Next Article in Journal
Sunscreens’ UV Filters Risk for Coastal Marine Environment Biodiversity: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Towakkalak System, A Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in Sulawesi, Indonesia
Previous Article in Journal
Interface of Human/Wildlife Interactions: An Example of a Bold Coyote (Canis latrans) in Atlanta, GA, USA
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ganxiao Dong: A Hotspot of Cave Biodiversity in Northern Guangxi, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/d13080373
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mammoth Cave: A Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in the United States

by
Matthew L. Niemiller
1,*,
Kurt Helf
2 and
Rickard S. Toomey
3
1
Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Dr NW, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
2
Cumberland Piedmont Network, National Park Service, Mammoth Cave National Park, 61 Maintenance Rd., Mammoth Cave, KY 42259, USA
3
Division of Science and Resources Management, Mammoth Cave National Park, P.O. Box 7, Mammoth Cave, KY 42259, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2021, 13(8), 373; https://doi.org/10.3390/d13080373
Submission received: 10 July 2021 / Revised: 29 July 2021 / Accepted: 3 August 2021 / Published: 12 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hotspots of Subterranean Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Mammoth Cave System in the Interior Low Plateau karst region in central Kentucky, USA is a global hotspot of cave-limited biodiversity, particularly terrestrial species. We searched the literature, museum accessions, and database records to compile an updated list of troglobiotic and stygobiotic species for the Mammoth Cave System and compare our list with previously published checklists. Our list of cave-limited fauna totals 49 species, with 32 troglobionts and 17 stygobionts. Seven species are endemic to the Mammoth Cave System and other small caves in Mammoth Cave National Park. The Mammoth Cave System is the type locality for 33 cave-limited species. The exceptional diversity at Mammoth Cave is likely related to several factors, such as the high dispersal potential of cave fauna associated with expansive karst exposures, high surface productivity, and a long history of exploration and study. Nearly 80% of the cave-limited fauna is of conservation concern, many of which are at an elevated risk of extinction because of small ranges, few occurrences, and several potential threats.

1. Introduction

The Mammoth Cave System in central Kentucky, USA is the most extensive cave system in the world with over 663 km (412 miles) of mapped passaged, including 27 entrances and 10 significant caves that have been connected since explorations began in the late 1700s: Colossal, Crystal (=Floyd Collins’ Crystal), Donkey, Hoover, Mammoth, Morrison, Proctor, Roppel, Salts, and Unknown caves. Colossal, Crystal, Salts, and Unknown caves comprise the 206 km (128 mile) Flint Ridge Cave system (Figure 1). Mammoth Cave National Park was created in 1941 and includes two-thirds of the Mammoth Cave System [1]. The Mammoth Cave System was recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1981 because of its uniqueness as the world’s longest cave system as well as its extensive geological, mineral, and biological resources. The region was recognized as the core of an UNESCO Biosphere Reserve—Mammoth Cave Biosphere Region—in 1990.
The Mammoth Cave System is developed in three major limestone layers at the northwestern extent of the Pennyroyal Plateau, an expansive flat karst plain within the Interior Low Plateau physiographic province. The limestone layers include, from youngest to oldest, the Girkin Formation (40 m thick), Ste. Genevieve Limestone (35 m thick), and St. Louis Limestone (53–60 m thick) [2,3,4,5]. The Girkin Formation is capped by resistant sandstone and shale of the Big Clifty Formation that form the Mammoth Cave, Flint, Joppa, and Toohey Ridges. Most of the cave system is developed in the Ste. Genevieve Limestone and the upper 40 m of St. Louis Limestone [5]. The limestone strata gently slope from the southeast to the northwest. The Pennyroyal Plateau is exposed at the surface to the southeast, while insoluble strata of the Chester Upland, including the Big Clifty Formation, form a rugged hilly terrain that overlies the cave system to the northwest. The Green River, a tributary of the Ohio River, has cut into the Pennyroyal Plateau about 60 m such that most of the Mammoth Cave watershed now occurs underground [6]. The karst watershed of Mammoth Cave includes seven groundwater basins (Pike Spring, Great Onyx, Echo River, Double Sink, River Styx, Floating Mill Hollow, and Turnhole Bend); in addition, flood overflow occurs into an eighth basin (Sand Cave). These basins encompass 317 km2 and ultimately drain at springs at base level into the Green River [7,8].
The Mammoth Cave System is characterized by a complex network of vadose and phreatic passages with at least five primary horizontal levels of passages (four fossil stream levels and the modern base level) representing distinct stages of development in association with past periods of water table stability and intervening periods of downcutting of the Green River valley through the resistant caprock into the soluble limestone layers below [1,6]. The evolution of the Mammoth Cave system is linked to the incision history of the Green River, drainage reorganizations, and significant climatic changes from the Pliocene through the Pleistocene, with the oldest upper-level passages dating to 3.2 Mya and the lower levels developing over the past 2 Mya [9].
Mammoth Cave has long been a focal region of study for North American subterranean biodiversity and for advancing our foundational knowledge of the ecology and evolution of cave fauna. Studies of the biodiversity in the Mammoth Cave System have an extensive history dating back to the 1820s (see [10]) when Constantin S. Rafinesque first visited Mammoth Cave [11]. Darwin [12] even mentions cave life from the Mammoth Cave region in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Much of our early knowledge of the North American cave fauna was derived from visits and studies by biologists to Mammoth Cave in the 1800s, such as DeKay [13], Wyman [14,15,16,17,18,19], Tellkampf [20,21,22], Agassiz [23,24,25], Von Motschulsky [26,27], Call [28], and Packard [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] (reviewed in [10] and [37]). Additional significant early publications on the fauna and ecology of Mammoth Cave include Putnam [38], Eigenmann [39,40,41,42], Bolivar and Jeannel [43], Bailey [44], Buchanan [45], Park [46], Dearolf [47], Hubricht [48,49,50,51,52,53], Jeannel and Henrot [54], and Barr [55,56,57,58,59,60]. Barr [10] provided the first comprehensive review of the fauna of the Mammoth Cave system. More recently, Poulson [61,62] and Helf and Olson [63] provided reviews of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in Mammoth Cave. Culver and Hobbs [37] comprehensively reviewed the obligate cave fauna of the Mammoth Cave system and compared the fauna with other global hotspots of terrestrial cave biodiversity. Toomey et al. [1] presented a general review of the Mammoth Cave system that included a checklist of cave obligate fauna.
Herein we present an updated list of terrestrial and aquatic cave obligate fauna (i.e., troglobionts and stygobionts, respectively) of the Mammoth Cave system. Our goal is not to duplicate recently published checklists by Culver and Hobbs [37] and Toomey et al. [1] but rather complement these works by including a comprehensive bibliography on the cave obligate fauna of Mammoth Cave. In addition, we compare our list with past checklists from Mammoth Cave and comment on the exceptional biodiversity of this North American and global hotspot of subterranean biodiversity.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a search of the scientific literature to compile an updated list of troglobiont and stygobiont species for the Mammoth Cave System. For an overview of taxa that are not cave-limited, we refer readers to Barr [10], Culver and Hobbs [37], Helf and Olson [63], and Poulson [62]. Scientific literature sources included journal articles, book chapters, books, conference proceedings, theses and dissertations, and government reports. Searches of literature sources included keyword queries of ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Zoological Record. In addition, we also searched biodiversity databases including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; Available online: https://gbif.org (accessed on 28 June 2021)), VertNet (Available online: http://www.vertnet.org (accessed on 28 June 2021)), Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network (SCAN; Available online: https://scan-bugs.org/portal/(accessed on 28 June 2021)), and InvertEBase (Available online: http://www.invertebase.org/portal/index.php (accessed on 28 June 2021)). The list of cave obligate fauna includes the scientific name, authority, and conservation status of each species. Taxonomic nomenclature followed primarily the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; Available online: http://itis.gov (accessed on 28 June 2021)). For conservation status, we include the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 28 June 2021)) and NatureServe (Available online: http://www.natureserve.org (accessed on 28 June 2021)) conservation statuses when available. The status of a species according to the United States list of threatened and endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act is included (Available online: http://www.fws.gov/endangered (accessed on 28 June 2021)), as well its status (endangered, threatened, or of greatest conservation need) under the latest Kentucky State Wildlife Action Plan (Available online: https://fw.ky.gov/WAP/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 28 June 2021)).

3. Results

Packard [36] summarized the North America cave fauna, which at that time was primarily limited to the fauna of Mammoth Cave. He reported 31 permanent cave species, 18 of which we recognize as cave-limited species today, including 12 troglobionts and six stygobionts (Table 1). Barr [10] reported 44 cave-limited species (28 troglobionts and 16 stygobionts). More recently, Culver and Hobbs [37] listed 48 species (32 troglobionts and 16 stygobionts, 11 of which (nine troglobionts and two stygobionts) are endemic to the Mammoth Cave System, while Toomey et al. [1] reported 50 cave-limited species (32 troglobionts and 18 stygobionts). The authors also included two springtails not yet identified to species (Willemia sp. and Onychiurus sp.) on their list of cave-limited taxa, which were also reported by Barr [10].
Our list of cave-limited fauna includes 49 species, with 32 troglobionts and 17 stygobionts (Table 1; Figure 2). Both Culver and Hobbs [37] and Toomey et al. [1] included the snail Helicodiscus punctatellus and copepod Atteyella pilosa in their respective lists of cave-limited taxa. Helicodiscus punctatellus is known from surface collections [64]. Atteyella pilosa is a facultative associate of several species of surface and cave-limited crayfishes and is also known from surface collections [65]. Culver and Hobbs [37] did not include the isopod Caecidotea bicrenata, which was included in our list and that of Toomey et al. [1]. Lewis [66] reported several collections of C. bicrenata from the Mammoth Cave System where it predominately occurs in lower-level aquatic habitats. Toomey et al. [1] included the phorid fly Megaselia cavernicola in their list of cave-limited taxa. Megaselia cavernicola is a widely occurring species in caves on eastern North America that lacks obvious troglomorphic characters, is known from surface collections [67], and has been treated as a troglophile (i.e., non-obligate) by most past authors (e.g., [68,69]).
Mammoth Cave is the type locality for 33 cave-limited species (Table 1). Seven species are endemic to the Mammoth Cave system and other smaller caves in Mammoth Cave National Park (Table 1).

