Next Article in Journal
Genetic Segregation and Genomic Hybridization Patterns Support an Allotetraploid Structure and Disomic Inheritance for Salix Species
Previous Article in Journal
DNA Markers for Food Products Authentication
Article Menu

Export Article

Diversity 2014, 6(3), 597-632; doi:10.3390/d6030597

Review
Patterns of Macroinvertebrate and Fish Diversity in Freshwater Sulphide Springs
Ryan Greenway 1,*, Lenin Arias-Rodriguez 2, Pete Diaz 3 and Michael Tobler 1
1
Division of Biology, Kansas State University, 116 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
2
División Académica de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, Villahermosa, C.P. 86150, Mexico
3
Texas Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 500 East McCarty Lane, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; Tel.: +1-785-532-6653.
Received: 28 April 2014; in revised form: 31 July 2014 / Accepted: 29 August 2014 / Published: 18 September 2014

Abstract

: Extreme environments are characterised by the presence of physicochemical stressors and provide unique study systems to address problems in evolutionary ecology research. Sulphide springs provide an example of extreme freshwater environments; because hydrogen sulphide’s adverse physiological effects induce mortality in metazoans even at micromolar concentrations. Sulphide springs occur worldwide, but while microbial communities in sulphide springs have received broad attention, little is known about macroinvertebrates and fish inhabiting these toxic environments. We reviewed qualitative occurrence records of sulphide spring faunas on a global scale and present a quantitative case study comparing diversity patterns in sulphidic and adjacent non-sulphidic habitats across replicated river drainages in Southern Mexico. While detailed studies in most regions of the world remain scarce, available data suggests that sulphide spring faunas are characterised by low species richness. Dipterans (among macroinvertebrates) and cyprinodontiforms (among fishes) appear to dominate the communities in these habitats. At least in fish, there is evidence for the presence of highly endemic species and populations exclusively inhabiting sulphide springs. We provide a detailed discussion of traits that might predispose certain taxonomic groups to colonize sulphide springs, how colonizers subsequently adapt to cope with sulphide toxicity, and how adaptation may be linked to speciation processes.
Keywords:
adaptation; biodiversity; cyprinodontiformes; diptera; ecological speciation; endemism; evolution; extreme environments; hydrogen sulphide; poeciliidae

1. Introduction

Freshwater ecosystems harbour a considerable proportion of Earth’s biodiversity, even though they cover <2% of the land surface [1,2,3]. Most of this diversity is located in lakes and river systems, particularly in the tropics [4]. However, other freshwater environments that often occur at small spatial scales can harbour a significant portion of biodiversity, not necessarily because of their species richness, but because of high levels of endemism. Many spatially restricted habitats can be considered extreme environments that are characterised by the presence of physicochemical stressors lying outside the range normally experienced by a taxon and requiring costly adaptations absent in closely related taxa for the maintenance of homeostasis [5,6]. Such adaptations allow some organisms to thrive in places that are lethal for most others, giving rise to unique ecological communities. Prime examples of extreme freshwater environments include subterranean streams and lakes [7,8], desert springs [9,10], Antarctic lakes [11], and environments with rampant hypoxia [12]. Extreme environments have provided excellent study systems in ecology and evolution research, as they allow elucidating the effects of physicochemical stressors at multiple levels of biological organization [13,14], yet patterns of biodiversity in extreme environments remain relatively understudied.

Environments rich in naturally occurring hydrogen sulphide (H2S) are one form of extreme habitat found in aquatic systems throughout the world. Because of its lipid solubility, H2S freely penetrates biological membranes and readily invades organisms [15,16]. Like cyanide, it is an inhibitor of cytochrome c oxidase and blocks electron transport in aerobic respiration, thereby hampering the function of mitochondria and the production of ATP [17,18]. H2S is also able to modify oxygen transport proteins [19] and inhibit about 20 other enzymes [15]. Consequently, H2S is highly toxic for aerobic organisms even in micromolar concentrations [16,20,21].

Naturally occurring H2S can be found in a variety of aquatic environments. It is produced in anoxic sediments of swamps, marshes, and cold seeps by bacterial metabolism of organic and inorganic carbon sources, and disturbance of sediments can result in high—but often temporally variable—H2S concentrations in the water column [22,23,24,25]. High and sustained concentrations of H2S can also be found in aquatic environments associated with oil deposits and geothermal activity [26,27]. The effects of H2S on biodiversity, as well as the ecology and evolution of organisms inhabiting sulphidic environments, have mostly been studied in cold seeps and deep-sea hydrothermal vents [28,29,30,31,32,33]. Here, we focus on patterns of macroinvertebrate and fish biodiversity in freshwater springs that discharge water rich in H2S. We first qualitatively review the global occurrence of such springs and the organisms that have been able to colonize them, focusing in part on specific adaptations to sulphide-rich environments, and then provide a quantitative comparison of diversity patterns between sulphidic and adjacent non-sulphidic habitats in Southern Mexico.

2. Freshwater Sulphide Springs: Occurrence and Environmental Variation

Freshwater springs discharging sulphide-rich waters can be found on all continents, with the exception of Antarctica (see Figure 1 for an overview). In general, the presence of sulphide is associated with either of two sources. First, sulphide springs can be associated with volcanic activity, where H2S from geological origins is enriched in groundwater through similar processes as those occurring in deep sea hydrothermal vents [34,35]. During the interaction of the water with hot basaltic rock, a diversity of chemicals leach into solution, including sulphate and other sulphur species that are readily transformed into sulphide under the highly reductive conditions [36,37,38]. Second, sulphide springs can be associated with underground oil deposits, where mineral-rich groundwater containing sulphate mixes with hydrocarbons derived from fossil organic matter in the absence of oxygen [39,40,41]. As in marine cold seeps, sulphur-reducing bacteria then reduce sulphate to H2S, while oxidizing organic compounds, during energy metabolism [22,42]. During this process, groundwater is being enriched in H2S and ultimately discharged through surface springs [40,43].

Figure 1. (A) Political map of the world indicating the locations of H2S-rich springs (blue dots). Red dots represent sulphide springs with records of fish. Locality information was assembled by reviewing previously published literature (see Table 1 and [35,40,41,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]). Additionally depicted are representative fish species from sulphide spring habitats: (B) Cyprinodon bobmilleri (Mexico); (C) Limia sulphurophila (Dominican Republic); (D) Aphanius dispar (Iran; photo by Azad Teimori); (E) Gambusia eurystoma (Mexico); (F) Poecilia thermalis (Mexico); and (G) Xiphophorus hellerii (Mexico).
Figure 1. (A) Political map of the world indicating the locations of H2S-rich springs (blue dots). Red dots represent sulphide springs with records of fish. Locality information was assembled by reviewing previously published literature (see Table 1 and [35,40,41,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]). Additionally depicted are representative fish species from sulphide spring habitats: (B) Cyprinodon bobmilleri (Mexico); (C) Limia sulphurophila (Dominican Republic); (D) Aphanius dispar (Iran; photo by Azad Teimori); (E) Gambusia eurystoma (Mexico); (F) Poecilia thermalis (Mexico); and (G) Xiphophorus hellerii (Mexico).
Diversity 06 00597 g001 1024
Table 1. Evolutionarily independent populations recorded from sulphide spring habitats, including specific localities and references.
Table 1. Evolutionarily independent populations recorded from sulphide spring habitats, including specific localities and references.
SpeciesLocationsReferences
Synbranchidae
Ophisternon aenigmaticumEl Azufre II (Rio Tacotalpa drainage) and La Gloria (Rio Pichucalco drainage) springs, MexicoThis study
Cyprinodontidae
Cyprinodon bobmilleri Baños de San Ignacio (Rio San Fernando drainage), Mexico[60]; Schlupp (personal communication)
Aphanius ginaonis Ginao spring (Hormuzgan drainage), Iran[61,62]
Aphanius dispar *Khurgu, Faryab, and Howba springs (Hormuzgan drainage), Dalaki and Mirahmad springs (Helleh drainage), Iran[62,63]
Aphanius furcatus *Khurgu and Faryab springs (Hormuzgan drainage), Iran[62,63]
Poeciliidae
Acanthophacelus reticulataPoza Azufre (Rio San Juan drainage), Venezuela[64,65]
Brachyrhaphis roseniSpring near David (Rio David drainage), PanamaS. Ingley (personal communication)
Gambusia affinisVendome Well/Black Sulphur Springs (Red River drainage), Oklahoma[66,67]
Gambusia eurystoma Baños del Azufre (Rio Pichucalco drainage), Mexico[68,69]
Gambusia holbrooki *Green (St. John’s River drainage), Newport (Wakulla River drainage), and Panacea Mineral Springs (Dickerson Bay area), Florida[70]
Gambusia sexradiataMogote del Puyacatengo (Puyacatengo drainage), Mexico[71]
Limia sulphurophila * ,Balnearios La Zurza and La Zufrada (Lake Enriquillo basin), Dominican Republic[72,73]
Poecilia formosaBaños de San Ignacio (Río San Fernando drainage), MéxicoSchlupp (personal communication)
Poecilia latipinnaPanacea Mineral Springs (Dickerson Bay area), Florida[74]
Poecilia mexicana limantouriBaños de San Ignacio (Río San Fernando drainage), MéxicoSchlupp (personal communication)
Poecilia mexicana mexicanaEl Azufre springs and Cueva del Azufre (Tacotalpa drainage), Mexico[75,76]
Poecilia mexicana mexicanaLa Lluvia and Puyacatengo springs (Puyacatengo drainage), Mexico[76,77]
Poecilia sulphuraria †,*Baños del Azufre and La Gloria springs (Pichucalco drainage), Mexico[76,77]
Poecilia thermalis La Esperanza springs (Ixtapangajoya drainage), Mexico[77]
Poeciliopsis elongataSpring near David (Rio David drainage), PanamaS. Ingley (personal communication)
Priapichthys annectensSpring in Rincón de la Vieja National Park (Rio Colorado drainage), Costa RicaJ. Johnson (personal communication)
Priapichthys panamensisSpring near David (Rio David drainage), PanamaS. Ingley (personal communication)
Pseudoxiphophorus bimaculatusLa Gloria springs (Pichucalco drainage), MexicoThis study
Xiphophorus hellerii *La Lluvia (Puyacatengo drainage) and La Gloria springs (Pichucalco drainage), MexicoThis study

Species that were described from and are endemic to sulphide springs. * Species that potentially include populations that have independently colonised sulphide spring environments.

H2S concentrations found in freshwater sulphide springs can be highly variable across springs, although most springs tend to discharge relatively constant levels of H2S [78]. Some springs classified as sulphidic contain as little as 20 μM of H2S [76], but even such low concentrations are biologically relevant and considered toxic for most metazoans [16]. Conversely, peak concentrations of H2S have been reported to exceed 7000 μM in some springs [79]. Currently available data suggest that H2S concentrations in most springs lie in between these extremes, with a large number of springs having concentrations towards the lower end of the spectrum (i.e., <2500 μM H2S [40,41,44,47,76,78,80]).

Besides the presence of H2S, sulphide springs also differ from adjacent, non-sulphidic habitats in a series of other biologically relevant environmental parameters. Similar to variation in H2S concentrations, springs substantially vary in temperature, with reported values ranging from around 5 °C to over 100 °C [35,40,41,47,48,57,76,81]. Temperature variation appears to be related in part to the geographic location of springs as well as the ultimate sources of H2S production. Sulphide springs are often also characterised by increased concentrations of bicarbonate, calcium sulphate, sodium chloride, and other ions (leading to substantial increases of specific conductivity [39]), and by lower pH likely caused by the presence of sulphuric acid from chemical and bacterial H2S oxidation (although pH reductions are dependent on the buffering capacity of the water in the region) [57,76,82]. Finally, upon the discharge of sulphidic water at the surface, H2S spontaneously oxidizes in water, causing and aggravating hypoxic conditions in aquatic systems [83,84]. Consequently, environmental conditions in sulphide springs are not only toxic for most metazoans, but variation in correlated environmental parameters may also affect the acid-base balance, osmoregulation, and constrain oxygen acquisition of aquatic organisms [16,21].

