Next Article in Journal
Diversity and Conservation of Carnivores in Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Journal
Biodiversity of Non-Apis Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in the Potohar Region of Pakistan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 1
10.3390/d17010005
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ecological Indicators and Estimators of Fish and Crustacean Diversity in the Yucatan Peninsula

by
Martha Angélica Gutiérrez-Aguirre
1,*,
Adrián Cervantes-Martínez
1 and
Eduardo Suárez-Morales
2
1
Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Campus Cozumel, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Quintana Roo (UQROO), Av. Andrés Quintana Roo. Col. San Gervasio, Cozumel 77600, Mexico
2
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Av. Centenario km 5.5, Chetumal 77014, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010005
Submission received: 27 October 2024 / Revised: 15 December 2024 / Accepted: 19 December 2024 / Published: 25 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Freshwater Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Biodiversity patterns provide insights into the conservation value of ecosystems and also aid in an understanding of some research priorities. This research paper presents an exhaustive inventory of crustaceans and fish species from the Yucatan Peninsula’s epicontinental, underground, and anchialine aquatic systems. Using records spanning from 1936 to 2024, this study analyzed over 2600 entries across 670 aquatic systems, including cenotes, flooded cave lakes, springs, and wetlands. A total of 329 species were recorded, comprising 117 fish and 212 crustacean species. The richness and endemism of these species were assessed through a completeness analysis, utilizing non-parametric models (Chao 2, Jackknife 1, Bootstrap) to estimate potential species richness. Notably, the region exhibits high endemism, especially among crustaceans, with up to 50 species and 2 endemic families being unique to the Yucatan Peninsula. This study underscores the importance of the eastern YP for crustaceans and the central YP for fish, highlighting areas critical for conservation. These findings emphasize the need for further exploration, as the diversity of aquatic species remains incompletely understood. This comprehensive synthesis aims to inform future conservation strategies, environmental management, and regional planning efforts, particularly highlighting the vulnerability of these unique aquatic systems to environmental degradation.

1. Introduction

Species richness is a fundamental biological concept, not only for an understanding of the alpha diversity that can potentially be found in an environment but also because of its relevance as an indicator of research priorities or conservation areas and for the identification of critical faunas or the detection of complementary regions between protected areas [1]. The species is considered a hierarchical level for the quantification of biodiversity; if this quantification is also mapped, a valuable and indispensable tool is generated to aid in the making of conservation and management decisions [2].
The Yucatan Peninsula (YP) harbors a high aquatic species richness. The karst aquifer of the Yucatán Peninsula includes Cozumel Island and is considered the largest karstic aquifer in Mexico and in the world [3], forming networks of underground aquatic systems, drainage channels, caves, and underground conduits. These elements can be interconnected at different levels with cenotes, lagoons, springs, and caves [4], which can be flooded with freshwater, or, as they approach the coast, they can form anchialine systems due to marine influence [5].
All these aquatic ecosystems constitute the habitats of various species of crustaceans and fish [6,7], are the main sources of water that support human activities in the region, and are highly vulnerable to contaminants [4,5].
Efforts have been made to communicate the diversity, or indicators related to the existing diversity, of aquatic organisms that inhabit the Yucatan Peninsula [5]. However, these have been directed mainly toward knowledge of marine species [8,9]; the most complete reviews, focused on the aquatic inhabitants of interior systems of the Peninsula, have been directed toward knowledge of the distribution, classification, or taxonomic rearrangement of some genera [10,11].
In addition, the known biodiversity of aquatic organisms that inhabit the aquifer of the YP has increased substantially in the last two decades [12]. Local efforts to synthetize this information are still fragmented, especially for the most widely distributed and biodiverse groups, such as crustaceans and fish, which have colonized a wide range of habitats, including freshwater, brackish, and anchialine.
Definitions of biological patterns, such as those of the location and distribution of species and the status of each species based on its distribution (cosmopolitan, endemic, areas of endemism), are considered indispensable hierarchical elements that reflect evolutionary patterns and mechanisms. Understanding these patterns is necessary to systematically guide and focus the conservation of organisms [13].
Therefore, it is important to organize and systematize information related to the current and potential diversity of species that inhabit the aquifer of the YP to make informed decisions regarding conservation, management, environmental planning, or even territorial planning. According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, sustainability and the knowledge of attributes such as diversity, composition, and structure are fundamental to ensuring the functioning and stability of natural ecosystems [14].
An evaluation of the records of fish and crustaceans that inhabit the YP will allow us to define areas with greater species richness and with the most highly endemic biota that characterize the conspicuous ecosystems of the region. It has not been explored whether the biodiversity of these organisms is fully known or whether there could potentially be more species. Despite the enormous biodiversity that has been observed in recent years, the knowledge we have about the biodiversity of the inhabitants of the aquifer of the YP is still limited, and this idea was explored through a completeness analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