3.1. Terrestrial Fauna

Two troglobiotic snails have been documented in the Mammoth Cave System. Carychium stygium is found in association with cricket guano and is the most common of the two species [37]. Weigand et al. [70,71] suggest C. stygium may be an ecotype of the troglophile C. exile, as C. stygium shows limited mitochondrial COI sequence divergence from and is nested within a clade containing C. clappi and C. exile. However, this inference is based on a single locus and only two populations of C. stygium were included in analyses. Alternative hypotheses such as incomplete lineage sorting and mitochondrial introgression cannot be ruled out at present and warrant study. Regardless, these studies suggest that it is likely that C. stygium has recently colonized caves. Glyphyalinia specus is a wide-ranging snail known from 27 occurrences in five states [72]. Significant publications include Call [28], Hubricht [49,50,52,53], Barr [10], Poulson et al. [73], Dourson [74], Poulson [62], and Gladstone et al. [72].
Troglobiotic spiders documented in the Mammoth Cave System include four linyphiids and one zoropsid. All four linyphiids have broad distributions in caves of the eastern United States [75]. Bathyphantes weyeri is predominantly known from caves but has rarely been collected from surface habitats in Canada [75,76,77]. Holsinger et al. [78] hypothesized that the species may be troglobiotic in the southern parts of its range and troglophilic in the northern areas. Moreover, B. weyeri may represent a species complex. Most authors, including herein, still treat this species as a troglobiont [1,37,76,78,79]. Liocranoides unicolor was described by Keyserling [80] from Mammoth Cave. This species is pale in coloration but does not possess other troglomorphic characters [81]. Significant publications include Packard [29,32,33,36], Emerton [82], Hubbard [83], Keyserling [80], Call [28], Mcindoo [84], Berland [85], Bailey [44], Barr [10], Poulson and Culver [86], Poulson [62,87], Platnick [81], and Miller [75].
A single troglobiotic opilionid (Phalangodes armata) is known from several areas in the Mammoth Cave System. Significant publications include Tellkampf [20,21], Packard [29,36], Hubbard [83], Call [28], Bailey [44], Goodnight and Goodnight [88], Barr [10], Poulson and Culver [86], Hedin and Thomas [89], and Poulson [62].
Four troglobiotic pseudoscorpions occur in the Mammoth Cave System. Hesperochernes mirabilis is a widely distributed species most abundant near entrances. It is often observed in and near rodent (Neotoma and Peromyscus sp.) nests, which may facilitate phoretic dispersal. The other three species are thought to be associated with deep cave habitats. Kleptochthonius cerberus was described from White’s Cave in Mammoth Cave National Park [90] and has to date, only been found there. Kleptochthonius hageni was described from Mammoth Dome in Mammoth Cave [91]. Kleptochthonius cereberus is thought to be endemic to Mammoth Cave National Park. Kleptochthonius hageni is reported to occur in the Mammoth Cave System and possibly some nearby caves not on the park (C.D.R. Stephen, pers. comm.). Tyrannochthonius hypogeus is a small, eyeless species with attenuated appendages first collected from log litter in Bruce Hollow [92]. Muchmore [92] considered this species to be cave adapted and associated with the Mammoth Cave fauna. Notable publications include Hubbard [83], Packard [36], Banks [93], Malcolm and Chamberlin [90], Muchmore [91,92], and Barr [10].
The troglobiotic mite fauna is particularly diverse with six species but has been little studied since their descriptions [37]. Notable publications include Packard [36], Call [28], Vitzthum [94], Bailey [44], Holsinger [95], Barr [10], and Zacharda [96].
Two troglobiotic millipedes have been documented in the Mammoth Cave System. Scoterpes copei is a common trichopetalid distributed throughout the cave system where it can be found in moist habitats with organic matter (rotting wood, debris, and cricket guano). Chaetaspis fragilis is a small polydesmid infrequently encountered in the Mammoth Cave System but more common in White Cave, Mammoth Cave National Park [10]. Significant publications include Packard [29,36], Cope [97], Hubbard [83], Loomis [98], Barr [10], Poulson and Culver [86], Poulson et al. [73], Shear [99], and Poulson [62].
Although more than 10 species of collembolans (i.e., springtails) have been documented in the Mammoth Cave System [10], just two taxa are considered troglobionts and both are endemic to the cave system. Pygmarrhopalites altus was described by Christiansen [100] from Eyeless Fish Trail in the Unkown Cave section of Mammoth Cave. Pseudosinella espanita was described by Christiansen and Bellinger [101] from Styx River near Charon’s Cascade in Mammoth Cave. Notably absent from the fauna of the Mammoth Cave System are P. hirsuta and Sinella cavernarum, which have broad distributions that include the Western Pennyroyal Karst of nearby Barren County, Kentucky [102]. Barr [10] reported two undescribed collembolans as potential troglobionts from Mammoth Cave: Willemia sp. have been collected from rotting boards in the Roaring River section. This genus includes several edaphic species, but no troglobionts are known to date and it is unlikely that this taxon represents a true troglobiont. Onychiurus sp. also have been collected from Mammoth Cave. Four described species in this genus are considered troglobionts in caves of the eastern United States. Additional study is needed on the collembolans of the Mammoth Cave System. Significant publications include Packard [36], Call [28], Christiansen [97,103,104,105], Barr [10], Poulson and Culver [86], Christiansen and Bellinger [101], and Poulson [62].
A single troglobiotic dipluran occurs in the Mammoth Cave System. Litocampa cookei has the largest distribution of any troglobiotic dipluran in the United States [106] but may represent a cryptic species complex. It was described from Mammoth Cave [29]. Notable publications include Packard [29,30,36], Hubbard [83], Silvestri [107,108], Conde [109], Barr [10], Poulson and Culver [86], Ferguson [106,110], and Poulson [62].
The troglobiotic beetle fauna is the most well known and studied of all taxonomic groups in the Mammoth Cave System. Eight species have been documented, namely six carabids, one leiodid, and one staphylinid species. Neaphaenops tellkampfii is the largest troglobiotic carabid species in Mammoth Cave and is also the first troglobiotic trechine beetle discovered in North America [111]. It was described from Mammoth Cave [112]. This species is found in silty habitats, where it feeds mostly on the eggs of the cave cricket Hadenoecus subterraneus [111,113]. Five species in the genus Pseudanophthalmus occur in a variety of habitats throughout the Mammoth Cave System. Three species were described from Mammoth Cave and one species (P. inexpectatus) is endemic to MCNP. All six species are blind and wingless. In some locations in the cave system, all six carabid species can be found but appear to have different microhabitat preferences and can be readily distinguished morphologically [59,60,113]. Ptomaphagus hirtus is an abundant small carrion beetle that is becoming an important model for studying the genetics of circadian rhythms [114,115]. Batrisodes henroti is a small rove beetle that has been infrequently collected in the Mammoth Cave System. Relevant publications include Erichson [112], Tellkampf [20,21], Von Motschulsky [26,27], Horn [116,117], Packard [29,31,34,36], Hubbard [83], Jeannel [118,119,120,121], Valentine [122,123], Hatch [124], Jeannel and Henrot [54], Park [125,126,127], Barr [10,55,56,57,58,59,60,128,129,130,131], Poulson and Culver [86], Barr and Kuehne [132], Peck [133,134,135,136,137], Kane et al. [138], Norton et al. [139], Kane and Poulson [140], Laing et al. [141], Giuseffi et al. [142], Kane and Ryan [143], Barr and Holsinger [144], Kane and Brunner [145], Poulson et al. [73], Friedrich et al. [115], Friedrich [114], Helf [146], Poulson [62], and Leray et al. [147].
The only other troglobiotic insect documented from Mammoth Cave is the dipteran Spelobia tenebrarum, a widely distributed species in caves of eastern North America [148]. Notable publications include Barr [10], Marshall and Peck [148], and Poulson [62].

3.2. Aquatic Fauna

Two cave flatworms occur in and were described from the Mammoth Cave System. Sphalloplana percoeca occurs primarily in epikarst-fed drip pools in upper-level passages, while S. buchanani is associated with stream gravels [37]. Significant publications on cave flatworms include Packard [29,36], de Beauchamp [149], Buchanan [45], Hyman [150], Barr [10], Carpenter [151,152], Barr and Kuehne [132], Kenk [153], Lewis [66], Pearson and Boston [154], and Helf and Olson [63].
A single groundwater snail has been documented in the Mammoth Cave System. Antroselates spiralis occurs in base-level streams in cave system. It was described from Echo River Spring, a major drain of the Mammoth Cave System. Notable publications include Hubricht [51], Barr [10], Barr and Kuehne [132], Hershler and Hubricht [155], Lewis [66], Pearson and Boston [154], and Helf and Olson [63].
The copepods of the Mammoth Cave System have not been well studied [37]. Three stygobionts have been documented—Megacyclops donnaldsoni, Bryocamptus morrisoni, and Cauloxenus stygius. Cauloxenus stygius is an ectoparasite of the cavefish Amblyopsis spelaea [156]. Notable publications include Cope [97], Kofoid [157], Chappuis [158], Barr [10], Barr and Kuehne [132], Whitman [159], Lewis [160], Niemiller and Poulson [156], and Helf and Olson [63].
Two ostracods are ectocommensals primarily of the stygobiotic crayfish Orconectes pellucidus—Sagittocythere barri and S. stygia. Sagittocythere stygia was described from River Styx in Mammoth Cave. Significant publications include Kofoid [157], Klie [161], Hart and Hobbs [162], Hart and Hart [163], Barr [10], Barr and Kuehne [132], Hart and Hart [164], and Helf and Olson [63].
Isopods are represented by two aquatic stygobionts—Caecidotea stygia and C. bicrenata. Caecidotea stygia was described from Mammoth Cave by Packard [29] and is more abundant in upper to mid-levels of the cave system, whereas C. bicrenata is more common in low to mid-levels [66]. Significant publications include Packard [29,35,36], Hubbard [79], Garman [165], Hay [166], Giovannoli [167], Dearolf [47], Chappuis [168], Barr [10], Barr and Kuehne [132], Lewis and Bowman [169], Lewis [66], Helf and Olson [63], and Helf et al. [170].
Three species of stygobiotic amphipods have been reported from the Mammoth Cave System. Stygobromus vitreus is more common in upper levels of the cave system, while S. exilis is more common in low to mid-levels [66,132]. Stygobromus vitreus was described from Richardson Spring within Mammoth Cave. Cathedral Domes in Mammoth Cave is the type locality of Crangonyx barri, an inhabitant of small cave streams and drip pools [171]. Signification publications include Cope [97], Packard [36], Giovannoli [167], Hubricht [48], Barr [10], Barr and Kuehne [132], Holsinger [172], Lewis [66], Zhang [173], Zhang and Holsinger [171], Helf and Olson [63], and Helf et al. [170].
Two stygobiotic decapods occur in the Mammoth Cave System. Palaemonias ganteri is a federally endangered atyid shrimp found in slow-flowing base-level streams of eleven groundwater basins in the Mammoth Cave System ([174]; updated by R. Toomey with new data). Significant publications on P. ganteri include Hay [166], Fage [175], Giovanolli [167], Barr [10], Barr and Kuehne [132], Hobbs et al. [176], Holsinger and Leitheuser [177,178,179], Lisowski [180,181], Lisowski and Poulson [182], Leitheuser and Holsinger [183], Leitheuser et al. [184,185], Lewis [66], USFWS [174,186], Pearson and Boston [154], Pearson and Jones [187], Cooper and Cooper [188], Helf and Olson [63], and Stump [189]. Orconectes pellucidus was described from Mammoth Cave and is the only stygobiotic crayfish in the cave system. While O. pellucidus is a ubiquitous stygobiont in the Mammoth Cave System, it is more abundant in mid- and base-level streams and pools. Notable publications include Tellkampf [20,21], Hagen [190,191], Packard [29,36], Cope [97], Garman [192], Fage [175], Bailey [44], Park et al. [193], Rhoades [194], Hobbs and Barr [195,196], Brown [197], Wolfe and Cornwell [198], Barr [10], Hobbs et al. [176], Pearson and Boston [154], Pearson and Jones [187], Compson [199], Taylor and Schuster [200], Helf and Olson [63], and Helf et al. [170].
The only cave-limited vertebrates known from the Mammoth Cave System are the amblyopsid cavefishes Amblyopsis spelaea and Typhlichthys subterraneus. Amblyopsis spelaea was described from River Styx in Mammoth Cave by Dekay [13] and represents the first cave-adapted fish formally described [156,201]. Mammoth Cave is one of only a handful of cave systems globally with two or more syntopic cavefish species [156,201]. Typhlichthys subterraneus are more abundant in upstream sections of streams that drain vertical shafts, whereas A. spelaea are more common in deeper pools at base level [61,156]; both are top predators. It remains unclear whether A. spelaea outcompetes T. subterraneus in base-level habitats. Significant publications on cavefishes of Mammoth Cave include Davidson [202], DeKay [13], Wyman [14,15,16,17,18,19], Thompson [203], Tellkampf [21,22], Agassiz [23,24,25], Girard [204], Putnam [38], Packard [36], Eigenmann [39,40,41,42], Bailey [44], Woods and Inger [205], Poulson [61,206,207,208], Barr and Kuehne [209], Rosen [210], Barr [10], Poulson and White [211], Barr and Kuehne [132], Clay [212], Swofford et al. [213], Lisowski and Poulson [182], Swofford [214], Burr and Warren [215], Lewis [66,160,216], Keith [217], Branson [218], Pearson and Boston [154], Pearson and Jones [187], Romero [219], Romero and Bennis [220], Compson [199], Proudlove [201], Niemiller and Poulson [156], Niemiller [221], Niemiller and Fitzpatrick [222], Niemiller et al. [223], Helf and Olson [63], Helf et al. [170], and Hart et al. [224].

