It is clear that the above can lead to confusion when scientists of different countries are trying to communicate with each other. Another example is the burrowing rodent called a gopher found throughout the western United States. In the southeastern United States the term gopher refers to a burrowing turtle very similar to the desert tortoise found in the American southwest. One final example; two North American mammals known as the elk and the caribou are known in Europe as the reindeer and the elk. We never sing “Rudolph the Red-nosed elk”! Confused? This was the reason for creating an internationally recognized system of naming organisms. To avoid confusion, living organisms are assigned a scientific name based on Latin or Latinized words. The English sparrow is Passer domesticus or Passer domesticus (italics or underlining these two names is the official written representation of a scientific name). Using a uniform naming system allows scientists from all over the world to recognize exactly which life form a scientist is referring to. The naming process is called the binomial system of nomenclature. Passer is comparable to a surname and is called the genus, while domesticus is the specific or species name (like your given name) of the English sparrow. Now scientists can give all sparrow-like birds the genus Passer but the species name will vary. All similar genera (plural for genus) can be grouped into another, “higher” category (see below). Study the following for a more through understanding of taxonomy. Taxonomy Analogy Kingdom: Animalia Country

Diversity of life

Our daily life depends on many services delivered by the planet’s ecosystems. Groundwater ecosystems deliver services that are of immense societal and economic value, such as: 1) purification of water and its storage in good quality for decades and centuries, 2) active biodegradation of anthropogenic contaminants and inactivation and elimination of pathogens, 3) nutrient recycling, and 4) mitigation of floods and droughts. Many of these services are directly connected to the presence and activity of specific organisms, microorganisms, or metazoa. Sustainable protection and management of important groundwater ecosystem services will require quantitative understanding of processes at different spatial and temporal scales and assessment of their resistance and resilience with regard to common anthropogenic impacts. Our review compiles known groundwater ecosystem services and, where appropriate, highlights important research gaps.

Groundwater ecosystem services: a review

The present review with focus on the last decade (2000–2010) aims to (i) collecting the major hypotheses explaining freshwater biodiversity patterns, (ii) identifying the main stressors affecting freshwater biodiversity, and (iii) revealing information gaps regarding ecosystem types, organism groups, spatial and temporal scales to highlight research needs to better propose sound conservation measures. The comparative analysis addresses six organism groups ranging from microorganisms to fish in basins, rivers, lakes, wetlands, ponds and groundwater. Short-term studies at ecoregion and catchment scale focusing on invertebrates, macrophytes and fish in Palaearctic and Nearctic regions dominated. The most frequent hypotheses tested were the landscape filter concept, the species–area relationship, the metacommunity concept. Dominating natural drivers were area, heterogeneity and disturbance. Land use, eutrophication and habitat destruction were identified as most important stressors. Generally, freshwater biodiversity declined in response to these stressors in contrast to increasing biodiversity determined by natural drivers across all ecosystems. Preferred organism groups were fish and invertebrates, most frequently studied in rivers, in contrast to smaller organisms (e.g. bacteria) and, e.g. groundwater being underrepresented. Hypotheses originating from the last century are still tested in freshwater research, while novel concepts are either missing or untested. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is the ultimate challenge since it supports valuable ecosystems services ensuring perpetuation of mankind. For that, comprehensive large-scale studies with holistic approaches are urgently needed.

Drivers and stressors of freshwater biodiversity patterns across different ecosystems and scales: a review

In this overview (introductory article to a special issue including 14 papers), we consider all main types of natural and artificial inland freshwater habitas (fwh). For each type, we identify the main biodiversity patterns and ecological features, human impacts on the system and environmental issues, and discuss ways to use this information to improve stewardship. Examples of selected key biodiversity/ecological features (habitat type): narrow endemics, sensitive (groundwater and GDEs); crenobionts, LIHRes (springs); unidirectional flow, nutrient spiraling (streams); naturally turbid, floodplains, large-bodied species (large rivers); depth-variation in benthic communities (lakes); endemism and diversity (ancient lakes); threatened, sensitive species (oxbow lakes, SWE); diverse, reduced littoral (reservoirs); cold-adapted species (Boreal and Arctic fwh); endemism, depauperate (Antarctic fwh); flood pulse, intermittent wetlands, biggest river basins (tropical fwh); variable hydrologic regime—periods of drying, flash floods (arid-climate fwh). Selected impacts: eutrophication and other pollution, hydrologic modifications, overexploitation, habitat destruction, invasive species, salinization. Climate change is a threat multiplier, and it is important to quantify resistance, resilience, and recovery to assess the strategic role of the different types of freshwater ecosystems and their value for biodiversity conservation. Effective conservation solutions are dependent on an understanding of connectivity between different freshwater ecosystems (including related terrestrial, coastal and marine systems).

Characteristics, main impacts, and stewardship of natural and artificial freshwater environments: consequences for biodiversity conservation

Summary

1. A large proportion of the total river length on Earth comprises rivers that are temporary in nature. However, the effects of periodical dry events have received far less attention from ecologists than those of floods and low flows.