3. An Overview of Biodiversity in Sulphide Springs

H2S-rich freshwater environments (Figure 2) have long captured the attention of microbiologists, because a wide variety of bacteria and archaea are associated with the natural sulphur cycle [85,86,87]. This not only includes sulphur reducing microbes, including the sulphate reducers involved in the production of H2S mentioned above [22,88], but the presence of H2S inevitably also supports a diversity of sulphur oxidizing bacteria [89,90]. The coexistence of sulphur reducers and oxidizers creates complex dynamics of sulphur cycling, where sulphate-reducing bacteria use sulphate as a terminal electron acceptor to metabolize a variety of carbon sources to produce sulphide as a by-product, which in turn is used by sulphide-oxidizing bacteria as an energy source to assimilate CO2 and produce oxidised sulphur species as metabolic by-products [87,91]. Sulphur metabolizing microbes play a critical role in sulphidic ecosystems, because they contribute to primary production through chemoautotrophy [36,92,93,94] and can serve as a food source for consumers inhabiting sulphide springs. While biodiversity of microbes inhabiting sulphide-rich environments is relatively well understood at multiple levels of biological organization, few studies have addressed patterns of metazoan diversity.

Figure 2. Examples of the diversity of sulphide springs inhabited by fishes. (A) Green Springs, Florida (inhabited by Gambusia holbrooki; photo by Rüdiger Riesch); (B) La Zurza spring, Dominican Republic (Limia sulphurophila); (C) Baños de San Ignacio, Mexico (Cyprinodon bobmilleri, Poecilia mexicana limantouri, and P. formosa; photo by Ingo Schlupp); (D) El Azufre II, Mexico (sulphidic ecotype of P. mexicana mexicana and Ophisternon aenigmaticum); (E) Puyacatengo springs, Mexico (sulphidic ecotype of P. m. mexicana); (F) La Esperanza (big) springs, Mexico (P. thermalis); (G) La Gloria springs, Mexico (P. sulphuraria, Pseudoxiphophorus bimaculata, Xiphophorus hellerii, and Ophisternon aenigmaticum); (H) a sulphide spring near David, Panama (Brachyraphis roseni, Poeciliopsis elongata, and Priapichthys panamensis; photo by Spencer Ingley); and (I) Faryab springs, Iran (Aphanius dispar and A. furcatus; photo by Azad Teimori).
Figure 2. Examples of the diversity of sulphide springs inhabited by fishes. (A) Green Springs, Florida (inhabited by Gambusia holbrooki; photo by Rüdiger Riesch); (B) La Zurza spring, Dominican Republic (Limia sulphurophila); (C) Baños de San Ignacio, Mexico (Cyprinodon bobmilleri, Poecilia mexicana limantouri, and P. formosa; photo by Ingo Schlupp); (D) El Azufre II, Mexico (sulphidic ecotype of P. mexicana mexicana and Ophisternon aenigmaticum); (E) Puyacatengo springs, Mexico (sulphidic ecotype of P. m. mexicana); (F) La Esperanza (big) springs, Mexico (P. thermalis); (G) La Gloria springs, Mexico (P. sulphuraria, Pseudoxiphophorus bimaculata, Xiphophorus hellerii, and Ophisternon aenigmaticum); (H) a sulphide spring near David, Panama (Brachyraphis roseni, Poeciliopsis elongata, and Priapichthys panamensis; photo by Spencer Ingley); and (I) Faryab springs, Iran (Aphanius dispar and A. furcatus; photo by Azad Teimori).
Diversity 06 00597 g002 1024

3.1. Macroinvertebrates in Sulphide Spring Environments

Macroinvertebrate diversity in environments with sulphurous waters has particularly been studied in hot mineral springs of Yellowstone National Park and other parts of the western United States, some of which contain elevated levels of H2S (e.g., [95,96]). Records from sulphide springs in other parts of the world are relatively scarce and often anecdotal. Larvae of dipterans appear to dominate sulphide-rich spring environments both in terms of diversity and abundance. Multiple families of dipterans are represented in sulphide springs, including a species of Ceratopogonidae (Bezzia setulosa) in Yellowstone [97], multiple species of Chironomidae [97,98], a species of Culicidae (Culiseta incidens) in springs of Western North America [99], two species of Ephydridae in California (Thiomyia quatei) and Yellowstone (Ephydra thermophila) [45,82,97], a species of Psychodidae (Pericoma truncate) in California [45], a species of Stratiomyidae (Odontomyia cf. occidentalis) in Yellowstone [82], as well as species of Syrphidae in Israel (Eristalis sp.) and the Russian Kamchatkan peninsula (Eristalinus sepulchralis) [46,100]. Dipteran larvae are mostly found living in and feeding on bacterial mats within sulphide springs, and ephydrid and pyschodid adult flies have been observed feeding and reproducing on these mats as well [45,46,82,101]. Besides dipterans, the only other insects reported from sulphide springs are trichopterans (based on the presence of larval casings in Yellowstone) [101] and hemipterans of the genus Belostoma in Mexico [102]. Finally, aquatic snails (Gastropoda) have also been recorded in sulphide springs. Melanoides tuberculata (a livebearing snail of the family Thiaridae) has been reported from a spring in Israel [100], Physa gyrina (Physidae) and Helisoma trivolvis (Planorbidae) in Oklahoma [66], and Stagnicola palustris (Lymnaeidae) in Yellowstone [96].

While records for the macroinvertebrate fauna in surface sulphide springs remain fragmentary, it is important to note that such springs are also present in a variety of subterranean habitats, including the Movile Cave (Romania) [93], Frasassi Cave and Grotta de Fiume Coperto (Italy) [103,104], Villa Luz Cave (Mexico) [105,106], Lower Kane Cave (Wyoming) [107], and the Edwards Aquifer (Texas) [108]. The faunal communities of these subterranean aquatic habitats with elevated H2S concentrations have recently been reviewed by Summers Engel [109]. The assembled data indicate that approximately 40 invertebrate species (many of which remain to be identified or described) from eight phyla inhabit H2S-rich waters, including members of the Oligohymenophorea, Rotifera, Platyhelminthes, Nematoda, Annelida, Mollusca, Crustacea, and Hexapoda. Most notably, some sulphidic caves – particularly Movile Cave–exhibit high levels of endemism [93,110]. It remains unclear whether differences in the reported biodiversity of surface and subterranean H2S-rich habitats are due to sampling bias or whether the combination of the presence of H2S or the absence of light causes differential persistence of populations in cave vs. surface habitats.

How macroinvertebrates living in freshwater sulphide springs cope with the toxic levels of H2S has yet to be examined. Some taxa described above, such as hemipterans and the larvae of some dipteran groups, have the ability to breathe atmospheric air through respiratory siphons or tubes, which likely reduces their exposure to H2S dissolved in water [111,112]. Adaptations to sulphide-rich conditions have received more attention in invertebrates from marine environments, and depending on the taxonomic group, elevated tolerances have been associated with a wide variety of behavioural, physiological, and morphological modifications, including structural barriers that exclude H2S from the body, modification of molecular targets of H2S that reduce binding, reliance on anaerobic metabolism, active detoxification mechanisms, and symbioses with sulphide metabolizing microbes (see [21,113] for reviews).

3.2. Fish in Sulphide Spring Environments

3.2.1. Overview

The majority of records of fish inhabiting sulphide springs stem from North America and the Neotropics, with few additional reports from the Middle East. Overall, 24–putatively evolutionarily independent–invasions of sulphide springs have been documented (Table 1 and references therein; Figure 1). However, this number may be an underestimation even for documented populations, because the phylogenetic relationships of most species inhabiting multiple springs (sometimes in different drainages) remain to be studied. With one exception (Ophisternon aenigmaticum, Synbranchidae), all sulphide spring fishes belong to the order Cyprinodontiformes. Pupfish (Cyprinodontidae) have been recorded from H2S-rich springs in Northern Mexico (Cyprinodon bobmilleri) and in Iran (three species in the genus Aphanius). Livebearers (Poeciliidae) from the genera Acanthophacelus, Gambusia, Limia, Poecilia, Poeciliopsis, Pseudoxiphophorus, and Xiphophorus have colonised sulphide springs in North, Central, and South America, as well as some Caribbean Islands. One population of Poecilia mexicana also occurs in a H2S-rich cave in southern Mexico [106,114,115].

Overall, six described species are highly endemic; they have been described from and exclusively inhabit sulphide springs (Table 1). Even though not described as distinct species, several populations particularly in the family Poeciliidae also represent phenotypically divergent and genetically distinct ecotypes, indicating that they represent locally adapted populations restricted to H2S-rich environments [67,70,76]. However, additional research is required to test for the presence of local adaptation in the Cyprinodontidae and Synbranchidae, as at least some populations may be temporary or represent sinks that solely persist in H2S-rich environments because of continuous immigration from adjacent non-sulphidic habitats. For example, it is unlikely that Ophisternon aenigmaticum, which is occasionally collected in sulphide springs of Southern Mexico, maintains viable populations in toxic springs due to their extremely low abundance.

Although all sulphide springs inhabited by fish occur in geographic regions with considerable fish diversity, relatively few taxonomic groups have apparently managed to invade and persist in such extreme environments. This begs questions about what traits potentially characterize successful invaders. All groups found in sulphide springs share the presence of alternative respiratory strategies that facilitate oxygen acquisition in the hypoxic waters [116,117,118]. Synbranchids have aerial-respiratory surfaces in the mouth and branchial chambers, allowing them to extract oxygen directly from atmospheric air [119]. Similarly, cyprinodontiforms are adapted to conducting aquatic surface respiration, where fish skim the uppermost water level that is disproportionally oxygenated because of direct contact to air, when exposed to hypoxic conditions [120,121]. The presence of alternative respiratory strategies could be critical for survival under sulphidic conditions, both because oxygen to fuel metabolism is scarce [16] and H2S detoxification is an oxygen consuming process [122]. In addition, all members of the subfamily Poeciliinae are livebearing [123]. Internal gestation likely shields developing embryos from adverse conditions in sulphide springs and allows females to select habitat patches with more suitable environmental parameters [124]. It remains unclear how egg-laying species persist in sulphide spring environments, especially considering the rampant hypoxia in benthic microhabitats.

3.2.2. Adaptation to Sulphide Spring Environments in the Family Poeciliidae

Detailed studies on mechanisms of adaptation to sulphide springs so far have been conducted in members of the family Poeciliidae, particularly in the genus Poecilia, where many sulphide spring populations diverged in a series of phenotypic traits from ancestral forms in non-sulphidic environments. Most phenotypic traits investigated show strong signals of convergent evolution in evolutionarily independent lineages of Poecilia as well as other poeciliid taxa investigated to date [71,74,76,77].

Sulphide spring Poecilia exhibit significantly elevated tolerances to sulphide [76]. Differences in tolerance likely arise from behavioural, morphological, and physiological modifications. Fish from sulphidic habitats readily engage in aquatic surface respiration upon exposure to H2S [125], and the ability to engage in this compensatory behaviour determines survivability in the natural environment [126]. In addition, sulphide spring fish are characterised by increases in gill surface area and head size, which improves oxygen acquisition efficiency [75,76]. They also exhibit physiological modifications that allow for minimizing adverse effects of potentially elevated endogenous concentrations and for maintaining low endogenous concentrations despite the constant influx of environmental H2S. At least some lineages of sulphide spring Poecilia exhibit an H2S-resistant cytochrome c oxidase (the primary target of sulphide toxicity) that maintains functionality with increasing H2S concentrations [127]. Furthermore, gene expression studies have indicated that enzymes involved in oxidative sulphide detoxification, including sulphide:quinone oxireductase [128], are consistently up-regulated in natural sulphide spring populations [129]. Interestingly, common-garden raised individuals from one sulphide spring lineage retain higher constitutive expression of genes involved in detoxification even in the absence of environmental H2S in the laboratory, which suggests evolutionary divergence in gene regulation between sulphidic and non-sulphidic ecotypes [130].

