Next Article in Journal
Characterization of Insect–Pollinator Biodiversity in Agrochemical-Contaminated Agricultural Habitats
Previous Article in Journal
Variations in the Characters of Platorchestia pacifica and Demaorchestia joi (Amphipoda, Talitridae, Talitrinae) with Revised Diagnoses Based on Specimens from Japan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/d16010032
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:
Review

An Investigation into the Diversity of Leeches (Hirudinida) in the Baltic States

by
Jurgita Rutkauskaite-Suciliene
,
Justina Snegiriovaite
and
Ingrida Satkauskiene
*
Faculty of Natural Science, Biology Department, Vytautas Magnus University, LT-53361 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(1), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010032
Submission received: 22 November 2023 / Revised: 19 December 2023 / Accepted: 22 December 2023 / Published: 3 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Diversity)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—are situated on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea between Russia and the Scandinavian countries. This region is characterized by diverse landscapes and numerous bodies of water, including lakes, peat bogs, and marshes, which serve as natural habitats for aquatic invertebrates, including leeches. Despite the rare and uncertain taxonomic status of leech species in the area, research in the Baltic region has been inadequate. Therefore, this study aims to examine the composition of leech species in the Baltic countries, drawing on both past and current research. The study also seeks to assess the status of Hirudo medicinalis in the Baltic region and discuss the rare, questionable, and potentially present leech species in the Baltic states. A scoping review method was employed, surveying published references, books, and databases. In total, the study found records of 21 leech species in Estonia, 15 in Latvia, and 26 in Lithuania, belonging to the families Glossiphoniidae, Erpobdellidae, Hirudinidae, Haemopidae, and Piscicolidae. Hirudo medicinalis L. is distributed throughout all Baltic countries, but the most recent records on their location are only available for Estonia. The data on a few Piscicolidae species is questionable and requires verification, but further research on Piscicolid leeches can potentially lead to the discovery of rare species.

1. Introduction

The Baltic states, comprising Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, are situated on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea in Europe. These countries experience a mild continental climate with marked seasonality and temperatures that vary greatly between inland and coastal regions due to their proximity to the sea. On the coast, the average air temperatures are just below freezing in January and February and around 18 °C in July and August. In inland areas, the temperatures are a bit lower in winter and a bit higher in summer. However, the temperature can change greatly depending on the meteorological situation [1].
Water temperature varies from the minimum annual average (8.1 °C) to the highest (10.5 °C). During the summer, rivers tend to have a wider variation in their average ten-day water temperature than during the winter. For instance, in the river Skroblus, the monthly water temperature in July did not exceed 13.8 °C, while in Šešupė, it was over 21.9 °C. In most rivers, the warmest period is usually the third week of July [2]. Usually, lower water temperatures occur in rivers with a high groundwater inflow rate, for example, in rivers of the Gauja Basin [3].
The landscape of the Baltic states was formed by glaciers that once covered the region during the last Ice Age. As the climate warmed and the ice began to melt, large amounts of meltwater were released, creating vast lakes and rivers [4]. There are many different types of water bodies in the Baltic states, such as lakes, peat bogs, swamps, and marshes, which provide a natural habitat for various species of animals, including leeches. It is expected that the diversity of leeches will be high due to the presence of such water bodies. However, despite extensive research on the fauna in aquatic habitats, there is insufficient research on leeches in the Baltic region, except for Hirudo medicinalis, which has been more extensively studied [5,6,7,8,9].
Although articles by Satkauskiene and Rutkauskaite-Suciliene [10] and Jueg and Zettler [11] contain descriptions of taxa (12 and 24, respectively) from Lithuania, taxonomic works on the freshwater leech fauna of the Baltic states are practically absent. Faunal records on leeches in the Baltic states can be found in references on macrozoobenthos [12] and monitoring reports [13], but the earlier literature containing descriptions and distribution of leeches in the Baltic states is usually in national or Russian languages, making it difficult for foreign scientists to study. Additionally, naming the same species with different names has contributed to confusion about leech species, such as Dina lineata being referred to as Erpobdella lineata by Lukin in 1958 [14].
An important factor for the distribution and survival of aquatic invertebrates and leeches, as well as habitat structure, is influenced by vegetation and nutrient levels. However, we have limited information about the habitats of leeches in the Baltic area. Based on the published documents, records, and observations, we tried to present a compiled list of the typical habitats of leeches in the Baltic countries.
In summary, data on leeches in the Baltic states are scarce. Therefore, this study has three objectives: (1) to review the current knowledge on leech species in the Baltic countries based on past and recent studies, (2) to examine the status of the rare species Hirudo medicinalis in the Baltic region of Europe, and (3) to identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

