# Are caves enough to represent karst groundwater biodiversity? Insights from geospatial analyses applied to European obligate groundwater-dwelling copepods

## TL;DR

This study examines whether caves alone can represent the biodiversity of groundwater copepods in European karst regions, using a large dataset to compare species richness in caves versus other habitats.

## Contribution

The study provides the first Europe-wide analysis of groundwater copepod biodiversity in karst areas using a validated dataset and geospatial methods.

## Key findings

- Cave records represent 73.9% of karst copepod records and 86.1% of species richness in these habitats.
- Hotspots of copepod diversity in caves align with postglacial refugia in southern Europe.
- Cave biodiversity may not fully represent broader karst groundwater diversity, depending on regional karst morphology.

## Abstract

Caves are recognized as biodiversity hotspots for groundwater fauna, including obligate groundwater-dwelling copepods (Crustacea: Copepoda), exhibiting high species richness, endemism, and phylogenetic rarity. However, the extent to which caves alone provide a representative estimate of copepod species richness in karst areas remains uncertain. Taking advantage of the recently published EGCop dataset, the first expert-validated, Europe-wide occurrence dataset for obligate groundwater-dwelling copepods (hereinafter, GW copepods), this study investigates the distribution of GW copepods into karst areas, comparing species richness in caves versus other karst groundwater habitats (e.g., springs, karst streams, artificial wells), within and among the European karst units. The main aims are: (i) identifying karst areas which represent hotpots of GW copepod species richness; (ii) assessing to which extent caves, as open windows to the subterranean environments, contribute to define hotspots of GW copepods’ species richness into karst areas across Europe. EGCop comprises 6,986 records from 588 copepod species/subspecies distributed among four orders: Cyclopoida (3,664 records, 184 species), Harpacticoida (3,288 records, 395 species), Calanoida (32 records, seven species), and Gelyelloida (two records, two species). To perform geospatial analyses, we filtered the dataset by: (i) selecting only the records with spatial uncertainty in the associated coordinates lower than 10 km; (ii) searching for those records falling within, or very close to, the polygons representing European karst areas. Species richness hotspots were then estimated through geospatial analyses in geographic information system (GIS) environment. Within the selected records, those specifically referring to karst habitats (2,526 records, 369 species) are primarily represented by Harpacticoida (1,199 records, 228 species) and Cyclopoida (1,293 records, 132 species). Among species collected from karst habitats, records from caves (1,867, 73.9%) belong to 318 species (Harpacticoida = 189, Cyclopoida = 122, Calanoida = 7), representing 86.1% of the total species richness of karst habitats. Geospatial analyses reveal that the European hotspots of GW copepods’ species richness recorded exclusively in caves reflect the spatial arrangement of postglacial refugia in southern karst regions, though representing a subset of the broader diversity found across all karst groundwater habitats. Our findings highlight that the contribution of cave systems in groundwater biodiversity assessments and related conservation planning may vary depending on the evolution and morphologies of the target karst regions—often pointing to a high representativeness of caves for subterranean biodiversity, sometimes revealing their lower explanatory power within the broader karst systems.