Through an exhaustive selection of published records between 1936 and 2024 (nearly nine decades), a total inventory of the crustacean and fish inhabitants of epicontinental, underground, and anchialine aquatic systems in the Yucatan Peninsula (YP) was carried out.
The Yucatan Peninsula is located between the coordinates 17°49′00″–21°36′00″ N and 86°45′00″–91°20′00″ W (Figure 1). In this region, high temperatures and humid climates dominate, and the region is geologically similar to southeastern Mexico and northern Guatemala and Belize. This platform is dominated by calcite and dolomite from the Eocene [15] and does not exceed 300 m above sea level.
Information was obtained from databases such as the Zoological Abstract and the ISI Web of Science and/or was requested directly from the researchers/authors of the records. The main publications on which the inventory was based were Wilson [16], Reddel [17], Castro-Aguirre [18], Hobbs [19], Reid [20], Suárez-Morales & Elías-Gutiérrez [21], Iliffe [22], Suárez-Morales et al. [23], Castro-Aguirre et al. [24], Rocha et al. [25], Elías-Gutiérrez et al. [26], Miller [27], Brandorff [28], Cohuo et al. [29] Ceballos et al. [30], and Macario et al. [31].
For the selection of records to be included in the inventory, a detailed review process was followed, including a review of the synonymy(ies) of each species, a review of primary sources of information, and the exclusion of records of introduced species. Taxonomic reviews were mainly based upon Botosaneanu & Iliffe [32], Dumont et al. [33], Sinev et al. [34], Bruce [35], Schmitter-Soto [11,36], Miller [27], and Barrientos-Villalobos et al. [37]. In cases where there were doubts regarding classification, it was decided to include only verified records (Supplementary Table S1), for example, by reviewing the geographical distribution (local, regional, or global) of the genus to which a species belongs. The classification of crustacean species to the order level was based on the proposal of Martin and Davis [38], whereas that of fish was based on Nelson et al. [39]. This information was used to define the geographical position of each record, the known endemic species or genera, and the number of records by system.
A completeness analysis was carried out using a presence‒absence matrix to obtain an approximation of the richness of fish and crustaceans in the YP. Each aquatic system within the inventory was considered the minimum unit of analysis in this study (sampled units). The potential richness of the studied area for each group of organisms was estimated using the non-parametric species accumulation models of Chao 2, Jackknife 1, and Bootstrap [40], with EstimateS V. 7.0 software (accessible at http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates, accessed on 23 February 2018, Copyright R. K. Colwell):
Chao2 = S + (L2/2M),
  • S = Species richness
  • L = Species number—present only in one sample
  • M = Species number—present in two samples
Jack 1 = S + L (m − 1/m),
  • S = Species richness
  • L = Species number—present only in one sample
  • m = Sample number
Bootstrap = S + (1 − pj)n,
  • S = Species richness
  • pj = Proportion of sampled units where the jth species is present
A Kruskal‒Wallis test was developed in Minitab V.21 to determine the integrity of the currently known inventory. The following null hypothesis was tested: H0 = the specific richness estimated, which is similar to the inventoried specific richness of fish and crustaceans observed in the Yucatan Peninsula.

3. Results

3.1. Records

Approximately 2600 records were organized from the study area in 670 aquatic systems, distributed among sinkholes, lakes, springs, groundwater, anchialine systems, wetlands, and some superficial, small currents. Compared with fish records, crustacean records were more evenly distributed in the YP (Figure 1). In total, 329 species were recorded (Supplementary Table S1): 117 fish species in 14 orders and 34 families (Table 1); and 212 crustacean species in 13 orders and 40 families. The number of records, taking into consideration the surveyed time, was almost twice as much for fish (~1750) than for Crustacea (~900).

3.2. Species and Taxonomic Categories

In the region, the order with the most species was Diplostraca, with 52 species, and the other orders with the most species (>19 species) were Calanoida, Cyclopoida, Podocopida, Decapoda, Cyprinodontiformes, and Perciformes (Table 1).

3.3. Frequency of Richness

More than 10 species (a maximum of 36) were recorded in 50 aquatic systems. Aquatic ecosystems with inventories of one to seven species were highly frequent (86.3% of the systems), followed by sites with inventories of eight to fifteen species (9.85% of the systems). In six systems (0.88%), more than 24 aquatic species were recorded. In each aquatic system in the Yucatan Peninsula, 6.6 species of both fish and crustaceans were found on average.
Aquatic systems with a relatively high crustacean species richness (14–38) are located in the eastern YP, whereas the systems with the highest species richness of fish (9–30) are located in the central toward the north and eastern YP (Figure 2).

3.4. Endemic Species

Up to 60 endemic species of fish and crustaceans have been recorded in the surveyed area (Table 2). The species in the table correspond to 21.9% of the crustacean species and 10.2% of the fish species recorded; therefore, endemism is more common for crustaceans in the region (~60 aquatic free-living species) because two families and nine genera are endemic to the Yucatan Peninsula, whereas two crustacean genera recorded here are endemic to the Caribbean.
Twelve species of fish are endemic: O. infernale and T. pearsei are strict inhabitants of currents that flow into caverns.