Other traits likely diverged through indirect effects of H2S [131]. For example, the presence of H2S affects energy budgets of sulphide spring residents, both because sulphide detoxification is energetically costly and energy acquisition is constrained by aquatic surface respiration [125]. As a consequence, some sulphide spring Poecilia are in worse nutritional condition [132] (see [71]), exhibit changes in energy metabolism [133], and diverged in life history strategies, producing fewer but substantially larger offspring [71,74,134]. In addition, colonizing sulphide springs was accompanied by changes in trophic resource use, where Poecilia switched from a typically algivorous diet in non-sulphidic habitats to a diet consisting of sulphur-metabolizing bacteria and invertebrates in sulphidic habitats [94,131]. This shift in resource use was paralleled by changes in both viscerocranial and gastrointestinal morphology [131].

3.2.3. Ecological Speciation in Sulphide Spring Environments?

The relatively high levels of endemism and the presence of divergent ecotypes in sulphide springs indicate that adaptation to H2S-rich environments may be linked to speciation processes. Indeed, ecological speciation theory posits that reproductive isolation between populations can emerge incidentally as a by-product of adaptive trait divergence [135,136], and multifarious selection generated by the complex environmental differences between adjacent sulphidic and non-sulphidic environments may further promote the speciation process [137]. The majority of sulphide spring Poecilia and Gambusia are genetically differentiated from adjacent, ancestral populations in non-sulphidic environments, despite small geographic distances (in some instances <100 meters) and a lack of physical barriers that could prevent fish migration [70,77,138]. In the genus Poecilia, reproductive isolation is at least in part mediated by selection against immigrants. Natural selection mediated through H2S toxicity and the correlated hypoxia drastically reduces survival particularly of migrants from non-sulphidic to sulphidic habitats, and sexual selection mediated through ecotype assortative mating and male-male aggression reduces fitness of migrants from sulphidic to non-sulphidic habitats [138,139,140,141]. Since selection against immigrants by itself cannot explain the degree of genetic differentiation between pairs of sulphidic and non-sulphidic populations [138], empirical studies on other isolating mechanisms are highly warranted. Considering that adaptive changes have been documented in genes encoded by both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes [127], there is a distinct possibility for the presence of postzygotic reproductive isolation through cyto-nuclear incompatibilities [142]. Whether and how ecological speciation processes are consistently associated with adaptation to sulphide spring environments remains to be tested in a broader group of taxa, as detailed investigations on invertebrates, pupfishes, and even the majority of poeciliid lineages are still missing.

4. A Case Study: Comparative Analyses of Sulphide Springs and Adjacent Non-Sulphidic Habitats in Mexico

The published literature about the global biodiversity in sulphide springs provides a general overview about taxa that have successfully invaded these extreme environments; however, the lack of systematic surveys precludes any quantitative assessments of biodiversity patterns at that scale. In an attempt to elucidate some quantitative trends, the following sections provide a yet unpublished case study of biodiversity patterns of macroinvertebrates and fishes in sulphidic springs and adjacent non-sulphidic habitats of southern Mexico.

In Southern Mexico, sulphide springs occur in a replicated fashion in the states of Tabasco and Chiapas, particularly in the region around the city of Teapa [76,77]. Here, the mountains of the Sierra Madre de Chiapas meet the wide floodplains of northern Tabasco, and sulphide springs can be found in four major tributaries of the Rio Grijalva: the Rios Tacotalpa, Puyacatengo, Ixtapangajoya, and Pichucalco (from east to west; Figure 3). In the upper reaches where the sulphidic springs are located, these tributaries are separated by mountains, while they all eventually join the Rio Grijalva and are widely interconnected in the lowlands, at least during the wet season [143]. Since all sulphide springs eventually discharge into non-sulphidic streams and rivers, there are no physical barriers that prevent migration of aquatic organisms between adjacent sulphidic and non-sulphidic environments.

Figure 3. Map of the locations of southern Mexican sulphide springs (yellow arrows) and non-sulphidic reference habitats (blue arrows) used in the case study on patterns of biodiversity in sulphidic habitats. Numbers correspond to IDs in Table 2.
Figure 3. Map of the locations of southern Mexican sulphide springs (yellow arrows) and non-sulphidic reference habitats (blue arrows) used in the case study on patterns of biodiversity in sulphidic habitats. Numbers correspond to IDs in Table 2.
Diversity 06 00597 g003 1024
Table 2. Sites investigated for the case study comparing diversity patterns between sulphidic and adjacent, non-sulphidic habitats in southern Mexico. Provided are locality information, summary statistics of fish communities (number of times sampled for qualitative surveys and cumulative number of species recorded) and invertebrate communities (number of times sampled, average number of genera per m2, and density per m2).
Table 2. Sites investigated for the case study comparing diversity patterns between sulphidic and adjacent, non-sulphidic habitats in southern Mexico. Provided are locality information, summary statistics of fish communities (number of times sampled for qualitative surveys and cumulative number of species recorded) and invertebrate communities (number of times sampled, average number of genera per m2, and density per m2).
IDLocationH2SLatitudeLongitudeTimes Sampled (fish)Number of Species (fish)Times Sampled (Invertebrates)Number of Genera (Invertebrates)Density (Invertebrates)
Tacotalpa drainage
1Arroyo Bonita *-17.427−92.752111618.63.54 × 105
2Arroyo Cristal-17.451−92.76491518.34.11 × 104
3Arroyo Tacubaya-17.454−92.785101528.91.06 × 105
4Arroyo Tres-17.484−92.77691119.01.59 × 105
5El Azufre, tributary-17.442−92.77544
6El Azufre, upstream-17.436−92.774315624.13.77 × 105
7Rio Amatán-17.449−92.787112
8Rio Oxolotán-17.444−92.763319
9El Azufre I*+17.442−92.77513120.49.01 × 105
10El Azufre II+17.438−92.7757221.01.01 × 106
Puyacatengo drainage
11Arroyo La Lluvia, upstream *-17.461−92.8975815.28.56 × 104
12Rio Puyacatengo, Miguel Hidalgo-17.668−92.900110
13Rio Puyacatengo, road crossing-17.470−92.89681215.21.77 × 105
14Rio Puyacatengo, tributary-17.505−92.90858
15Rio Puyacatengo, upstream-17.456−92.88831017.51.60 × 105
16Rio Puyacatengo, Vicente Guerrero-17.510−92.915811
17La Lluvia, big spring+17.462−92.89671
18La Lluvia, small spring *+17.464−92.89510210.34.49 × 105
19Puyacatengo springs+17.458−92.8895110.83.11 × 103
Ixtapangajoya drainage
20Arroyo Chiflon-17.476−92.98613
21Arroyo La Joya-17.499−92.99315
Ixtapangajoya drainage
22Rio Ixtapangajoya-17.495−92.99897
23Rio Ixtapangajoya, tributary-17.510−92.98035
24Rio Teapao-17.495−92.997115
25La Esperanza, big spring+17.511−92.98331
26La Esperanza, small spring+17.511−92.98021
Pichucalco drainage
27Arroyo Caracol-17.534−93.01637
28Arroyo Rafael I-17.558−93.04361119.64.4 × 105
29Arroyo Rafael II-17.564−93.039111
30Arroyo Rosita-17.485−93.104111516.61.45 × 105
31Arroyo Santa Ana-17.566−93.06447
32Rio El Azufre, west branch *-17.556−93.008111328.06.96 × 104
33Rio Pichucalco-17.605−93.036922
34Baños del Azufre *+17.552−92.999132
35La Gloria springs+17.532−93.015104
36Rio El Azufre, east branch+17.557−93.0069220.44.06 × 104

* Sites included in the quantitative comparison of fish assemblages.

H2S in springs of this region stems from bacterial sulphate reduction in aquifers fed by meteoric water [39]. Sulphur and carbon sources to fuel bacterial metabolism are associated with hydrocarbon deposits [39] and potentially volcanic activity [34]. This leads to biologically significant and sustained concentrations of H2S. Depending on the spring, average sulphide concentrations range between 23 and 190 µM, with peak concentrations exceeding 1000 µM [69,76,106]. Spatial variation in sulphide concentrations is relatively pronounced in all springs; concentrations decrease with increasing distance from the springheads due to volatilization [144] and oxidation of sulphide molecules [83,84]. In contrast, temporal variation in both sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats is minimal by comparison. In addition to the presence of H2S, sulphidic habitats also differ from non-sulphidic habitats in exhibiting higher average temperatures, higher specific conductivities, lower pH, and lower dissolved oxygen concentrations [76].

4.1. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities

To compare patterns of benthic macroinvertebrate diversity between sulphidic and non-sulphidic environments, we sampled sites with (N = 5) and without H2S (N = 11; Table 2) in the Tacotalpa, Puyacatengo, and Pichucalco drainages. Macroinvertebrates were collected using a Surber sampler (900 cm2 sampling area, 500 µm mesh size) at three to six locations within each site to represent different microhabitats. Samples were preserved in 80% ethanol, sorted in the laboratory, and identified to the lowest practical taxon (typically genus level) using keys provided by Merritt and Cummins [145] and other taxonomic references for particular groups [146,147]. All sites were sampled in March of 2009 (dry season), and a subset of sites was also sampled in August of 2008 (wet season). If sites were sampled both during the wet and the dry season, all values were averaged across visits. For data analysis, we calculated the number of genera, the Shannon-Wiener diversity index, as well as the density of individuals for each site. We compared these metrics using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with total area sampled as the covariate to account for potential effects of sampling effort. Furthermore, we compared Bray-Curtis dissimilarity among site-pairs to estimate the compositional similarity among habitat types.

Overall, we identified 74 different genera of aquatic invertebrates. In addition, we found 14 groups, particularly dipterans, which were not identified to genus level (Table 3; note that these taxa were treated as genera for data analysis). Sulphidic habitats had significantly fewer genera per unit area sampled than non-sulphidic habitats (Figure 4a; F1,16 = 50.765, p < 0.001; estimated marginal means ± s.e.m. from ANCOVA, sulphidic sites: 3.29 ± 3.31; non-sulphidic sites: 31.91 ± 2.22; actual mean ± s.e.m., sulphidic sites: 2.30 ± 0.60; non-sulphidic sites: 32.36 ± 2.86), and there was a non-significant trend of higher richness for sites where larger areas were sampled (F1,16 = 3.917, p = 0.069). The same pattern was evident when comparing Shannon-Wiener diversity indices among sites: sulphidic sites had significantly lower diversity than non-sulphidic ones (Figure 4b; F1,16 = 85.112, p < 0.001). There was no effect of sampling effort on Shannon-Wiener indices (F1,16 = 0.156, p = 0.699). Finally, differentiation of aquatic invertebrate communities between sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats was evident by comparisons of Bray-Curtis dissimilarities. Dissimilarities were highest when comparing sites from sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats (mean ± SD: 0.981 ± 0.010), indicating little faunal overlap between these distinct habitat types. In contrast, dissimilarities among sites from sulphidic habitats were relatively low (0.307 ± 0.108). Dissimilarities among non-sulphidic sites were intermediate (0.753 ± 0.166), reflecting pronounced heterogeneity of communities in non-sulphidic streams of the region.