4. Discussion

The Mammoth Cave obligate cave fauna is exceptionally rich with 49 troglobionts and stygobionts, making it one of the most diverse systems globally [37,225,226]. The terrestrial fauna is particularly diverse—tied for the third richest cave system in the world behind the Postojna Planina Cave System (36 species) in Slovenia and Cueva de Felipe Revention (34 species) in the Canary Islands [226]. With respect to stygobiotic fauna, the Mammoth Cave System ranks second in North America behind San Marcos Artesian Well in San Marcos, Texas (55 taxa, 39 described and 16 undescribed; [227]).
Several hypotheses have been proposed [10,61,127,224,228] to explain the high species richness in the Mammoth Cave System (recently reviewed in [37]). First, high species richness in the Mammoth Cave System may reflect the long history of more intensive sampling and study compared to other cave systems in the region [37]. While sampling intensity and bias may partially explain the high species richness at Mammoth Cave, several other biogeographical hypotheses warrant mention. The Mammoth Cave System is developed within a thick, continuous karst exposure over a large area in the Interior Low Plateau, which supports larger and more stable population sizes, more complex communities, and greater dispersal potential [113,129,130]. Moreover, the Mammoth Cave System is located at an intersection of hypothesized dispersal routes for cave-limited species from other karst areas, such as the Pennyroyal Karst Plain, Cumberland Saddle, and Bluegrass Region, and its cave fauna includes not only endemic species but also taxa also found in these adjacent regions [10,37,66,130]. The Mammoth Cave System lies within a hypothesized ridge of high troglobiont diversity found in temperate North America and Europe identified by Culver et al. [228]. This ridge corresponds to a general region of high surface primary productivity, which provides higher levels of allochthonous input into cave systems [228]. Mammoth Cave is noted for having high levels of allochthonous productivity but also chemoautotrophic productivity [37,63,229]. However, whether chemosynthesis subsidizes troglobiont communities or contributes significantly to the high troglobiont diversity found in the Mammoth Cave System remains speculative, as it is not well supported by empirical evidence.
The obligate fauna of the Mammoth Cave System is diverse and includes 39 cave-limited species (18 troglobionts an 11 stygobionts) of conservation concern, highlighted by the federally endangered cave shrimp Palaemonias ganteri. Most of these species are at an elevated risk of extinction due to their limited distributions and/or are known from few occurrences. For example, the cave pseudoscorpion Tyrannochthonius hypogeus is known from just two specimens collected from a single locality [92]. Cave-limited fauna face many threats, such as habitat loss and degradation, groundwater overexploitation and contamination, and climate change [230,231].
Although much of the Mammoth Cave System lies within the boundaries of Mammoth Cave National Park, the cave system is not immune to direct and indirect threats to its biodiversity, particularly those stressors that originate from outside of the park, such as industrial and tourism development, oil and gas drilling, runoff from agriculture, residential areas, and highways, and emergent diseases [63,232,233,234,235,236]. For example, sewage from the town of Park City was previously known to drain into the headwaters of the Echo River basin potentially impacted the stygobiotic fauna [130], including Typhlichthys subterraneus, Amblyopsis spelaea, Palaemonias ganteri, Orconectes pellucidus, and Antroselates spiralis. A hydrocarbon spill along Interstate 65 was responsible for a significant die-off of aquatic cave life [232,236]. Flow reversals and back-flooding from the Green River into cave springs also may transport sediment, potential contaminants, pathogens, and invasive aquatic species into base level streams in the Mammoth Cave System [237,238,239].
Great potential still exists to discover new taxa and add to the list of obligate species at Mammoth Cave. Two potentially cave-limited springtails that we do not include in our checklist (Willemia sp. and Onychiurus sp.) are known from Mammoth Cave and have not been identified to species [1,10]. Terrestrial woodlice are notably absent from the troglobiotic fauna of Mammoth Cave and may be discovered in the future. Seven troglobiotic trichoniscids (Isopoda, family Trichoniscidae) are known caves of the Interior Low Plateau and Appalachians karst regions [240], including Miktoniscus barri known from several caves of Indiana and Kentucky [241]. A troglophilic species, Miktoniscus mammothensis, occurs in cave and surface habitats at MCNP [242]. Other taxonomic groups have not been particularly well studied in the Mammoth Cave System, such as flatworms, copepods, springtails, and mites. More intensive work on these groups may uncover additional taxa. With more than 651 km of passage, much of the Mammoth Cave System has not been comprehensively bioinventoried, and some habitats, such as epikarst, have been disproportionately under-sampled and may harbor undescribed taxa [37]. In addition, over 500 other caves occur in MCNP, including several biologically rich sites, such as White and Great Onyx caves. These cave systems also may harbor undocumented diversity. Finally, few genetic studies to date have incorporated samples from the Mammoth Cave System. Comprehensive sampling within the Mammoth Cave System has the potential to uncover cryptic diversity in some taxonomic groups, which is an increasingly common discovery of genetic and phylogenetic studies in cave-limited taxa [223,243,244,245].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.N.; methodology and analysis, M.L.N.; data acquisition, M.L.N., K.H. and R.S.T.; original draft preparation, M.L.N.; review and editing, M.L.N., K.H. and R.S.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

