Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeUncited, relevant report of new habitat in dry watercourses from barrancos and ramblas
Posted by Zaballos on 16 Dec 2013 at 16:26 GMT
In this paper (pg. 2) the authors refer to the occasional citation of hypogean insects in dry watercourses from Bucciarelli (1970) and Jeanne (1976) as the only precedents. However, there is a precedent (Zaballos, 1998: https://www.researchgate....(Coleoptera_Caraboidea_Trechidae_Anillini)?ev=prf_pub) which is not cited, that contains direct and relevant information related with the object of these paper. That work is written in Spanish and covers the description of a new species of genus <I>Geocharis</I> (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Anillini), but I would like to point out several similarities between both works:
1-NEW HABITAT: both papers specify the finding of a New habitat:
Plos One (Title and Abstract)
”Alluvial Mesovoid Shallow Substratum, a New Subterranean Habitat” “In this paper we describe a new type of subterranean habitat….”
Zoologica Baetica (Summary)
“ …the habitat in which it was captured is described as a new edaphobitic medium”
2-BARRANCOS and/or RAMBLAS: both papers makes explicit mention to determinate types of dry watercourses, called “barrancos” and “ramblas” as the places where this habitat could be found:
Plos One p. 2 (Study area)
In the local toponymy, these types of watercourse are termed “rambla” (low, wide channel) and “barranco” or “barranc” (tall, narrow channel), words which reflect cultural and linguistic factors rather than a true hydrographic characterization”
Zoologica Baetica p. 171. (Introducción)
“… en uno de los barrancos o ramblas de los alrededores de Gádor,..”
“… in one of the barrancos or ramblas from the surroundings of Gador, …”
Zoologica Baetica p. 175. (Hábitat)
“….guijarros procedentes del lecho de un barranco.” “El lecho del barranco solo recibe agua de escorrentía en el momento de las lluvias…”
“….and peebles obtained in a “barranco” riverbed.” “The “barranco” riverbed only receives run-off water at the moments of raining ….”
“A falta de valorar el estado de dichos barrancos durante la primavera….”
“In the absence of assessing the state of such “barrancos” during spring…”
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE HABITAT: both papers define and describe this habitat in similar terms:
Plos One p. 8 (Descripción of a New Subterranean Habitat: The “Alluvial MSS”)
“We propose naming these subterranean spaces located in the alluvial substratum “alluvial MSS”, a hypogean habitat composed of cracks and crevices in the substratum that from among the gravel and variously sized pebbles that constitute the alluvial deposits of dry watercourses (Fig. 4)”
Plos One p. 10 (Formation and structure of the “Alluvial MSS”)
“At this point, the coarser materials are deposited, forming protective films or “armour”, and the finest materials filter between and rearrange the interstices. Hence, a thin surface layer of slit, sand and gravel is created between the larger stones close to the surface, which contributes to insulating the MSS to a certain extent (Fig. 4b, c, d)”
Zoologica Baetica p. 175. (Hábitat)
“Aunque el aspecto del lecho era de sequía total, bajo los gruesos guijarros aparecen otros tapizados parcialmente por tierra y lodo, que aumentan en humedad con la profundidad, y dejan entre sí grandes espacios por los que pueden desplazarse sin dificultad la fauna edafobia (fig. 7). El lecho del barranco solo recibe agua de escorrentía en el momento de las lluvias (250-300 mm de precipitación media anual en la zona), pero estos escasos aportes aseguran una humedad prolongada en el lodo que recubre los guijarros.”
“Although the aspect of the riverbed was of total drought, under the large peebles appear other layer partially covered by soil and mud, increasing the humidity with depth, leaving large spaces between each other where edaphobite fauna can roam without difficulties (fig. 7). The “barranco” riverbed only receives run-off water at the moments of raining (250-300 mm of average annual precipitation in the area), but these scarce inputs guarantee a prolonged humidity in the mud covering the peebles.”
The MSS (Mesovoid Shallow Substratum) was discovered and described by Juberthie, Delay & Bouillon (1980) from the soil horizon C1 (pg. 25 in Juberthie et al, 1980); thus is classified as part of the edaphic environment. In the Abstract (pg. 1) of Zaballos (1998) it is stated that “… and the habitat in which it was captured is described as a new edaphobitic medium.”; this is, belonging to the edaphic environment. In that MSS description by Juberthie et. al. (1980, pg. 25) is stated that “Those rocky elements create a labyrinth of fissures or small spaces between them ranging from mm to cm, sometimes more, which make not a porous environment…etc.” “Those slabs or non-calcareous peebles are often covered by a thin layer of clay, and are constantly moist from 20 to 30 cm deep, even in sunny areas not protected by any plant cover.”