Figure 4. Patterns of macroinvertebrate diversity and density in sulphidic springs and adjacent non-sulphidic reference habitats of Southern Mexico. Bar graphs depict the number of aquatic arthropod genera (A); Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (B); and aquatic arthropod densities (C) recorded for each site investigated. Non-sulphidic sites are in blue, sulphidic sites are in yellow. Site numbers correspond to IDs in Table 2.
Figure 4. Patterns of macroinvertebrate diversity and density in sulphidic springs and adjacent non-sulphidic reference habitats of Southern Mexico. Bar graphs depict the number of aquatic arthropod genera (A); Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (B); and aquatic arthropod densities (C) recorded for each site investigated. Non-sulphidic sites are in blue, sulphidic sites are in yellow. Site numbers correspond to IDs in Table 2.
Diversity 06 00597 g004 1024
Table 3. Summary of arthropod genera identified in samples from sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats in three river drainages of Southern Mexico.
Table 3. Summary of arthropod genera identified in samples from sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats in three river drainages of Southern Mexico.
Pichucalco DrainagePuyacatengo DrainageTacotalpa Drainage
Non-SulphidicSulphidicNon-SulphidicSulphidicNon-SulphidicSulphidic
Ephemeroptera: Baetidae
Americabaetis+-+-+-
Baetodes+-+-+-
Camelobaetidius+-+++-
Cloeodes+++-+-
Fallceon+-+-++
Paracloeodes+-+---
Ephemeroptera: Caenidae
Caenis+-+-+-
Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae
Mccaffertium+---+-
Ephemeroptera: Leptohyphidae
Allenhyphes+---+-
Asioplax+-----
Leptohyes+-+-+-
Tricorythodes+-+-+-
Vacupernius+-+-+-
Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae
Farrodes+-+-+-
Leptophlebia--+-+-
Thraulodes+-+-+-
Ulmeritus----+-
Odonata: Calopterygidae
Hetaerina+-----
Odonata: Coenagrionidae
Argia+-+-+-
Odonata: Gomphidae
Erpetogomphus--+-+-
Odonata: Libellulidae
Brechmorhoga+-+-+-
Macrothemis----+-
Odonata: Platystictidae
Palaemnema+-+-+-
Plecoptera: Perlidae
Anacroneuria+-+-+-
Hemiptera: Belostomatidae
Belostoma----++
Hemiptera: Gerridae
Trepobates--+---
Hemiptera: Naucoridae
Ambrysus+-+---
Cryphocricos+-+-+-
Limnocoris+-+-+-
Hemiptera: Veliidae
Rhagovelia+-+-+-
Neuroptera: Corydalidae
Corydalus+-+-+-
Coleoptera: Curculionidae
Unidentified genus--+---
Coleoptera: Elmidae
Austrolimnius+---+-
Heterelmis+-+-+-
Hexacylloepus+-+-+-
Macrelmis+-+-+-
Microcylloepus+-+-+-
Neocylloepus+-----
Neoelmis+-+-+-
Phanocerus----+-
Stenelmis+---+-
Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae
Tropisternus---+--
Coleoptera: Lutrochidae
Lutrochus--+---
Coleoptera: Psephenidae
Psephenus+-+-+-
Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae
Anchytarsus+-----
Trichoptera: Calamoceratidae
Phylloicus--+---
Trichoptera: Glossomatidae
Protoptila--+-+-
Trichoptera: Heliocopsychidae
Heliocopsyche--+-+-
Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche+-----
Rhyacophylax+-+---
Smicridea+-+-++
Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila+-+-+-
Leucotrichia+-+-+-
Mayatrichia----+-
Neotrichia+-+-+-
Oxytheria+-----
Trichoptera: Leptoceridae
Nectopsyche+-+---
Oecetis+-+-+-
Trichoptera: Philopotamidae
Chimarra----+-
Wormaldia+---+-
Unidentified genus----+-
Trichoptera: Polycentropodidae
Cernotina+-----
Cyrnellus----+-
Polyplectropus+-+-+-
Trichoptera: Xiphocentronidae
Xiphocentron+-+-+-
Lepidoptera: Unidentified family
Unidentified genus+-+-+-
Diptera: Athericidae
Atherix----+-
 Unidentified genus+---+-
Diptera: Ceratopogonidae
Atrichopogon----++
Ceratopogon+---+-
Culicoides+--++-
Forcipomyia----++
Probezzia+-+-+-
Diptera: Chironomidae
 Unidentified genus (Chiromini)++++++
 Unidentified genus (Orthocladinae)+-+-+-
 Unidentified genus (Pseudochironomini)+-+---
 Unidentified genus (Tanypodinae)+-+-+-
 Unidentified genus (Tanytarsini)+-+-+-
Diptera: Empididae
Hemerodromia+-+-+-
Diptera: Ephyridae
Unidentified genus---+--
Diptera: Psychodidae
Maruina+-----
Diptera: Simulidae
Simulium+---+-
Diptera: Stratiomyiidae
Nemotelus----+-
Diptera: Tabanidae
 Unidentified genus----+-
Diptera: Tipulidae
 Unidentified genus (Limoniinae)+-+-+-
 Unidentified genus (Tipulinae)+---+-
Crustacea: Ostracoda
 Unidentified genus+-----
Crustacea: Palaemonidae
Macrobrachium ----+-

Similar to benthic invertebrate communities in other areas of Central America [148,149,150], communities in non-sulphidic habitats were dominated by Ephemeroptera, Coleoptera (particularly the family Elmidae), Trichoptera, and Diptera (particularly the family Chironomidae). In contrast to other studies [151], however, shrimps and crabs were relatively scarce in our samples. This is likely an artefact of our sampling technique, as benthic sampling generally underestimates the abundance of decapods [152], and shrimp of the genus Macrobrachium (particularly M. carcinus), Atya scabra, and crabs of the genus Avotrichodactylus can regularly be collected in non-sulphidic habitats using seines and baited traps (Tobler, personal observation).

Macroinvertebrate communities are substantially less diverse in sulphidic springs than in other habitats. The impoverished invertebrate communities in sulphidic habitats were dominated by dipterans (especially chironomids; >98% of specimens collected in all sulphidic habitats). Dipterans also represented the only group that was consistently present in all sulphidic habitats examined, which likely explains the low Bray-Curtis dissimilarities among sites from sulphidic habitats. Chironomids are known for their hypoxia tolerance [153,154], and while there is much variation among different taxa, particularly species of the tribe Chironomini are able to withstand adverse environmental conditions, including anthropogenically altered habitats [155,156,157]. It is currently unclear whether chironomids generally have an increased tolerance to the presence of H2S. Some studies found survival and high recovery rates of chironomids after temporal exposure to sulphide [158], while others documented avoidance behaviour and high sulphide-induced mortality [159]. Detailed studies, including species level identification of specimens from different habitats and sulphide tolerance tests, will need to corroborate whether chironomids in sulphidic springs represent locally adapted populations or species, or whether the group generally has high tolerance levels that allow them to thrive in the toxic and hypoxic sulphidic springs.

Among the few other groups that were occasionally recorded in sulphidic habitats were the genera Cloeodes and Fallceon (Baetidae, Ephemeroptera) in the Tacotalpa and the Pichucalco drainages, respectively, the genera Smicridea (Hydropsychidae, Trichoptera) and Tropisternus (Hydrophilidae, Coleoptera) in the Puyacatengo drainage, as well as the genus Belostoma (Belostomatidae, Hemiptera) in the Tacotalpa drainage. Although not represented in our quantitative sampling, crabs of the genus Avotrichodactylus have also been reported from sulphidic springs in the Pichucalco drainage (Tobler, personal observation) and from a sulphidic cave in the Tacotalpa drainage (A. bidens [160]). For the most part, there is little known about potential adaptations to H2S-rich environments of these groups. Ephemeropterans and trichopterans occur in wide variety of freshwater environments but are most diverse in lotic habitats [112,161]. They acquire dissolved oxygen through abdominal gills and are generally considered indicators for good water quality because of their low to moderate tolerance to disturbance and pollution [162,163]. The few species investigated to date show imminently low tolerance to H2S exposure [164,165]. Nonetheless, tolerance to physico-chemical stressors can vary widely among genera and species of these families [166,167,168], and it remains to be tested whether members of the genera Cloeodes, Fallceon, and Smicridea generally have an increased tolerance to environmental stressors or whether they exhibit specific adaptations to sulphidic habitats. Hydrophilid scavenger beetles are mostly found in stagnant and slow moving waters [112,145]. Accordingly, they are adapted to low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and Tropisternus—like most other hydrophilids—have the ability to breathe air. Larvae use paired spiracles at the end of abdomen to acquire atmospheric oxygen, while adults collect air with modified antennae and extract oxygen from an air bubble stored at the underside of the body (plastron respiration) [169,170,171]. Tolerance to environmental stressors varies not only within the family, but also within the genus Tropisternus [172]. To our knowledge nothing is known about H2S tolerance in these beetles. Finally, most information is available for giant water bugs of the genus Belostoma that occur in sulphidic surface and cave habitats of the Tacotalpa drainage. Waterbugs have been documented to be able to complete their entire life cycle in sulphidic waters [173], where they act as apex predators foraging on fishes [102,174,175]. Their ability to breathe air through respiratory siphons—rather than acquiring dissolved oxygen through gills—may reduce their exposure to toxic H2S [111].

While patterns of macroinvertebrate diversity were highly consistent across sulphide springs from different drainages, their density varied tremendously among sulphide spring sites. Although densities were overall slightly lower in non-sulphidic habitats, there was no significant difference among habitat types (F1,16 = 3.331, p = 0.091; note there was no effect of total area sampled: F1,16 = 0.008, p = 0.931). In fact, sulphidic habitats included sites with the highest and the lowest invertebrate densities (Figure 4c). High densities were particularly present in springs of the Tacotalpa drainage and the small La Lluvia spring in the Puyacatengo. These sites share low to moderate H2S concentrations (multiple year averages between 23 and 129 μM H2S [76]) and continuously flowing water that potentially mitigates the reduction in oxygen concentration through sulphide oxidation. Extremely low densities were recorded particularly in the large Puyacatengo springs, which are characterised by high sulphide concentrations (peak concentrations >500 μM), stagnant water, and higher temperatures (>33 °C [76]). More thorough spatial sampling will be required to elucidate factors driving chironomid densities, but the current results may indicate that these dipterans thrive in sites with moderate sulphide concentrations, where competition with other invertebrates and predation by fish is likely reduced compared to non-sulphidic environments, but avoid more harsh sites potentially because of limited capabilities of sulphide detoxification.

4.2. Fish Communities

To compare patterns of fish diversity between sulphidic and non-sulphidic environments, we took a two pronged approach: (1) In a qualitative approach, we used presence and absence data of fish species across a broad sample of sulphidic and non-sulphidic sites (most of which were visited repeatedly over the course of multiple years) to compare species richness between sulphidic and non-sulphidic sites in the Tacotalpa, Puyacatengo, Ixtapangajoya, and Pichucalco drainages; (2) For a subset of sites, we also used standardised sampling techniques to compare fish species richness and density patterns between sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats.

For the qualitative analysis, we compared the total number of fish species collected at sites with (N = 10) and without H2S (N = 26; see Table 2). Sites were visited between 1 and 13 times between October 2004 and June 2013. At each visit, fish were caught by seine, identified on site using keys provided by Miller et al. [176], and subsequently released at the collection site. Since sampling efforts were not consistent among sites and visits and sampling occurred in different seasons, we counted the number of fish species that were recorded over the years at each site and compared this number across sulphidic and non-sulphidic sites using ANCOVA. Since the number of species recorded should be increasing with each sampling visit, we included the number of visits as a covariate. A subset of sites (Table 2) was also sampled quantitatively in June of 2013 by seining riffle-pool sequences along three 20-meter transects. The area sampled was measured for each seine haul. The number of species present and fish density (individuals/m2) were used as dependent variables in ANCOVA; sample area (m2), presence of H2S, river drainage, and the H2S by drainage interaction served as independent variables.

Overall, we identified 39 different fish species during our qualitative sampling across years (Table 4). When comparing the species richness recorded for each site, the number of visits had a significant effect (F1,36 = 6.644, p = 0.015). Nonetheless, even when controlling for the number of visits, sulphidic habitats harboured significantly fewer species than non-sulphidic ones (Figure 5a; ew corroborated these results. ANCOVA results indicated a significant H2S by drainage interaction (F2,10 = 21.145, p < 0.001); sulphidic sites consistently had a lower number of species present, but the magnitude of difference between sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats varied between drainages (Figure 5b). The area sampled did not have a significant effect on the number of species present (F1,10 = 3.309, p = 0.099).

Non-sulphidic habitats in Southern Mexico were generally characterised by harbouring diverse communities composed of species from different orders and families (Table 4). Fish communities in non-sulphidic waters were dominated by cichlid and poeciliid species, as typical for the wider geographic region [143,176]. Comparatively low species diversity in a non-sulphidic habitat was only documented in Arroyo Chiflon, a small, high gradient stream with fast currents, harbouring only three species (Astyanax aeneus, Pseudoxiphophorus bimaculatus, and Vieja intermedia) typical for low order streams. In contrast to the majority of non-sulphidic habitats, sulphidic springs were characterised by reduced species richness (between one and four species depending on the spring complex). It seems noteworthy that the changes in communities are very abrupt at ecotones between sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats even in the absence of physical barriers for fish dispersion. This is highlighted in the different number of species occurring at adjacent sites that differ in the presence or absence of H2S, but are separated by <100 m (e.g., the different branches of the Rio El Azufre in the Pichucalco drainage, and La Lluvia big spring and the upstream site of Arroyo La Lluvia in the Puyacatengo drainage).