M.L.N. was supported by the National Science Foundation (award No. 2047939).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this manuscript. Data sharing is not applicable for this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dante B. Fenolio and Rickard A. Olson for providing photographs. The views presented herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the National Park Service.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Toomey, R.S.; Hobbs, H.H., III; Olson, R.A. An orientation to Mammoth Cave and this volume. In Mammoth Cave: A Human and Natural History, Cave and Karst Systems of the World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  2. Miotke, F.D.; Palmer, A.N. Genetic Relationship between Cave Land-Forms in the Mammoth Cave National Park Area; Boehler Verlag: Wuerzburg, Germany, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  3. Palmer, A.N. A Geological Guide to Mammoth Cave National Park; Zephyrus Press: Teaneck, NJ, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  4. Palmer, A.N. Cave Geology; Cave Books: Dayton, OH, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  5. Palmer, A.N. Geology of Mammoth Cave. In Mammoth Cave: A Human and Natural History, Cave and Karst Systems of the World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  6. Palmer, A.N. Geologic history of Mammoth Cave. In Mammoth Cave: A Human and Natural History, Cave and Karst Systems of the World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  7. Quinlan, J.F.; Ewers, R.O. Hydrogeology of the Mammoth Cave region, Kentucky. In GSA Cincinnati 1981 Field Trip Guidebook 3; American Geological Institute: Falls Church, VA, USA, 1981; pp. 457–506. [Google Scholar]
  8. Glennon, A.; Groves, C. An examination of perennial stream drainage patterns within the Mammoth Cave watershed, Kentucky. J. Cave Karst Stud. 2002, 64, 82–91. [Google Scholar]
  9. Granger, D.E.; Fabel, D.; Palmer, A.N. Pliocene-Pleistocene incision of the Green River, Kentucky, determined from radioactive decay of cosmogenic 26Al and 10Be in Mammoth Cave sediments. Geo. Soc. Am. Bull. 2001, 113, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barr, T.C., Jr. Ecological studies in the Mammoth Cave System of Kentucky I: The biota. Int. J. Speleol. 1968, 3, 147–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Rafinesque, C. The caves of Kentucky. Atl. J. 1832, 1, 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  12. Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Slection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1st ed.; John Murray: London, UK, 1859. [Google Scholar]
  13. DeKay, J.E. Zoology of New York or the New York Fauna; Comprising Detailed Descriptions of All the Animals Hitherto Observed within the State of New York, with Brief Notices of Those Occasionally found Near Its Borders, and Accompanied by Appropriate Illustrations. Part IV, Fishes; W.& A. White & J. Visscher: Albany, NY, USA, 1842. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wyman, J. Description of a blind-fish from a cave in Kentucky. Am. J. Sci. Arts 1843, 45, 94–96. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wyman, J. Description of a blind-fish from a cave in Kentucky. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1843, 12, 298–299. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wyman, J. Account of dissections of the blind fishes (Amblyopsis spelaeus) from the Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 1851, 3, 349–375. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wyman, J. The eyes and organs of hearing in Amblyopsis spelaeus. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 1854, 4, 149–151. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wyman, J. On the eye and the organ of hearing in the blind fishes (Amblyopsis spelaeus DeKay) of the Mammoth Cave. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 1854, 4, 395–396. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wyman, J. Notes and drawings of the rudimentary eyes, brain and tactile organs of Amblyopsis spelaeus, in Putnam (1872). Am. Nat. 1872, 6, 6–30. [Google Scholar]
  20. Tellkampf, T.G. Ueber den blinden Fisch der Mammuth-Hohle in Kentucky, mit Bemerkungen ueber einige undere in dieser Hohle lebenden Thiere. Arch. Anat. Phys. Wiss. Med. 1844, 4, 381–394. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tellkampf, T.G. Beschreibung einiger neuer in der Mammuth-Höhle in Kentucky aufgefundener Gattungen von Gliedertieren. Arch. Nat. 1844, 10, 318–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tellkampf, T.G. Memoirs on the blind-fishes and some other animals living in the Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. N. Y. J. Med. Collat. Sci. 1845, 5, 84–93. [Google Scholar]
  23. Agassiz, J.L.R. Plan for an investigation of the embryology, anatomy and effect of light on the blind-fish of the Mammoth Cave, Amblyopsis spelaeus. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 1847, 1, 1–180. [Google Scholar]
  24. Agassiz, J.L.R. Observations of the blind fish of the Mammoth Cave. Am. J. Sci. Arts 1851, 11, 127–128. [Google Scholar]
  25. Agassiz, J.L.R. Recent researches of Prof. Agassiz. Am. J. Sci. Arts 1853, 16, 134. [Google Scholar]
  26. von Mutschulsky, T.V. Etudes Entomologiques, 3e Annee; Helsingfors, Finland, 1854. [Google Scholar]
  27. von Mutschulsky, T.V. Etudes Entomologiques, 11e Annee; Dresden, Germany, 1862. [Google Scholar]
  28. Call, R.E. Some notes on the flora and fauna of Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. Am. Nat. 1897, 31, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Packard, A.S. On the crustaceans and insects of the Mammoth Cave. Am. Nat. 1871, 5, 744–761. [Google Scholar]
  30. Packard, A.S. Occurrence of Japan in the United States. Am. Nat. 1874, 8, 501–502. [Google Scholar]
  31. Packard, A.S. Larvae of Anophthalmus and Adelops. Am. Nat. 1874, 8, 562–563. [Google Scholar]
  32. Packard, A.S. The invertebrate cave fauna of Kentucky and adjoining states, Araneina. Am. Nat. 1875, 9, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Packard, A.S. Cave-inhabiting spiders. Am. Nat. 1875, 9, 663–664. [Google Scholar]
  34. Packard, A.S. The cave-beetles of Kentucky. Am. Nat. 1876, 10, 282–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Packard, A.S. On the structure of the brain of Asellus and the eyeless form Caecidotea. Am. Nat. 1885, 19, 85–86. [Google Scholar]
  36. Packard, A.S. The cave fauna of North America, with remarks on the anatomy of the brain and origin of the blind species. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 1888, 4, 1–156. [Google Scholar]
  37. Culver, D.C.; Hobbs, H.H., III. Biodiversity of Mammoth Cave. In Mammoth Cave: A Human and Natural History, Cave and Karst Systems of the World; Hobbs, H.H., III, Olson, R.A., Winkler, E.G., Culver, D.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 227–234. [Google Scholar]
  38. Putnam, F.W. The blind fishes of the Mammoth Cave and their allies. Am. Nat. 1872, 6, 6–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Eigenmann, C.H. The Amblyopsidae, the blind fish of America. Rep. Br. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 1897, 1897, 685–686. [Google Scholar]
  40. Eigenmann, C.H. The blind fishes of North America. Pop. Sci. Mon. 1899, 56, 473–486. [Google Scholar]
  41. Eigenmann, C.H. Divergence and convergence in fishes. Biol. Lect. Mar. Biol. Lab. Woods Hole 1905, 8, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Eigenmann, C.H. Cave Vertebrates of America: A Study in Degenerative Evolution; Carnegie Institution of Washington: Washington, DC, USA, 1909. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bolivar, C.; Jeannel, R. Campagne Speleologique dans I’Amerique du Nord en 1928. Biospeleologie LVI. Arch. Zool. Exp. Gen. 1931, 71, 293–499. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bailey, V. Cave life of Kentucky, mainly in the Mammoth Cave region. Am. Midl. Nat. 1933, 14, 385–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Buchanan, J.W. Notes on an American cave flatworm, Sphalloplana percaeca (Packard). Ecology 1936, 17, 194–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Park, O. Key to the more common adult animals of Mammoth and adjacent caves. In A Laboratory Introduction to Animal Ecology and Taxonomy; Park, O., Allee, W.C., Shelford, V.E., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1939; pp. 118–124. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dearolf, K. Report of a biological reconnaissance of the New Discovery in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, January 7–11, 1941. Bul. Nat. Speleol. Soc. 1942, 4, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hubricht, L. Studies of the Nearctic freshwater Amphipoda, III. Notes on the freshwater Amphipoda of eastern United States, with description of ten new species. Am. Midl. Nat. 1943, 29, 683–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hubricht, L. The cave snail, Carychium stygium Call. Trans. Ky. Acad. Sci. 1960, 21, 35–38. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hubricht, L. New species of Helicodiscus from the eastern United States. Nautilus 1962, 75, 102–107. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hubricht, L. New species of Hydrobiidae. Nautilus 1963, 76, 138–140. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hubricht, L. Land snails from the caves of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. Nat. Speleol. Soc. Bull. 1964, 26, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hubricht, L. Four new land snails from the southeastern United States. Nautilus 1965, 79, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jeannel, R.; Henrot, H. Les coleopteres cavernicoles de la region des Appalaches. I. La region des Appalaches (Jeannel), and II. Enumeration des grottes explorees (Henrot). Notes Biospel. 1949, 4, 11–36. [Google Scholar]
  55. Barr, T.C., Jr. New cave beetles (Carabidae) from Tennessee and Kentucky. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 1959, 34, 5–30. [Google Scholar]
  56. Barr, T.C., Jr. The male of Pseudanophthalmus audax (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Trans. Ky. Acad. Sci. 1959, 20, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  57. Barr, T.C., Jr. The blind beetles of Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. Am. Midl. Nat. 1962, 68, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barr, T.C., Jr. Studies on the cavernicole Ptomaphagus of the United States (Coleoptera, Catopidae). Psyche 1963, 70, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Barr, T.C., Jr. Cave Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Mammoth Cave. Pysche 1966, 73, 284–287. [Google Scholar]
  60. Barr, T.C., Jr. Cave Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Mammoth Cave, Part II. Pysche 1967, 74, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  61. Poulson, T.L. The Mammoth Cave ecosystem. In The Natural History of Biospeleology; Camacho, A., Ed.; Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales: Madrid, Spain, 1992; pp. 569–611. [Google Scholar]
  62. Poulson, T.L. Terrestrial cave ecology of the Mammoth Cave region. In Mammoth Cave: A Human and Natural History, Cave and Karst Systems of the World; Hobbs, H.H., III, Olson, R.A., Winkler, E.G., Culver, D.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 199–207. [Google Scholar]
  63. Helf, K.L.; Olson, R.A. Subsurface aquatic ecology of Mammoth Cave. In Mammoth Cave: A Human and Natural History, Cave and Karst Systems of the World; Hobbs, H.H., III, Olson, R.A., Winkler, E.G., Culver, D.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 209–226. [Google Scholar]