4. SIMILARITY OF PHOTOGRAPHS: both papers show very similar photographs to illustrate the environment of the described habitat:
Plos One p. 9 (Figure 4A): Dry watercourse (Barranc de la Vall de Gallinera).
Zoologica Baetica p. 179. (Figure 9): Parte inalterada del barranco./ “Unaltered part of the barranco.”
Plos One p. 9 (Figure 4B): Structure of the substratum
Zoologica Baetica p. 177. (Figure 7): Vista del lecho del barranco en profundidad./ “View of the bed of the barranco in deep.”
5. FAUNA: The fauna cited in both works reflects a diversity of ecological roles and preferences:
Plos One p. 13 (Synthesis… Fauna)
“Fauna. Animals, generally invertebrates and principally arthropods, of different taxa and diverse ecological roles, including epiedaphic, sub-lapidicole, hygrophilous., subterranean (endogean and even hypogean) and ripicolous species.”
Plos One p. 13 (Discussion)
The beds of the dry watercourses studied contained these three types of fauna, as well as ripicolous elements seeking temporary shelter, justifying the classification of thi habitat, together with its structure, as a new type of MSS wich we have termed “alluvial MSS”.
Zoologica Baetica p. 175. (Hábitat):
“Junto con la nueva especie apareció una rica fauna acompañante, que ha sido estudiada por diversos especialistas (ver agradecimientos): Insecta. O. Coleoptera, Fam. Scydmanidae: <I>Chevrolatia insignis</I> Duval, 1850. O. Tysanoptera, Fam. Phlaeothripidae, <I>Haplotrips sp.</I> Arachnida. O. Acari, S. O. Oribatida, Fam. Galumnidae, <I>Ctenogalumna sp. n.</I> (primera cita del género para la región paleártica); Fam. Lohmanniidae: <I>Papillacarus sp. n</I>, <I>Lohmannia sp. n.</I>; Fam. Opiidae: <I>Lasiobelba arcidiacanoae</I> (Bernini, 1973) (primera cita para España), <I>Vietoppia (Paragloboppia) mercedesae</I> Arillo et Subías, "<I>in litt.</I> "y <I>Multioppia integra</I> Pérez-Iñigo jr, 1990. Gastropoda. Fam. Ferussaciidae: <I>Cecilioides acicula</I> Müller, 1774 y <I>Ferussacia follicular</I> Gmelin, 1790.
Destaca, no obstante, la circunstancia de que entre la fauna acompañante no aparecieron representantes de la Fam. Staphylinidae, muy constante en otros medios edáficos. El estudio en detalle de este medio, que como se deduce de las citas señaladas presenta una abundante e interesante fauna, para la cual proponemos la denominación de "fauna de lecho", permitirá posiblemente, en el futuro, el hallazgo de un número importante de nuevas especies.”
“With the new species appeared a rich accompanying fauna/bycatch, which has been studied by several specialists (see acknowledgements): Insecta. O. Coleoptera, Fam. Scydmanidae: <I>Chevrolatia insignis</I> Duval, 1850. O. Tysanoptera, Fam. Phlaeothripidae, <I>Haplotrips sp.</I> Arachnida. O. Acari, S. O. Oribatida, Fam. Galumnidae, <I>Ctenogalumna sp. n.</I> (first record of the genus in palaeartic region); Fam. Lohmanniidae: <I>Papillacarus sp. n</I>, <I>Lohmannia sp. n.</I>; Fam. Opiidae: <I>Lasiobelba arcidiacanoae</I> (Bernini, 1973) (first record in Spain), <I>Vietoppia (Paragloboppia) mercedesae</I> Arillo et Subías, "<I>in litt.</I> " and <I>Multioppia integra</I> Pérez-Iñigo jr, 1990. Gastropoda. Fam. Ferussaciidae: <I>Cecilioides acicula</I> Müller, 1774 and <I>Ferussacia follicular</I> Gmelin, 1790.
However, it is outstanding that, within these accompanying fauna there is not any representative of Fam. Staphylinidae, virtually constant in other edaphic environments.
A detailed study of this environment, that, as deduced from the previous cites, presents an abundant and interesting fauna, for which we propose the name “riverbed fauna”; will probably allow, in the future, the discovery of an important number of new species.”
