The role of microhabitats in structuring cave invertebrate communities in Guatemala

Abstract

Several studies have tried to elucidate the main environmental features driving invertebrate community structure in cave environments. They found that many factors influence the community structure, but rarely focused on how substrate types and heterogeneity might shape these communities. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess which substrate features and whether or not substrate heterogeneity determines the invertebrate community structure (species richness and composition) in a set of limestone caves in Guatemala. We hypothesized that the troglobitic fauna responds differently to habitat structure regarding species richness and composition than non-troglobitic fauna because they are more specialized to live in subterranean habitats. Using 30 m2 transects, the invertebrate fauna was collected and the substrate features were measured. The results showed that community responded to the presence of guano, cobbles, boulders, and substrate heterogeneity. The positive relationship between non-troglobitic species composition with the presence of guano reinforces the importance of food resources for structuring invertebrate cave communities in Guatemalan caves. Furthermore, the troglobitic species responded to different substrate features when compared to non-troglobitic species. For them, instead of the presence of organic matter, a higher variety of abiotic microhabitats seem to be the main driver for species diversity within a cave. The high specialization level of troglobitic organisms might be the reason why they respond differently to environmental conditions. The findings of this study highlight the importance of biological surveys for understanding cave biodiversity and give insights on how this biodiversity might be distributed within a cave. Conservation measures should keep in mind the target organisms and if such measures aim to protect a broad variety of organisms, then one should aim to preserve as many microhabitats and trophic resources as possible.

Longevity in Cave Animals

“…Another limitation to using this method stems from the ecological differences between cave and surface populations. For example, low availability of nutrients in subterranean environments (Huntsman et al, 2011;Culver and Pipan, 2019;Pacheco et al, 2020) strongly influences species growth (Simon et al, 2017). Without rearing cave and surface relatives under the same conditions, it is difficult to distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic effects on lifespan.…”

Epigean and hypogean drivers of Neotropical subterranean communities

“…Furthermore, regardless of the presence of bats, larger caves are usually more complex regarding their morphology, thus, presenting a higher variety of physical microhabitats when compared with smaller caves (Vargas‐Mena et al., 2020). The heterogeneity of microhabitats and other resources are important drivers of diversity and tend to be higher as the habitat area increases (Gleason, 1922; Pacheco et al., 2020). The greater the variety of resources, the greater the diversity of associated colonizers (Smrž et al., 2015).…”

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

“…Weinstein and Slaney 1995). Several authors agree that a combination of different methods is essential to investigate subterranean communities (Bichuette et al 2015;Kozel et al 2017) and some hypogean species have preferential microhabitats (Kozel et al 2017;Pacheco et al 2020), therefore, sampling simultaneously different habitats in more locations allows to increase the range of detected taxa respect to a single-set-alone sampling (Kozel 2018). For these reasons, a combination of sampling and monitoring methods in characterizing cave fauna and assessing cave fauna assemblages according to seasonality and microhabitat differentiation have been used in this work.…”