2. Materials and Methods

A review article was written using the scoping review method [15,16], which involved searching for all relevant studies on the taxonomic diversity of leeches in three Baltic countries. To ensure a comprehensive analysis, all available publication types, including references and monitoring reports, were considered, despite the limited literature on the topic. The review also included data on the observation and occurrence of leech species from international European [17,18] and national databases. The GBIF database provided species records with finding coordinates, while references from the PlutoF platform lacked such information but included the date and description of where the species were collected. The species’ habitat type at the occurrence of the species was determined according to the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) classification [18]. It permitted the identification of two types of EUNIS: level C and X habitats, including C1 (lakes, ponds, and pools of natural origin containing fresh, brackish, or salt water). Manmade freshwater bodies, including artificially created lakes, reservoirs, and canals, are acceptable provided that they contain seminatural aquatic communities (C1.2; C1.3); C2 (many unpolluted lowland lakes and ponds that are naturally mesotrophic and support dense beds of macrophytes, C2.3); and X03 (lagoons, flads, and gloes, considered a Baltic variety of lagoons, are small, usually shallow, more or less delimited water bodies still connected to the sea or cut off from the sea very recently by land upheaval and characterized by well-developed reedbeds and luxuriant submerged vegetation) [18].
As historical data on the abundance of species in certain plot areas are almost non-available (species populations can change over time due to various factors), to categorize species, we relied on the number of publications and records (records in GBIF are mainly for Estonia), specimens stored in museums or collections, observations, and the number of individuals. Species with only 1–3 observations/records/individuals are considered very rare (VR), while those with 3–5 are rare (R), 5–15 are common (C), and those with over 15+ records/observations and individuals are considered very common (VC). The category “data deficient” (DD) has been assigned to species with questionable records, questionable taxonomy, or absence, and the category “expect to be found” (E) for species that have been found in the neighboring country.
The core of the review was divided into three sections: (a) the taxonomic diversity of leeches in each Baltic country, (b) the state of knowledge on the rare species Hirudo medicinalis of European importance in each Baltic country, and (c) a focus on questionable species and research gaps.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Taxonomic Diversity of Leeches in Latvia

Lukin [14] provided one of the earliest detailed sources on the various leech species found in Latvia. Since then, further data have been collected through monitoring and zoobenthos studies [19,20] and by reviewing Hirudo medicinalis [9,21]. Latvia’s leech fauna consists of 16 species from five families and eleven genera (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). The family Glossiphoniidae is the most species-rich clade of leeches in Latvia, with eight recorded species (Table 1). Three species are yet to be found: Alboglossiphonia hyalina, A. striata (Apáthy, 1888), and G. verucata (Müller, 1844) (http://leb.daba.lv/Hirudinea.htm accessed on 19 December 2023). Alboglossiphonia hyalina and A. striata (Apathy, 1888) are likely not found in Latvia since they are small, not easily noticeable, and typically reside in the basal part of water plant leaves rather than in the benthos, which is where most zoobenthos studies are conducted.
The family Piscicolidae is poorly researched, and only one species, Piscicola geometra (Linnaeus, 1758), is recorded in zoobenthos records [19,20] (Table 2). According to Parele et al. [28], Piscicola fasciata was found in the river Ventė. However, since there is a lack of evidence, this species has been assigned to the category “Data deficient” (Table 2).
The family Erpobdellidae is represented by four species (Table 3). Based on unpublished direct observations in Latvia, we believe that only two species, Erpobdella octoculata (Linnaeus, 1758) and Erpobdella nigricollis (Brandes, 1899), can be assigned to the Latvian leech fauna. The common occurrence of Erpobdella testacea (Savigny, 1822) in Latvia needs confirmation, as it may be misidentified with the morphologically similar Erpobdella octoculata (Linnaeus, 1758). Two species of leeches, Dina lineata (O.F. Müller, 1773) and Erpobdella vilnensis (Liskiewicz, 1925), were reported in Latvia almost 100 years ago, only by Lukin [14] and Liskiewicz in 1925 [41]. Therefore, the assignment of these species to the Latvian leech fauna needs reconfirmation. According to available data [24], Erpobdella nigricollis (Brandes, 1899) is considered a rare species in Latvia. However, E. nigricollis has been frequently found in Lithuania [10]. To our knowledge, E. nigricollis does not have any specific environmental needs, and its different occurrence is likely due to imprecise species identification or insufficient research in the area.

3.2. Medicinal Leech (Hirudo medicinalis L. 1758) in Latvia

The presence of the medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis L.) in Latvia has been documented for almost a century, as mentioned by Kalninš in 2006 [9]. Sloka [27] provided the first records of this species in 10 lakes in Latvia, and subsequent research by Kalninš and Greke in 2006, and 2009 [9,21] reviewed the prevalence of H. medicinalis in Latvia pre- and post-1990. Greke, Kalniniš, and Telnovs (2009), in the report “Medicīnas dēles Hirudo medicinalis (Linnaeus, 1758) sugas aizsar-dzības plans” have listed 48 sites where medical leeches were found in Latvia during 2008. Out of these 48 sites, 17 were recorded within the Gauja National Park. Their research revealed that medicinal leeches are mainly found in the central part of Latvia, and their preferred habitats include lakes, bogs, and oxbows. Only a small number of specimens were found in other habitats, such as rivers, ponds, and pools [32].
The latest discovery of H. medicinalis in Latvia was documented in 2023 at GIBF, with coordinates and an accompanying image. However, it is unclear how many individual leeches were counted in the location since the image shows multiple specimens in an aquarium or collecting dish instead of their natural water habitat.
The studies conducted by Kalninš and Grekes [9,21] remain the primary source of information on the distribution of H. medicinalis in Latvia, as recent data sources are currently unavailable.