Juberthie et al (1980, pg. 34 and 35) dedicate a section to “Examples of mixture of endogean and subterranean fauna” where they say the endogean and subterranean environments “are differentiated by their type of porosity and, consecuently, the size of the spaces. The endogean environment has porosity from interstices, and the spaces are very small. The subterranean environment has porosity from fissures, creating a net of wider spaces, ranging from the millimeter to 10 cm of width.”
Taking this in account, why the paper by Zaballos (1998) is not cited within the precedents?
References:
Bucciarelli, I. (1960) Ulteriori osservazioni sul rinvenimento di troglobi nel letto dei torrenti. Bolletino Società Entomologica Italiana, 90 (9-10): 170-171.
Jeanne, C. (1976) Carabiques de la Péninsule Ibérique (2º supplement). Bull Soc Linn Bordeaux, 6 (7-10): 27-43.
Juberthie, C.; Bouillon, M and Delay, B. (1980) Extension du milieu souterrain en zone non calcaire: description d’un nouveau milieu et de son peuplement par les Coléoptères troglobies. Mem. Biospeol.,7: 19-52.
Zaballos, J.P. (1998) Un nuevo Geocharis de Almería (Coleoptera, Caraboidea, Trechidae, Anillini). Zoologica Baetica, 8 (1997): 171-180.
RE: Uncited, relevant report of new habitat in dry watercourses from barrancos and ramblas
Ortuño replied to Zaballos on 08 Jan 2014 at 13:08 GMT
Dr. Zaballos comments have shown us that some ideas regarding subterranean environments are still confusing and need to be further clarified. In our study, we are not describing an ENDOGEAN habitat like the one mentioned in Zaballos (1998) but a HYPOGEAN habitat. A thorough description about the difference between those two types of habitats can be found in Juberthie & Delay (1981), Howarth (1983), Camacho (1992), Giachino & Vailati (2010) and Ortuño et al. 2010, among others. Those differences include physical attributes such as the size of the interstices, and biotic characteristics like the fauna composition and the adaptations of this fauna, among others. Essentially, the edaphic/endogean environment corresponds to the upper layers of the soil, whereas the MSS is mainly related to deeper “cave-like” environments, such as the fissure network of the bedrock.
Therefore, regarding the points raised by Zaballos in relation to the supposed similarities between works:
1) New Habitat: Zaballos used Berlese funnels (Zool. Baetica, p. 8) to analyze soil samples taken in an edaphic environment, the upper layer of a dry watercourse. He described that edaphic habitat with a very brief sentence (the translation is copied from his comment): Although the riverbed appeared to be totally dry, there was another layer partially covered by soil and mud under the large pebbles, increasing the humidity with depth and leaving large spaces between each other where edaphobite fauna can roam without difficulties... As we have stated, and as one can conclude from the references cited above, the EDAPHOBITE fauna (i.e. edaphic/endogean) is different from the HYPOGEAN fauna, and so are their dwelling spaces. "Big" spaces for edaphobite fauna like the Geocharis species described in his work (1.5-1.7 mm long and 0.56 mm wide) are too small for the species described in our study, some of which are more than ten times bigger than Geocharis. For example: Trogulus lusitanicus (Arachnida, Opiliones) is typically 10 mm long and 4.9 mm wide (Schönhofer & Martens 2008); Scolopendra cingulata (Miriapoda, Chilopoda) is >700 mm long and >4 mm wide (Simaiakis et al. 2011); Petaloptila bolivari (Orthoptera gryllidae) 15-20 mm long (Barranco 2004); Platyderus sp. ranges from 6 to 8.5 mm long and 3-4 mm wide depending on the species (Anichtchenko, 2005). Therefore, Zaballos is not describing an MSS environment but an edaphic one.
2) Barrancos and Ramblas: Despite the similarity between geomorphological units (landforms), there is a significant difference between the concrete habitats that are considered in both studies; Zaballos studied edaphic samples whereas Ortuño et al. studied hypogean samples. There are differences between both habitats is relation to depth and other physical and biological characteristics.