  64. Coney, C.C.; Tarpley, W.A.; Bohannan, R. Ecological studies of land snails in the Hiawassee River Basin of Tennessee, U.S.A. Malacol. Rev. 1982, 15, 69–106. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bowman, T.E.; Prins, R.; Morris, B.F. Notes on the harpacticoid copepods Attheyella pilosa and A. carolinensis, associates of crayfishes in the eastern United States. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 1968, 81, 571–586. [Google Scholar]
  66. Lewis, J.J. The Systematics, Zoogeography and Life History of the Troglobitic Isopods of the Interior Plateaus of the Eastern United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  67. Borgmeier, T. Revision of the North American Phorid flies. Part III. The species of the genus Megaselia, subgenus Megaselia (Diptera, Phoridae): Studia Entomologica. Petropolis 1966, 8, 1–160. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lewis, J.J. Bioinventory of Caves of the Cumberland Escarpment Area of Tennessee, Final Report; Tennessee Chapter of the Nature Conservancy: Nashville, TN, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zigler, K.S.; Niemiller, M.L.; Stephen, C.D.R.; Ayala, B.N.; Milne, M.A.; Gladstone, N.S.; Engel, A.S.; Jensen, J.B.; Camp, C.D.; Ozier, J.C.; et al. Biodiversity from caves and other subterranean habitats of Georgia, USA. J. Cave Karst Stud. 2020, 82, 125–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Weigand, A.M.; Jochum, A.; Pfenninger, M.; Steinke, D.; Klussmann-Kolb, A. A new approach to an old conundrum—DNA barcoding sheds new light on phenotypic plasticity and morphological stasis in microsnails (Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Carychiidae). Mol. Ecol. Res. 2011, 11, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Weigand, A.M.; Jochum, A.; Slapnik, R.; Schnitzler, J.; Zarza, E.; Klussmann-Kolb, A. Evolution of microgastropods (Ellobioidea, Carychiidae): Integrating taxonomic, phylogenetic and evolutionary hypotheses. BMC Evol. Biol. 2013, 13, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Gladstone, N.S.; Carter, E.T.; McKinney, M.L.; Niemiller, M.L. Status and distribution of the cave-obligate land snails in the Appalachians and Interior Low Plateau of the eastern United States. Am. Malacol. Bull. 2018, 36, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Poulson, T.L.; Lavoie, K.H.; Helf, K. Long-term effects of weather on the cricket (Hadenoecus subterraneus, Orthoptera, Rhaphidophoridae) guano community in Mammoth Cave National Park. Am. Midl. Nat. 1995, 134, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dourson, D.C. Kentucky’s Land Snails and Their Ecological Communities; Goatslug Publications: Bakersville, NC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  75. Miller, J.A. A redescription of Porrhomma cavernicola Keyserling (Araneae, Linyphiidae) with notes on Appalachian troglobites. J. Arachnol. 2005, 33, 426–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Holsinger, J.R.; Culver, D.C. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of eastern Tennessee: Zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana 1988, 14, 1–162. [Google Scholar]
  77. Paquin, P.; Dupérré, N. Guide d’identifcation des Araignées (Araneae) du Québec. Fabreries Supplément 2003, 11, 1–251. [Google Scholar]
  78. Holsinger, J.R.; Culver, D.C.; Hubbard, D.A., Jr.; Orndorff, W.D.; Hobson, C.S. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia. Banisteria 2013, 42, 9–56. [Google Scholar]
  79. Peck, S.B. A summary of diversity and distribution of the obligate cave-inhabiting faunas of the United States and Canada. J. Caves Karst Stud. 1998, 60, 18–26. [Google Scholar]
  80. Keyserling, E.G. Neue Spinnen aus Amerika, III. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 1881, 31, 269–314. [Google Scholar]
  81. Platnick, N.I. A revision of the Appalachian spider genus Liocranoides (Araneae: Tengellidae). Amer. Mus. Nov. 1999, 3285, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  82. Emerton, J.H. Notes on spiders from caves in Kentucky and Indiana. Am. Nat. 1875, 9, 278–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hubbard, H.G. Two days collecting in the Mammoth Cave, with contributions to a study of its fauna. Am. Entomol. 1880, 3, 34–40. [Google Scholar]
  84. McIndoo, N.E. Notes on some arachnids from Ohio valley caves. The Biol. Bull. 1911, 20, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Berland, L. Arachnides araneides (Biospeologica LVI) . Arch Zool. Exp. Gen. 1931, 71, 383–388. [Google Scholar]
  86. Poulson, T.L.; Culver, D.C. Diversity in terrestrial cave communities. Ecology 1969, 50, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Poulson, T.L. Variations in life history of Linyphiid cave spiders. In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Speleology, Tampa, FL, USA, 18–24 July 1981; Volume 1, pp. 60–62. [Google Scholar]
  88. Goodnight, C.J.; Goodnight, M.L. Speciation among cave opilionids of the United States. Am. Midl. Nat. 1960, 64, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hedin, M.; Thomas, S.M. Molecular systematics of eastern North American Phalangodidae (Arachnida: Opiliones: Laniatores), demonstrating convergent morphological evolution in caves. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2010, 54, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Malcolm, D.R.; Chamberlin, J.C. The pseudoscorpion genus Kleptochthonius Chamberlin (Chelonethida, Chthoniidae). Am. Mus. Nov. 1961, 2063, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  91. Muchmore, W.B. Redescription of some cavernicolous pseudoscorpions (Arachnida, Chelonethida) in the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Breviora 1963, 188, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  92. Muchmore, W.B. The genus Tyrannochthonius in the eastern United States (Pseudoscorpionida: Chthoniidae). Part II. More recently described species. Insecta Mundi 1996, 10, 153–168. [Google Scholar]
  93. Banks, N. Notes on the Pseudoscorpionida. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 1895, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  94. Vitzthum, H. Die unterirdische Acarofauna. Z. Naturw. 1925, 62, 125–186. [Google Scholar]
  95. Holsinger, J.R. Redescriptions of two poorly known species of cavernicolous rhagidiid mites (Acarina, Trombidiformes) from Virginia and Kentucky. Acarologia 1965, 7, 654–662. [Google Scholar]
  96. Zacharda, M. Soil mites of the family Rhagidiidae (Actinedida: Eupodoidea). Morphology, systematics, ecology. Acta Univ. Carol. Biol. 1980, 1978, 489–785. [Google Scholar]
  97. Cope, E.D. On the Wyandotte Cave and its fauna. Am. Nat. 1872, 6, 406–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Loomis, H.F. New cave and epigean millipedes of the United States, with notes on some established species. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 1943, 92, 373–410. [Google Scholar]
  99. Shear, W.A. The milliped family Trichopetalidae, Part 2: The genera Trichopetalum, Zygonopus and Scoterpes (Diplopoda: Chordeumatida, Cleidogonoidea). Zootaxa 2010, 2385, 1–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Christiansen, K.A. The genus Arrhopalites (Collembola, Sminthuridae) in the United States and Canada. Int. J. Speleol. 1966, 2, 43–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Christiansen, K.; Bellinger, P. Cave Pseudosinella and Oncopodura new to science. J. Cave Karst Stud. 1996, 58, 38–53. [Google Scholar]
  102. Harker, D.F.; Barr, T.C. Western Kentucky coal field: Preliminary investigations of natural features and cultural resources. In Caves and Associated Fauna of the Western Kentucky Coal Field; Technical Report; Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission: Frankfort, KY, USA, 1980; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  103. Christiansen, K.A. The genus Pseudosinella (Collembola, Entomobryidae) in caves of the United States. Psyche 1960, 67, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Christiansen, K.A. A preliminary survey of the knowledge of North American cave Collembola. Am. Midi. Nat. 1960, 64, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Christiansen, K.A. The genus Sinella Brook (Collembola, Entomobryidae) in Nearctic caves. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1960, 53, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ferguson, L.M. Systematics, Evolution, and Zoogeography of the Cavernicolous Campodeids of the Genus Litocampa (Diplura: Campodeidae) in the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  107. Silvestri, F. Campodeidae (Biospeologica LVI). Arch. Zool. Expo Gen. 1934, 76, 379–383. [Google Scholar]
  108. Silvestri, F. On some Tapygidae in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Psyche 1947, 51, 209–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Conde, B. Campodeides cavernicoles de la region des Appalaches. Notes Biospeol. 1949, 4, 125–139. [Google Scholar]
  110. Ferguson, L.M. Taxonomy, Distribution, and Evolution of Cavernicolous Campodeids in Virginia (Diplura: Campodeidae). Master’s Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  111. Barr, T.C., Jr. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphanops, with notes on associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Am. Mus. Nov. 1979, 2682, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  112. Erichson, W.F. Footnote, p. 384; In Ueber den blinden Fisch der Mammuth-Hohle in Kentucky, mit Bemerkungen uber einige andere in diser Hohle lebenden Thiere; Tellkampf, T. Mullers Arch Anat. Physiol. 1844, 4, 384–394. [Google Scholar]
  113. Barr, T.C., Jr. Pattern and process in speciation of trechine beetles in eastern North America (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). In Taxonomy, Phylogeny, and Biogeography of Beetles and Ants; Ball, G.E., Ed.; Series Entomologia 33; Junk: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 350–407. [Google Scholar]
  114. Friedrich, M. Biological clocks and visual systems in cave-adapted animals at the dawn of speleogenomics. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2013, 53, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Friedrich, M.; Chen, R.; Daines, B.; Bao, R.; Caravas, J.; Rai, P.K.; Zagmajster, M.; Peck, S.B. Phototransduction and clock gene expression in the troglobiont beetle Ptomaphagus hirtus of Mammoth cave. J. Exp. Biol. 2011, 214, 3532–3541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Horn, G.H. Catalogue of Coleoptera from south-west Virginia. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 1868, 2, 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  117. Horn, G.H. Miscellaneous notes and short studies of North American Coleoptera. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 1883, 10, 269–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Jeannel, R. Notes sur les Trechini. Bull. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 1920, 1920, 150–155. [Google Scholar]
  119. Jeannel, R. Monographie des Trechinae, 3e livraison. L’Abeille 1928, 35, 1–808. [Google Scholar]
  120. Jeannel, R. Revision des Trechinae de l’Amerique du nord. Arch. Zool. Expo Gen. 1931, 71, 403–499. [Google Scholar]
  121. Jeannel, R. Les coleopteres cavernicoles de la region des Appalaches. III. Etude systematique. Notes Biospeol. 1949, 4, 37–104. [Google Scholar]
  122. Valentine, J.M. New cavernicole Carabidae of the subfamily Trechinae Jeannel. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 1931, 46, 247–258. [Google Scholar]
  123. Valentine, J.M. A classification of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel (fam. Carabidae) with descriptions of new species and notes on distribution. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 1932, 48, 261–280. [Google Scholar]
  124. Hatch, M.H. Studies on the Leptodiridae (Catopidae) with descriptions of new species. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 1933, 41, 187–239. [Google Scholar]
  125. Park, O. New or little-known species of pselaphid beetles from southeastern United States. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 1956, 31, 54–100. [Google Scholar]