3.5. Richness Estimators

According to the estimators, it is highly probable that the inventory of aquatic organisms that inhabit the YP will increase as the number of study units increases too; potentially, it will be possible to identify up to 5% more unique species of fish and up to 20% more crustaceans (Figure 3). In fact, the number of actual species inventoried (S Obs in Figure 3) is significantly lower than the potential specific richness, calculated by the estimators via the Kruskal–Wallis test (HCrustacea = 375.7, p < 0.00; HFish = 275.81, p < 0.00).

4. Discussion

The karst aquifer of the Yucatan Peninsula is one of the largest in the world [3]. It is located in the states of Campeche, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo (in Mexico), extends toward Belize and northern Guatemala, and is located in a biogeographical environment dominated by humid or rainy tropical forests and high temperatures.
Geologically, the dominant sediments in the Yucatan Peninsula are limestone and dolomite from the Eocene. This aquifer includes networks of underground aquatic systems, some of which are interconnected at different levels with cenotes, lagoons, springs, and epicontinental caves that, as they approach the coast, can form anchialine systems due to marine influence.
The central-southeastern region of this aquifer is geologically the oldest, with sediments from the Paleocene and Eocene [41,42]. Northern Yucatán and the entire eastern strip of Quintana Roo are formed by more recent Miocene, Pliocene, and Quaternary sediments. Therefore, two main morphological units are recognized geologically across the entire Peninsula [42].
In the southern portion of the Yucatan Peninsula, in the ancestral zone, which is in the province of Petén [43], the occurrence of fish is recorded most frequently in areas where superficial currents or lagoons are present (e.g., currents in Escarcega, Candelaria, or Calakmul or lagoons in Chichankanab, Bacalar, or Guerrero). Therefore, the distribution and diversity of fish respond to the surface relief of the Yucatan Peninsula, and in agreement with the findings of Schmitter-Soto et al. [44], we found that fish richness decreased from south to north and from the coast to the inland areas.
New investigations have improved the classification of some taxonomically complex fish genera. The complexity in the organization of these organisms has been related to the lack of knowledge of actual phenetic differences, the lack of knowledge of genetic differences, or the assumption that the diversity of aquatic organisms in tropical environments is low.
However, systematic research has generated a rearrangement of species and genera recorded in the Yucatan Peninsula, such as for Oreochromis, Chuco, Rocio, Parachromis, Vieja, Thorichthys, and Rhamdia [11,27].
The analysis revealed a total of 117 fish species, equivalent to 22% of the epicontinental fish recorded in Mexico (~505). The number found is proposed as a stable indicator of fish richness in the YP because an asymptote appears to be reached over time and with the considered sampled units in the completeness analysis. Among the fish, 12 species are endemic to the YP, classified into the families Cyprinodontidae, Cichlidae, and Poeciliidae, which inhabit superficial systems and are widely distributed. But the fish O. infernale and T. pearsei are strictly groundwater fish, and their distribution is limited to the eastern margin of the YP (the Miocene–Pliocene area). Additionally, five of the endemic species exclusively inhabit the Chichankanab Lagoon, in the Municipality of Dziuché, México, and are classified as Cyprinodon artifrons, C. esconditus, C. labiosus, C. maya, and C. savium.
Since 2000, careful observations of numerous individuals and detailed taxonomic, ecological, morphological, and genetic studies such as [45] have allowed for an increase in the known number of crustaceans in the world and in the analyzed region. The first regional records in the YP were taken at the beginning of the 20th century; thus, in recent years, at least a fifth or sixth of the known species in the YP have been described and cataloged.
The level of crustacean endemism is high: there are two endemic families (Tulumellidae and Anchialocarididae), the Caribbean endemic species are represented by three genera (Balinella, Parhippolyte, and Halicyclops), and several genera are endemic to the YP: Prehendocyclops, Creaseriella, Yucatalana, Creaseria, Mayaweckelia, Tuluweckelia, Tulumella, Anchialocaris, Yagerocaris, and Mexicophria [46]; therefore, up to 60 crustacean species are endemic to the area.
The number of recorded crustacean species here is not stable; thus, the probability of increasing the number of recorded crustacean species with unknown forms is high according to the results of the performed completeness analysis: for crustaceans, the number of species continues to increase as the number of sampling units analyzed grows. However, this pattern is not mirrored in fish, as species richness appears to approach an asymptote after approximately 450–500 sampling units. Based upon a consideration of the accurately identified areas that are inhabited by endemic species, and because they have the highest species richness, the aquatic systems of the central and eastern YP are critical to the preservation of known and inventoried fish and crustaceans in the region, according to Raven [47].
