Perspectives and pitfalls in preserving subterranean biodiversity through protected areas

Referencias bibliográficas

• Gurney, G. G., Adams, V. M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G. & Claudet, J. Area-based conservation: taking stock and looking ahead. One Earth 6, 98–104 (2023).
• Bhola, N. et al. Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy. Conserv. Biol. 35, 168–178 (2021).
• Visconti, P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364, 239–241 (2019).
• Watson, R. T. et al. Post-2020 aspirations for biodiversity. One Earth 4, 893–896 (2021).
• Dinerstein, E. et al. A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).
• Hermoso, V. et al. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: opportunities and challenges on the path towards biodiversity recovery. Environ. Sci. Policy 127, 263–271 (2022).
• Zagmajster, M., Culver, D. C., Christman, M. C. & Sket, B. Evaluating the sampling bias in pattern of subterranean species richness: combining approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 3035–3048 (2010).
• Mammola, S. et al. Collecting eco-evolutionary data in the dark: Impediments to subterranean research and how to overcome them. Ecol. Evol. 11, 5911–5926 (2021).
• Ficetola, G. F., Canedoli, C. & Stoch, F. The Racovitzan impediment and the hidden biodiversity of unexplored environments. Conserv. Biol. 33, 214–216 (2019).
• Mammola, S. et al. Towards evidence-based conservation of subterranean ecosystems. Biol. Rev. 97, 1476–1510 (2022).
• Howarth, F. G. Ecology of cave arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 28, 365–389 (1983).
• Culver, D. C. & Pipan, T. Shallow subterranean habitats: ecology, evolution, and conservation. https://doi.org/10.4311/2014br0127. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2014).
• Mammola, S. et al. Ecology and sampling techniques of an understudied subterranean habitat: the Milieu Souterrain Superficiel (MSS). Sci. Nat. 103, 88 (2016).
• Fišer, C., Pipan, T. & Culver, D. C. The vertical extent of groundwater metazoans: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. Bioscience 64, 971–979 (2014).
• Saccò, M. et al. Groundwater is a hidden global keystone ecosystem. Glob. Change Biol. 30, e17066 (2024).
• Culver, D. C., Deharveng, L., Pipan, T. & Bedos, A. An overview of subterranean biodiversity hotspots. Diversity 13, 487 (2021).
• Griebler, C. & Avramov, M. Groundwater ecosystem services: a review. Freshw. Sci. 34, 355–367 (2015).
• Sánchez-Fernández, D., Galassi, D. M. P., Wynne, J. J., Cardoso, P. & Mammola, S. Don’t forget subterranean ecosystems in climate change agendas. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 458–459 (2021).
• Wynne, J. J. et al. A conservation roadmap for the subterranean biome. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12834 (2021).
• Barth, J. A. C., Geist, J. & Cherry, J. Integrate strategies to save biodiversity and groundwater. Nature 614, 34 (2023).
• Griebler, C. et al. Legal frameworks for the conservation and sustainable management of groundwater ecosystems. Groundw. Ecol. Evol. 551–571 (2023).
• Colado, R. et al. A dark side of conservation biology: protected areas fail in representing subterranean biodiversity. Insect Conserv. Divers. 16, 674–683 (2023).
• Huggins, X. et al. Overlooked risks and opportunities in groundwatersheds of the world’s protected areas. Nat. Sustain. 6, 855–864 (2023).
• EEA (European Environmental Agency). The Natura 2000 protected areas network. https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/natura-2000 (2023).
• Fišer, C. et al. The European Green Deal misses Europe’s subterranean biodiversity hotspots. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1403–1404 (2022).
• Piló, L. B., Calux, A., Scherer, R. & Bernard, E. Bats as ecosystem engineers in iron ore caves in the Carajás National Forest, Brazilian Amazonia. PLoS One 18, e0267870 (2023).
• Hose, G. C. & Stumpp, C. Architects of the underworld: bioturbation by groundwater invertebrates influences aquifer hydraulic properties. Aquat. Sci. 81, 20 (2019).