3) Description of the Habitat: Zaballos makes a common mistake when he deduces that the C1 horizon is part of the soil, as he states in his comment above: “The MSS (Mesovoid Shallow Substratum) was discovered and described by Juberthie, Delay & Bouillon (1980) from the soil horizon C1 (p. 25 in Juberthie et al, 1980); thus is classified as part of the edaphic environment.” As Giachino and Vailati (2010) pointed out (p. 44), We believe that the confusion existing around the concept of MSS and its definition should be in part attributable (…) to the fact that from the pedological viewpoint the debris in contact with the bedrock is often identified, when filled by soils, with the so-called “C-horizon” in the profile of a hypothetical soil. For a pedologist, therefore, it is an integral part of the soil iconography, i.e. of what we called the endogean environment that we have just confirmed to be well distinguished from the subterranean one. The latter interpretation is, however, biological, not pedological, and therefore it considers the type of specialization and the ways of life of the organisms concerned. This is perhaps the biggest conceptual obstacle to be overcome so to achieve greater clarity and speak the same language. (…) when the debris are filled with colluvial elements from the soil above, eliminating empty spaces, the MSS does not exist. (…) we could say, in this case, that there is the pedologist’s C-horizon, but not the MSS. Thus, Zaballos is misunderstanding the difference between the soil horizons in edaphology and in subterranean biology. To reiterate this idea, a biospeleologist in a cave is not studying the “soil”. As stated above, the size of the spaces in the edaphic environment and in the MSS is different. In the alluvial MSS there is no mud and soil, but sand and pebbles of different sizes. Ortuño et al. also explained the armouring process that leads to the isolation from the surface, a very different process from the typical soil formation. As described above, the size of the interstices matters; thus, the spaces mentioned in Zaballos (1998) do not correspond to those expected in an MSS.
4) Similarities between photographs: Although they appear to be similar, one can appreciate that figure 4A in Ortuño et al. and figure 7 in Zaballos (1998) show spaces of different size; in the former case the spaces reach several centimeters in diameter whereas in the latter they are so small that they are not even easy to see. In fact, figure 7 in Zaballos´ paper looks more like the structure shown in figures 5A and 5B in Ortuño et al. In these figures, Ortuño et al. showed river beds that were discarded for the study of the MSS because there was no MSS in those river beds, but only soil. Again, we reinforce the idea that the environment in the article of Zaballos is an edaphic (endogean) environment, not an MSS or hypogean environment.
5) Fauna: In Ortuño et al., we described the different ecological roles shown by the fauna that inhabits the MSS, whereas Zaballos (1998) only mentioned the edaphic fauna. Zaballos referred to the study of Juberthie et al. (1980, pp. 34-35) stating that they dedicated a section to Examples of mixture of endogean and subterranean fauna where they said that the endogean and subterranean environments, are differentiated by their type of porosity and, consequently, the size of the spaces. The endogean environment has porosity from interstices, and the spaces are very small. The subterranean environment has porosity from fissures, creating a net of wider spaces, ranging from the millimeter to 10 cm of width. In fact, this supports our argument again. Juberthie et al (1980), as almost all the subterranean biologists, differentiated the endogean environment from the subterranean/hypogean environment. They may be close to one an other, with a more or less developed ecotone, and some fauna from the soil may be present in the MSS, but they are completely different habitats. One could not expect finding the specialized species present in the MSS in a soil (A and B horizons) layer. Giachino and Vailati (2010) explained it very well in their chapter devoted to terminology (p. 28).
After clarifying the scientific reasons why we think that Zaballos has misunderstood the difference between the endogean and the hypogean environments, we would also like to point out some other reasons which made us not to consider his paper as a suitable reference of our alluvial MSS work. For instance, Zaballos did not make any mention to the hypogean fauna or to the MSS at all, only to the edaphobiont fauna throughout his manuscript. Indeed, as previously mentioned, he sampled using a methodology (Berlese funnels) that is suitable for edaphic but not for hypogean fauna.
Ortuño et al. provided a thorough picture of the alluvial MSS, with details about its physical characteristics, formation and evolution, fauna composition, and with a deep discussion about its ecological relevance. All these details make the whole article to be a solid argument for defending the categorization of a new MSS type. Ortuño et al. referred to other environments which could be even more similar to the alluvial MSS, such as the Exposed Riverine Sediments (ERS) (Bates & Sadler 2005, Bates et al. 2007, Sadler & Bates 2007) and the Hyporheic Zone (Orghidan 1955, Robertson & Wood 2010), providing a scientific discussion about the similarities and differences among them. Also, in the antecedents section, Ortuño et al. cited key references that mentioned the presence of hypogean fauna in the new alluvial MSS habitat (Bucciarelli 1960, Jeanne 1976). Thus, we firmly believe that we have given credit to those studies that are relevant for the purposes of our study; we just simply did not find it necessary to explain the differences between the edaphic and the hypogean environments, which are already well differentiated in the literature.