Table 4. Summary of fish species identified in qualitative samples from sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats of four river drainages between 2004 and 2013. Differences in species composition among drainages primarily reflect patterns of endemism (e.g., different Priapella species with allopatric distributions occur in the Tacotalpa and the Pichucalco drainages) and differences in habitat characteristics. For example, non-sulphidic habitats in the Tacotalpa and Puyacatengo drainages primarily included small streams and swiftly flowing piedmont rivers that are characterised by species like Heterophallus milleri, Priapella chamulae, Paraneetroplus gibbiceps, and Theraps lentiginosus. In contrast, habitats in the Pichucalco drainage also included sluggish lowland rivers, where species like Hyphessobrycon compressa, Belonesox belizanus, Phallichthys fairweatheri, Astatheros robertsoni, and Petenia splendida occur.
Table 4. Summary of fish species identified in qualitative samples from sulphidic and non-sulphidic habitats of four river drainages between 2004 and 2013. Differences in species composition among drainages primarily reflect patterns of endemism (e.g., different Priapella species with allopatric distributions occur in the Tacotalpa and the Pichucalco drainages) and differences in habitat characteristics. For example, non-sulphidic habitats in the Tacotalpa and Puyacatengo drainages primarily included small streams and swiftly flowing piedmont rivers that are characterised by species like Heterophallus milleri, Priapella chamulae, Paraneetroplus gibbiceps, and Theraps lentiginosus. In contrast, habitats in the Pichucalco drainage also included sluggish lowland rivers, where species like Hyphessobrycon compressa, Belonesox belizanus, Phallichthys fairweatheri, Astatheros robertsoni, and Petenia splendida occur.
Pichucalco DrainageIxtapangajoya DrainagePuyacatengo DrainageTacotalpa Drainage
Non-SulphidicSulphidicNon-SulphidicSulphidicNon-SulphidicSulphidicNon-SulphidicSulphidic
Characidae
Astyanax aeneus+-+-+-+-
Brycon guatemalensis ----+---
Hyphessobrycon compressa+-------
Ariidae
Potamarius nelsoni------+-
Pimelodidae
Rhamdia guatemalensis+-+-+-+-
Rhamdia laticauda--+-+---
Loricariidae
Pterygoplichthys pardalis*+-+-+-+-
Batrachoidae
Batrachoides goldmani----+-+-
Atherinopsidae
Atherinella alvarezi+-+-+-+-
Belonidae
Strongylura hubbsi+---+-+-
Poeciliidae
Belonesox belizanus+-------
Carlhubbsia kidderi+-------
Gambusia eurystoma-+------
Gambusia sexradiata+---+---
Heterandria bimaculata+++-+-+-
Heterophallus milleri +-+---+-
Phallichthys fairweatheri+-------
Poecilia mexicana +-+-++++
Poecilia petenense+-------
Poecilia sulphuraria-+------
Poecilia thermalis---+----
Priapella chamulae------+-
Priapella compressa+-------
Xiphophorus hellerii+++-+-+-
Synbranchidae
Ophisternon aenigmaticum-++---++
Cichlidae
Astatheros robertsoni+-------
“Cichlasoma” urophthalmus+-------
“Cichlasoma” salvini+-+-+-+-
Oreochromis cf. aureus*--+-+-+-
Parachromis managuensis*+-------
Paraneetroplus gibbiceps ----+-+-
Petenia splendida+-------
Rocio octofasciata+-------
Theraps lentiginosus+-+-+-+-
Thorichthys helleri +-+-+-+-
Thorichthys meeki+---+---
Vieja bifasciata+-+-+-+-
Vieja intermedia--+-+-+-
Eleotridae
Gobiomorus dormitor------+-

* Introduced species.

Figure 5. Patterns of fish diversity and density in sulphidic springs and adjacent non-sulphidic reference habitats of Southern Mexico. (A) Bar graph depicting the number of species collected at each site during the multiple-year, qualitative surveys; (B) Estimated marginal means (± s.e.m) for the number of species per site from quantitative surveys; (C) Estimated marginal means (± s.e.m) for the density of individuals per site from quantitative surveys. Estimated marginal means were derived from ANCOVA models as described in the main text. Non-sulphidic sites are in blue, sulphidic sites are in yellow. Site numbers correspond to IDs in Table 2.
Figure 5. Patterns of fish diversity and density in sulphidic springs and adjacent non-sulphidic reference habitats of Southern Mexico. (A) Bar graph depicting the number of species collected at each site during the multiple-year, qualitative surveys; (B) Estimated marginal means (± s.e.m) for the number of species per site from quantitative surveys; (C) Estimated marginal means (± s.e.m) for the density of individuals per site from quantitative surveys. Estimated marginal means were derived from ANCOVA models as described in the main text. Non-sulphidic sites are in blue, sulphidic sites are in yellow. Site numbers correspond to IDs in Table 2.
Diversity 06 00597 g005 1024

Species of the genus Poecilia were collected in all sulphide springs investigated; nominally, this included sulphidic ecotypes of Poecilia mexicana in the springs of the Tacotalpa and Puyacatengo drainages, P. thermalis in the Ixtapangajoya (endemic to the two La Esperanza springs), and P. sulphuraria in the Pichucalco (endemic to the Baños del Azufre and its outflows, as well as the La Gloria springs; see [77] for a discussion of the convoluted taxonomy of this group). Sulphidic ecotypes in all drainages are reproductively isolated, genetically differentiated, and differ from conspecifics from adjacent non-sulphidic habitats in a series of phenotypic traits, including physiological, morphological, behavioural, and life history characteristics (see Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3).

In conjunction with resident Poecilia, some sulphidic habitats were inhabited by additional poeciliid species. The sulphide spring endemic Gambusia eurystoma was present in the Baños del Azufre and its outflows (Pichucalco), and it represents a sulphide-adapted form closely related to G. sexradiata [67,68,69,71]. Furthermore, Xiphophorus hellerii occurred in the small La Lluvia (Puyacatengo) and the La Gloria springs (Pichucalco), and Pseudoxiphophorus bimaculatus in the La Gloria springs. Whether these species occur predominantly in microhabitats with low concentrations of H2S or whether they actually exhibit similar adaptations as the Poecilia inhabiting sulphide springs remains to be investigated in detail; although preliminary data indicates that at least X. hellerii from the La Gloria springs show similar trait divergence from non-sulphidic ancestors as observed in Poecilia [177]. Finally, synbranchid eels were occasionally collected in the El Azufre II (Tacotalpa) and La Gloria springs. In contrast to variation in species richness, fish densities did not change starkly among drainages and habitat types, although there was a non-significant trend towards higher densities in sulphidic habitats (F1,11 = 3.521, p = 0.087; Figure 5c).

5. Synthesis and Open Questions

Freshwater springs with high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide occur around the globe; yet, little remains known about the faunas inhabiting these extreme environments. Based upon–mostly qualitative and often observational–data available to date, two critical patterns emerge. Firstly, sulphide spring habitats are characterised by low levels of diversity compared to adjacent non-sulphidic habitats, which was particularly evident in the case study focusing on macroinvertebrate and fish diversity patterns in Southern Mexico. The reduction of species richness in sulphidic habitats is likely directly related to the toxic properties of H2S [16,69], although correlated environmental factors (such as the rampant hypoxia, high ionic strength, and sometimes high temperatures) may complement and exacerbate the adverse physiological effects of sulphide [178,179]. Dipterans (among aquatic macroinvertebrates) and cyprinodontiforms (among fishes) appear to be the dominant groups in the sulphide spring faunas investigated to date. Interestingly, the majority of invertebrate and fish taxa present in sulphide springs environments are able rely on alternative respiratory strategies (other than acquisition of dissolved oxygen through gills), which accordingly could represent a critical exaptation for the colonization of these extreme environments.

Secondly, at least in fishes, sulphide spring habitats are characterised by high levels of endemism, harbouring species or populations with specific adaptations to cope with the extreme environmental conditions. It remains unclear whether similar patterns of endemism are present in invertebrates documented from sulphide springs, either because comparisons between sulphidic and adjacent non-sulphidic habitats do not have adequate taxonomic resolution (most taxa were identified to genus level only), or because there have been no thorough comparative analyses between populations in sulphide springs with closely related forms in non-sulphidic environments.

Overall, biodiversity patterns in sulphide springs appear to be similar to other marginal freshwater habitats [7,8,9,10,11,12]. But first and foremost, this review has highlighted the dearth of our current knowledge about freshwater sulphide spring faunas, and there are some obvious questions that need to be addressed in the future: (1) Considering the abundance of sulphide springs worldwide and the attention many springs have received from microbiologists, quantitative studies on metazoan biodiversity are almost entirely lacking. Consequently, rigorous surveys in a variety of springs worldwide are needed to corroborate the trends of reduced species diversity and the presence of highly endemic species and populations at larger spatial scales; (2) The inhospitable conditions in sulphide springs warrant studies investigating what traits predispose certain taxonomic groups (such as dipterans and cyprinodontiforms) to colonize sulphide springs, and how colonizers subsequently adapt over evolutionary times to cope with sulphide toxicity. Such studies are requisite to test for potential convergent evolution particularly of physiological coping mechanisms that may have evolved in similar fashions across broad taxonomic groups. Due to the increasing interest in the role of sulphur metabolism and processing in disease formation, sulphide spring inhabitants with modifications in relevant physiological pathways may also provide critical insights for biomedical applications [180,181]; (3) The presence of endemic species and divergent populations exclusively inhabiting sulphide springs raises questions about whether and how speciation processes are linked to the continuous presence of environmental H2S. While there is increasing evidence for ecological speciation in sulphidic spring fishes, comparable processes remain to be investigated in other taxonomic groups; (4) The uniqueness of sulphide spring faunas raise potential concerns for conservation, as many populations clearly represent unique evolutionary lineages with highly restricted distributions meriting separate management and a high priority for protection [181]. Among all the sulphide endemics documented to date, only Gambusia eurystoma [182] and Poecilia sulphuraria [184] have been assessed; both species are listed as “critically endangered” by the IUCN [185] and are federally protected in Mexico [186]. Our own fieldwork in North America, the Caribbean, and the Neotropics, however, has indicated that many–if not most–sulphide springs are disturbed or developed through a variety of mechanisms, including deforestation, farming and agriculture, as well recreational activities (i.e., the conversion of spring heads into swimming pools). Ultimately, the unique ecological setting of sulphide springs and the evolutionary uniqueness of their inhabitants make them valuable study systems in basic and applied biological sciences. These springs provide readily accessible models to understand how some organisms challenge the boundaries of what most others can tolerate and to investigate life’s capacities and limitations to deal with far from average conditions [13].

Acknowledgments

We thank the local community in Tapijulapa and Teapa for their hospitality and access to the study sites. We are indebted to the staff at the Centro de Investigación e Innovación para la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje (CIIEA) in Teapa, Tabasco, for their logistical support and hospitality. Over the years, many people have helped with fieldwork, including C. Bautista, C. Passow, C. Tobler, D. Alba, I. Schlupp, J. Kelley, M. Palacios, M. Plath, N. Franssen, R. Riley, R. Morehouse, R. Riesch, T. Doumas, and Z. Culumber. We also thank A. Teimori, I. Schlupp, J. Johnson, R. Riesch, and S. Ingley for sharing information, photographs, and specimens, as well as C. Passow and R. Morehouse for comments on the manuscript. Permits were provided by the Mexican government (DGOPA.00093.120110.-0018). This study was funded by a Wentz Grant and Niblack Scholarship to RG, as well as by an ORAU Ralph E. Powe Junior Faculty Enhancement Award and a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF; IOS-1121832 including an REU supplement IOS-1121832-2) to MT.

