the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Invertebrate communities on seasonal snow patches in the European lowlands are shaped by tree canopy-derived organic inputs
Abstract. The cryosphere encompasses a wide range of habitats that support cold-adapted communities. Seasonal snow patches (SSPs) in lowlands are underexplored cryohabitats, characterized by a short persistence period (late winter–early spring) and the presence of trees around, in contrast to large vegetation-free high-mountain and polar ecosystems. To provide the first assessment of organisms from SSPs, we focused on invertebrate diversity and densities from 40 sites in the Baltic States in relation to physicochemical parameters (i.e., suspended solids, chlorophyll a, nutrients), microalgae, and surrounding landscape features (i.e., tree canopy cover). SSPs appeared to be an important spot for bdelloid rotifers (Bdelloidea), tardigrades (Tardigrada), and nematodes (Nematoda), which together accounted for 60–100 % of all invertebrates, reaching densities >7,000 ind∙m-2. Acari and Insecta were less abundant, whereas other invertebrates occurred only sporadically. The community was strongly determined by surroundings (trees), which supply snow ecosystems with organic and inorganic matter. Chlorophyll a, particulate phosphorus, total suspended solids and organic debris were strongest predictors of invertebrate distribution. The canopy cover also influenced invertebrate communities, highlighting the importance of the organic deposition from trees and also suggesting that trees may be a source of microscopic invertebrates to the snow. Results demonstrate the importance of SSPs as overlooked ephemeral habitats and can be used as a baseline for future changes in snow communities in temperate regions.
- Preprint
(1016 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(54 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Apr 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1173', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Mar 2026
reply
The authors present an in-depth analysis of invertebrate fauna that inhabit transient snow patches located throughout lowland areas in Baltic States. Collections were systematic and incorporated physiochemical parameters, data was analyzed with appropriate statistical methods, text is clear/organized, and conclusions are mostly reasonable with respect to the dataset. Nonetheless, the following points should be addressed:
- Figure legends need to stand alone from the text, currently they do not provide enough information (particularly Fig. 6, which is complex and needs to include qualitative information for context).
- Is it possible that monogononts were overlooked? These often co-occur with bdelloids in cold environments but can be misclassified as protists due to their small size.
- The interaction/contribution of the underlying soil is not considered. It seems that in recurring years there will be large depositions of invertebrates into the soil once the snow has melted. Is there any data available that compares invertebrate composition/density in underlying soil from a snow patch vs. other soil areas? Also, is it possible that the underlying soil is a major contributor to the invertebrates that appear each year in seasonal snow, instead of them being deposited from the peripheral surroundings, as suggested?
- What is the evidence that these invertebrates are reproducing in the snow? Could it be that reproduction occurs without snow and they are just tolerating the snow conditions?
- Can anything be said about the diversity of species within each phylum? Are these mostly the same species of rotifers, tardigrades, nematodes, etc or is there notable biodiversity within phyla? Are these species different from those which inhabit glacial ecosystems? I understand there is no molecular data, but some morphological characters would give a sense of species diversity within phyla.
- Is there any evidence that these snow invertebrates are more similar to glacial or soil counterparts?
Minor comments:Line 71: is --> wasLine 74: onto --> onLine 78: for understanding the SSPsLine 117: Figure 1 legend needs more information (e.g., cross-reference numbers to Table with coordinates)Line 138: Figure 2 legend needs more detailsLine 173: “...contents of tubes were slowly refrozen at +5 –...” do you mean “unfrozen” or “thawed”?Line 189: canopies --> canopyLine 379: is --> wasLine 446: characterized “to” be…471: in Figure 6ReplyCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1173-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 132 | 44 | 14 | 190 | 25 | 12 | 11 |
- HTML: 132
- PDF: 44
- XML: 14
- Total: 190
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1