3.3. Taxonomic Diversity of Leeches in Estonia

To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted on the taxonomy of leeches in Estonia. The main source of information on Estonian leech species comes from references on macrozoobenthos in inland waters [30,31]. These references typically include descriptions of the area and sampling date, but not coordinates. However, some species localities can still be determined using the GBIF database and the Estonian Naturalist Society’s iNaturalist Grand Research, which provide records of found species with coordinates. Based on the records in databases, it can be stated that there are approximately 20 species of leeches belonging to 12 genera and five families in Estonia (Table 1). The family Glossiphoniidae is the most species-rich group in the Estonian leech fauna, with ten recorded species (Table 1).
The rare European erpobdelid species Dina lineata from all three Baltic countries was found only in Estonia. This species has been confirmed here by seven records. Out of these, five records have been uploaded to the GBIF database between 2010 and 2020, with one record per year. The locations of the records have been indicated with coordinates, but upon checking the map, it was observed that none of the locations were near any water bodies. This indicates that the location of the finding has not been accurately specified. However, morphologically, this species is similar to other erpobdelids, and therefore misidentification should not be excluded. Dina lineata has been recorded in Poland [46], and it can be expected in other Baltic countries as well.
The Piscicolidae family includes the Cystobranchus genus with two species and the Piscicola genus with three species (as listed in Table 2). One of these species, P. geometra, is commonly found in the country and has numerous records with coordinates in GBIF. However, the status of another Piscicolidae species, P. annae Bielecki, 1997, found in Dorpat (region and date in Estonian) and now stored in the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, is unclear. P. annae morphologically is similar to P. geometra; thus, molecular identification is necessary to distinguish between the two [47], and in consequence, the presence of P. annae in Estonia requires confirmation.
Additionally, three specimens of Piscicola fasciata Kollar, 1842, were recorded in Dorpat (Estonia) and preserved in the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin. P. fasciata, as a specific parasite of mostly Silurus glanis, has been found in Estonia [43] and Germany [48], Russia [49], and Poland [50,51].
As for the genus Cystobranchus, two species (as listed in Table 2) were found in Estonia. Cystobranchus mammilatus Malm, 1863, has 11 GBIF records with missing coordinates but documented finding localities from 1956 to 1999. Meanwhile, Cystobranchus respirans Troschel, 1850, was recorded twice in Estonia in 1956 27 and 1999 [3]. Recent data on these species in Estonia are absent.
Due to scientific debates over the identification and classification of Piscicolidae species [47,50,52,53], further research is necessary to revise the fish leech fauna in Estonia.

3.4. Hirudo Medicinalis in Estonia

The medicinal leech is considered near threatened in Estonia, according to the IUCN Global Red List Category. Monitoring was conducted in different areas such as Saaremaa Island, Harju, Võru, and Pernu counties in 1995, 2008, and 2011–2012 to investigate the distribution of H. medicinalis. As a result, a considerable amount of faunistic data on this species is provided in Talvi’s report [54,55]. However, the material is in Estonian. The report shows that 64% of all medicinal leech habitats were found in lakes and their shores, while ponds and quarries accounted for only 4% and 7% of habitats, respectively. The Estonian Naturalists’ Society provides an occurrence dataset that can be accessed via GBIF.org, with records of H. medicinalis in Estonian localities without coordinates dating back to 1935–2002. Between 2012 and 2018, eighteen records were registered in GBIF showing the presence of H. medicinalis on Saaremaa Island and nine in Estonia. However, there is no concrete evidence in the form of preserved specimens, images, or videos to support these observations.
In addition, identification errors may occur as the naturalist society relies on citizen data. For instance, a leech may be wrongly identified as Hirudo medicinalis. For example, a leech identified as Hirudo medicinalis (https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/3004435403, accessed on 18 December 2023 ) according to the uploaded image is probably Erpobdella sp.