Author Contributions

Ryan Greenway, Lenin Arias-Rodriguez, and MT Michael Tobler conducted the fieldwork, analysed the data, and wrote the paper. Pete Diaz identified invertebrate samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cosgrove, W.J.; Rijsberman, F.R. World Water Vision: Making Water Everybody’S Business; World Water Council, Earthscan: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  2. Collen, B.; Whitton, F.; Dyer, E.E.; Baillie, J.E.M.; Cumberlidge, N.; Darwall, W.R.; Pollock, C.; Richman, N.I.; Soulsby, A.-M.; Böhm, M. Global patterns of freshwater species diversity: Threat and endemism. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014, 23, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dudgeon, D.; Arthington, A.; Gessner, M.O.; Kawabata, Z.-I.; Knowler, D.J.; Leveque, C.; Naiman, R.J.; Prieur-Richard, A.-H.; Soto, D.; Stiassny, M.L.J.; et al. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status, and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 2006, 81, 163–182. [Google Scholar]
  4. Abell, R.; Thieme, M.L.; Revenga, C.; Bryer, M.; Kottelat, M.; Bogutskaya, N.; Coad, B.; Mandrak, N.; Contreras-Balderas, S.; Bussing, W.; et al. Freshwater ecoregions of the world: A new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 2008, 58, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Townsend, C.R.; Begon, M.E.; Harper, J.L. Essentials of Ecology, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sibly, R.M.; Calow, P. A life-cycle theory of responses to stress. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1989, 37, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gibert, J.; Culver, D.C.; Dole-Olivier, M.-J.; Malard, F.; Christman, M.C.; Deharveng, L. Assessing and conserving groundwater biodiversity: Synthesis and perspectives. Freshw. Biol. 2009, 54, 930–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Romero, A.; Paulson, K. It’s a wonderful hypogean life: A guide to the troglomorphic fishes of the world. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2001, 62, 12–41. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shepard, W.D. Desert springs: Both rare and endangered. Aquat. Conserv.-Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1933, 3, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Seidel, R.A.; Lang, B.K.; Berg, D.J. Phylogeographic analysis reveals multiple cryptic species of amphipods (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in Chihuahuan desert springs. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2303–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Laybourn-Parry, J.; Pearce, D. The biodiversity and ecology of Antarctic lakes: Models for evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 2007, 362, 2273–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chapman, L.J.; Kaufman, L.; Chapman, C.A.; McKenzie, F.E. Hypoxia tolerance in twelve species of East African cichlids: Potential for low oxygen refugia in Lake Victoria. Conserv. Biol. 1995, 9, 1274–1287. [Google Scholar]
  13. Waterman, T.H. The evolutionary challenges of extreme environments (part 1). J. Exp. Zool. 1999, 285, 326–359. [Google Scholar]
  14. Waterman, T.H. Evolutionary challenges of extreme environments (part 2). J. Exp. Zool. 2001, 291, 130–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Reiffenstein, R.; Hulbert, W.; Roth, S. Toxicology of hydrogen sulfide. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 1992, 1992, 109–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bagarinao, T. Sulfide as an environmental factor and toxicant: Tolerance and adaptations in aquatic organisms. Aquat. Toxicol. 1992, 24, 21–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Evans, C.L. The toxicity of hydrogen sulphide and other sulphides. Quart. J. Exp. Physiol. 1967, 52, 231–248. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooper, C.E.; Brown, G.C. The inhibition of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase by the gases carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulfide: Chemical mechanism and physiological significance. J. Bioenergy Biomembr. 2008, 40, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Park, C.; Nagel, R.; Blumberg, W.; Peisach, J.; Maliozzo, R. Sulfhemoglobin: Properties of partially sulfurated tetramers. J. Biol. Chem. 1986, 261, 8805–8810. [Google Scholar]
  20. Torrans, E.; Clemens, H. Physiological and biochemical effects of acute exposure of fish to hydrogen sulfide. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1982, 71C, 183–190. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grieshaber, M.K.; Völkel, S. Animal adaptations for tolerance and exploitation of poisonous sulfide. Ann. Rev. Physiol. 1998, 60, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Muyzer, G.; Stams, A.J.M. The ecology and biotechnology of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6, 441–454. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jorgensen, B.B. Ecology of the bacteria of the sulphur cycle with special reference to anoxic/oxic interface environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 1982, 298, 543–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Luther, G.W.; Ma, S.; Trouborst, R.; Glazer, B.; Blickley, M.; Scarborough, R.W.; Mensinger, M.G. The roles of anoxia, H2S, and sorm events in fish kills of dead-end canals of Delaware inland bays. Estuaries 2004, 27, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bagarinao, T.; Vetter, R.D. Sulfide tolerance and detoxification in shallow water marine fishes. Mar. Biol. 1989, 103, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tunnicliffe, V. The biology of hydrothermal vents: Ecology and evolution. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 1991, 29, 319–407. [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Dover, C.L. The Ecology of Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2000; p. 352. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tsurumi, M. Diversity at hydrothermal vents. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2003, 12, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sarrazin, J.; Juniper, S. Biological characteristics of a hydrothermal edifice mosaic community. Mar. Ecol. Ser. 1999, 185, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Price, A. Simultaneous ‘hotspots’ and ‘coldspots’ of marine biodiversity and implications for global conservation. Mar. Ecol. Ser. 2002, 241, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sibuet, M.; Olu, K. Biogeography, biodiversity, and fluid dependence of deep-sea cold-seep communities at active and passive margins. Deep-Sea Res. Part II-Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 1998, 45, 517–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Turnipseed, M.; Knick, K.E.; Lipcius, R.N.; Dreyer, J.; van Dover, C.L. Diversity in mussel beds at deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6, 518–523. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cordes, E.E.; Cunha, M.R.; Galeron, J.; Mora, C.; Olu-LeRoy, K.; Sibuet, M.; van Gaever, S.; Vanreusel, A.; Levin, L.A. The influence of geological, geochemical, and biogenic habitat heterogeneity on seep biodiversity. Mar. Ecol. 2009, 31, 51–65. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosales Lagarde, L.; Boston, P.J.; Campbell, A.; Stafford, K.W. Possible structural connection between Chichón Volcano and the sulfur-rich springs of Villa Luz Cave (a. k. a. Cueva de las Sardinas), Southern Mexico. Assoc. Mex. Cave Stud. Bull. 2006, 19, 177–184. [Google Scholar]
  35. Waring, G.A. Thermal springs of the United States and other countries of the world: A summary. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1965, 492, 1–383. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jannasch, H.W. The chemosynthetic support if life and the microbial diversity at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Proc. R. Soc. B 1985, 225, 277–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jannasch, H.W.; Taylor, C.D. Deep-Sea microbiology. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 1984, 38, 487–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Johnson, K.S.; Childress, J.J.; Hessler, R.R.; Sakamoto-Arnold, C.M.; Beehler, C.L. Chemical and biological interactions in the Rose Garden hydrothermal vent field, Galapagos spreading center. Deep-Sea Res. 1988, 35, 1723–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rosales Lagarde, L. Investigation of karst brackish-sulfidic springs and their role in the hydrogeology, subsurface water-rock interactions, and speleogenesis at northern Sierra de Chiapas, Mexico. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology: Socorro, NM, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  40. Iurkiewicz, A.A.; Stevanovic, Z. Reconnaissance study of active sulfide springs and cave systems in the southern part of the Sulaimani Governorate (NE Iraq). Carbonates Evaporites 2010, 25, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chernousova, E.Y.; Akimov, V.N.; Gridneva, E.V.; Dubinina, G.A.; Grabovich, M.Y. Phylogenetic in situ/ex situ analysis of a sulfur mat microbial community from a thermal sulfide spring in the north Caucasus. Microbiology 2008, 77, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ehrlich, H.L.; Newman, D.K. Geomicrobiology, 5th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  43. Buljan, M. New geochemical method of distinguishing the varieties of natural water. Croat. Chem. Acta 1962, 34, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  44. Drew, D. Lisdoonvarna springs and spa wells, County Clare, Ireland. Environmen. Geol. 1996, 27, 97–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wirth, W.W. A new genus and species of Ephydridae (Diptera) from a California sulphur spring. Wasmann J. Biol. 1954, 12, 195–202. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lobkova, L.E.; Barinova, E.S.; Dulov, L.E.; Galchenko, V.F. Interactions between larvae of the hoverfly Eristalinus sepulchralis and microorganisms in the hydrothermal springs of the Uzon Caldera, Kamchatka. Microbiology 2007, 76, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dul’tseva, N.M.; Tourova, T.P.; Spiridonova, E.M.; Kolganova, T.V.; Osipov, G.A.; Gorlenko, V.M. Thiobacillus sajanensis sp. nov., a new obligately autotrophic sulfur-oxidizing bacterium isolated from Khoito-Gol hydrogen-sulfide springs, Buryatia. Microbiology 2006, 75, 582–592. [Google Scholar]
  48. Douglas, S.; Douglas, D.D. Structural and geomicrobiological characteristics of a microbial community from a cold sulfide spring. Geomicrobiol. J. 2001, 18, 401–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jones, B.; Peng, X. Hot sprong deposits on a cliff face: A case study from Jifei, Yunnan Province, China. Sediment. Geol. 2014, 302, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bland, J.A.; Staley, J.T. Observations on the biology of Thiothrix. Arch. Microbiol. 1978, 117, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cortecci, G.; Boschetti, T.; Mussi, M.; Lameli, C.H.; Mucchino, C.; Barbieri, M. New chemical and original isotopic data on waters from El Tatio geothermal field, northern Chile. Geochem. J. 2005, 39, 547–571. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hamad, S.M. Status of water resources of Al Jabal Al Akhdar region, North East Libya. Libyan Agr. Res. Cent. J. Int. 2012, 3, 247–259. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hippe, H.; Vainshtein, M.; Gogotova, G.I.; Stackebrandt, E. Reclassification of Desulfobacterium macestii as Desulfomicrobium macestii comb. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2003, 53, 1127–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Idris, H. Springs in Egypt. Environ. Geol. 1996, 27, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Castenholz, R.W.; Jorgensen, B.B.; D’Amelio, E.; Bauld, J. Photosynthetic and behavioral versatility of the cyanobacterium Oscillatoria boryana in a sulfide-rich microbial mat. FEMS Microb. Ecol. 1991, 86, 43–58. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lavrinenko, K.; Chernousova, E.; Gridneva, E.; Dubinina, G.; Akimov, V.; Kuever, J.; Lysenko, A.; Grabovich, M. Azospirillum thiophilum sp. nov., a diazotrophic bacterium isolated from a sulfide spring. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Micr. 2010, 60, 2832–2837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Xu, Y.; Schoonen, M.A.A.; Nordstrom, D.K.; Cunningham, K.M.; Ball, J.W. Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: I. The origin of thiosulfate in hot spring water. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1998, 62, 3729–3743. [Google Scholar]
  58. Skirnisdottir, S.; Hreggvidsson, G.O.; Hjorleifsdottir, S.; Marteinsson, V.T.; Petursdottir, S.K.; Holst, O.; Kristjansson, J.K. Influence of sulfide and temperature on species composition and community structure of hot spring microbial mats. Appl. Environ. Micr. 2000, 66, 2835–2841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tourova, T.P.; Kovaleva, O.L.; Gorlenko, V.M.; Ivanovsky, R.N. Use of genes of carbon metabolism enzymes as molecular markers of Chlorobi phylum representatives. Microbiology 2013, 82, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lozano-Vilano, M.; Contreras-Balderas, S. Cyprinodon bobmilleri: New species of Pubfish from Nuevo Leon, Mexico (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae). Copeia 1999, 1999, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Coad, B.W. A re-description of Aphanius ginaonis (Holly, 1929) from southern Iran (Osteichthyes: Cyprinodontiformes). J. Nat. Hist. 1980, 14, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Teimori, A. The Evolutionary History and Taxonomy of Aphanius (Teleostei: Cyprinodontidae) Species in Iran and the Persian Gulf Region. Ph.D. Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  63. Teimori, A.; Esmaeili, H.R.; Erpenbeck, D.; Reichenbacher, B. A new and unique species of the genus Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Teleostei: Cyprinodontidae) from Southern Iran: A case of regressive evolution. Zool. Anz. 2014. in press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Winemiller, K.O.; Leslie, M.; Roche, R. Phenotypic variation in male guppies from natural inland populations: an additional test of Haskins’ sexual selection/predation hypthesis. Environ. Biol. Fish. 1990, 29, 173–191. [Google Scholar]