Finally, we would like to make clear that we do not have any conflict of interest. All the decisions concerning the manuscript were agreed among all the authors based on scientific criteria; since at least half of the authors did not know who Zaballos was, we can assure that, on our behalf and contrary to what Zaballos presumes, there is no professional nor personal conflict. We think that it is now up to the readers to compare both studies and make their own conclusions.
Vicente M. Ortuño
José Domingo Gilgado
Alberto Jiménez-Valverde
Alberto Sendra
Gonzalo Pérez-Suárez
Juan José Herrero-Borgoñón
REFERENCES
Anichtchenko, A.V. 2005. Nuevas especies de Platyderus Stephens, 1828 (Coleoptera, Carabidae) de España. Boletín de la Sociedad Andaluza de Entomología, 12: 31-45.
Barranco, P. 2004. Estudio del subgénero Zapetaloptila Gorochov & Llorente, 2001 y descripción de cuatro nuevas especies (Petaloptila Pantel, 1890, Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Graellsia, 60(1): 81-93.
Bates A.J. & Sadler J.P. 2005. The ecology and conservation of beetles associated with exposed riverine sediments. Contract Science Report No. 668, CCW, Bangor.
Bates A.J., Sadler J.P., Perry J.N. & Fowles A.P. 2007. The microspatial distribution of beetles (Coleoptera) on exposed riverine sediments (ERS). European Journal of Entomology, 104: 479-487.
Bucciarelli I (1960) Ulteriori osservazioni sul rinvenimento di troglobi nel letto dei torrenti. Bollettino Società Entomologica Italiana, 90(9-10): 170-171.
Camacho A.I. 1992. A classification of the aquatic and terrestrial subterranean environment and their associated fauna, pp: 57-103. In: Camacho, A.I. (ed.), The Natural History of Biospeleology. Monografías. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. CSIC.
Giachino P.M. & Vailati D. 2010. The Subterranean Environment. Hypogean Life, Concepts and Collecting Techniques. WBA Handbooks, Verona, 132 pp.
Howarth F.G. 1983. Ecology of cave arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology, 28: 365-389.
Jeanne C (1976) Carabiques de la Péninsule Ibérique (2e supplement). Bulletin de la Société Linneanne de Bordeaux, 6(7-10): 27-43.
Juberthie C. & Delay B. 1981. Ecological and biological implications of the existence of a superficial underground compartment. Proceeddings of the Eighth International Congress of Speleology, Bowling Green, 1: 203-206.
Juberthie C., Delay D. & Bouillon M. 1980. Extension du milieu souterrain en zone non calcaire: description d’un nouveau milieu et de son peuplement par les Coléoptères troglobies. Mémoires de Biospéologie, 7: 19-52.
Orghidan T. 1955. Un nouveau domaine de vie souterraine aquatique: le biotope hyporhéique. Buletin stiintific al Academiei R.P. Romania, 7(3): 657-676.
Ortuño V.M., Gilgado J.D., Jiménez-Valverde A., Sendra A., Pérez-Suárez G. & Herrero-Borgoñón J.J. 2013. The "Alluvial Mesovoid Shallow Substratum", a New Subterranean Habitat. PLoS ONE, 8(10): e76311. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076311.
Sadler J.P. & Bates A.J. 2007. The ecohydrology of Invertebrates associated with exposed riverine sediments. Pp. 37-56 In: Wood P.J., Hannah D.M. & Sadler J.P. (eds.). Hydroecology and ecohydrology. Past, present and future. Chichester, UK. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 460 pp.
Schönhofer A.L. & Martens J. 2008. Revision of the genus Trogulus Latreille: the Trogulus coriziformis species-group of the western Mediterranean (Opiliones: Trogulidae). Invertebrate Systematics, 22(5): 523-554.
Simaiakis S.M., Giokas S. & Korsós Z. 2011. Morphometric and meristic diversity of the species Scolopendra cingulata Latreille, 1829 (Chilopoda: Scolopendridae) in the Mediterranean region. Zoologischer Anzeiger-A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 250(1): 67-79.
Robertson A.L. & Wood P.J. 2010. Ecology of the hyporheic zone: origins, current knowledge and future directions. Fundamental and Applied Limnology, 176: 279-289.