3.5. Taxonomic Diversity of Leeches in Lithuania

In 1934, Liskiewicz [56] wrote one of the earliest detailed descriptions of leeches and their distribution in Vilnius County. However, for almost 40 years after that, there were no surveys on leeches in Lithuania due to the unavailability of published materials. From 1970 on, research concerning leeches was focused mainly on two areas: studies of the Hirudo medicinalis L. [7,8] and research on macrozoobenthos. The latter studies, conducted by Zettler and Daunys [12] and Bubinas and Jagminienė [29,35,37,38,39,40,57], discovered leeches along with other invertebrates. In 2022, a systematic study on the species composition and distribution of leeches in Lithuania was conducted by Šatkauskienė and Sucilienė [10], followed by a presentation on the diversity of leeches in the Curonian lagoon (Lithuania) by Jueg and Zettler [11].
Overall, 24 leech species across five families and thirteen genera (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) were recorded for Lithuanian fauna from 1934 up to now. The family Glossiphoniidae has been the most species-rich taxa, containing 12 species of leeches found in Lithuania so far. Two widespread species in Lithuania are Helobdella stagnalis and Glossiphonia complanata, both of which belong to the Glossiphonidae family. The Alboglossiphonia heteroclita species is more frequently found in Lithuania [10] than previously believed, contradicting the findings of Jueg and Zettler in 2022 [11]. This species can often be overlooked during research and sampling of macrozoobenthos, as they are small and have a light yellowish color that blends in with the leaves of water plants. Additionally, the rare European species Theromyzon maculosum (Rathe, 1962) was last mentioned in Lithuania 98 years ago (Liskiewicz, 1925) but was recently found in Satarečius pond (55.674° 25.692°) (unpublished data of authors, 2023). In addition, Batracobdelloides moogi [58,59], which is a very rare species has been found in the Curonian lagoon [12]. B. moogi is only known from a few places in Europe [60], including Poland [61] and Lithuania (coll. M. Zettler, University of Rostock/Germany; det. C. Grosser). It is an important faunistic record for Lithuania.
Research on the Piscicolidae family in Lithuania is quite poor. The common species, Piscicola geometra, has been recorded by various authors (Table 2). However, it should be noted that despite common distribution, the occurrence of P. geometra is infrequent in samplings of benthos or water plants because these leeches are typically attached to their host fishes. Piscicola annae Bielecki, 1997, and Piscicola pojmanskae Bielecki, 1994, were mentioned by Zettler [12] and Jueg [11] as being found in the Curonian lagoon. However, these records are questionable since the identification was based on diagnostic morphological characteristics, which could be insufficient. For example, P. pojmanskae can be confused with P. geometra due to morphological similarity. Cichocka and colleagues [52] suggested molecular identification techniques like COI gene sequencing for the identification of P. pojmanskae. Recently, the reduction of P. pojmanskae into a synonym of the species P. geometra was supported by both the morphological and genetic data [53]. However, the findings of Piscicolidae species in Lithuanian water bodies promise a greater diversity of fish leeches than one species, P. geometra.
The family Erpobdellidae is represented by five species in Lithuania. E. octoculata is widespread and abundant, and E. nigricollis occurs frequently. Both species do not demand special needs and live in various aquatic habitats: in littoral rivers, ponds, and slow-flowing streams (Table 3). Sometimes they both coexist in the same habitat. Based on personal observations, E. octoculata can be found in almost every water body, except the large lakes with sandy bottoms and clear water, ponds with clay bottoms, and streams with strong velocity. A few rare species of the Erpobdellidae family were observed in Lithuania as well: E. monostriata [10,12], E. testaceae [11,12], and E. vilnensis [11]. E. monostriata has been found only in a lagoon (X03 habitat) [12] and in Lake Akmena [10]. The latest habitat has been assigned as more or less an oligotrophic, nutrient-poor lake (C1.14), which is not typical [62] for E. monostriata. In general, the records on this species are rare, possibly due to the low number of scarce populations, and the geographical distribution is still not clear [62].
The diversity of leeches in various regions of Lithuania has been explored to varying degrees. While the western [10,11,12] and central [10] regions have been partially studied, the diversity of leeches (except H. medicinalis) in South and Eastern Lithuania remains unknown.

3.6. Hirudo medicinalis L. in Lithuania

A study from 53 years ago, conducted by Zapkuviene [6] and Jančienė [63], provided detailed information about the distribution of medicinal leeches in North-East and South Lithuania. They found that of the 104 water bodies they investigated, 23 were inhabited by medicinal leech. During that time, the density of medicinal leech varied from 3 to 5 units per m2 in some small lakes or peat bogs [7]. After 27 years, some of the water bodies were re-examined, and it was revealed that lakes with a high population of medicinal leeches remained until 2000, while others became swampy due to intense eutrophication processes [8].
Recently, in 2020–2023, medical leeches were found in permanent eutrophic lakes (C1.3) in Alytus County (South Lithuania), where turtles (Emys orbicularis L.) reside, as well as in small eutrophic ponds (C3.2) (Ukmergė County, Vepriai, N 55.136743 E 24.54759) and two records in Vilnius County (GBIF.org (4 September 2023) GBIF https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/download/0005776-230828120925497, accessed on 10 December 2023). The two GBIF records have been verified with accompanying images. They were also found in the middle part of Lithuania (Kaunas and Trakai districts) (Satkauskienė, Rutkauskaitė-Sucilienė, 2022). Based on former and recent data, Hirudo medicinalis L. is distributed mainly in the eastern and southern regions of Lithuania. This species is rare, but in habitats containing diverse water plants, gastropods, mollusks, and frogs, they can form dense populations. Since the natural water bodies change over time due to eutrophication, as was mentioned above, and human activity, it is necessary to renew the research on H. medicinalis, especially in previously recorded habitats.