  65. Willing, E.-M.; Bentzen, P.; Van Oosterhout, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Cable, J.; Breden, F.; Weigel, D.; Dreyer, C. Genome-wide nucleotide polymorphisms reveal population history and adaptive divergence in wild guppies. Mol. Ecol. 2010, 19, 968–984. [Google Scholar]
  66. Covich, A. Chemical refugia from predation for thin-shelled gastropods in a sulfide-enriched stream. Verh. Int. Ver. fuer Limnol. 1981, 21, 1632–1636. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tobler, M.; Hastings, L. Convergent patterns of body shape differentiation in four different clades of poeciliid fishes inhabiting sulfide springs. Evol. Biol. 2011, 38, 412–421. [Google Scholar]
  68. Miller, R.R. Five New Species of Mexican Poeciliid Fishes of the Genera Poecilia, Gambusia, and Poeciliopsis; Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tobler, M.; Riesch, R.; Garcia de Leon, F.J.; Schlupp, I.; Plath, M. Two endemic and endangered fishes, Poecilia sulphuraria (Alvarez, 1948) and Gambusia eurystoma Miller, 1975 (Poeciliidae, Teleostei), as only survivors in a small sulfidic habitat. J. Fish Biol. 2008, 72, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Riesch, R.; Tobler, M.; Lerp, H.; Jourdan, J.; Doumas, L.T.; Nosil, P.; Langerhans, R.B.; Plath, M. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, Unpublished work. 2013.
  71. Riesch, R.; Plath, M.; Garcia de Leon, F.J.; Schlupp, I. Convergent life-history shifts: Toxic environments result in big babies in two clades of poeciliids. Naturwissenschaften 2010, 97, 133–141. [Google Scholar]
  72. Rivas, L.R. Eight new species of poeciliid fishes of the genus Limia from Hispaniola. Northeast Gulf Sci. 1980, 2, 98–112. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hamilton, A. Phylogeny of Limia (Teleostei; Poeciliidae) based on NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2001, 19, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Riesch, R.; Plath, M.; Schlupp, I.; Tobler, M.; Langerhans, R.B. Colonization of toxic springs drives predictable life-history shift in livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tobler, M.; DeWitt, T.J.; Schlupp, I.; Garcia de Leon, F.J.; Herrmann, R.; Feulner, P.; Tiedemann, R.; Plath, M. Toxic hydrogen sulfide and dark caves: Phenotypic and genetic divergence across two abiotic environmental gradients in Poecilia mexicana. Evolution 2008, 62, 2643–2649. [Google Scholar]
  76. Tobler, M.; Palacios, M.; Chapman, L.J.; Mitrofanov, I.; Bierbach, D.; Plath, M.; Arias-Rodriguez, L.; Garcia de Leon, F.J.; Mateos, M. Evolution in extreme environments: replicated phenotypic differentiation in livebearing fish inhabiting sulfidic springs. Evolution 2011, 65, 2213–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Palacios, M.; Arias-Rodriguez, L.; Plath, M.; Eifert, C.; Lerp, H.; Lamboj, A.; Voelker, G.; Tobler, M. The redescovery of a long described species reveals additional complexity in speciation patterns of poeciliid fishes in sulfide springs. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e71069. [Google Scholar]
  78. Camacho, A.; Rochera, C.; Silvestre, J.J.; Vincente, E.; Hahn, M.W. Spatial dominance and inorganic carbon assimilation by conspicuous autotrophic biofilms in a physical and chemical gradient of a cold sulfurous spring: the role of differential ecological strategies. Microb. Ecol. 2005, 50, 172–184. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pimenov, N.V.; Kuranov, G.V.; Bryikhanov, A.L.; Vesopolova, E.F.; Koryukina, I.P.; Maslov, Y.N. The sulfate-reducing bacterial community of sulfide-rich water of the Ust'-Kachka Resort Spring, Perm Krai, Russia. Microbiology 2012, 81, 721–726. [Google Scholar]
  80. Stambuk-Giljanovic, N. Characteristics and origin of the hydrogen silphide spring water from the Split spa (Southern Croatia). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 140, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gadd, B. Handbook of the Canadian Rockies; Corax Press: Canmore, Alberta, Canada, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  82. Nordstrom, D.K.; McCleskey, R.B.; Ball, J.W. Sulfur geochemistry of hydrothermal waters in Yellowstone National Park: IV Acid-sulfate waters. Appl. Geochem. 2009, 24, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cline, J.; Richards, F. Oxygenation of hydrogen sulfide in seawater at constant salinity, temerature, and pH. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1969, 3, 838–843. [Google Scholar]
  84. Chen, K.; Morris, J. Kinetics of oxidation of aqueous sulfide by O2. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1972, 6, 529–537. [Google Scholar]
  85. Canfield, D.E.; Farquhar, J. The global sulfur cycle. In Fundamentals of Geobiology; Knoll, A.H., Canfield, D.E., Konhauser, K.O., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  86. Overmann, J.; van Gemerden, H. Microbial interactions involving sulfur bacteria: Implications for the ecology and evolution of bacterial communities. Fems Microbiol. Rev. 2000, 24, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tang, K.; Baskaran, V.; Nemati, M. Bacteria of the sulphur cycle: An overview of microbiology, bioknetics and their role in petroleum and mining industries. Biochem. Eng. J. 2009, 44, 73–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Barton, L.L.; Fauque, G.D. Biochemistry, physiology and biotechnology of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 68, 41–98. [Google Scholar]
  89. Friedrich, C.G. Physiology and genetics of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 1998, 39, 235–289. [Google Scholar]
  90. Ghosh, W.; Dam, B. Biochemistry and molecular biology of lithotrophic sulfur oxidation by taxonomically and ecologically diverse bacteria and archaea. Fems Microbiol. Rev. 2009, 33, 999–1043. [Google Scholar]
  91. Elshahed, M.S.; Senko, J.M.; Najar, F.Z.; Kenton, S.M.; Roe, B.A.; Dewers, T.A.; Spear, J.R.; Krumholz, L.R. Bacterial diversity and sulfur cycling in a mesophilic sulfide-rich spring. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5609–5621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nakagawa, S.; Tekai, K. Deep-Sea vent chemoautotrophs: diversity, biochemistry and ecological significance. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2008, 65, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sarbu, S.M.; Kane, T.C.; Kinkle, B.K. A chemoautotrophically based cave ecosystem. Science 1996, 272, 1953–1955. [Google Scholar]
  94. Roach, K.; Tobler, M.; Winemiller, K.O. Hydrogen sulfide, bacteria, and fish: A unique, subterranean food chain. Ecology 2011, 92, 2056–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Boyd, E.S. Biology of Acid-Sulfate-Chloride Springs in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, United States of America; Montana State University: Bozeman, MT, Canada, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  96. Brues, C.T. Animal life in hot springs. Quart. Rev. Biol. 1927, 2, 181–203. [Google Scholar]
  97. Collins, N.C. Population biology of a brine fly (Diptera: Ephydridae) in the presence of abundant algal food. Ecology 1975, 56, 1139–1148. [Google Scholar]
  98. Arif, I.A. Composition of blue-green algal mats and water chemistry of the Bani Malik hot spring (Gizan Province), Saudi Arabia. Kuwait J. Sci. Eng. 1997, 24, 109–122. [Google Scholar]
  99. Brues, C.T. Studies on the fauna of hot springs in the western United States and the biology of thermophilous animals. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 1928, 63, 139–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Heller, J.; Ehrlich, S. A freshwater prosobranch, Melanoides tuberculata, in a hydrogen sulphide stream. J. Conchol. 1995, 35, 237–241. [Google Scholar]
  101. Brues, C.T. Observations on animal life in the thermal waters of Yellowstone Park, with a consideration of the thermal environment. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 1924, 59, 371–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Tobler, M. Does a predatory insect contribute to the divergence between cave- and surface adapted fish populations? Biol. Lett. 2009, 5, 506–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Macalady, J.L.; Lyon, E.H.; Koffman, B.; Albertson, L.K.; Meyer, K.; Galdenzi, S.; Mariani, S. Dominant microbial populations in limestone-corroding stream biofilms, Frasassi cave system, Italy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 5596–5609. [Google Scholar]
  104. Latella, L.; Di Russo, C.; De Pasquale, L.; Dell’anna, L.; Nardi, G.; Rampini, M. Preliminary investigations on a new sulphurous cave in central Italy. Mémoires de Biospéologie 1999, 53, 131–135. [Google Scholar]
  105. Hose, L.; Palmer, A.N.; Palmer, M.; Northup, D.E.; Boston, P.J.; DuChene, H.R. Microbiology and geochemistry in a hydrogen-sulphide-rich karst environment. Chem. Geol. 2000, 169, 399–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tobler, M.; Schlupp, I.; Heubel, K.; Riesch, R.; Garcia de Leon, F.J.; Giere, O.; Plath, M. Life on the edge: Hydrogen sulfide and the fish communities of a Mexican cave and surrounding waters. Extremophiles 2006, 10, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Engel, A.S.; Lee, N.; Porter, M.L.; Stern, L.A.; Bennett, P.C.; Wagner, M. Filamentous “Epsilonproteobacteria” dominate microbial mats from sulfidic cave springs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5503–5511. [Google Scholar]
  108. Rye, R.O.; Back, W.; Hanshaw, B.B.; Rightmire, C.T.; Peason, F.J. The origin and isotopic composition of dissolved sulfide in groundwater from carbonate aquifers in Florida and Texas. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1981, 45, 1941–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Summers Engel, A. Observations on the biodiversity of sulfidic karst habitats. J. Cave Karst Stud. 2007, 69, 187–206. [Google Scholar]
  110. Culver, D.C.; Sket, B. Hotspots of subterranean biodiversity in caves and wells. J. Cave Karst Stud. 2000, 62, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  111. Menke, A. Family Belostomatidae-Giant water bugs. In the Semiaquatic and Aquatic Hemiptera of California (Heteroptera: Hemiptera); Menke, A., Ed.; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979; pp. 76–86. [Google Scholar]
  112. McCafferty, W. Aquatic Entomology; Jones and Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  113. Vismann, B. Sulfide tomerance: physiological mechanisms and ecological implications. Ophelia 1991, 34, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  114. Parzefall, J. A review of morphological and behavioural changes in the cave molly, Poecilia mexicana, from Tabasco, Mexico. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2001, 62, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Gordon, M.S.; Rosen, D.E. A cavernicolous form of the poeciliid fish Poecilia sphenops from Tabasco, México. Copeia 1962, 1962, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chapman, L.J.; McKenzie, D.J. Behavioral responses and ecological consequences. In Hypoxia; Richards, J.G., Farrell, A.P., Brauner, C.J., Eds.; Academic Press: Burlington, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 25–77. [Google Scholar]
  117. Kramer, D.L. Dissolved oxygen and fish behavior. Environ. Biol. Fish. 1987, 18, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Brauner, C.J.; Ballantyne, C.L.; Randall, D.J.; Val, A.L. Air-Breathing in the armored catfish (Hoplosternum littorale) as an adaptation to hypoxic, acidic, and hydrogen sulfide-rich waters. Can. J. Zool. Rev. Can. Zool. 1995, 73, 739–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Graham, J.B. Air-Breathing Fishes: Evolution, Diversity and Adaptation. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  120. Kramer, D.L.; McClure, M. Aquatic surface respiration, a widespread adaptation to hypoxia in tropical freshwater fishes. Environ. Biol. Fish. 1982, 7, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lewis, W. Morphological adaptations of cyprinodontoids for inhabiting oxygen deficient waters. Copeia 1970, 1970, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ip, Y.K.; Kuah, S.S.L.; Chew, S.F. Strategies adopted by the mudskipper Boleophthalmus boddaerti to survive sulfide exposure in normoxia or hypoxia. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2004, 77, 824–837. [Google Scholar]
  123. Greven, H. Gonads, genitals, and reproductive biology. In Ecology and Evolution of Poeciliid Fishes; Evans, J.P., Pilastro, A., Schlupp, I., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  124. Blackburn, D.G. Viviparity and oviparity: Evolution and reproductive strategies. In Encyclopedia of Reproduction; Knobil, T.E., Neill, J.D., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 4, pp. 994–1003. [Google Scholar]