Zaballos, J.P. (1998) Un nuevo Geocharis de Almería (Coleoptera, Caraboidea, Trechidae, Anillini). Zoologica Baetica, 8 (1997): 171-180.
RE: RE: Uncited, relevant report of new habitat in dry watercourses from barrancos and ramblas
Zaballos replied to Ortuño on 10 Jan 2014 at 16:50 GMT
Zaballos (1998) specifies the discovery of a new edaphic habitat. The aim of that work is not make a detailed description of that habitat, but the description of Geocharis amicorum, found there. However, the work point out the existence of such new environments in the dry watercourses (barrancos, ramblas, etc), giving rise to further studies; as done by Ortuño et al. 2013 when describing and detailing the conditions and ecological implications of these environments.
The exhaustive emphasis in the difference between endogean and hypogean environment is irrelevant as justification of absence of the citation. The arguments raised by the authors are based in the assumption that edaphic and endogean is the same, and since Zaballos is using the term “edaphic”, is describing an endogean environment. Zaballos does not use the term “endogean” in the paper. The use of edaphic as synonym of endogean as is Giachino & Vailati (2010) is questionable and, in fact, a matter of opinion; and this work was written twelve years later than Zaballos (1998).
Also, the authors are assuming that the use of Berlese apparatus to process the sample is indicative of an endogean sample. Well, it is known that Berlese apparatus can be used to process leaf litter, humus, wood debris, stones, dust, etc., basically whatever type of matter that contain a fauna which can scape and be collected with this mechanism. A different question would be the idoneity of this technique to obtain a whole representation of all the present fauna, in which some (like large animals) could be excluded by many other factors (for example, mesh size), ending in a biased sampling. Anyway, Ortuño (1997), used Berlese apparatus to extract the holotypus of Hypotyphlus huetei, from “the soil of a cave”.
Assuming that the presence of Geocharis is defining the size of the spaces as small spaces is nonsense. A “big space” for Trogulus, Scolopendra or Platyderus is also “big” for Geocharis. Ortuño & Sendra 2007 point out that: “Geocharis est constitué d’espèces endogées, si bien quelques unes ont été trouvées de manière accidentelle à l’intérieure de grottes (Barranco com. pers.), à cause de l’étroite relation entre les horizons édaphiques et les espaces souterrains plus profonds.” And Ortuño & Sendra 2010: “In this way, most of these [Anillini] species are confined to the soil’s small interstices, although some of them are adapted to those wide and deep subterranean spaces (pits and caves) known as hypogean environment. In the Iberian Peninsula, this fact has been observed in certain Geocharis Ehlers, 1883 (Barranco com. pers.), Microtyphlus Linder, 1863 (Ortuño & Carbajal, 1997: 139; Viñolas & Escolà, 1999) and Hypotyphlus Jeannel, 1937 (Español, 1971; Español & Comas, 1984; Ortuño, 1997) species.”
So Geocharis has been collected in caves, i.e. in hypogean and subterranean environments, thus its presence does not mean the environment treated in Zaballos (1998) is not related with the MSS.
The assemblage of fauna reported by Ortuño et al. 2013 (pg. 13) is extremely wide in size and ecological preferences, and the strictly hypogean components, while present, are not so abundant, and are coexisting with endogean and epigean fauna. Even aquatic fauna could be recorded in the same locality!
The efforts in the justification of the absence of citation to the work Zaballos (1998), only ratify the need of having included it.
REFERENCES
Giachino, P.M. and Vailati, D. (2010) The Subterranean Environment. Hypogean Life, Concepts and Collecting Techniques. WBA Handbooks, Verona, 132 pp.
Ortuño, V.M. (1997) Description of a new Hypotyphlus Jeannel from the Sistema Central mountain range in Spain and comments on Hypotyphlus guadarramus (Ehlers) (Coleoptera: Trechidae). The Colleopterists Bulletin, 51 (3): 217-221.
Ortuño, V.M.; Gilgado J.D.; Jiménez-Valverde, A.; Sendra, A.; Pérez-Suárez, G. and Herrero-Borgoñón, J.J. (2013) The "Alluvial Mesovoid Shallow Substratum", a New Subterranean Habitat. PLoS ONE, 8(10): e76311. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076311.
Ortuño, V.M. and Sendra, A. (2007) Taxonomie, systématique et biologie d’un Anillini troglobie exceptionnel (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae): Aphaenotyphlus alegrei Español & Comas 1985. Ann. Soc. entomol. Fr. (n.s.), 43 (3): 297-310.
Ortuño, V.M. and Sendra, A. (2010) Description of Microtyphlus (Speleotyphlus) infernalis n. sp. from Valencia (eastern Iberian Peninsula), and review of the present state of knowledge of this hypogean subgenus (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Anillini). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 117 (1), 169-183.
Zaballos, J.P. (1998) Un nuevo Geocharis de Almería (Coleoptera, Caraboidea, Trechidae, Anillini). Zoologica Baetica, 8 (1997): 171-180.
RE: RE: RE: Uncited, relevant report of new habitat in dry watercourses from barrancos and ramblas
PMGiachino replied to Zaballos on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:29 GMT
Having been repeatedly cited in the current debate, both by Zaballos and by Ortuño, and with the premise that our intervention must not be absolutely understood as a stance in favour of one or the other author, we intend to further clarify our personal point of view in respect of the definition of Subterranean Environment in general and MSS (or Superficial Subterranean Habitat) in particular.
First, we accept the criticism raised by Zaballos to our contribution (Giachino & Vailati, 2010) about a failure to distinguish between Edaphic Environment and Endogean Environment. We are well aware that they are two environments with different characteristics and populated by distinct faunas even if, in certain situations, they are not always clearly separable. However, the focus of our contribution was, in that seat, to deal with the subterranean environment and our main concern was to clearly separate the soil fauna (edaphic and endogean) from the truly subterranean one. We were interested in focusing the error, still widely used by many colleagues, made in defining “endogean” some taxa on the morphological characteristics that bind them frankly to the subterranean environment, but which are not found in caves!
That said, we would like to further reiterate some of the ideas already expressed in our contribution (Giachino & Vailati , 2010), which are essential, in our opinion, to support the two colleagues about a settlement of their dispute. In our sense, the terrestrial Subterranean Environment is essentially a biological concept, and not just a physical one. The subterranean environment exists where there is no light and there is an adequate temperature and humidity which allow the presence of a fauna with morphological and physiological adaptations that enable its life. The direct consequence of this point of view of ours is that the terrestrial subterranean environment may be present in any type of rock that presents a network of fissures in the bed rock characterized by suitable microenvironmental conditions. In fact, as specified in Giachino & Vailati (2010), the real Subterranean Environment is identified with the network of fissures in the bed rock (with much more stable microenvironmental characteristics) and not with caves that are nothing more than fissures in the human dimension. Paradoxically, we may then have even caves characterized by the absence of a Subterranean Environment (just think that for the Italian Speleological Cadastre a cave is considered a hollow, inevitably widely disrupted, having a depth of at least 5 metres and an entrance of 4.5 metres!) and, on the other hand, fissure networks in non-carbonate rocks that host subterranean fauna.
Similarly, in our sense, the MSS is not just a physical structure, but a biological concept and exists only where accumulations of clasts are adequately covered by soil (which acts in the stabilization of temperature, humidity and air movement) and in contact with the fissure network of the bed rock. The subterranean fauna “comes” from the bed rock network and, under suitable conditions of temperature and humidity, it can populate the accumulation of clasts and give rise to a MSS. In other words, the presence of an accumulation of clasts cannot, and should not, be considered a priori sufficient to give origin to a MSS, which, vice versa, will be such when its microenvironmental conditions and, especially, its contact with the underlying network of fissures allows its occupation by a frankly subterranean fauna.
For the same reason Giachino & Vailati (2010 ) suggested not to use the English definition of “Mesovoid Shallow Substrate”, because it itself fraught with misunderstandings, but rather “Superficial Subterranean Habitat”. The meaning of the former definition, in fact, is “superficial substrate with voids of an average size” and suggests a purely physical (morphological) concept of MSS, a synonym for “accumulation of clasts”.
Finally, as already pointed out (Giachino & Vailati , 2010), we would like to recall that in our sense, the MSS is not a separate environment, separated from the Subterranean Environment, and much less a transition environment (between the Subterranean Environment and the soil), but part of the true Subterranean Environment, of which, in certain microclimatic conditions, it constitutes an extension towards the surface.