3.7. General Notes on the Taxonomic Richness of Leeches in the Baltic States

Based on research conducted on leeches in Baltic countries, it has been found that the composition of common and widespread species (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) is similar.
However, the region is particularly interesting due to the presence of rare and questionable Piscicolidae species, which are significant for taxonomy and further research. At present, 19 species of Piscicola inhabiting the Palearctic region are known [50,64]. Four of them were recorded by Zettler and Daunys [12], Jueg and Zettler [11] in the Curonian lagoon in Lithuania: Caspiobdella fadejewi, Epshtein; Piscicola annae, Piscicola pojmanskae, Bielecki, 1994; and Pawloskiella stenosa, Bielecki. The three latter species are questionable and should be confirmed by applying molecular identification. In addition, more effective sampling methods in field surveys [65] could increase the Piscicolidae species diversity in Baltic countries.
Moreover, a high number of species were recorded in neighboring countries; for example, 47 species were recorded in Poland [61], which suggests that the list of leech species in Baltic states is far from complete. Glossiphonia verucata, Dina apathyi, Haemopis elegans, and additional Piscicolidae species are expected to be found.
Hirudo medicinalis L. has been recorded in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Previous research on the purposeful distribution of this species in the area was conducted an average of 15–20 years ago. Recent data mainly consists of observations and does not provide information on species abundance or habitat type. While it can be said that H. medicinalis is distributed through Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, further research is necessary to determine changes in population over time. Currently, there are no special tools for protecting and saving the water bodies that serve as habitats for H. medicinalis.
Based on available data, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) the largest gap of knowledge is related to the distribution and diversity of Piscicolidae leeches in the Baltic states; (2) the presence of some species, such as Piscicola annae, P. pojmanskae, and Erpobdela vilnensis, is questionable and requires additional field work to confirm their existence; (3) few species (Glossiphonia verucata (Müller, 1844), Cystobranchus mammilatus (Malm, 1863), Cystobranchus respirans (Troschel, 1850)) known from neighboring countries are expected to be found in the Baltic states, which will increase the number of known species; (4) it is necessary to review and update the research on Latvian and Estonian leech fauna; (5) the virtual database has the most information on leeches in Estonia, while data on leeches in Latvia and Lithuania are rather limited; and (6) Hirudo medicinalis is rare, but found in all Baltic countries and until now is the most extensively studied species. There are no special tools for protecting and saving the water bodies that serve as habitats for H. medicinalis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, I.S. and J.R.-S.; investigation, I.S. and J.R.-S.; writing—draft preparation, I.S., J.R.-S. and J.S.; writing—review and editing, I.S., J.R.-S. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting this review are available in the cited references.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lithuanian Hydrometereological Service. Available online: http://www.meteo.lt/en/weather-temperature (accessed on 17 December 2023).
  2. Valiuškevičius, G.; Milonaitytė, D. Vandens temperatūros pasiskirstymą per metus apibūdinančių rodiklių taikymo Lietuvos upėse galimybės. Geologija. Geografija 2018, 4, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Latkovska, I.; Apsîte, E. Long—Trem changes in the water temperature of rivers in Latvia. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B 2016, 70, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vardys, V.S.; Sloven, W.A. Lithuania: Physical Environment. In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: Country Studies, 1st ed.; Iwaskiw, W.R., Ed.; Federal Research Division, Library of Congress: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 186–189. ISBN 0-8444-0851-4. OCLC 34245562. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zapkuvienė, D. (Запкувене, Д.B) Распрoстранение и запасы медицинских пиявoк в Литoвскoй ССР. Liet. TSR Moksl. Akad. Darb. C Ser. 1970, 3, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
  6. Запкувене, Д.В. Разведение и выращивание меди¬цинских пиявoк в лабoратoрных услoвиях: (1. Разведение Hirudo medicinalis f. serpentina и H. medicinalis f. officinalis). Liet. TSR MA Darb. 1972, Ser. C. t.3, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  7. Запкувене, Д.В. Распрoстранение и причины уменьшения медицинских пиявoк в вoдoѐмах Литoвскoй ССР. In Book: Лимнoлoгия северo-запада СССР. Институт зooлoгии и бoтаники Академии наук Эстoнскoй ССР 1973, 1, 101. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zapkuvienė, D.; Petrauskienė, L. Book Medicininė Dėlė: Anatomija, Fiziologija, Ekologija; Ekologijos Institutas: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2000; p. 160. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kalniņš, M. The distribution and ecology of medicinal leech Hirudo medicinalis Linnaeus, 1758 (Hirudinea: Arhynchobdellae) in Latvia. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 2006, 6, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  10. Šatkauskienė, I.; Rutkauskaitė-Sucilienė, J. The present state of the leech fauna (Annelida: Hirudinea) in Lithuania. Zootaxa 2022, 5115, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jueg, U.; Zettler, M.L. Notes on the leech and crayfish worms fauna (Hirudinida and Branchiobdellida) of Lithuania with a preliminary checklist. Lauterbornia 2022, 88, 213–238. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zettler, M.L.; Daunys, D. Long-term macrozoobenthos changes in a shallow boreal lagoon: Comparison of a recent biodiversity inventory with historical data. Limnologica 2007, 37, 170–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Springe, G.; Briede, A.; Druvietis, I.; Grinberga, L.; Konosonoka, I.; Parele, E.; Rodinovs, V.; Skuja, A. Long-term Development of the Hydroecosystem of the Lake Engure and its Influencing Factors. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2011, 7, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lukin, E. I The Leech Fauna of the Soviet Union: Leeches in Fresh and Brackish Water Bodies. Fauna SSSR. (N.S.) 1976, 109, 28. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  15. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mak, S.; Thomas, A. Steps for conducting a scoping review. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2022, 14, 565–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. GBIF.org. Available online: www.gbif.org (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  18. Davies, C.E.; Moss, D.; Hill, M.O. EUNIS Habitat Classification. Available online: https://eunis.eea.europa.eu/index.jsp (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  19. Parele, E. Ilggadigo Zoobentosa Organism Satava Noverojumu Analize Engures Ezera. Latvias Universitates 65, Zinatniska Konferenc. 2007. Available online: https://www.lu.lv/materiali/petnieciba/konferences/prezentacijas/lu65/gzzf.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2023).
  20. Druvietis, I.; Springe, G.; Briede, A.; Kokorite, I.; Parele, E. A comparative assessment of the bog aquatic environment of the Ramsar site Teiči Nature Reserve and North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, Latvia. Mires Peat 2010, 8, 19–40. [Google Scholar]
  21. Greķe, K.; Teļnovs, D.; Kalniņš, M. Medicīnas dēles Hirudo Medicinalis (Linnaeus, 1758) Sugas Aizsardzības Plāns Rīga; Latvijas Entomoloģijas Biedrība un Dabas Aizsardzības Pārvalde: Riga, Latvia, 2009; p. 66. Available online: https://www.daba.gov.lv/lv/media/5937/download?attachment (accessed on 18 September 2023).
  22. Virkhausen, H.; Abarenkov, K. PlutoF Platform Reference-Based Occurrences. PlutoF. Occurrence Dataset. 1956. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/1571608250 (accessed on 18 September 2023).
  23. Timm, T.; Timm, V.; Tyl’p, Y. Sostav i mnogoletnie izmenenija koh6estva zoobentosa v Pskovsko-Cudskom ozere. In V. Timm (ed.), Long-time observations of zoobenthos of the large lakes of Estonia. Hydrobiol. Res. 1982, 11, 7–78. [Google Scholar]
  24. Available online: http://leb.daba.lv/Hirudinea.htm (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  25. PlutoF Platform: Reference-Based Occurrence. Available online: https://plutof.ut.ee/ (accessed on 25 November 2023).
  26. Ristkok, J.; Ruse, J. Võrtsjärve litoraali põhjafauna koosseisust Ja levikust. Zooloogia-Alaseid Töid Тpуды пo зooлoгии. Tartu 1962, 2, 3–52. [Google Scholar]
  27. Слoка, Я.Я. Материалы o фауне пиявoк (Hirudinea) Латв ССР. АН ЛатвССР. Рига 1956, 3, 89–93. [Google Scholar]
  28. Parele, E.; Skuja, A.; Ozolins, D. The leech (Hirudinea) fauna and distribution in the large rivers in Latvia. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Hirudinea: Biology, Taxonomy, Faunistics, Wierzba, Poland, 18–21 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bubinas, A.; Jagminienė, I. Bioindication of ecotoxicity according to community structure of macrozoobenthic fauna. Acta Zool. Litu. 2001, 11, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Timm, H.; Möls, T. Macrozoobenthos of Lake Verevi. Hydrobiologia 2006, 547, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Timm, H.; Kairo, K.; Möls, T.; Virro, T. An index to assess hydromorphological quality of Estonian surface waters based on macroinvertebrate taxonomic composition. Limnologica 2011, 41, 398–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pilāts, V. (Ed.) Biodiversity in Gauja National Park; Gauja National Park Administration: Sigulda, Latvia, 2007; Available online: https://www.entergauja.com/userfiles/files/GR_Bio_daudzv_GNP.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2023).
  33. Timm, H.; Möls, T.; Kangur, K.; Timm, T. Littoral macroinvertebrates in some small lakes in Estonia. In Biodiversity in Benthic Ecology; Friberg, N., Carl, J.D., Eds.; Technical Report No 266; National Environmental Research Institute: Roskilde, Denmark, 1999; pp. 133–139. [Google Scholar]
  34. Timm, T. Eesti Rõngusside (Annelida) Määraja: A Guide to the Estonian Annelida; Eesti Looduseuurijate Selts, Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus, Tartu: Tartu, Estonia, 1999; Volume 208. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bubinas, A.; Jagminienė, I. Bioindication of the Neris river based on the structure of hydrobiocenoses. Acta Zool. Litu. 2002, 12, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gasiūnas, I.I. Kormovoj Zoomakrobentos Zaliva Kurshju Mares [The Fodder Macrozoobenthos of the Curonian]. In Kurshju Mares. Itogi Kompleksnogo Issledovanija [The Curonian Lagoon. Results of Integrated Research]; Jankevičius, K., Ed.; Institute of Biology: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1959. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pliūraitė, V. Macrobenthos. Hydrobiological Research in the Baltic Countries; Kangur, M., Springe, G., Volskis, R., Eds.; Part I. Rivers and lakes; UNESCO National Commission of Estonia: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1999; pp. 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pliūraitė, V. Macrozoobentoso gausumo, biomasės ir rūšinės sudeties sezoninė kaita Merkio ir Šventosios upesė. Ekologija 2001, 4, 16–30. [Google Scholar]
