Hypogean Communities as Cybernetic Systems: Implications for the Evolution of Cave Biotas

Abstract

Ramón Margalef proposed in 1968 that ecosystems could be better understood if they were viewed as cybernetic systems. I tested this hypothesis in the case of hypogean ecosystems using available pieces of evidence. I looked on how information on feedbacks, stability, succession, organization, diversity, and energy flows in the hypogean environment fit the cybernetics hypothesis. The results were that there are convincing arguments that the application of the concept of cybernetics in biospeleology can be beneficial to broadening our understanding of cave biota in terms of their structure. I also make the case that this approach can provide more clarity about how cave biota has evolved through time and the implications for their conservation.

Conservation Studies on Groundwaters’ Pollution: Challenges and Perspectives for Stygofauna Communities

“…This perspective provides different examples of the most relevant effects that pollution may cause on groundwater communities. These examples suggest that, to address pollution threats, it may be useful to view subterranean environments as cybernetic systems which can be studied in light of the energy transfers that occur within and between them as well as in adjacent ecosystems [47]. Pollution events may alter energy flows both directly and indirectly depending on timing and typology of pollutants.…”

“…Multiple factors are reported to shape species composition of communities occurring in a groundwater system [47], with no single factor providing a complete explanation for the observed patterns, even in the relatively simple conditions offered by subterranean environments [23]. The complex interactions between species' physiological constraints, evolutionary processes, and selective pressures currently acting in both surface and subterranean adjacent environments shape the proportion between species stygobionts and species typical of epigean freshwaters that compose the groundwater community (Figure 1).…”

Planarians, a Neglected Component of Biodiversity in Groundwaters

“…At the same time, groundwaters may offer shelter from UV radiation and predators [32][33][34][35]. Constraints and advantages caused the evolution of different morphological, physiological and behavioral features associated with animals exploiting them [36,37]. Most groundwaters' specialist animals, named stygobionts (the suffix "stygo" comes from the river Styx flowing in the mythological Greek underworld), show typical features, such as blindness, depigmentation, and elongation of tactile sensory structures, metabolism reduction, resistance to starving, and low oxygen contents [38,39].…”

Don’t forget the vertical dimension: assessment of distributional dynamics of cave-dwelling invertebrates in both ground and parietal microhabitats

“…Absence of light and the other environmental features of the subterranean environment induce a number of physiological, metabolic, morphological and behavioural adaptations in hypogean fauna (Howarth and Moldovan 2018). Usually, subterraneandwelling organisms are classified in biospeleological categories, based on both the oc-currence of specific adaptations and on their necessity to complete their life cycle underground (Mammola 2019;Romero 2020). However, these categories can be poorly representative; evident connections occur through the fissures of the bedrock (Milieu Souterrain Superficiel -MSS) (Juberthie et al 1980a(Juberthie et al , b, 1981, and the limits of the subterranean environments are less defined than expected , 2008, 2010, 2017.…”

“…Organisms able to breed in both subterranean and surface habitats, generally showing some adaptations to cave life are named troglophiles, while organisms occurring only accidentally in caves are called trogloxenes (Romero 2009;Mammola 2019). However, this classification is considered a ploy and a simplification which hardly mirrors the relationships among organisms and their spatial distribution underground (Romero 2020).…”