• Gers, C. Diversity of energy fluxes and interactions between arthropod communities: from soil to cave. Acta Oecol. 19, 205–213 (1998).
• Prous, X., Ferreira, R. L. & Martins, R. P. Ecotone delimitation: epigean–hypogean transition in cave ecosystems. Austral. Ecol. 29, 374–382 (2004).
• Manenti, R. & Piazza, B. Between darkness and light: spring habitats provide new perspectives for modern researchers on groundwater biology. PeerJ 9, e11711 (2021).
• Delić, T., Trontelj, P., Rendoš, M. & Fišer, C. The importance of naming cryptic species and the conservation of endemic subterranean amphipods. Sci. Rep. 7, 3391 (2017).
• Eme, D. et al. Do cryptic species matter in macroecology? Sequencing European groundwater crustaceans yields smaller ranges but does not challenge biodiversity determinants. Ecography 41, 424–436 (2018).
• Tanalgo, K. C., Oliveira, H. F. M. & Hughes, A. C. Mapping global conservation priorities and habitat vulnerabilities for cave-dwelling bats in a changing world. Sci. Total Environ. 843, 156909 (2022).
• Iannella, M. et al. Getting the ‘Most Out of the Hotspot’ for practical conservation of groundwater biodiversity. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 31, e01844 (2021).
• Stoch, F., Artheau, M., Brancelj, A., Galassi, D. M. P. & Malard, F. Biodiversity indicators in European ground waters: towards a predictive model of stygobiotic species richness. Freshw. Biol. 54, 745–755 (2009).
• Meierhofer, M. B. et al. Effective conservation of subterranean-roosting bats. Conserv. Biol. 00, e14157 (2023).
• Faith, D. P. & Walker, P. A. Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 5, 399–415 (1996).
• Albuquerque, F. & Beier, P. Improving the use of environmental diversity as a surrogate for species representation. Ecol. Evol. 8, 852–858 (2018).
• Mammola, S. & Leroy, B. Applying species distribution models to caves and other subterranean habitats. Ecography 41, 1194–1208 (2018).
• Eme, D. et al. Multi-causality and spatial non-stationarity in the determinants of groundwater crustacean diversity in Europe. Ecography 38, 531–540 (2015).
• Zagmajster, M. et al. Geographic variation in range size and beta diversity of groundwater crustaceans: Insights from habitats with low thermal seasonality. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1135–1145 (2014).
• Christman, M. C. et al. Predicting the occurrence of cave-inhabiting fauna based on features of the earth surface environment. PLoS One 11, e0160408 (2016).
• Jiménez-Valverde, A., Sendra, A., Garay, P. & Reboleira, A. S. P. S. Energy and speleogenesis: key determinants of terrestrial species richness in caves. Ecol. Evol. 7, 10207–10215 (2017).
• Culver, D. C. et al. The mid-latitude biodiversity ridge in terrestrial cave fauna. Ecography (Cop.). 29, 120–128 (2006).
• Pipan, T. & Culver, D. C. The unity and diversity of the subterranean realm with respect to invertebrate body size. J. Cave Karst Stud. 79, 1–9 (2017).
• Marmonier, P. et al. Groundwater biodiversity and constraints to biological distribution. In: Groundwater Ecology and Evolution 113–140 (Elsevier, 2023).
• Glanville, K., Schulz, C., Tomlinson, M. & Butler, D. Biodiversity and biogeography of groundwater invertebrates in Queensland, Australia. Subterr. Biol. 17, 55–76 (2016).
• Vaccarelli, I. et al. Environmental factors shaping copepod distributions in cave waters of the Lessinian unsaturated karst (NE-Italy). Front. Ecol. Evol. 11, 1143874 (2023).
• Vernham, G. et al. Understanding trait diversity: the role of geodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 736–748 (2023).
• Michel, G. et al. Reserve selection for conserving groundwater biodiversity. Freshw. Biol. 54, 861–876 (2009).
• Borges, P. A. V. et al. Volcanic caves: priorities for conserving the Azorean endemic troglobiont species. Int. J. Speleol. 41, 101–112 (2012).
• Nitzu, E. et al. Assessing preservation priorities of caves and karst areas using the frequency of endemic cave-dwelling species. Int. J. Speleol. 47, 43–52 (2018).
• Cardoso, R. C., Ferreira, R. L. & Souza-Silva, M. Priorities for cave fauna conservation in the Iuiú karst landscape, northeastern Brazil: a threatened spot of troglobitic species diversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 1433–1455 (2021).
• Pressey, R. L., Johnson, I. R. & Wilson, P. D. Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodivers. Conserv. 3, 242–262 (1994).
• Goldscheider, N. et al. Global distribution of carbonate rocks and karst water resources. Hydrogeol. J. 28, 1661–1677 (2020).
• Rivera, A. et al. Why do we need to care about transboundary aquifers and how do we solve their issues? Hydrogeol. J. 31, 27–30 (2023).
• Liu, J., Yong, D. L., Choi, C. Y. & Gibson, L. Transboundary frontiers: an emerging priority for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 679–690 (2020).
• Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A. et al. Leverage points and levers of inclusive conservation in protected areas. Ecol. Soc. 28, 7 (2023).
• Hu, S. et al. Applying a co-design approach with key stakeholders to design interventions to reduce illegal wildlife consumption. People Nat. 5, 1234–1244 (2023).
• Yang, R. et al. Cost-effective priorities for the expansion of global terrestrial protected areas: setting post-2020 global and national targets. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc3436 (2023).
• Holmes, G. Exploring the relationship between local support and the success of protected areas. Conserv. Soc. 11, 72–82 (2013).
• Jones, N., Graziano, M. & Dimitrakopoulos, P. G. Social impacts of European Protected Areas and policy recommendations. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 134–140 (2020).
• Gavish-Regev, E. et al. The power of academic and public opinion in conservation: the case of Ayyalon Cave, Israel. Integr. Conserv. 2, 73–79 (2023).
• Griebler, C. et al. Potential impacts of geothermal energy use and storage of heat on groundwater quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem processes. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1391 (2016).
• Epting, J., Michel, A., Affolter, A. & Huggenberger, P. Climate change effects on groundwater recharge and temperatures in Swiss alluvial aquifers. J. Hydrol. X 11, 100071 (2021).
• Schenk, A., Hunziker, M. & Kienast, F. Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures—a qualitative study in Switzerland. J. Environ. Manage. 83, 66–79 (2007).
• Nanni, V. et al. Global response of conservationists across mass media likely constrained bat persecution due to COVID-19. Biol. Conserv. 272, 109591 (2022).
• Martínez, A. & Mammola, S. Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations to scientific papers. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20202581 (2021).
• Mascia, M. B. & Pailler, S. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv. Lett. 4, 9–20 (2011).
• Coad, L. et al. Widespread shortfalls in protected area resourcing undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 259–264 (2019).
• Vörösmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J. & Lammers, R. B. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289, 284–288 (2000).
• Wu, W.-Y. et al. Divergent effects of climate change on future groundwater availability in key mid-latitude aquifers. Nat. Commun. 11, 3710 (2020).
• Borzée, A. & Button, S. Integrative conservation science: conservation knowledge must be used to guide policies. Integr. Conserv. 2, 69–72 (2023).
• Cook, C. N., Hockings, M. & Carter, R. W. Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 181–186 (2010).
• Keith, D. A. et al. A function-based typology for Earth’s ecosystems. Nature 610, 513–518 (2022).
• Mammola, S. et al. Scientists’ warning on the conservation of subterranean ecosystems. Bioscience 69, 641–650 (2019).
• Brosse, M., Benateau, S., Gaudard, A., Stamm, C. & Altermatt, F. The importance of indirect effects of climate change adaptations on alpine and pre-alpine freshwater systems. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 3, e12127 (2022).