  39. Virbickas, J.; Pliūraitė, V. The species composition of macrozoobenthos in small Lithuanian Rivers. Acta Zool. Litu. 2002, 12, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pliūraité, V.; Mickėnienė, L. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in agriculturally impaired streams. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2009, 3, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  41. Liskiewicz, S. Die Hirudineen des nord-östlichen Polens (Vorläufige Mitteilung). Arch. Für Naturgeschichte 1925, 91, 277–280. [Google Scholar]
  42. Senckenberg. Collection Vermes—ZMB. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/7b8964ea-f762-11e1-a439-00145eb45e9a (accessed on 5 September 2023).
  43. Herter, K. Der medizinische Blutegel und seine Verwandten; Ziemsen, Die neue Brehm-Bücherei: Wittenberg, Germany, 1968; p. 381. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tarmo, T.; Kangur, K.; Timm, H.; Timm, T. Macrozoobenthos of Lake Peipsi-Pihkva: Taxonomical composition, abundance, biomass, and their relations to some ecological parameters. Hydrobiologia 1996, 338, 139–154. [Google Scholar]
  45. Estonian Naturalist Society. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.elus.ee/index.php/en/ (accessed on 6 October 2023).
  46. Ropelewska, E.; Bielecki, A.; Czachorowski, S.; Ropelewski, M.; Dziejowski, J. Dina lineata (O.F. Müller, 1774)—An interesting species of leech in astatic reservoirs of the city of Olsztyn and its surroundings. Ecol. Quest. 2014, 18, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Utevsky, S.Y.; Trontelj, P. Phylogenetic relationships of fish leeches (Hirudinea: Piscicolidae) based on mitochondria DNA sequences and morphological data. Zool. Scr. 2004, 33, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jueg, U. Rote Liste der Egel und Krebsegel Publisher: Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Fassung. Schwerin 2013, 57, 56. [Google Scholar]
  49. Пoдберезный, B.; Хицoва, Л.Н.; Мoлoканoва, Л.В. Паразитические и свoбoднoживущие пиявки верхнегo Дoна и притoкoв. Вестник вгу серия Химия Биoлoгия Фармация 2015, 3, 98–102. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bielecki, A. Fish leeches of Poland in relation to the Palearctic piscicolines (Hirudinea: Piscicolidae: Piscicolinae). Genus 1997, 8, 223–378. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pawlowski, K. Katalog Fauny Polski, XI, 3. Pijawki (Hirudinea); PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 1968; p. 94. [Google Scholar]
  52. Cichocka, M.J.; Bielecki, A.; Kulikowski, M.; Jabłońska-Barna, I.; Najda, K. New record of the fish leech Piscicola pojmanskae (Annelida: Hirudinida: Piscicolidae)—DNA barcoding and phylogeny. Biologia 2018, 73, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kaygorodova, I.; Matveenko, E. Diversity of the Piscicola Species (Hirudinea, Piscicolidae) in the Eastern Palaearctic with a Description of Three New Species and Notes on Their Biogeography. Diversity 2023, 15, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Talvi, T. Apteegikaani Hirudo medicinalis L. Kaitsekorralduskava. Viidumäe 2002, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  55. Talvi, T. Kahepaiksed ja roomajad.—Rmt.: Kään, H., Mardiste, H., Nelis, R. ja Pesti, O. (toim.), Saaremaa. Loodus, aeg, inimene. 1. Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus. Tallinn 2002, 159–166. [Google Scholar]
  56. Liskiewicz, S. Pijawki polnocno-wschodniej Polski. TPN Wilno 1934, 8, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pliūraité, V.; Kesminas, V. Species composition of macroinvertebrates in medium-sized Lithuanian rivers. Acta Zool. Litu. 2004, 14, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nesemann, H.; Csányi, B. Description of Batracobelloides moogi n. sp., a leech genus and species new to the European fauna with notes on the identity of Hirudo paludosa Carena, 1824 (Hirudinea: Glossiphoniidae). Lauterbornia 1995, 21, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  59. Oosthuizen, J.H. Redescription of the African fish leech Batracobdelloides tricarinata (Blanchard, 1897) (Hirudinea: Glossiphoniidae). Hydrobiologia 1989, 184, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nesemann, H.; Neubert, E. Annelida, Clitellata: Branchiobdellida, Acanthobdellea, Hirudinea. In Süßwasserfauna von Mitteleuropa; Schwoerbel, J., Zwick, P., Eds.; Begründet von A. Brauer (Spektrum): Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; Volume 6/2, p. 178. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bielecki, A.; Cichocka, J.M.; Jeleń, I.; Świątek, P.; Adamiak-Brud, Ž. A checklist of leech species from Poland. Wiadomoœci Parazytol. 2011, 57, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  62. Utevsky, S.; Dubov, P.G.; Prokin, A.A. First Russian record of Erpobdella monostriata: DNA barcoding and geographical distribution (Annelida, Hirudinida, Erpobdellidae). Spixiana 2015, 38, 161–168. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jančienė Hirudo Medicinalis, F. Serpentina Maquin-Tandon Distribution in North-East Lithuania. Unpublished Bachelor Thesis. 1972; p. 30. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sket, B.; Trontelj, P. Global diversity of leeches (Hirudinea) in freshwater. In Book Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment; Balian, E.V., Lévêque, C., Segers, H., Martens, K., Eds.; Developments in Hydrobiology; Springer: Dordrecht, Holland, 2008; Volume 198, pp. 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mérő, T.O.; Málnás, K. The First Record of Piscicola fasciata Kollar, 1842 (Hirudinea: Piscicolidae) from Serbia, with Recommendations for Sampling Acta Zoologica Bulgarica. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2019, 71, 129–132. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Glossiphoniidae leech species of the Baltic state, found and mentioned by various authors from 1958 to 2022 (abbreviations of species records: VR—very rare; R—rare; C—common; VC—very common and widespread species; DD—data deficient; E—expect to be found). Species whose findings are based on numerous references (not all are listed here due to space constraints) are marked with an asterisk.