2. This study concomitantly examined the effects of flow intermittence on invertebrates from the streambed surface and from a depth of 30 cm in the hyporheic zone. Invertebrates were collected during 3 years in the Albarine River, France, before and after summer dry events from 18 sites (seven were perennial) distributed along a longitudinal flow intermittence gradient.



3. I predicted benthic and hyporheic density and taxonomic richness to decrease, and assemblage composition to shift from desiccation-sensitive to desiccation-resistant taxa with increased dry event duration. Second, I predicted benthic and hyporheic assemblages from sites that dried for longer periods to be nested subsets of assemblages from sites that dried for shorter periods. Last, I predicted a convergence in benthic and hyporheic assemblage composition with increasing duration of dry events, resulting from increased vertical migration of benthic taxa into the hyporheic sediments to cope with dry events.



4. Increased dry event duration in the Albarine River led to a decrease in both benthic and hyporheic density and taxonomic richness. Invertebrate assemblage composition shifted along the gradient of increasing flow intermittence, but broad taxonomic overlap between perennial and temporary reaches and nestedness patterns indicated that these shifts were because of the loss of taxa susceptible to drying rather than selection for desiccation-resistant specialists.



5. Assemblage composition between benthic and hyporheic invertebrates diverged with increasing dry event duration, suggesting that the hyporheic zone did not act as a refuge during dry events in this river.



6. Quantitative studies on the relationships between ecology and intermittence are still rare but are needed to predict the consequences of future changes in flow intermittence. The relationships found in this study should be tested across a wide range of temporary rivers to better evaluate the generality of these findings.

Benthic and hyporheic invertebrate assemblages along a flow intermittence gradient: effects of duration of dry events

Summary


1. The spatial patterns of groundwater biodiversity in Europe remain poorly known, yet their knowledge is essential to understand local variation in groundwater assemblages and to develop sound conservation policies. We explore here the broad-scale distribution of groundwater biodiversity across Europe, focussing on obligate subterranean species.



2. We compiled published distributional data of obligate subterranean aquatic taxa for six European countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain), and conducted a detailed biological survey of six regions (one in Belgium, two in France, one in Italy, one in Slovenia and one in Spain). Based on this data set, we mapped spatial patterns of biodiversity in Europe on a cell grid with 0.2 × 0.2 ° resolution.



3. As of mid-2006, the total number of described stygobiotic species in the six countries was 930 and the total number of genera with at least one described stygobiotic species was 191. The total number of sampling sites where at least one stygobiont had been collected was 4709, distributed in 1228 of the 4668 grid cells covering the study area.



4. Groundwater stygobiotic biodiversity was dominated by Crustacea with 757 species in 122 genera. Insects were represented by only two species of a single genus of dytiscid beetles restricted to south-eastern France.



5. The geographic distribution of stygobionts was extremely heterogeneous. Stygobionts were recorded in 26% of the 4668 grid cells and only 33 cells had more than 20 stygobiotic species. These 33 ‘hot-cells’ of groundwater species richness clustered in seven hotspots.



6. Endemicity was very high, with 43% of the total number of stygobiotic species restricted to a single cell, i.e. <500 km2.



7. Hotspots defined by rarity, number of genera, number of genera with only one species known in Europe, or number of monospecific genera differed markedly in ranking from those based on species richness. However, a core of four hotspots emerged in all cases: one stretching across Slovenia and northeastern Italy, one in the French Pyrenees, one in the Cevennes in southern France and one in the Rhine River valley in northeastern France.



8. Unevenness in stygobiont distribution cannot be explained solely by unevenness in sampling effort. This is indicated in particular by the fact that our comprehensive sampling survey roughly matched the level of taxonomic richness of the studied regions based on previously published information.



9. With sampling effort continuing, a twofold or higher increase in species richness can be expected in several Mediterranean areas, with a potential to discover up to 50% more new species than are currently known in the region.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.01972.x

Groundwater biodiversity in Europe.

De nombreuses donnees existent sur la faune aquatique souterraine de France mais elles sont encore dispersees Depuis 2002, un effort a ete entrepris pour rassembler sous la forme d'une base de donnees, les informations disponibles concernant la distribution de cette faune aquatique souterraine de France Un premier bilan en est presente dans cet article La base comprend actuellement 381 especes et sous-especes correspondant a plus de 5700 enregistrements Cette diversite place la faune francaise parmi l'une des plus riches faunes aquatiques souterraines d'Europe Le bilan realise montre que l'etat actuel des connaissances est tres heterogene en fonction du groupe zoologique considere et de la region etudiee La base de donnees sera utilisee pour identifier les regions a forte de biodiversite (richesse specifique, endemisme) et les aires francaises de conservation prioritaires Elle permettra egalement de formuler et de tester differentes hypotheses sur l'origine et les facteurs responsables de la biodiversite aquatique souterraine

G. Magniez

Papers

Groundwater biodiversity in Europe.

Faune aquatique souterraine de France : base de données et éléments de biogéographie.