Currently, several areas harbor endemic species, including the northern and eastern portions of the YP in the case of crustaceans but the central area of the YP in the case of fish. According to Alvarez et al. [46], descriptions of crustaceans are increasing in number in Mexico and in the analyzed region. The groups with a higher number of species recently described and cataloged were Ostracoda, Copepoda, and Decapoda. In addition, rearrangements (even new combinations) of some groups with revisited or revised taxonomies have been proposed, such as in the valid genera Biapertura [48], Cirolana, Metacirolana [35], Humphreysella, or Macrothrix.
As proposed by Cohuo et al. [29], for crustaceans, the geological component is fundamental for explaining the level of endemism and specific richness. Then, the crustacean distribution in the Yucatan Peninsula corresponds closely to the geological features of the coastal region. On the other hand, following the distribution of fish, the ecoregions proposed by Morrone [43] for other taxonomic groups were found to be homologous. This has already been proposed for the distribution patterns of fish, which correspond to ancient geological features and not to modern hydrography [27]. The distribution of fish appears to be more closely related to the surface relief, whereas that of crustaceans responds to both the surface and subterranean reliefs.
The Yucatan Peninsula is considered a biogeographic province by Barrera and later was recognized as such by Morrone [43]. With the exhaustive analyses carried out here, it was possible to verify that the levels of endemism of fish and crustacean species (10.2 and 21.9%, respectively) are high and are probably equivalent to those previously recorded for mammals (17%) and reptiles (26%) in the province.
Both the Ox-Bel Há system, which is considered the longest flooded underground cave in the world, and the anchialine systems of Cozumel Island are located in the more geologically recent region (northeast of the YP) [5]. As a result of the current analysis, it is now known that this region also hosts the greatest wealth of fish and crustaceans in the Yucatan Peninsula, as well as the largest number of endemic species (Table 2); according to Álvarez et al. [6], crustaceans are the organisms with the greatest diversity in this type of system. Additionally, crustacean fauna, such as the species Mastogodiaptomus ha or the genera Xibalbanus, is shared between the northwest of the YP and Cozumel Island.
Through an observation of the crustacean distribution in the Peninsula, it can be determined that it corresponds closely to the geological features of the coastal region. This had already been proposed for the distribution patterns of fish, which correspond mostly to ancient geological features and not so much to modern hydrography [27].
In the study area, approximately 30 natural protected areas (NPAs) of federal administration have been declared [49]. However, only 19% of the species recorded in this study are found within these protected areas [50]. As previously mentioned, the south-central region of the Yucatán Peninsula (YP) harbors the highest species richness and fish endemism. Fortunately, most of these species are located within protected areas, such as the Calakmul and Sian Ka’an reserves or their buffer zones.
However, regions with high fish and crustacean richness and endemism were also identified in the interior areas of the YP (Mesoamerican Gulf–Caribbean ecoregion) and in the northeastern coastal regions (specifically, north of Sian Ka’an, in the Petén–Yucatán ecoregion), in aquatic systems outside of federally protected areas. Notably, these areas of high endemism and richness geographically overlap with rapidly growing urban centers, such as Mérida and Tulum.
Urbanization creates risks for the persistence of endemic aquatic species, as urban development drives habitat loss [51]. It is essential to integrate the northern region of the YP into urban planning projects as a complement to the large NPAs located in the coastal and central areas. The evidence presented here could serve as a basis for such integration.
Another significant risk factor is the trophic state change in aquatic systems. In the YP, most ecosystems are classified as oligotrophic. However, in central Mexico, transitions toward mesotrophy or eutrophy, coupled with the presence of exotic species, have been reported to displace native species and negatively affect the structure of natural communities [52].
Particularly at risk are species that inhabit regions outside of the protected areas, that are endemic, with just a few records, and that lack any formal protection status, such as A. rebecae, A. smithae, A. yucatanensis, A. paulini, A. panamensis, B. bozanici, B. yucatanensis, B. yanezi, C. nohochi, H. mexicana, C. petenensis, C. maya, M. mayana, C. (A.) adriani, H. bowmani, M. ha, S. tulumensis, or Y. cozumel, just to name a few.