As a direct result of this approach of ours to the problem and, above all, to the definitions of (terrestrial) Subterranean Environment and MSS, we paused to examine the fauna present in the “new subterranean environment” (with no intention to resolve its paternity) without however finding any taxa with frankly subterranean characteristics. From an analysis of both the contributions mentioned (Zaballos , 1998; Ortuño, 2013), we detect the presence of a fauna with heterogeneous features (epigean, endogean/edaphic, riparian, etc.), but not hypogean in a strict sense. Our personal opinion is therefore that it is certainly an environment (the paternity of which we do not intend to discuss) with particular and very interesting characteristics, but not attributable to the Subterranean Environment as we consider it (Giachino & Vailati , 2010). We therefore believe that the combination of the terms “MSS” and “Alluvial” is, in this case, improper.
References:
Giachino P.M. & Vailati D. 2010. The Subterranean Environment. Hypogean Life, Concepts and Collecting Techniques. WBA Handbooks, Verona, 132 pp.
Ortuño V.M., Gilgado J.D., Jiménez-Valverde A., Sendra A., Pérez-Suárez G. & Herrero-Borgoñón J.J. 2013. The "Alluvial Mesovoid Shallow Substratum", a New Subterranean Habitat. PLoS ONE, 8(10): e76311. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076311.
Zaballos, J.P. (1998) Un nuevo Geocharis de Almería (Coleoptera, Caraboidea, Trechidae, Anillini). Zoologica Baetica, 8 (1997): 171-180.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Uncited, relevant report of new habitat in dry watercourses from barrancos and ramblas
PMGiachino replied to PMGiachino on 07 Feb 2014 at 13:31 GMT
Some objections and arguments contained in private responses by Ortuño and Zaballos lead us to fear that we can still be misunderstood on some definitions concerning our conceptual interpretation of Superficial Subterranean Habitat (MSS) as we have repeatedly expressed (Giachino & Vailati, 2010) and, therefore, the consequent descriptive determination in its terrestrial form. For this reason, we feel obliged to write some clarifications, which we believe useful to dispel any possible future ambiguity.
1) Stating that the MSS is not just a physical structure, but a biological concept, we mean that the morphological characteristics alone (clast deposit in any condition) are not enough to define it, but to determine its existence or not – i.e., the possibility that it may or may not be colonized by specialized elements with hypogeobious habits - is the set of all those microenvironmental conditions, physical and biological (not always present in the accumulation of debris), which are peculiar to the subterranean habitat, which consists basically of the deep fissure network of the local rocky body.
2) As a result, the first prerequisite, for a MSS to exist, is that locally there is a direct contact of the detrital deposit with the underlying fissure network, which ensures a continuous contact between the subterranean habitat and the empty spaces between the clasts, thus favouring also the colonization of the latter by the hypogeobious fauna possibly present at the given place. So it is not correct even to define the habitat type only by the presence or absence of a certain kind of fauna, as its definition depends on the whole set of its characteristics. Moreover, the presence or absence of specialized taxa may depend on historical and/or biogeographic factors.
3) The other essential microenvironmental conditions, which we mentioned above, are of a physical nature too (the absence of light, extremely low temperature range, high values of relative humidity, accessibility of non-filled voids, coverage by a soil, etc.), but it must be stressed that only the continuity with the underlying network of fissures determines its natural extension towards the surface in the MSS. We can say that the network of fissures and the MSS are characterized by different morphologies, but the bio-ecological conditions should be basically homogeneous, so to constitute an environmental continuum, without which it the prerequisites would be lacking in order to make the deposit of debris colonized by the hypogeobious fauna. In this case, the detrital deposit, although appearing similar in its structure, may not be considered a MSS.
4) It is for the same reasons that we have stated that, similarly, even a cave, in many cases, may not be a subterranean habitat. A large rock shelter, fully lit and dry, may be a “cave” for the Speleological Cadastre, but being devoid of appropriate bio-ecological characteristics, it is unlikely to host specialized hypogeobious elements, i.e. a situation that we can liken to a detrital aquifer not covered by soil, dried and exposed to external perturbations, so that it cannot be called a MSS.
5) Given these premises, although noting that the type of populations found in Ortuño’s “Alluvial MSS” would suggest a certainly interesting habitat, but poorly similar to the subterranean one, we cannot evaluate its nature only through some photographs. The experiences we made have convinced us that the real correspondence of a habitat to a real MSS must necessarily pass by a field assessment, made on a case by case basis, through the analysis of all the environmental - morphological, physical and biological - characteristics as it indeed happens everywhere, even in forest or high mountain areas or any other place where other factors may have their weight, such as topography, exposure, climate and pedogenic processes that have been able to determine them.