  126. Park, O. New or little-known species of pselaphid beetles, chiefly from southeastern United States. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 1958, 33, 39–74. [Google Scholar]
  127. Park, O. Cavernicolous pselaphid beetles of the United States. Amer. Midl. Nat. 1960, 64, 66–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Barr, T.C., Jr. Non-troglobitic Carabidae (Coleoptera) from caves in the United States. Coleopt. Bull. 1964, 18, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  129. Barr, T.C., Jr. Cave ecology and the evolution of troglobites. Evol. Biol. 1968, 2, 35–102. [Google Scholar]
  130. Barr, T.C., Jr. Ecology and evolution of cave faunas. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on the Natural History of the Lower Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys; Hamilton, S.W., Finley, M.T., Eds.; Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University: Clarksville, TN, USA, 1990; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  131. Barr, T.C., Jr. A Classification and Checklist of the Genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae); Special Publication 11; Virginia Museum of Natural History: Martinsville, VA, USA, 2004; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
  132. Barr, T.C., Jr.; Kuehne, R.A. Ecological studies in the Mammoth Cave System of Kentucky, II: The ecosystem. Ann. Spéléologie 1971, 26, 47–96. [Google Scholar]
  133. Peck, S.B. A systematic revision and evolutionary biology of the Ptomaphagus adelops. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 1973, 145, 29–162. [Google Scholar]
  134. Peck, S.B. The life cycle of a Kentucky cave beetle, Ptomaphagus hirtus, (Coleoptera; Leiodidae; Catopinae). Int. J. Speleol. 1975, 7, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Peck, S.B. Experimental hybridizations between populations of cavernicolous Ptomaphagus beetles (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae). Canad. Entomol. 1983, 115, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Peck, S.B. The distribution and evolution of cavernicolous Ptomaphagus beetles in the southeastern United States (Coleoptera; Leiodidae; Cholevinae) with new species and records. Canad. J. Zool. 1984, 62, 730–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Peck, S.B. Evolution of adult morphology and life-history characters in cavernicolous Ptomaphagus beetles. Evolution 1986, 40, 1021–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Kane, T.C.; Norton, R.M.; Poulson, T.L. The ecology of a predaceous troglobitic beetle, Neaphaenops tellkampfii (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Trechinae). I. Seasonality of food input and early life history stages. Int. J. Speleol. 1975, 7, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Norton, R.M.; Kane, T.C.; Poulson, T.L. The ecology of a predaceous troglobitic beetle, Neaphaenops tellkampfii (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Trechinae). II. Adult seasonality, feeding and recruitment. Int. J. Speleol. 1975, 7, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kane, T.C.; Poulson, T.L. Foraging by cave beetles: Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of prey. Ecology 1976, 57, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Laing, C.; Carmody, G.R.; Peck, S.B. Population genetics and evolutionary biology of the cave beetle Ptomaphagus hirtus. Evolution 1976, 30, 484–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Giuseffi, S.; Kane, T.C.; Duggleby, W.F. Genetic variability in the Kentucky cave beetle Neaphaenops tellkampfii (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Evolution 1978, 32, 679–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Kane, T.C.; Ryan, T. Population ecology of carabid cave beetles. Oecologia 1983, 60, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Barr, T.C., Jr.; Holsinger, J.R. Speciation in cave faunas. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1985, 16, 313–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kane, T.C.; Brunner, G.D. Geographic variation in the cave beetle, Neaphaenops tellkampfi (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Psyche 1986, 93, 231–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Helf, K.L. Foraging Ecology of the Cave Cricket Hadenoecus subterraneus: Effects of Climate, Ontogeny, and Predation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  147. Leray, V.L.; Caravas, J.; Friedrich, M.; Zigler, K.S. Mitochondrial sequence data indicate “Vicariance by Erosion” as a mechanism of species diversification in North American Ptomaphagus (Coleoptera, Leiodidae, Cholevinae) cave beetles. Subterr. Biol. 2019, 29, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Marshall, S.A.; Peck, S.B. Distribution of cave-dwelling Sphaeroceridae (Diptera) of eastern North America. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Ontario 1984, 115, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  149. De Beachamp, P. Turbellaries triclades (Biospeologica LVI). Arch. Zool. Expo Gen. 1931, 71, 317–331. [Google Scholar]
  150. Hyman, L.H. Studies on the morphology, taxonomy, and distribution of North American triclad Turbellaria. VIII. Some cave planarians of the United States. Trans. Am. Micr. Soc. 1937, 56, 457–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Carpenter, J.H. Systematics and Ecology of Cave Planarians of the United States. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  152. Carpenter, J.H. Observations on the biology of cave planarians of the United States. Int. J. Speleol. 1982, 12, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Kenk, R. Freshwater triclads (Turbellaria) of North America, IX. The genus Sphalloplana. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1977, 246, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Pearson, W.D.; Boston, C.H. Distribution and Status of the Northern Cavefish; Amblyopsis Spelaea, Final Report; Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Indiana Department of Natural Resources: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 1995.
  155. Hershler, R.; Hubricht, L. Notes on Antroselates Hubricht, 1963 and Antrobia Hubricht, 1971 (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 1988, 101, 730–740. [Google Scholar]
  156. Niemiller, M.L.; Poulson, T.L. Subterranean fishes of North America: Amblyopsidae. In The Biology of Subterranean Fishes; Trajano, E., Bichuette, M.E., Kappor, B.G., Eds.; Science Publishers: Enfield, NH, USA, 2010; pp. 169–280. [Google Scholar]
  157. Kofoid, C.A. The plankton of Echo River, Mammoth Cave. Trans. Am. Micr. Soc. 1899, 21, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Chappuis, P.A. Crustaces copepodes (Biospeologica LVI). Arch. Zool. Expo Gen. 1931, 71, 345–360. [Google Scholar]
  159. Whitman, R.L. Meiofaunal Sampling at Mammoth Cave National Park. Draft Report; National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: Chesterton, IN, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  160. Lewis, J.J. Conservation Assessment for Northern Cavefish Copepod (Cauloxenus stygius). Report; USDA Forest Service: Eastern Region, Ghana, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  161. Klie, W. Crustaces ostracodes (Biospeologica LVI). Arch. Zool. Expo Gen. 1931, 71, 333–344. [Google Scholar]
  162. Hart, C.W., Jr.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr. Eight new troglobitic ostracods of the genus Entocythere (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from the eastern United States. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. USA 1961, 113, 173–185. [Google Scholar]
  163. Hart, C.W., Jr.; Hart, D.G. Four new entocytherid ostracods from Kentucky, with notes on the troglobitic Sagittocythere barri. Nolulae Nat. 1966, 388, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  164. Hart, D.G.; Hart, C.W., Jr. The ostracod family Entocytheridae. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Monogr. 1974, 18, 1–239. [Google Scholar]
  165. Garman, H. The origin of the cave fauna of Kentucky, with a description of a new blind beetle. Science 1892, 20, 240–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  166. Hay, W.P. Observations on the crustacean fauna of the region about Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 1902, 25, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Giovanolli, L. Invertebrate life of Mammoth and other neighboring caves. Pp. 600–623 In: V. Bailey. Cave Life of Kentucky. Am. Midl. Nat. 1933, 14, 385–635. [Google Scholar]
  168. Chappuis, P.A. Biospeologica 71: Campagne speologique de C. Bolivar et R. Jeannel dans PAmerique du Nord (1928), 13, Asellides. Arch. Zool. Expo Gen. 1950, 87, 177–182. [Google Scholar]
  169. Lewis, J.J.; Bowman, T.E. The subterranean asellids (Caecidotea) of Illinois (Crustacea: Isopoda: Asellidae). Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1981, 335, 1–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Helf, K.L.; Moore, W.; Wells, B. Monitoring Cave Aquatic Biota at Selected Parks in the Cumberland Piedmont Network: Protocol Narrative—Version 1.0. Natural Resource Report NPS/CUPN/NRR—2018/1705; National Park Service: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  171. Zhang, J.; Holsinger, J.R. Systematics of the freshwater amphipod genus Crangonyx (Crangonyctidae) in North America. Va. Mus. Nat. Hist. Memoir. 2003, 6, 1–274. [Google Scholar]
  172. Holsinger, J.R. Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America, Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual No. 5; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1972.
  173. Zhang, J. Systematics of the Freshwater Amphipod Genus Crangonyx (Crangonyctidae) in North America. Ph.D. Dissertation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  174. United States Fish & Wildlife Service. Kentucky Cave Shrimp (Palaemonias ganteri), 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation; Southeast Region, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office: Frankfort, KY, USA, 2016.
  175. Fage, L. Crustaces amphipodes et decapodes. In: Biospeologica, LVI: Campagne speologique de C. Bolivar et R. Jeannel dans l’Amerique du Nord (1928). Arch. Zool. Exp. Gen. 1931, 71, 361–374. [Google Scholar]
  176. Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Hobbs, H.H., III; Daniel, M.A. A review of the troglobitic decapod crustaceans of the Americas. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1977, 244, 1–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Holsinger, J.R.; Leitheuser, A.T. Ecological Analysis of the Kentucky Cave Shrimp, Palaemonias ganteri Hay, Mammoth Cave National Park (Phase I), Final Report; Old Dominion Research University Foundation: Norfolk, VA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  178. Holsinger, J.R.; Leitheuser, A.T. Ecological Analysis of the Kentucky Cave Shrimp, Palaemonias ganteri Hay, Mammoth Cave National Park (Phase II), Final Report; Old Dominion Research University Foundation: Norfolk, VA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  179. Holsinger, J.R.; Leitheuser, A.T. Ecological analysis of the Kentucky Cave Shrimp, Palaemonias ganteri Hay, Mammoth Cave National Park (Phase III), Final Report; Old Dominion Research University Foundation: Norfolk, VA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  180. Lisowski, E.A. The endangered Kentucky blind cave shrimp. In Proceedings of the National Cave Management Symposium, Carlsbad, New Mexico and Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky; Wilson, R.C., Lewis, J.J., Eds.; Pygmy Dwarf Press: Oregon City, OR, USA, 1982; pp. 138–142. [Google Scholar]
  181. Lisowski, E.A. Distribution, habitat, and behavior of the Kentucky cave shrimp Palaemonias ganteri Hay. J. Crustacean Biol. 1983, 3, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Lisowski, E.A.; Poulson, T.L. Impacts of Lock and Dam Six on base level ecosystems in Mammoth Cave. In Cave Research Foundation 1979 Annual Report; The Cave Research Foundation: Cave, KY, USA, 1981; pp. 48–54. [Google Scholar]