Table 1. Glossiphoniidae leech species of the Baltic state, found and mentioned by various authors from 1958 to 2022 (abbreviations of species records: VR—very rare; R—rare; C—common; VC—very common and widespread species; DD—data deficient; E—expect to be found). Species whose findings are based on numerous references (not all are listed here due to space constraints) are marked with an asterisk.
HabitatFamily Glossiphoniidae Vaillant, 1890
EstoniaLatviaLithuania
RecordSourceRecordSourceRecordSource
Alboglossiphonia hyalina (Müller, 1774)C1.22, X03R[22,23]E[24]R[11,12]
Alboglossiphonia striata (Apáthy, 1888)C1.22, X03DD E[24]R[12]
Alboglossiphonia heteroclita (O.F. Müller, 1774)C1.22, X03C[17,25,26]C[14,19,24,27,28]C[10,12,29]
Hemiclepsis marginata (O.F. Müller, 1774)C1.22, C1.23, C2.33, X03C[17,26,30,31]C[14,19,24,32]R[10,12]
Placobdella costata (Müller, 1846)C1.22, C1.23, C2.31R[22,26,33,34]C[19,24,27,28,32]C[10,11,12]
* Glossiphonia complanata (Linnaeus, 1758)C1.14, X03, C1.24, C1.23, C1.31, C2.32,
C2.33		VC[17,25,26]VC[14,19,24,28]VC[10,11,12,29,35,36,37,38,39,40]
Glossiphonia concolor (Apathy, 1888)C1.21, C2.32, X03R[17,25]R[24,28]R[11,12,14,38]
Glossiphonia verucata (Müller, 1844)C1.22, C2.31, X03VR[25,31,33,34]E[24]VR[11]
Helobdella stagnalis (Linnaeus, 1758)C1.21, C1.32, C1.33C[17,23,26]C[14,19,20]C[10,11,12]
Batracobdelloides moogi (Nesemann and Csanyi, 1995)X03DD DD VR[12]
Theromyzon tessulatum (O. F. Müller, 1773)C1.13, C1.22, C1.32C[17,25,34]C[19]R[10,12,37]
Theromyzon maculosum (Rathe, 1862)C1.32R[17,23,25,31,34]R[19,24,41]VR[41], this study
Total number of species 10 8 12
Table 2. Piscicolidae leech species of the Baltic states were found and mentioned by various authors from 1958 to 2022 (abbreviations of species records: VR—very rare; R—rare; C—common; VC—very common and widespread species; DD—data deficient; E—expected to be found).
Table 2. Piscicolidae leech species of the Baltic states were found and mentioned by various authors from 1958 to 2022 (abbreviations of species records: VR—very rare; R—rare; C—common; VC—very common and widespread species; DD—data deficient; E—expected to be found).
SpeciesHabitatFamily Piscicolidae Johnston, 1865
EstoniaLatviaLithuania
RecordSourceRecordSourceRecordSource
Piscicola geometra (Linnaeus, 1758)C1.12, C2.31, X03C[17,25,26]C[14,19,20,32] C[10,12,29,35,37,38,39]
Piscicola annae (Bielecki, 1997)X03R/DD[42]DD VR[11]
Piscicola fasciata (Kollar, 1842)C1.22, C1.23, C2.33, X03VR[43]DD[28]VR[14,41]
Piscicola pojmanskae (Bielecki, 1994)C2.31, X03DD DD R[12]
Caspiobdella fadejewi (Epshtein, 1958)X03DD DD VR[12,42]
Pawlowskiella stenosa (Bielecki, 1997)X03DD DD VR[11]
Cystobranchus mammilatus (Malm, 1863)C1.21, C1.32, C1.33, X03R[25]E[24]E[11]
Cystobranchus respirans (Troschel, 1850)X03R[22,33]E[24]DD
Total number of species 5 1 6
Table 3. Erpobdellidae, Hirudinidae, and Haemopidae leech species of the Baltic states found and mentioned by various authors from 1958 to 2022 (abbreviations of species records: VR—very rare; R—rare; C—common; VC—very common; DD—data deficient; E—expect to be found. Species whose findings are based on numerous references (not all are listed here due to space constraints) are marked with an asterisk.
Table 3. Erpobdellidae, Hirudinidae, and Haemopidae leech species of the Baltic states found and mentioned by various authors from 1958 to 2022 (abbreviations of species records: VR—very rare; R—rare; C—common; VC—very common; DD—data deficient; E—expect to be found. Species whose findings are based on numerous references (not all are listed here due to space constraints) are marked with an asterisk.
HabitatFamily Erpobdellidae Moore, 1908
EstoniaLatviaLithuania
RecordSourceRecordSourceRecordSource
* Erpobdella octoculata (Linnaeus, 1758)C1.22, X03 C2.31, C2.34C[17,25,26]C[14,19,20,24]VC[10,11,12,29,35,36,37,38,39]
Erpobdella nigricollis (Brandes, 1899)C1.22, C2.32
X03		R[25,33]R[14,19,20,24,28,32]C[10,11,12,37]
Dina lineata (O.F. Müller, 1773) R[17,25]R[14]DD
Erpobdella testacea (Savigny, 1822)C1.22, X03C[17,25,26,31,44]C[14,24,28]R[11,12]
Erpobdella monostriata (Lindenfeld and Pietruszynski, 1890)C1.22, X03DD E[24]VR[10,11,12]
Erpobdella vilnensis (Liskiewicz, 1925) DD E[24,41]VR[11]
Family Hirudinidae Whitman, 1886
Hirudo medicinalis
(Linnaeus, 1758)		C1.12, C1.22,
C5, C6, C7, C8, G1, H3.4, H.5		R[17,25,31,45]R[9,17,21,26,32]R[10,17], this study
Family Haemopidae Richardson, 1969
* Haemopis sanguisuga
(Linnaeus, 1758)		C1.22, C1.32, C2.33, C2.32C[17,25,45]VC[14,17,19,20,32]C[10,11,17,37,41]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rutkauskaite-Suciliene, J.; Snegiriovaite, J.; Satkauskiene, I. An Investigation into the Diversity of Leeches (Hirudinida) in the Baltic States. Diversity 2024, 16, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010032

AMA Style

Rutkauskaite-Suciliene J, Snegiriovaite J, Satkauskiene I. An Investigation into the Diversity of Leeches (Hirudinida) in the Baltic States. Diversity. 2024; 16(1):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rutkauskaite-Suciliene, Jurgita, Justina Snegiriovaite, and Ingrida Satkauskiene. 2024. "An Investigation into the Diversity of Leeches (Hirudinida) in the Baltic States" Diversity 16, no. 1: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010032

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