the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Low site diversity but high diversity across sites of depauperate Crustacea and Annelida communities in groundwater of urban wells in Kraków, Poland
Abstract. Crustaceans and annelids are key components of groundwater communities, influenced by both abiotic conditions and biotic interactions. This study assessed their diversity in urban groundwaters accessed via 91 dug/drilled wells in Kraków, southern Poland, subject to chronic anthropogenic disturbance. Invertebrates were recorded in 47 wells, with 19 species-group taxa identified from 28 wells, including eight annelid and 11 crustacean taxa (Ostracoda: 3; Copepoda: 6; Bathynellacea: 1; Amphipoda: 1). Six stygobiontic taxa were detected in 10 wells: Trichodrilus cernosvitovi, Trichodrilus sp., Typhlocypris cf. eremita, Diacyclops languidoides, Bathynella natans, and Niphargus cf. tatrensis. Due to some taxonomic uncertainties, open nomenclature was used where necessary. Species accumulation did not reach saturation, but extrapolation suggested the sampling was near-complete. Alpha diversity was low (1–3 species per well, mean = 1.4), while beta diversity was high (Whittaker index = 12.3), indicating substantial species turnover, a typical feature of groundwater ecosystems. No clear seasonal trends were observed, consistent with previous studies in Kraków. Four main community types were identified. One, dominated by Enchytraeus gr. buchholzi, may indicate degraded conditions, another, with Bathynella natans and Aeolosoma spp., suggests transitional states; a third, dominated by Trichodrilus spp., likely reflects relatively undisturbed groundwater; and a fourth, more heterogeneous type dominated by surface copepods, was ecologically ambiguous. Despite generally low richness and dominance by surface taxa, the presence of six stygobiontic species suggests that at least 20 % of the surveyed wells retain relatively good ecological conditions.
- Preprint
(1217 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(224 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 12 Oct 2025)
-
CC1: 'RC Comment on egusphere-2025-2883', Fabio Stoch, 26 Aug 2025
reply
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of RC1 and its content was therefore removed on 28 August 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2883-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2883', Fabio Stoch, 28 Aug 2025
reply
The study is an interesting overview of groundwater fauna in a urban area, a kind of data quite scarce in recent literature. Conclusions may be affected by the low number of species present, that are reflected also in species accumulation curves and high beta diversity, that can reflect simpoly a random sampling of a very poor cspecies assemblage; maybe conclusions are quite optimistic! In any case a welcomed paper on this important subject, including some species (like Oligochaeta) usually overlooked in subterranean habitats due to the lack of specialists. It is of course a pity that more than one half of copepods were not identified to species level; being the most species-rich taxon in the area, we do not know how this could have been affected results.
I attach the pdf with very few notes and suggestions in text; the most important ones are as follow:
(1) stygobiont is used both as a noun and as an adjective; so "stygobiontic" is not used; please replace this term with stygobiont throughout the text (I highlighted only the terms I noticed); an alternative is to use stygobitic (or, les used, stygobiotic) as an adjective, but if authors feel comfortable with stygobiont it's ok
(2) The copepod Diacyclops languidoides is not a stygobiont by definition; it was described in mires from northern Sweden by Lilljeborg and found in lake litoral enviuronments in Finland. Being a species complex, we cannot be sure the species in Poland and in Sweden is the same; if this is true as probable, even this copepod is a stygophilic (i.e. a non.-stygobiont following the terminology used in the paper); I let to the Authors to think about this point that can change the (already low) percentage of stygobionts
(3) In table 1 please replace copepodites by copepodids (this is the correct term for this larval stage)
(4) In fig. 4 it is clear that the curve is a species rarefaction curce, not a species accumulation curve. The caption of Y axis is correct, however each point has a standard deviation, being a replica of randomly chosen values, not the row species richness value); this is the difference bertween a rarefaction ù(quite smoothed) curve and an accumulation curve (when only row values, and no s.d., should appear); please correct this in figure caption and text. This does not change anything about results.
I suggest this is an interesting paper and the statistical methodology is correct. However, the number of species is very poor, the number of stygobionts is poor as well, and this may influence the results, concealing seasonal differences, increasing beta diversity, and making results less robust (expecially due to the high percetage on unidentified copepods). I strongly suggest authors emphasize these points in the discussion: apart undetermined species, there is nothing they can do, this is the situation in their town: a very poor groundwater fauna, and this result may be interesting in itself.
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2883', Elżbieta Dumnicka, 29 Aug 2025
reply
Dear Dr Stoch,
Thank you for your valuable remarks - we correct the manuscript according to your suggestions.
With best wishes,
Elzbieta Dumnicka
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2883-CC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
220 | 26 | 16 | 262 | 21 | 8 | 18 |
- HTML: 220
- PDF: 26
- XML: 16
- Total: 262
- Supplement: 21
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1