  183. Leitheuser, A.T.; Holsinger, J.R. Ecological Analysis of the Kentucky Cave Shrimp, Palaemonias ganteri Hay, Mammoth Cave National Park (Phase IV), Final Report; Old Dominion University Research Foundation: Norfolk, VA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  184. Leitheuser, A.T.; Holsinger, J.R.; Olson, R.; Pace, N.R.; Whitman, R.L.; White, T. Ecological Analysis of the Kentucky Cave Shrimp, Palaemonias ganteri Hay, at Mammoth Cave National Park (Phase V), Final Report; Old Dominion University Research Foundation: Norfolk, VA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  185. Leitheuser, A.T.; Whitman, R.L.; Gochee, A.V.; Holsinger, J.R. Ecological Analysis of the Kentucky Cave Shrimp, Palaemonias ganteri Hay, at Mammoth Cave National Park (Phase VI), Final Report; Old Dominion University Research Foundation: Norfolk, VA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  186. United States Fish & Wildlife Service. Kentucky Cave Shrimp Recovery Plan; United States Fish & Wildlife Service: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1988.
  187. Pearson, W.D.; Jones, T.G. A Final Report Based on a Faunal Inventory of Subterranean Streams and Development of a Cave Aquatic Biological Monitoring Program Using a Modified Index of Biotic Integrity, Final Report; National Park Service, Mammoth Cave National Park: Brownsville, KY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  188. Cooper, J.E.; Cooper, M.R. Observations on the biology of the endangered stygobiotic shrimp Palaemonias alabamae, with notes on P. ganteri (Decapoda: Atyidae). Subterr. Biol. 2011, 8, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Stump, A.J. The Use of Environmental DNA for the Detection of Palaemonias ganteri (Hay, 1901), a Federally Endangered Species. Master’s Thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  190. Hagen, H.H. Monograph of the North American Astacidae. Illus. Cat. Mus. Com. Zool. 1870, 3, 1–109. [Google Scholar]
  191. Hagen, H.H. The blind crayfish. Am. Nat. 1872, 6, 494. [Google Scholar]
  192. Garman, H. A little-known cave crayfish. Trans. Ky. Acad. Sci. 1924, 1, 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  193. Park, O.; Roberts, T.W.; Harris, S.J. Preliminary analysis of activity of the cave crayfish, Cambarus pellucidus. Am. Nat. 1941, 75, 154–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Rhoades, R. The crayfishes of Kentucky, with notes on variation, distribution and descriptions of new species and subspecies. Am. Midl. Nat. 1944, 31, 111–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Barr, T.C., Jr. Origins and affinities of the troglobitic crayfishes of North America (Decapoda: Astacidae), I: Genus Cambarus. Am. Midl. Nat. 1960, 64, 12–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Barr, T.C., Jr. Origins and affinities of the troglobitic crayfishes of North America (Decapoda: Astacidae), II: Genus Orconectes. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1972, 105, 1–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Brown, F.A. Diurnal rhythm in cave crayfish. Nature 1961, 191, 929–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Wolfe, D.A.; Cornwell, D.G. Carotenoids of cavernicolous crayfish. Science 1964, 144, 1467–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Compson, Z.G. An Isotopic Examination of Cave, Spring and Epigean Trophic Structures in Mammoth Cave National Park. Master’s Thesis, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  200. Taylor, C.A.; Schuster, G.A. The Crayfishes of Kentucky; Illinois Natural History: Champaign, IL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  201. Proudlove, G.S. Subterranean Fishes of the World; International Society for Subterranean Biology: Moulis, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  202. Davidson, R. An Excursion to the Mammoth Cave and the Barrens of Kentucky, with Some Notices of the Early Settlement of the State; A.T. Skillman and Son, Lexington; Thomas Cowperthwait and Co.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1840. [Google Scholar]
  203. Thompson, W. Notice of the blindfish, crayfish, and insects from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1844, 13, 3. [Google Scholar]
  204. Girard, C.F. Ichthyological notices. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. USA 1860, 1859, 56–68. [Google Scholar]
  205. Woods, L.P.; Inger, R.F. The cave, spring, and swamp fishes of the family Amblyopsidae of central and eastern United States. Am. Midl. Nat. 1957, 58, 232–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Poulson, T.L. Cave Adaptation in Amblyopsid Fishes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Zoology, University of Michigan,, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  207. Poulson, T.L. Cave adaptation in amblyopsid fishes. Am. Midl. Nat. 1963, 70, 257–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Poulson, T.L. Cave Research Foundation Annual Report; Aquatic Cave Communities: Washington, DC, USA, 1968; pp. 16–18. [Google Scholar]
  209. Barr, T.C., Jr.; Kuehne, R.A. The cavefish, Amblyopsis spelaea, in northern Kentucky. Copeia 1962, 1962, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Rosen, D.E. Comments on the relationships of the North American cave fishes of the family Amblyopsidae. Am. Mus. Nov. 1962, 2109, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  211. Poulson, T.L.; White, W.B. The cave environment. Science 1969, 165, 971–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Clay, W.M. The Fishes of Kentucky; Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Frankfurt, KY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  213. Swofford, D.L.; Branson, B.A.; Sievert, G. Genetic differentiation of cavefish populations (Amblyopsidae). Isozyme Bull. 1980, 13, 109–110. [Google Scholar]
  214. Swofford, D.L. Genetic Variability, Population Differentiation, and Biochemical Relationships in the Family Amblyopsidae. Master’s Thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  215. Burr, B.M.; Warren, M.L., Jr. A Distributional Atlas of Kentucky Fishes, Vol. 4; Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series: Frankfort, KY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  216. Lewis, J.J. Conservation Assessment for Southern Cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus) Report; USDA Forest Service: Eastern Region, Ghana, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  217. Keith, J.H. Distribution of Northern cavefish, Amblyopsis spelaea DeKay, in Indiana and Kentucky and recommendations for its protection. Nat. Areas J. 1988, 8, 69–79. [Google Scholar]
  218. Branson, B.A. The Mammoth Cave blindfish. Trop. Fish Hobbyist 1991, 40, 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  219. Romero, A. Threatened fishes of the world: Typhlichthys subterraneus Girard, 1860 (Amblyopsidae). Environ. Biol. Fishes 1998, 53, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Romero, A.; Bennis, L. Threatened fishes of the world: Amblyopsis spelaea DeKay, 1842 (Amblyopsidae). Environ. Biol. Fishes 1998, 51, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Niemiller, M.L. Evolution, Speciation, and Conservation of Amblyopsid Cavefishes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  222. Niemiller, M.L.; Fitzpatrick, B.M. Status and life history of the amblyopsid cavefishes in Kentucky. Ky. Dept. Fish Wildl. Resour. 2012, 5, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  223. Niemiller, M.L.; Near, T.J.; Fitzpatrick, B.M. Delimiting species using multilocus data: Diagnosing cryptic diversity in the southern cavefish, Typhlichthys subterraneus (Teleostei: Amblyopsidae). Evolution 2012, 66, 846–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Hart, P.B.; Niemiller, M.L.; Burress, E.D.; Armbruster, J.W.; Ludt, W.B.; Chakrabarty, P. Cave-adapted evolution in the North American amblyopsid fishes inferred using phylogenomics and geometric morphometrics. Evolution 2020, 74, 936–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Culver, D.C.; Sket, B. Hotspots of subterranean biodiversity in caves and wells. J. Cave Karst Stu. 2000, 62, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  226. Culver, D.C.; Pipan, T. Subterranean ecosystems. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd ed.; Levin, S.A., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  227. Hutchins, B.T.; Gibson, J.R.; Diaz, P.H.; Schwartz, B.F. Stygobiont diversity in the San Marcos Artesian Well and Edwards Aquifer groundwater ecosystem, Texas, USA. Diversity 2021, 13, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Culver, D.C.; Deharveng, L.; Bedos, A.; Lewis, J.J.; Madden, M.; Reddell, J.R.; Sket, B.; Trontelj, P.; White, D. The mid-latitude biodiversity ridge in terrestrial cave fauna. Ecography 2006, 29, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Olson, R. Potential effects of hydrogen sulfide and hydrocarbon seeps on Mammoth Cave ecosystems. In Mammoth Cave National Park’s 10th Research Symposium; Mammoth Cave National Park: Brownsville, KY, USA, 2013; pp. 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  230. Niemiller, M.L.; Bichuette, E.; Taylor, S.J. Conservation of cave fauna in Europe and the Americas. In Ecological Studies: Cave Ecology; Moldovan, O.T., Kovac, L., Halse, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 451–478. [Google Scholar]
  231. Mammola, S.; Cardoso, P.; Culver, D.C.; Deharveng, L.; Ferreira, R.L.; Fiŝer, C.; Galassi, D.M.P.; Griebler, C.; Halse, S.; Humphreys, W.F.; et al. Scientists’ warning on the conservation of subterranean ecosystems. BioScience 2019, 69, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  232. Brucker, R. Conservation at Mammoth Cave. In Cave Research Foundation 1979 Annual Report; Mammoth Cave National Park: Brownsville, KY, USA, 1979; pp. 40–41. [Google Scholar]
  233. Pfaff, R.M.; Glennon, J.A.; Groves, C.G.; Anderson, M.; Fry, J.; Meiman, J. Landuse and water quality threats to the Mammoth Cave karst aquifer, Kentucky. In Proceedings of the 12th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, Chattanooga, TN, USA, 19–22 October 1999. [Google Scholar]
  234. Meiman, J.; Hopper, H.L.; Brucker, R.W. Management issues and threats to the longest cave. In Proceedings of the 15th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, Tucson, AZ, USA, 16–19 October 2001. [Google Scholar]
  235. Toomey, R.; Thomas, S.; Gillespie, J.; Carson, V.; Trimboli, S.R. White-nose Syndrome at Mammoth Cave National Park: Actions before and after its detection. In Proceedings of the 10th Mammoth Cave Research Symposia, Mammoth Cave, KY, USA, 14–15 February 2013; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
  236. Olson, R.A. Environmental issues relevant to the Mammoth Cave area. In Mammoth Cave: A Human and Natural History, Cave and Karst Systems of the World; Hobbs, H.H., III, Olson, R.A., Winkler, E.G., Culver, D.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 265–275. [Google Scholar]
  237. Ruhl, M. Flow Reversal Events Increase the Abundance of Nontroglobitic Fish in the Subterranean Rivers of Mammoth Cave National Park. Master’s Thesis, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  238. Trimboli, S.R.; Weber, K.; Ryan, S.; Toomey, R.S. An overview of the reverse flow patterns of River Styx in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky: 2009–2012. In Proceedings of the 11th Mammoth Cave Research Symposia, Mammoth Cave, KY, USA, 18–20 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  239. Trimboli, S.R.; Toomey, R.S. Temperature and reverse-flow patterns of the River Styx, Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. J. Cave Karst Stud. 2019, 81, 174–187. Available online: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/mc_reserch_symp/11th_Research_Symposium_2016/Day_three/3 (accessed on 28 June 2021). [CrossRef]
