A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna
First online: 20 July 2014 Antarctic arthropods (mites and springtails) have been the subject of numerous studies. However, by far, the most diverse and numerically dominant fauna in Antarctica are the limno-terrestrial microfauna (tardigrades, rotifers and nematodes). Although they have been the fo...
Published in: | Polar Biology |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Springer-Verlag
2014
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/94763 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 |
id |
ftunivadelaidedl:oai:digital.library.adelaide.edu.au:2440/94763 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivadelaidedl:oai:digital.library.adelaide.edu.au:2440/94763 2023-12-24T10:11:29+01:00 A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna Velasco-Castrillón, A. Gibson, J. Stevens, M. 2014 http://hdl.handle.net/2440/94763 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 en eng Springer-Verlag Polar Biology, 2014; 37(10):1517-1531 0722-4060 1432-2056 http://hdl.handle.net/2440/94763 doi:10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 Stevens, M. [0000-0003-1505-1639] © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 Tardigrada Rotifera Nematoda DNA barcoding Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBR) Journal article 2014 ftunivadelaidedl https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 2023-11-27T23:18:51Z First online: 20 July 2014 Antarctic arthropods (mites and springtails) have been the subject of numerous studies. However, by far, the most diverse and numerically dominant fauna in Antarctica are the limno-terrestrial microfauna (tardigrades, rotifers and nematodes). Although they have been the focus of several studies, there remains uncertainty of the actual number of species in Antarctica. Inadequate sampling and conserved morphology are the main cause of misclassification of species and underestimation of this diversity. Most species’ distributional records are dominated by proximity to research stations or limited opportunistic collections, and therefore, an absence of records for a species may also be a consequence of the limitations of sampling. Limitations in fundamental knowledge of how many species are present and how widespread they are prevents any meaningful analyses that have been applied more generally to the arthropods within Antarctica, such as exploring ancient origins (at least pre-last glacial maximum) and tracking colonisation routes from glacial refugia. In this review, we list published species names and where possible the distribution of microfaunal (tardigrade, rotifer and nematode) species reported for Antarctica. Our current state of knowledge of Antarctic records (south of 60°S) includes 28 bdelloid rotifers, 66 monogonont rotifers, 59 tardigrades and 68 nematodes. In the light of the difficulties in working with microfauna across such geographical scales, we emphasise the need for molecular markers to help understand the ‘true levels’ of diversity and suggest future directions for Antarctic biodiversity assessment and species discovery. Alejandro Velasco-Castrillón, John A. E. Gibson, Mark I. Stevens Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctic Antarctica Polar Biology Rotifer Tardigrade The University of Adelaide: Digital Library Antarctic Polar Biology 37 10 1517 1531 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
The University of Adelaide: Digital Library |
op_collection_id |
ftunivadelaidedl |
language |
English |
topic |
Tardigrada Rotifera Nematoda DNA barcoding Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBR) |
spellingShingle |
Tardigrada Rotifera Nematoda DNA barcoding Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBR) Velasco-Castrillón, A. Gibson, J. Stevens, M. A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna |
topic_facet |
Tardigrada Rotifera Nematoda DNA barcoding Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBR) |
description |
First online: 20 July 2014 Antarctic arthropods (mites and springtails) have been the subject of numerous studies. However, by far, the most diverse and numerically dominant fauna in Antarctica are the limno-terrestrial microfauna (tardigrades, rotifers and nematodes). Although they have been the focus of several studies, there remains uncertainty of the actual number of species in Antarctica. Inadequate sampling and conserved morphology are the main cause of misclassification of species and underestimation of this diversity. Most species’ distributional records are dominated by proximity to research stations or limited opportunistic collections, and therefore, an absence of records for a species may also be a consequence of the limitations of sampling. Limitations in fundamental knowledge of how many species are present and how widespread they are prevents any meaningful analyses that have been applied more generally to the arthropods within Antarctica, such as exploring ancient origins (at least pre-last glacial maximum) and tracking colonisation routes from glacial refugia. In this review, we list published species names and where possible the distribution of microfaunal (tardigrade, rotifer and nematode) species reported for Antarctica. Our current state of knowledge of Antarctic records (south of 60°S) includes 28 bdelloid rotifers, 66 monogonont rotifers, 59 tardigrades and 68 nematodes. In the light of the difficulties in working with microfauna across such geographical scales, we emphasise the need for molecular markers to help understand the ‘true levels’ of diversity and suggest future directions for Antarctic biodiversity assessment and species discovery. Alejandro Velasco-Castrillón, John A. E. Gibson, Mark I. Stevens |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Velasco-Castrillón, A. Gibson, J. Stevens, M. |
author_facet |
Velasco-Castrillón, A. Gibson, J. Stevens, M. |
author_sort |
Velasco-Castrillón, A. |
title |
A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna |
title_short |
A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna |
title_full |
A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna |
title_fullStr |
A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna |
title_full_unstemmed |
A review of current Antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna |
title_sort |
review of current antarctic limno-terrestrial microfauna |
publisher |
Springer-Verlag |
publishDate |
2014 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/2440/94763 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 |
geographic |
Antarctic |
geographic_facet |
Antarctic |
genre |
Antarc* Antarctic Antarctica Polar Biology Rotifer Tardigrade |
genre_facet |
Antarc* Antarctic Antarctica Polar Biology Rotifer Tardigrade |
op_source |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 |
op_relation |
Polar Biology, 2014; 37(10):1517-1531 0722-4060 1432-2056 http://hdl.handle.net/2440/94763 doi:10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 Stevens, M. [0000-0003-1505-1639] |
op_rights |
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1544-4 |
container_title |
Polar Biology |
container_volume |
37 |
container_issue |
10 |
container_start_page |
1517 |
op_container_end_page |
1531 |
_version_ |
1786165678557888512 |