5. Conclusions

The level of endemism for fish and crustaceans inhabiting the aquatic systems surveyed here appears to be equivalent to the levels of endemism reported for mammals and reptiles of the biogeographic province of the Yucatan Peninsula. Approximately 2600 records from 670 aquatic systems in the Yucatan Peninsula were analyzed, revealing 329 species: 117 fish and 212 crustaceans. Crustaceans are more evenly distributed than fish, with a higher species richness in the eastern region. This study found that up to 60 species are endemic, with endemism being higher among crustaceans. Geological features heavily influence species distribution, especially for crustaceans. Fish richness declines from south to north. While the species inventory is substantial, estimators suggest that up to 5% more fish species and 20% more crustaceans remain to be discovered, particularly in understudied areas.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d17010005/s1, Table S1: Specific richness of fish and crustaceans inventoried in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization; methodology; formal analysis; investigation and writing—review and editing, M.A.G.-A., A.C.-M., and E.S.-M. Data curation, E.S.-M. Ecological indicators and estimators of fish and crustacean diversity in the Yucatan Peninsula. 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

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

I thank Uhu Yam W., Brissa Dzul and Jaime S., who contributed to the preparation of an image and a fraction of the database. I thank Universidad Autónoma del estado de Quintana Roo for the support provided in terms of infrastructure and materials with which to prepare the manuscript. Two anonymous reviewers made valuable contributions to the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Vane-Wright, R.I.; Humpries, C.J.; Williams, P.H. What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 1991, 55, 235–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Meffe, G.K.; Carrol, C.R. Principles of Conservation Biology; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  3. Perry, E.; Velázquez-Oliman, G.; Marín, L. The hydrogeochemistry of the karst aquifer system of the northerns Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Int. Geol. Rev. 2002, 44, 191–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yañez-Mendoza, G.; Zarza-González, E.; Mejía-Ortíz, L.M. Sistemas Anquihalinos. In Biodiversidad Acuática de la Isla de Cozumel; Mejía-Ortíz, L.M., Ed.; Plaza y Valdés: Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, 2008; p. 418. [Google Scholar]
  5. Álvarez, F.; Iliffe, T. Fauna anquihalina de la península de Yucatán. In Crustáceos de México, Estado Actual de su Conocimiento; Álvarez, F., Rodríguez Almaraz, G., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Programa de Mejoramiento del Profesorado (PROMEP), Secretaría de Educación Pública: Nuevo León, Mexico, 2008; pp. 379–418. [Google Scholar]
  6. Álvarez, F.; Iliffe, T.; Benítez, S.; Brankovits, D.; Villalobos, J.L. New records of anchialine fauna from the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Check List 2015, 1, 1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chumba-Segura, L.; Hernández-Betancourt, S.; Sélem-Salas, C.; Barrientos-Medina, R. Colección Ictiológica. Bioagrociencias 2015, 8, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  8. Llorente-Bousquets, J.; García Aldrete, A.; González Soriano, E. (Eds.) Biodiversidad, Taxonomía y Biogeografía de Artrópodos de México: Hacia una Síntesis de su Conocimiento Vol. II; Facultad de Ciencias, Museo de Zoología: Ciudad de México, México, 1996; p. 674. [Google Scholar]
  9. Llorente-Bousquets, J.; Morrone, J.J. (Eds.) Biodiversidad, Taxonomía y Biogeografía de Artrópodos de México: Hacia una Síntesis de su Conocimiento Vol. III; Facultad de Ciencias, Museo de Zoología: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2002; p. 690. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gutiérrez-Aguirre, M.A.; Suárez-Morales, E.; Cervantes-Martínez, A. Distribución de las especies de Mesocyclops (Copepoda: Cyclopoida en el sureste mexicano y región norte de Guatemala. Hidrobiológica 2006, 16, 259–265. [Google Scholar]
  11. Schmitter-Soto, J.J. A systematic revision of the genus Archocentrus (Perciformes: Cichlidae), with the description of two new genera and six new species. Zootaxa 2007, 1603, 1–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cervantes-Martínez, A.; Durán Ramírez, C.A.; Elías-Gutiérrez, M.; García-Morales, A.E.; Gutiérrez-Aguirre, M.A.; Jaime, S.; Macek, M.; Maeda-Martínez, A.; Martínez-Jerónimo, F.; Mayén-Estrada, R.; et al. Freshwater diversity of zooplankton from Mexico: Historical review of some of the main groups. Water 2023, 15, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Margules, C.R.; Sarkar, S. Systematic Conservation Planning; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; p. 278. [Google Scholar]