• Lind, L., Eckstein, R. L. & Relyea, R. A. Direct and indirect effects of climate change on distribution and community composition of macrophytes in lentic systems. Biol. Rev. 97, 1677–1690 (2022).
• Nanni, V., Piano, E., Cardoso, P., Isaia, M. & Mammola, S. An expert-based global assessment of threats and conservation measures for subterranean ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 283, 110136 (2023).
• Whitten, T. Applying ecology for cave management in China and neighbouring countries. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 520–523 (2009).
• Shu, S.-S., Jiang, W.-S., Whitten, T., Yang, J.-X. & Chen, X.-Y. Drought and China’s cave species. Science 340, 272 (2013).
• Becher, J., Englisch, C., Griebler, C. & Bayer, P. Groundwater fauna downtown—drivers, impacts and implications for subsurface ecosystems in urban areas. J. Contam. Hydrol. 248, 104021 (2022).
• Boulton, A. J. Hyporheic rehabilitation in rivers: restoring vertical connectivity. Freshw. Biol. 52, 632–650 (2007).
• Newcomer, M. E. et al. Influence of hydrological perturbations and riverbed sediment characteristics on hyporheic zone respiration of CO2 and N2. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 123, 902–922 (2018).
• Panno, S. V. et al. Microplastic contamination in karst groundwater systems. Groundwater 57, 189–196 (2019).
• Balestra, V. & Bellopede, R. Microplastics in caves: A new threat in the most famous geo-heritage in the world. Analysis and comparison of Italian show caves deposits. J. Environ. Manage. 342, 118189 (2023).
• Di Lorenzo, T. et al. Occurrence of volatile organic compounds in shallow alluvial aquifers of a Mediterranean region: Baseline scenario and ecological implications. Sci. Total Environ. 538, 712–723 (2015).
• Manenti, R., Piazza, B., Zhao, Y., Padoa Schioppa, E. & Lunghi, E. Conservation studies on groundwaters’ pollution: challenges and perspectives for stygofauna communities. Sustainability 13, 7030 (2021).
• Rathi, B. S., Kumar, P. S. & Vo, D.-V. N. Critical review on hazardous pollutants in water environment: occurrence, monitoring, fate, removal technologies and risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 797, 149134 (2021).
• Clements, R., Sodhi, N. S., Schilthuizen, M. & Ng, P. K. L. Limestone karsts of southeast asia: imperiled arks of biodiversity. Bioscience 56, 733–742 (2006).
• Leopardi, S., Blake, D. & Puechmaille, S. J. White-nose syndrome fungus introduced from Europe to North America. Curr. Biol. 25, R217–R219 (2015).
• Martínez, A. et al. Tossed ‘good luck’ coins as vectors for anthropogenic pollution into aquatic environment. Environ. Pollut. 259, 113800 (2020).
• Piano, E. et al. A literature-based database of the natural heritage, the ecological status and tourism-related impacts in show caves worldwide. Nat. Conserv. 50, 159–174 (2022).
• Nicolosi, G., Mammola, S., Verbrugge, L. & Isaia, M. Aliens in caves: the global dimension of biological invasions in subterranean ecosystems. Biol. Rev. 98, 849–867 (2023).
• Mammola, S. et al. Climate change going deep: the effects of global climatic alterations on cave ecosystems. Anthr. Rev. 6, 98–116 (2019).
• Vaccarelli, I. et al. A global meta-analysis reveals multilevel and context-dependent effects of climate change on subterranean ecosystems. One Earth 6, 1510–1522 (2023).
• Gámez, S. & Harris, N. C. Conceptualizing the 3D niche and vertical space use. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 953–962 (2022).
• LaRue, E. A. et al. A theoretical framework for the ecological role of three‐dimensional structural diversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 21, 4–13 (2023).
• Nakamura, A. et al. Forests and their canopies: achievements and horizons in canopy science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 438–451 (2017).
• Ward, J. V. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 8, 2–8 (1989).
• Gurnell, A. M., Bertoldi, W., Tockner, K., Wharton, G. & Zolezzi, G. How large is a river? Conceptualizing river landscape signatures and envelopes in four dimensions. WIREs Water 3, 313–325 (2016).
• Levin, N., Kark, S. & Danovaro, R. Adding the third dimension to marine conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12408 (2018).
• Brito-Morales, I. et al. Towards climate-smart, three-dimensional protected areas for biodiversity conservation in the high seas. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 402–407 (2022).
• Alavipanah, S., Haase, D., Lakes, T. & Qureshi, S. Integrating the third dimension into the concept of urban ecosystem services: a review. Ecol. Indic. 72, 374–398 (2017).
• Zuluaga, S., Speziale, K. & Lambertucci, S. A. Global aerial habitat conservation post-COVID-19 anthropause. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 273–277 (2021).
• Lambertucci, S. A. & Speziale, K. L. Need for global conservation assessments and frameworks to include airspace habitat. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1341–1343 (2021).
• Marmonier, P., Dole-Olivier, M. J. & Creuze Des Chatelliers, M. Spatial distribution of interstitial assemblages in the floodplain of the rhǒne river. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 7, 75–82 (1992).
• Linke, S., Turak, E., Asmyhr, M. G. & Hose, G. 3D conservation planning: Including aquifer protection in freshwater plans refines priorities without much additional effort. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29, 1063–1072 (2019).
• Guerra, C. A. et al. Tracking, targeting, and conserving soil biodiversity. Science 371, 239–241 (2021).
• de Felipe, M., Aragonés, D. & Díaz-Paniagua, C. Thirty-four years of Landsat monitoring reveal long-term effects of groundwater abstractions on a World Heritage Site wetland. Sci. Total Environ. 880, 163329 (2023).
• Gladstone, N. S. et al. Subterranean freshwater gastropod biodiversity and conservation in the United States and Mexico. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13722 (2021).
• Reiss, J. et al. Groundwater flooding: ecosystem structure following an extreme recharge event. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 1252–1260 (2019).
• Saccò, M. et al. Rainfall as a trigger of ecological cascade effects in an Australian groundwater ecosystem. Sci. Rep. 11, 3694 (2021).
• Couton, M., Hürlemann, S., Studer, A., Alther, R. & Altermatt, F. Groundwater environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals hidden diversity and reflects land-use and geology. Mol. Ecol. 32, 3497–3512 (2023).
• Canedoli, C. et al. Integrating landscape ecology and the assessment of ecosystem services in the study of karst areas. Landsc. Ecol. 37, 347–365 (2022).
• Fabbri, S., Sauro, F., Santagata, T., Rossi, G. & De Waele, J. High-resolution 3-D mapping using terrestrial laser scanning as a tool for geomorphological and speleogenetical studies in caves: an example from the Lessini mountains (North Italy). Geomorphology 280, 16–29 (2017).
• De Waele, J. et al. Geomorphological and speleogenetical observations using terrestrial laser scanning and 3D photogrammetry in a gypsum cave (Emilia Romagna, N. Italy). Geomorphology 319, 47–61 (2018).
• Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Integrating remote sensing with ecology and evolution to advance biodiversity conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 506–519 (2022).
• Owens, H. L. & Rahbek, C. voluModel: modelling species distributions in three‐dimensional space. Methods Ecol. Evol. 14, 841–847 (2023).
• Azmy, S. N. et al. Counting in the dark: non-intrusive laser scanning for population counting and identifying roosting bats. Sci. Rep. 2, 524 (2012).
• D’Urban Jackson, T., Williams, G. J., Walker-Springett, G. & Davies, A. J. Three-dimensional digital mapping of ecosystems: a new era in spatial ecology. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20192383 (2020).
• Saccò, M. et al. eDNA in subterranean ecosystems: applications, technical aspects, and future prospects. Sci. Total Environ. 820, 153223 (2022).