  125. Tobler, M.; Riesch, R.; Tobler, C.M.; Plath, M. Compensatory behaviour in response to sulfide-induced hypoxia affects time budgets, feeding efficiency, and predation risk. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2009, 11, 935–948. [Google Scholar]
  126. Plath, M.; Tobler, M.; Riesch, R.; Garcia de Leon, F.J.; Giere, O.; Schlupp, I. Survival in an extreme habitat: The role of behaviour and energy limitation. Naturwissenschaften 2007, 94, 991–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pfenninger, M.; Lerp, H.; Tobler, M.; Passow, C.; Kelley, J.L.; Funke, E.; Greshake, B.; Erkoc, U.K.; Berberich, T.; Plath, M. Parallel evolution of cox genes in H2S-tolerant fish as key adaptation to a toxic envrionment. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3873. [Google Scholar]
  128. Shahak, Y.; Hauska, G. Sulfide oxidation from cyanobacteria to humans: Sulfide-Quinone oxidoreductase (SQR). In Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration; Hell, R., Dahl, C., Knaff, D.B., Leustek, T., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 319–335. [Google Scholar]
  129. Kelley, J.L.; Passow, C.; Arias-Rodriguez, L.; Yee, M.C.; Tobler, M. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA, Unpublished work. 2014.
  130. Tobler, M.; Henpita, C.; Bassett, B.; Kelley, J.L.; Shaw, J. H2S exposure elicits differential expression of candidate genes in fish adapted to sulfidic and non-sulfidic environments. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2014, 175, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  131. Tobler, M.; Plath, M. Living in extreme habitats. In Ecology and Evolution of Poeciliid Fishes; Evans, J., Pilastro, A., Schlupp, I., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011; pp. 120–127. [Google Scholar]
  132. Tobler, M. Divergence in trophic ecology characterizes colonization of extreme habitats. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2008, 95, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Passow, C.; Greenway, R.; Arias-Rodriguez, L.; Jeyasingh, P.D.; Tobler, M. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, Unpublished work. 2014.
  134. Riesch, R.; Plath, M.; Schlupp, I. Toxic hydrogen sulfide and dark caves: Life-History adaptations in a livebearing fish (Poecilia mexicana, Poeciliidae). Ecology 2010, 91, 1494–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Schluter, D. Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Rundle, H.D.; Nosil, P. Ecological speciation. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 336–352. [Google Scholar]
  137. Chevin, L.-M.; Decorzent, G.; Lenormand, T. Niche dimensionality and the genetics of ecological speciation. Evolution 2014. in press. [Google Scholar]
  138. Plath, M.; Pfenninger, M.; Lerp, H.; Riesch, R.; Eschenbrenner, C.; Slattery, P.; Bierbach, D.; Herrmann, N.; Schulte, M.; Arias-Rodriguez, L.; et al. Genetic differentiation and selection against migrants in evolutionarily replicated extreme environments. Evolution 2013, 67, 2647–2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Tobler, M.; Riesch, R.; Tobler, C.M.; Schulz-Mirbach, T.; Plath, M. Natural and sexual selection against immigrants maintains differentiation among micro-allopatric populations. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22, 2298–2304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Plath, M.; Riesch, R.; Oranth, A.; Dzienko, J.; Karau, N.; Schiessl, A.; Stadler, S.; Wigh, A.; Zimmer, C.; Arias-Rodriguez, L.; et al. Complementary effects of natural and sexual selection against immigrants maintains differentiation between locally adapted fish. Naturwissenschaften 2010, 97, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Bierbach, D.; Klein, M.; Sassmannshausen, V.; Schlupp, I.; Riesch, R.; Parzefall, J.; Plath, M. Divergent evolution of male aggressive behavior: Another reproductive isolation barrier in extremophile poeciliid fishes? Int. J. Evol. Biol. 2012, 2012. Article 148745. [Google Scholar]
  142. Gershoni, M.; Templeton, A.; Mishmar, D. Mitochondrial bioenergetics as a major motive force of speciation. Bioessays 2009, 31, 642–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Miller, R.R. Geographical distribution of Central American freshwater fishes. Copeia 1966, 1966, 773–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Cooper, D.; Cooper, W.; de Mello, W.; Saltzman, E.; Zika, R. Variability of biogenic sulfur emissions from Florida wetlands. In Biogenic Sulfur in the Environment; Saltzman, E., Cooper, W., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 31–43. [Google Scholar]
  145. Merritt, R.W.; Cummins, K.W. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 4th ed.; Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, IA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  146. Wiggins, G.B. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera, 2nd ed.; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  147. Needham, J.G.; Westfall, M.J.; May, M.L. Dragonflies of North America; Scientific Publishers: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  148. Ramírez, A.; Pringle, C.M. Structure and production of a benthic insect assemblage in a neotropical stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1998, 17, 443–462. [Google Scholar]
  149. Flowers, R.W. Diversity of stream-living insects in northwestern Panama. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1991, 10, 322–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Jacobsen, D.; Cressa, C.; Mathooko, J.M.; Dudgeon, D. Macroinvertebrates: Composition, life histories and production. In Tropical Stream Ecology; Dudgeon, D., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 65–105. [Google Scholar]
  151. Ramírez, A.; Pringle, C.M. Invertebrate drift and benthic community dynamics in a lowland neotropical stream, Costa Rica. Hydrobiologia 1998, 386, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Pringle, C.M.; Ramírez, A. Use of both benthic and drift sampling techniques to assess tropical stream invertebrate communities along an altitudinal gradient, Costa Rica. Freshw. Biol. 1998, 39, 359–373. [Google Scholar]
  153. Connolly, N.M.; Crossland, M.R.; Pearson, R.G. Effect of low dissolved oxygen on suvival, emergence, and drift of tropical stream macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2004, 23, 251–270. [Google Scholar]
  154. Walshe, B.M. The oxygen requirements and thermal resistance of chironomid larvae from flowing and still waters. J. Exp. Biol. 1948, 25, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  155. De Jonge, J.; den Besten, P.J.; Oosterbaan, J. Sediment pollution and predation affect structure and production of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the Rhine-Meuse delta, the Netherlands. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2004, 23, 557–579. [Google Scholar]
  156. Helson, J.E.; Williams, D.D.; Turner, D. Larval chironomid community organization in four tropical rivers: Human impacts and longitudinal zonation. Hydrobiologia 2006, 559, 413–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Carew, M.E.; Pettigrove, V.; Cox, R.L.; Hoffmann, A.A. The response of Chironomidae to sediment pollution and other environmental characteristics in urban wetlands. Freshw. Biol. 2007, 52, 2444–2462. [Google Scholar]
  158. Magni, P.; Rajagopal, S.; van der Velde, G.; Fenzi, G.; Kassenberg, J.; Vizzini, S.; Mazzola, A.; Guiordani, G. Sediment features, macrozoobenthic assemblages and trophic relationships (δ13 C and δ15 N analysis) following a dystrophic event with anoxia and sulphide development in the Santa Giusta Lagoon (western Sardinia, Italy). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2008, 57, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Takagi, S.; Kikuchi, E.; Doi, H.; Shikano, S. Swimming behavior of Chironomus acerbiphilus larvae in Lake Katanuma. Hydrobiologia 2005, 548, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Klaus, S.; Plath, M. Predation on a cave fish by the freshwater crab Avotrichodactylus bidens (Bott, 1969) (Brachyura, Trichodactylidae) in a Mexican sulfur cave. Custaceana 2011, 84, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Bouchard, R.W. Guide to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Upper Midwest; Water Resources Center, University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  162. Harris, T.L.; Lawrence, T.M. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Trichoptera; US EPA, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  163. Hubbard, M.D.; Peters, W.L. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Ephemeroptera; US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  164. Oseid, D.M.; Smith, L.L. Factors influencing acute toxicity estimates of hydrogen sulfide to freshwater invertebrates. Water Res. 1974, 8, 739–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Smith, L.L.; Oseid, D.M.; Adelman, I.R.; Broderius, S.J. Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide on Fish and Invertebrates, Part 1: Acute and Chronic Toxicity Studies; EPA-600/3-76-062a; US Environmental Protection Agency: Duluth, MN, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  166. Hilsenhoff, W.L. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1988, 7, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Nolte, U.; Tietböhl, R.S. A mayfly from tropical Brazil capable of tolerating short-term dehydration. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1996, 15, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. McCafferty, W.P.; Lugo-Ortiz, C.R. Cloeodes hydation, n. sp. (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae): An extraoridinarily, drought tolerant mayfly from Brazil. Entomol. News 1995, 106, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  169. Gooderham, J.; Tsyrlin, E. The Waterbug Book: A Guide to the Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Temperate Australia; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  170. Thorpe, W.H.; Crisp, D.J. Studies on plastron respiration: I. Rge biology of Aphelocheirus [Hemiptera, Aphelocheiridae (Naucoridae)] and the mechanism of plastron retention. J. Exp. Biol. 1947, 24, 227–269. [Google Scholar]
  171. Hinton, H.E. Plastron respiration in adult beetles of the suborder Myxophaga. J. Zool. 1969, 159, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Resh, V.H.; Unzicker, J.D. Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: The importance of species identification. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1975, 47, 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  173. Tobler, M.; Roach, K.; Winemiller, K.O.; Morehouse, R.L.; Plath, M. Population structure, habitat use, and diet of giant waterbugs in a sulfidic cave. Southw. Nat. 2013, 58, 420–426. [Google Scholar]
  174. Tobler, M.; Schlupp, I.; Plath, M. Predation of a cave fish (Poecilia mexicana, Poeciliidae) by a giant water-bug (Belostoma, Belostomatidae) in a Mexican sulfur cave. Ecol. Entomol. 2007, 32, 492–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Plath, M.; Riesch, R.; Culumber, Z.W.; Streit, B.; Tobler, C.M. Giant waterbug (Belostoma sp.) predation on a cavefish (Poecilia mexicana): Effects of female body size and gestational state. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2011, 13, 133–144. [Google Scholar]
  176. Miller, R.R.; Minckley, W.; Norris, S. Freshwater Fishes of Mexico; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  177. Greenway, R.; Tobler, M. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, Unpublished work. 2014.
  178. Bagarinao, T.; Lantin-Olaguer, I. The sulfide tolerance of milkfish and tilapia in relation to fish kills in farms and natural waters in the Philippines. Hydrobiologia 1999, 382, 137–150. [Google Scholar]
  179. Affonso, E.; Rantin, F. Respiratory responses of the air-breathing fish Hoplosternum littorale to hypoxia and hydrogen sulfide. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C: Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2005, 141, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Li, L.; Rose, P.; Moore, P.K. Hydrogen sulfide and cell signaling. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2011, 51, 169–187. [Google Scholar]
  181. Szabo, C. Hydrogen sulphide and its therapeutic potential. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2007, 6, 917–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Ryder, O.A. Species conservation and systematics: The dilemma of subspecies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1986, 1, 9–10. [Google Scholar]
  183. Tobler, M.; Plath, M. Threatened fishes of the world: Gambusia eurystoma Miller, 1975 (Poeciliidae). Environ. Biol. Fish. 2009, 85. Article 251. [Google Scholar]
  184. Tobler, M.; Plath, M. Threatened fishes of the world: Poecilia sulphuraria (Alvarez, 1948) (Poeciliidae). Environ. Biol. Fish. 2009, 85, 333–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. IUCN Red List of threatened species, version 2013.2. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 14 April 2014).
  186. SEDESOL. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-1994, que determina las especies y subspecies de flora y fauna silvestres terrestres y acuáticas en peligro de extinción, amenazadas, raras y las sujetas a protección especial, y que establece especificaciones para su protección. Diario Oficial 1994, 488, 2–60. (In Spanish). [Google Scholar]
Diversity EISSN 1424-2818 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top