  14. Abud Hoyos, M.M.; Germán Naranjo, L.; Guerrero, J.; Guevara, O.; Suárez, C.F.; Prüssmann, J. Conservación de la biodiversidad en un contexto de clima cambiante: Experiencias de WWF en los últimos 10 años. Biodivers. Práct. 2019, 4, 111–140. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lugo-Hubp, J.J.; Aceves-Quesada, F.; Espinasa-Pereña, R. Rasgos geomorfológicos mayores de la península de Yucatán. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Geol. 1992, 10, 143–150. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilson, C.B. Copepods from the cenotes and caves of the Yucatan Peninsula, with notes on Cladocerans. In The Cenotes of Yucatan A Zoological and Hydrographic Survey; Pearse, A.S., Creaser, E.P., Hall, F.G., Eds.; Carnegie Institution of Washington: Washington, DC, USA, 1936; pp. 77–88. [Google Scholar]
  17. Reddel, J.R. (Ed.) Studies on the Caves and Cave Fauna of the Yucatan Peninsula; Association for Mexican Cave Studies: Austin, USA, 1977; 296p. [Google Scholar]
  18. Castro-Aguirre, J.L. Catálogo Sistemático de los Peces Marinos Que Penetran a las Aguas Continentales de México, con Aspectos Zoogeográficos y Ecológicos; Serie Cientifica No 19; Departamento de Pesca, Direccion General del Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Mexico: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 1978; pp. 1–296. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hobbs, H., III. Additional notes on cave shrimps (Crustacea: Atyidae and Palaemonidae) from the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 1979, 92, 618–633. [Google Scholar]
  20. Reid, J.W. Continental and coastal free-living copepoda (Crustacea) of Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean region. In Diversidad Biológica en la Reserva de la Biosfera de Sian Ka’an Quintana Roo, Mexico; Navarro, D., Robinson, J.G., Eds.; Centro de Investigaciones de Quintana Roo (CIQROO): Chetumal, Mexico, 1990; Volume I, pp. 145–162. [Google Scholar]
  21. Suárez-Morales, E.; Elías-Gutiérrez, M. Cladóceros (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) de la reserva de la biosfera de Sian Ka’an, Quintana Roo y zonas adyacentes. In Diversidad Biológica en la Reserva de la Biosfera de Sian Ka’an Quintana Roo, México; Navarro, D., Suárez-Morales, E., Eds.; Centro de Investigaciones de Quintana Roo (CIQROO): Chetumal, Mexico, 1992; Volume II, pp. 145–162. [Google Scholar]
  22. Iliffe, T.M. An annotated list of the troglobitic anchialine and freshwater fauna of Quintana Roo. In Diversidad Biológica en la Reserva de la Biosfera de Sian Ka’an Quintana Roo, México; Navarro, D., Suárez-Morales, E., Eds.; Centro de Investigaciones de Quintana Roo (CIQROO): Chetumal, Mexico, 1992; Volume II, pp. 145–162. [Google Scholar]
  23. Suárez-Morales, E.; Reid, J.W.; Iliffe, T.; Fiers, F. Catálogo de los Copépodos (Crustacea) Continentales de la Península de Yucatán, México; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR): Chetumal, Mexico, 1996; 296p. [Google Scholar]
  24. Castro-Aguirre, J.L.; Espinosa, H.; Schmitter-Soto, J.J. Ictiofauna Estuarina, Lagunar y Vicaria de México; Limusa: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rocha, A.; Peralta, L.; Alcocer, J. Anfípodos e isópodos de aguas continentales de México. In Crustáceos de México, Estado Actual de su Conocimiento; Álvarez, F., Rodríguez Almaraz, G., Eds.; Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Programa de Mejoramiento del Profesorado (PROMEP), Secretaría de Educación Pública: Nuevo León, Mexico, 2008; pp. 53–80. [Google Scholar]
  26. Elías-Gutiérrez, M.; Suárez-Morales, E.; Gutiérrez-Aguirre, M.; Silva-Briano, M.; Granados-Ramírez, J.G.; Garfias-Espejo, T. Cladocera y Copepoda de las Aguas Continentales de México; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y uso de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2008; p. 322. [Google Scholar]
  27. Miller, R.R. Peces Dulceacuícolas de México; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Sociedad Ictiológica Mexicana A.C., El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Desert Fish Council: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2009; p. 559. [Google Scholar]
  28. Brandorff, G.-O. Distribution of some Calanoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) from the Yucatan Peninsula, Belize and Guatemala. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2012, 60, 187–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cohuo, S.; Macario-González, L.; Pérez, L.; Schwalb, A. Overview of Neotropical–Caribbean freshwater ostracode fauna (Crustacea, Ostracoda): Identifying areas of endemism and assessing biogeographical affinities. Hydrobiologia 2016, 786, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ceballos, G.; Díaz-Pardo, E.; Martínez-Estévez, L.; Espinosa-Pérez, H. Peces Dulceacuícolas de México en Peligro de Extinción; Fondo de Cultura Económica: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  31. Macario-González, L.; Cohuo, S.; Angyal, D.; Pérez, L.; Mascaró, M. Subterranean waters of Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico reveal epigean species dominance and intraspecific variability in freshwater ostracodes (Crustacea: Ostracoda). Diversity 2021, 13, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Botosaneanu, L.; Iliffe, T.M. Stygobitic isopod crustaceans, already described or new, from Bermuda, Bahamas, and Mexico. Bull. L’Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belg. Biol. 2002, 72, 101–111. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dumont, H.; Silva-Briano, M.; Subhash Babu, K.K. A re-evaluation of the Macrothrix rosea-triserialis group, with the description of two new species (Crustacea Anomopoda: Macrothricidae). Hydrobiologia 2002, 467, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sinev, A.; Kotov, A.; Van Damme, K. Morphology of a Neotropical cladoceran Alona dentifera (Sars, 1901), and its position within the Chydoridae Stebbing, 1902 (Branchiopoda: Anomopoda). Arthropoda Sel. 2004, 13, 99–107. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bruce, N.L. New species and a new genus of Cirolanidae (Isopoda: Cymothoida: Crustacea) from groundwater in calcretes in the Pilbarra, northern Western Australia. Zootaxa 2008, 1823, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schmitter-Soto, J.J. A revision of Astyanax (Characiformes: Characidae) in Central and North America, with the description of nine new species. J. Nat. Hist. 2017, 51, 1331–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barrientos-Villalobos, J.; Schmitter-Soto, J.J.; Espinoza de los Montes, A.J. Several subspecies or phenotypic plasticity? A Geometric Morphometric and Molecular analysis of variability of the mayan cichlid Mayaheros urophthalmus in the Yucatan. Copeia 2018, 106, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Martin, J.W.; Davis, G.E. An Updated Classification of the Recent Crustacea; Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2001; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nelson, J.S.; Crossman, E.J.; Espinosa-Pérez, H.; Findley, L.T.; Gilbert, C.R.; Lea, N.R.; Williams, J.D. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada and Mexico; Special Publication 29; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2004; 386p. [Google Scholar]
  40. Walther, B.A.; Morand, S. Comparative performance of species richness estimation methods. Parasitology 1998, 116, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gondwe, B.R.N.; Lerer, S.; Stinen, S.; Marín, L.; Rebolledo-Vieyra, M.; Merediz-Alonso, G.; Bauer-Gottwein, P. Hydrogeology of the south-eastern Yucatan Peninsula: New insights from water level measurements, geochemistry, geophysics and remote sensing. J. Hydrol. 2010, 389, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Moreno-Gómez, M.; Liedl, R.; Stefan, C.A. New GIS-Based model for karst dolines Mapping Using LiDAR; Application of Multidepth Threshold approach in the Yucatan Karst, Mexico. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Morrone, J.J. Regionalización biogeográfica y evolución biótica de México: Encrucijada de la biodiversidad del Nuevo mundo. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2019, 90, e90280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schmitter-Soto, J.J.; Comín, F.A.; Escobar-Briones, E.; Herrera-Silveira, J.; Alcocer, J.; Suárez-Morales, E.; Elías-Gutiérrez, M.; Díaz-Arce, V.; Marín, L.E.; Steinich, B. Hydrogeochemical and biological characteristics of cenotes in the Yucatán Peninsula (SE Mexico). Hydrobiologia 2002, 467, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kotov, A.; Gololova, M. Traditional taxonomy Quo vadis? Int. Zool. 2016, 11, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Álvarez, F.; Durán, B.; Meacham, S. Anchialine fauna of the Yucatan Peninsula: Diversity and conservation challenges. In Mexican Fauna in the Antropocene; Jones, R.W., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 287–301. [Google Scholar]
  47. Raven, P.H. Tropical floristics tomorrow. Taxon 1988, 37, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sinev, A.Y. Re-evaluation of the genus Biapertura Smirnov, 1971 (Cladocera: Anomopoda: Chydoridae). Zootaxa 2020, 4885, 301–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dirección Regional Península de Yucatán y Caribe Mexicano. Available online: www.gob.mx/conanp/documentos/region-peninsula-de-yucatan-y-caribe-mexicano (accessed on 8 December 2024).
  50. Mercado-Salas, N.F.; Morales-Vela, B.; Suárez-Morales, E.; Iliffe, T. Conservation status of the inland aquatic crustaceans in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico: Shortcomings of a protection strategy. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2013, 23, 939–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, Z.; He, C.; Wu, J. The relationship between habitat loss and fragmentation during urbanization: An empirical evaluation from 16 World cities. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e01154613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Nandini, S.; Ramírez-García, P.; Sarma, S.S.S.; Gutiérrez-Ochoa, R. Planktonic indicators of wáter quality: A case study in the Amacuzac River Basin (state of Morelos, Mexico). River Res. Appl. 2019, 35, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00005 g001
Figure 1. Yucatan Peninsula—records of fish or crustaceans.
Figure 1. Yucatan Peninsula—records of fish or crustaceans.
Diversity 17 00005 g001
Diversity 17 00005 g002
Figure 2. Ranges of species richness of Crustacea (red) and fish (blue) for each site.