  240. Niemiller, M.L.; Taylor, S.J.; Slay, M.E.; Hobbs, H.H., III. Biodiversity in the United States and Canada. In Encyclopedia of Caves, 3rd ed.; Culver, D.C., White, W.B., Pipan, T., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 163–177. [Google Scholar]
  241. Lewis, J.J.; Lewis, S.L. Cave fauna study for the Interstate 66 EIS (Somerset to London, Kentucky). In Proceedings of the 2005 National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, Albany, NY, USA, 31 October–4 November 2005; pp. 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  242. Muchmore, W. New terrestrial isopods of the genus Miktoniscus from eastern United States (Crustacea: Isopoda: Oniscoidea). Ohio J. Sci. 1964, 64, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  243. Zakšek, V.; Sket, B.; Gottstein, S.; Franjević, D.; Trontelj, P. The limits of cryptic diversity in groundwater: Phylogeography of the cave shrimp Troglocaris anophthalmus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Atyidae). Mol. Ecol. 2009, 18, 931–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  244. Ethridge, J.Z.; Gibson, J.R.; Nice, C.C. Cryptic diversity within and amongst spring-associated Stygobromus amphipods (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2013, 167, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Devitt, T.J.; Wright, A.M.; Cannatella, D.C.; Hillis, D.M. Species delimitation in endangered groundwater salamanders: Implications for aquifer management and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 2624–2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Diversity 13 00373 g001 550
Figure 1. Map showing the location of Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP) and the extent of the Mammoth Cave System in and adjacent to MCNP. The major segments of the Mammoth Cave System are shown as line plots in various colors. The different segments explored from different entrances (27 total). Line plot data from Cave Research Foundation. MCNP also contains over 500 smaller caves developed in various karstified limestones that are not attached to the Mammoth Cave System. These are grouped on the map, but include the St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Haney, Glen Dean and Girkin Formations. These smaller caves contain a variety of habitats from epikarst to base-level streams.
Figure 1. Map showing the location of Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP) and the extent of the Mammoth Cave System in and adjacent to MCNP. The major segments of the Mammoth Cave System are shown as line plots in various colors. The different segments explored from different entrances (27 total). Line plot data from Cave Research Foundation. MCNP also contains over 500 smaller caves developed in various karstified limestones that are not attached to the Mammoth Cave System. These are grouped on the map, but include the St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Haney, Glen Dean and Girkin Formations. These smaller caves contain a variety of habitats from epikarst to base-level streams.
Diversity 13 00373 g001
Diversity 13 00373 g002 550
Figure 2. Representative cave-limited fauna from the Mammoth Cave System, Kentucky, USA: (A) Scoterpes copei (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (B) Neaphaenops tellkampfi feeding on the egg of the Hadenoecus subterraneus (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (C) Hesperochernes mirabilis with Macrocera nobilis larva (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (D) Amblyopsis spelaea (photo by Dante B. Fenolio); (E) Phalangodes armata (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (F) Palaemonias ganteri (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (G)—Orconectes pellucidus (photo by Dante B. Fenolio); (H) Litocampa cookei (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (I)—Sphalloplana buchanani (photo by Rickard A. Olson).
Figure 2. Representative cave-limited fauna from the Mammoth Cave System, Kentucky, USA: (A) Scoterpes copei (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (B) Neaphaenops tellkampfi feeding on the egg of the Hadenoecus subterraneus (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (C) Hesperochernes mirabilis with Macrocera nobilis larva (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (D) Amblyopsis spelaea (photo by Dante B. Fenolio); (E) Phalangodes armata (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (F) Palaemonias ganteri (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (G)—Orconectes pellucidus (photo by Dante B. Fenolio); (H) Litocampa cookei (photo by Rickard A. Olson); (I)—Sphalloplana buchanani (photo by Rickard A. Olson).
Diversity 13 00373 g002
Table
Table 1. Troglobionts and stygobionts of the Mammoth Cave System, Kentucky, USA. NatureServe conservation ranks include Secure (G5), Apparently Secure (G4), Vulnerable (G3), Imperiled (G2), Critically Imperiled (G1), Possibly Extinct (GH), Presumed Extinct (GX), Unranked (GNR), and Unrankable (GU). IUCN Red List categories include Least Concern (LE), Near Threatened (NT), Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN), Critically Endangered (CR), Extinct in the Wild (EW), and Extinct (EX). Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission statuses include Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (S), Historic (H), and Extirpated (X). Federal conservation status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act includes Listed Endangered (LE) and Listed Threatened (LT).
Table 1. Troglobionts and stygobionts of the Mammoth Cave System, Kentucky, USA. NatureServe conservation ranks include Secure (G5), Apparently Secure (G4), Vulnerable (G3), Imperiled (G2), Critically Imperiled (G1), Possibly Extinct (GH), Presumed Extinct (GX), Unranked (GNR), and Unrankable (GU). IUCN Red List categories include Least Concern (LE), Near Threatened (NT), Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN), Critically Endangered (CR), Extinct in the Wild (EW), and Extinct (EX). Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission statuses include Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (S), Historic (H), and Extirpated (X). Federal conservation status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act includes Listed Endangered (LE) and Listed Threatened (LT).
TaxonAuthorityCons. StatusPackard [36]Barr [10]Culver and Hobbs [37]Toomey et al. [1]This Study
TROGLOBIONTS 13 Species28 Species32 Species32 Species32 Species
Phylum Arthropoda
 Class Arachnida
  Order Araneae
   Family Linyphiidae
    Anthrobia monmouthia TTellkampf, 1844G5XXXXX
    Bathyphantes weyeri(Emerton, 1875)G4 XXXX
    Phanetta subterranea(Emerton, 1875)G5 XXXX
    Porhomma cavernicola(Keyserling, 1886)G5 XXXX
   Family Zoropsidae
    Liocranoides unicolor TKeyserling, 1881GUX X
  Order Opiliones
   Family Phalangodidae
    Phalangodes armata TTellkampf, 1844G3XXXXX
  Order Pseudoscorpiones
   Family Chernetidae
    Hesperochernes mirabilis(Banks, 1895)G5 XXXX
   Family Chthoniidae
    Kleptochthonius cerberus T,EMalcolm and Chamberlin, 1961G1 XXXX
    Kleptochthonius hageni TMuchmore, 1963G1XXXXX
    Tyrannochthonius hypogeus T,EMuchmore, 1996G1 X X
  Order Acari
   Family Belbidae
    Dameus bulbipedata T,E(Packard, 1888)G1X XXX
   Family Cocceupodidae
    Linopodes mammouthia TBanks, 1897GNR XXXX
   Family Galumnidae
    Galumna alata(Hermann, 1804)G1 XXX
   Family Laelapidae
    Laelaps cavernicola TPackard, 1888GNRXXXXX
   Family Macrochelidae
    Macrocheles troglodytes T(Packard, 1888)G1 XXX
   Family Rhagidiidae
    Traegaardhia holsingeri T(Zacharda, 1980)GNRXXXXX
 Class Collembola
  Order Entomobryomorpha
   Family Entomobryidae
    Pseudosinella espanita T,EChristiansen and Bellinger, 1996G1 XXX
  Order Symphypleona
   Family Arrhopalitidae
    Pygmarrhopalites altus T,E(Christiansen, 1966)G2 XXXX
 Class Diplura
  Order Rhabdura
   Family Campodeidae
    Litocampa cookei T(Packard, 1871)G5XXXXX
 Class Diplopoda
  Order Chordeumatida
   Family Trichopetalidae
    Scoterpes copei T(Packard, 1871)G3XXXXX
  Order Polydesmida
   Family Macrosternodesmidae
    Chaetaspis fragilis T(Loomis, 1943)GNR XXXX
 Class Insecta
  Order Coleoptera
   Family Carabidae
    Neaphaenops tellkampfi T(Erichson, 1844)G3XXXXX
    Pseudanophthalmus audax(Horn, 1883)G1 XXXX
    Pseudanophthalmus inexpectatus T,EBarr, 1959G1 XXXX
    Pseudanophthalmus menetriesi T(Motschulsky, 1862)G3XXXXX
    Pseudanophthalmus pubescens(Horn, 1868)G3 XXXX
    Pseudanophthalmus striatus T(Motschulsky, 1862)G2XXXXX
   Family Leiodidae
    Ptomaphagus hirtus T(Tellkampf, 1844)G4XXXXX
   Family Staphylinidae
    Batrisodes henrotiPark, 1956G2 XXXX
  Order Diptera
   Family Phoridae
    Megaselia cavernicola(Brues, 1906)GNR X
   Family Sphaeroceridae
    Spelobia tenebrarum(Aldrich, 1897)G5 XXX
  Order Psocodea
   Family Psyllipsocidae
    Psyllipsocus ramburiiSelys-Longchamps, 1872GNR X
Phylum Mollusca
 Class Gastropoda
  Order Basommatophora
   Family Carychiidae
    Carychium stygium TCall, 1897G3 XXXX
  Order Stylommatophora
   Family Helicodiscidae
    Helicodiscus hadenoecusHubricht, 1962G3 X
    Helicodiscus punctatellus TMorrison, 1942G1 XXX
   Family Zonitidae
    Glyphyalinia specusHubricht, 1965G4 XXXX
STYGOBIONTS 6 species16 species16 species18 species17 species
Phylum Platyhelminthes
 Class Turbellaria
  Order Tricladida
   Family Kenkiidae
    Sphalloplana buchanani T(Hyman, 1937)G1 XXXX
    Sphalloplana percoeca T(Packard, 1879)G5XXXXX
Phylum Arthropoda
 Class Malacostraca
  Order Amphipoda
Crangonyctidae
    Crangonyx barri TZhang and Holsinger, 2003G5 XXXX
    Stygobromus exilisHubricht, 1943G5 XXXX
    Stygobromus vitreus TCope, 1872G4; SXXXXX
  Order Decapoda
   Family Atyidae
    Palaemonias ganteri THay, 1901G1; VU; E; LE XXXX
   Family Cambaridae
    Orconectes pellucidus T(Tellkampf, 1844)G4; LC; SXXXXX
  Order Isopoda
   Family Asellidae
    Caecidotea bicrenataLewis and Bowman, 1981G5 XX
    Caecidotea stygia TPackard, 1871G5XXXXX
 Class Maxillopoda
  Order Cyclopoida
   Family Cyclopidae
    Megacyclops donnaldsoni(Chappuis, 1929)G3 XXXX
  Order Harpacticoida
   Family Canthocamptidae
    Attheyella pilosa TChappuis, 1929GNR XXX
    Bryocamptus morrisoni(Chappuis, 1928)G3 XXXX
  Order Siphonostomatoida
   Family Lernaeopodidae
    Cauloxenus stygiusCope, 1872G1 XX
 Class Ostracoda
  Order Podocopida
   Family Entocytheridae
    Sagittocythere barri(Hart and Hobbs, 1961)G5 XXXX
    Sagittocythere stygia T,EHart and Hart, 1966G1 XXXX
Phylum Mollusca
 Class Gastropoda
  Order Neotaenioglossa
   Family Hydrobiidae
    Antroselates spiralis THubricht, 1963G3 XXXX
Phylum Chordata
 Class Actinopterygii
  Order Percopsiformes
   Family Amblyopsidae
    Amblyopsis spelaea TDeKay, 1842G2; NT; SXXXXX
    Typhlichthys subterraneusGirard, 1859G4; NT; SXXXXX
T Type locality in Mammoth Cave National Park; E Mammoth Cave National Park endemic.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Niemiller, M.L.; Helf, K.; Toomey, R.S. Mammoth Cave: A Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in the United States. Diversity 2021, 13, 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13080373

AMA Style

Niemiller ML, Helf K, Toomey RS. Mammoth Cave: A Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in the United States. Diversity. 2021; 13(8):373. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13080373

Chicago/Turabian Style

Niemiller, Matthew L., Kurt Helf, and Rickard S. Toomey. 2021. "Mammoth Cave: A Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in the United States" Diversity 13, no. 8: 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13080373

APA Style

Niemiller, M. L., Helf, K., & Toomey, R. S. (2021). Mammoth Cave: A Hotspot of Subterranean Biodiversity in the United States. Diversity, 13(8), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13080373

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop