Are springs hotspots of benthic invertebrate diversity? Biodiversity and conservation priority of rheocrene springs in the karst landscape. Issue 5 (12th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cíbik, Jakub; Beracko, Pavel; Bulánková, Eva; Čiamporová Zaťovičová, Zuzana; Gregušová, Katarína; Kodada, Ján; Krno, Iľja; Mišíková Elexová, Emília; Navara, Tomáš; Rogánska, Alexandra; Derka, Tomáš
• Is Part Of: Aquatic conservation. Volume 32:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 843
• Page End: 858
• Publication Date: 2022-03-12
• Subjects: crenal -- diversity -- insular ecosystems -- limestone streams -- macrozoobenthos -- Western Carpathians; Aquatic ecology -- Periodicals; Conservation of natural resources -- Periodicals; Aquatic resources -- Periodicals; 333.95216
• DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3802
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1052-7613

Abstract

Abstract: Springs are perceived by human society as essential sources of drinking water, but on the other hand they represent peculiar and vulnerable ecosystems. They differ from other watercourses in the relatively high stability of their physicochemical conditions. As a result, springs represent ecosystems with an insular character, usually inhabited by specific aquatic communities. Although springs are generally considered species‐rich habitats across the world, they have been outside scientific and conservation interest in the karst mountains of the Western Carpathians. This study, therefore, examined the diversity of spring benthic macroinvertebrates and compared it with that of other watercourses of the Western Carpathian riverine landscape. The results of the study showed that, in contrast to rhithral streams, individual karst springs often had low species richness, and therefore they cannot be considered biodiversity hotspots. However, their metacommunity diversity is characterized by high taxonomic turnover, resulting in high gamma diversity. This means that the individual springs often harbour unique macroinvertebrate communities, so they are worthy of protection. However, the present level of spring habitat protection is insufficient as even springs located in protected areas are often captured as sources of drinking water and hydromorphologically or otherwise disturbed. A simple method to evaluate the spring conservation priority (CP) was developed to find a better trade‐off between their use and protection. It uses the number of Red List, endemic and crenal taxa, as well as the total species richness at each site. Based on this classification method, 16% of the springs studied reached very high CP, 39% high CP, 33% moderate CP and 12% low CP. The proposed management recommendations based on findings of conservation priority of the Western Carpathian karst springs can significantly contribute to their more effective protection and the creation of a legislative framework relating to spring habitat protection in general.