Figure 2. Ranges of species richness of Crustacea (red) and fish (blue) for each site.
Diversity 17 00005 g002
Diversity 17 00005 g003
Figure 3. Species richness estimators (Chao 2, Jackknife 1, and Bootstrap): (a) fish and (b) crustaceans of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Actual species richness per site (sampled units) is represented (=S Obs, blue line).
Figure 3. Species richness estimators (Chao 2, Jackknife 1, and Bootstrap): (a) fish and (b) crustaceans of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Actual species richness per site (sampled units) is represented (=S Obs, blue line).
Diversity 17 00005 g003
Table 1. Taxa inventoried in the cenotes, lagoons, springs, and anchialine systems of the YP.
Table 1. Taxa inventoried in the cenotes, lagoons, springs, and anchialine systems of the YP.
FamiliesSpecies
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Crustacea
Class: Branchiopoda
Order: Diplostraca752
Class: Remipedia
Order: Nectiopoda13
Class: Maxillopoda
Subclass: Copepoda
Infraclass: Neocopepoda
Superorder: Gymnoplea
Order: Calanoida719
Superorder: Podoplea
Order: Misophrioida12
Order: Cyclopoida242
Order: Harpacticoida49
Class: Ostracoda
Order: Podocopida533
Subclass: Myodocopa
Order: Halocyprida22
Class: Malacostraca
Subclass: Eumalacostraca
Superorder: Peracarida
Order: Thermosbaenacea11
Order: Mysida25
Order: Amphipoda49
Order: Isopoda19
Superorder: Eucarida
Order: Decapoda1120
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Anguiliformes11
Order: Atheriniformes411
Order: Batrachoidiformes12
Order: Beloniformes24
Order: Characiformes37
Order: Cichliformes17
Order: Clupeiformes36
Order: Cyprinodontiformes428
Order: Elopiformes11
Order: Gadiformes11
Order: Perciformes839
Order: Synbranchiformes13
Order: Siluriformes36
Class: Chondrichthyes
Order: Myliobatiformes11
Number of families and species of each order.
Table 2. Endemic, aquatic species inhabitants from Yucatan Peninsula.
Table 2. Endemic, aquatic species inhabitants from Yucatan Peninsula.
FamilySpecies
Epacteriscidae++  Balinella yucatanensis
RidgewayiidaeExumella tsonot
BarbouriidaeBarbouria yanezi, ++ Parhippolyte sterreri
XibalbanidaeXibalbanus tulumensis
HippolytidaeCalliasmata nohochi
DiaptomidaeMastigodiaptomus siankaanensis, M. reidae, M. ha, M. maya
StephidaeStephos fernandoi
Speleophriidae+  Mexicophria cenoticola, Speleophria germanyanezi
CyclopidaeAcanthocyclops rebecae, A. smithae, ++  Halicyclops cenoticola, H. caneki, H. tetracanthus, H. venezualensis, + Prehendocyclops monchenkoi, P. boxshalli, P. abbreviatus, Mesocyclops yutsil, M. chaci, Diacyclops chakan, D. puuc
CandonidaeCypria petenensis, Cypridopsis niagranensis, Keysercypria xanabanica
DarwinulidaeAlicenula yucatanensis
Thaumatocyprididae Humphreysella mexicana
CyprididaeCypretta campechensis, C. maya, Cypria petenensis, Neocypridopsis yucatanensis, Strandesia intrepida
AmpithodaeCymadusa herrerae
HadziidaeBahadzia bozanici, B. setodactylus,+  Mayaweckelia cenoticola, M. troglomorpha, M. yucatanensis, + Tuluweckelia cernua
Cirolanidae+  Creaseriella anops, Metacirolana mayana, Cirolana (Anopsilana) adriani, C. (A.) yucatana, C. yunca, Haptolana bowmani, + Yucatalana robustispina
Palaemonidae+  Creaseria morleyi
Tulumellidae *+  Tulumella unidens
Anchialocarididae *+  Anchialocaris paulini
ProcarididaeProcaris mexicana
Alpheidae+  Yagerocaris cozumel, Triacanthoneus akumalensis
Speleophriidae+  Mexicophria cenoticola
MysidaeAntromysis cenotensis
HyalellidaeHyalella maya, H. cenotensis
AgostocarididaeAgostocaris bozanici, A. zabaletai
StygiomysidaeStygiomysis cokei
AtyidaeTyphlatya mitchelli, T. pearsei
CyprinodontidaeFloridichthys polyommus, Cyprinodon artifrons, C. esconditus, C. labiosus, C. maya, C. simus, C. savium, Garmanella pulchra
SynbranchidaeOphisternon infernale
CichlidaeThorichthys meeki
PoeciliidaePoecilia velífera
DinematichthyidaeTyphlasina pearsei
The asterisk indicates endemic families, the cross (before the name) represents the endemic genera from the Yucatan Peninsula, and the double cross represents the endemic genera from the Caribbean.
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

Gutiérrez-Aguirre, M.A.; Cervantes-Martínez, A.; Suárez-Morales, E. Ecological Indicators and Estimators of Fish and Crustacean Diversity in the Yucatan Peninsula. Diversity 2025, 17, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010005

AMA Style

Gutiérrez-Aguirre MA, Cervantes-Martínez A, Suárez-Morales E. Ecological Indicators and Estimators of Fish and Crustacean Diversity in the Yucatan Peninsula. Diversity. 2025; 17(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gutiérrez-Aguirre, Martha Angélica, Adrián Cervantes-Martínez, and Eduardo Suárez-Morales. 2025. "Ecological Indicators and Estimators of Fish and Crustacean Diversity in the Yucatan Peninsula" Diversity 17, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010005

APA Style

Gutiérrez-Aguirre, M. A., Cervantes-Martínez, A., & Suárez-Morales, E. (2025). Ecological Indicators and Estimators of Fish and Crustacean Diversity in the Yucatan Peninsula. Diversity, 17(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010005

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