses from 155 experts in different subterranean habitats, taxa, and regions. Experts perceived surface habitat change, direct habitat destruction (e.g., pollution, damming, mining), and climate change as the most relevant threats impacting subterranean ecosystems. Legislation, land protection, and education were scored as the most effective conservation measures, whereas species-level conservation was deemed less relevant. Whenever lacking hard data, expert opinion may be an effective, largely available, yet often overlooked source of information to implement timely conservation interventions for subterranean ecosystems.

show abstract

“…However, in our view, all these prioritization attempts fail short on one key aspect: they only consider number of species and/or endemism in their protocol to design protected areas or conservation priorities-but see, e.g., ref. 92,93 . A modern take on this subject would be to not only consider taxonomic diversity and relative measures, but also to maximize phylogenetic and functional diversity within a given protected area 94,95 , and even the extent to which species niches are accounted www.nature.com/scientificdata www.nature.com/scientificdata/ for 96 .…”

Section: Example Of Trait-based Research Questions In Subterranean Bi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A trait database and updated checklist for European subterranean spiders

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species traits are an essential currency in ecology, evolution, biogeography, and conservation biology. However, trait databases are unavailable for most organisms, especially those living in difficult-to-access habitats such as caves and other subterranean ecosystems. We compiled an expert-curated trait database for subterranean spiders in Europe using both literature data (including grey literature published in many different languages) and direct morphological measurements whenever specimens were available to us. We started by updating the checklist of European subterranean spiders, now including 512 species across 20 families, of which at least 192 have been found uniquely in subterranean habitats. For each of these species, we compiled 64 traits. The trait database encompasses morphological measures, including several traits related to subterranean adaptation, and ecological traits referring to habitat preference, dispersal, and feeding strategies. By making these data freely available, we open up opportunities for exploring different research questions, from the quantification of functional dimensions of subterranean adaptation to the study of spatial patterns in functional diversity across European caves.

show abstract

Getting the ‘most out of the hotspot’ for practical conservation of groundwater biodiversity

Cited by 23 publications

References 57 publications

Towards evidence‐based conservation of subterranean ecosystems

Towards evidence‐based conservation of subterranean ecosystems

An expert-based global assessment of threats and conservation measures for subterranean ecosystems

A trait database and updated checklist for European subterranean spiders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About