Next Article in Journal
The Planktonic Rotifer Community in a Lake Restored with Selective Hypolimnetic Withdrawal
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Composition of Ichthyofauna in Lakes Free from Commercial Use in a Tightly Protected Area of the Wolin National Park (Poland)
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of Local Scouring around Hydrodynamic and Circular Pile Groups under the Influence of River Material Harvesting Pits
Previous Article in Special Issue
First Insight into Groundwater Copepods of the Polish Lowland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/w13162193
water-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

Diversity of Groundwater Crustaceans in Wells in Various Geologic Formations of Southern Poland

by
Agnieszka Pociecha
1,*,
Maciej Karpowicz
2,
Tadeusz Namiotko
3,
Elżbieta Dumnicka
1 and
Joanna Galas
1
1
Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz 33, 31-120 Kraków, Poland
2
Department of Hydrobiology, Faculty of Biology, University of Białystok, Ciołkowskiego 1J, 15-245 Białystok, Poland
3
Laboratory of Biosystematics and Ecology of Aquatic Invertebrates, Department of Evolutionary Genetics and Biosystematics, Faculty of Biology, University of Gdansk, Wita Stwosza 59, 80-308 Gdansk, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2021, 13(16), 2193; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162193
Submission received: 18 July 2021 / Revised: 6 August 2021 / Accepted: 9 August 2021 / Published: 11 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aquatic Biodiversity: Threats and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Data on Crustacea from underground waters accessed through wells are limited in Poland. A recent study was undertaken to determine diversity and factors influencing the crustacean communities inhabiting wells drilled in three bedrocks, Jurassic limestone, Cretaceous marls and flysch. A total of 23 crustacean species and subspecies were recorded belonging to Copepoda, Ostracoda, Amphipoda and Bathynellacea. Only four species of low abundance, however, were stygobionts. Our studies showed that abundance and species number of Copepoda and Ostracoda were affected by bedrock geology (with higher abundances and species richness in wells of Cretaceous marls), and in the case of copepods, also by sampling season. Furthermore, this paper lists all species of Crustacea recorded from inland groundwater habitats of Poland based published over the last 133 years. The most species-rich group was Copepoda with 43 representatives (four stygobites), followed by Ostracoda and Amphipoda with a total of 37 and 12 species, respectively (each with nine stygobites). In addition, two species of Isopoda (one stygobite) and one Bathynellid appear in the checklist. The checklist identifies geographical (and environmental) gaps which require further research.

1. Introduction

The subterranean aquatic environment represented by cave waters, dug or drilled wells, interstitial waters and hypotelminorheal [1] is the habitat of a range of invertebrates. Among them, crustaceans arprovude the largest number of stygobiontic species [1,2,3] often accompanied by epigean species.
Wells are a source of drinking water in African countries which is why their fauna has been frequently studied and contains numerous stygobiontic Crustacea [4]. In European countries, studies on crustacean fauna were undertaken in dug wells in former Czechoslovakia [5,6,7], in boreholes in Germany [8] and in both types in Ireland [9].
In Poland, studies on aquatic subterranean crustaceans started in wells, when Wrześniowski [10] described Niphargus tatrensis and Jaworowski [11] published the results of his invertebrate investigations in Kraków and Lvov.
More recently, other researchers from Poland studied particular crustacean groups in this habitat: Isopoda [12,13], Copepoda [14,15,16,17,18,19,20] and Ostracoda [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The Amphipoda of wells (beside Wrześniowski [10]) were studied by Haeckel [29], Micherdziński [30] and Skalski [31,32] who also summarised the state of knowledge concerning the distribution of this group in Poland [33,34,35]. Studies on more than one crustacean group in wells are rare [36,37]. The mentioned studies were restricted to one region of Poland and to single wells, and the knowledge on crustaceans inhabiting subterranean waters in Polish wells therefore remained poor (except for the genus Niphargus—see Dumnicka and Galas [38]).
In rural areas situated in southern Poland, there are numerous old dug wells, mainly unused presently. Access to them gives the possibility to study subterranean aquatic invertebrates in regions of different geological character, even in areas without caves. During the macroinvertebrate studies from 26 wells in southern Poland, only one crustacean species Niphargus tatrensis was determined [3].
The biodiversity of groundwater in Poland remains poorly known compared to that of freshwater surface habitats, so the aim of our studies, conducted in 2010–2016 was to fill this gap in information on the diversity of crustaceans inhabiting groundwater. We also tested the hypothesis that geological bedrock type (Jurassic limestone, Carpathian flysch and Cretaceous marls) in which wells were dug as well as the sampling season (month) influence abundance, diversity and composition of crustacean assemblages.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Our study included 33 wells distributed in three geologically different regions viz. (1) the Jurassic limestone area of the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland (14 wells in Szklary and Witkowice villages), (2) the Cretaceous marls of the Miechów Upland (7 wells in Prandocin village) and (3) the flysch areas of the Pogórze Wiśnickie foothills (7 wells in Kawec) and the Beskid Mały mountains (5 wells in Jaszczurowa village) (Figure 1, Table 1).
Bedrock includes flysch rocks of the Carpathians (1), Jurassic limestone sedimentary rocks (2), Cretaceous marls (3) and other sedimentary rocks of various ages (4). The dots (5) indicate villages with the sampled wells.

2.2. Sampling and Measurements of Water Properties

Samples of invertebrate fauna and water for chemical analyses were collected from 5–7 wells in each of the five particular regions (33 wells in total, see Figure 1) in 2010–2016 (Table 1). In each locality, wells were sampled seasonally three times a year (from May to November), except for wells in the Prandocin village where samples were taken on two occasions (Table 1). Thus, the sampling effort included a total 92 samples. The depth of the studied wells differed in particular regions ranging from 1.5 to 20 m. Only in the Jaszczurowa village were all studied wells relatively shallow, i.e., not exceeding 4 m (Table 1). Most of the studied wells were located in agricultural areas in small farms where non-intensive farming methods were used. Except for wells in the Witkowice village, they were all situated in gardens. The water in the studied wells is not drinking water, farmers use the water from the wells for garden watering and irrigation, which causes fluctuations in the water level, and some of them are not used at all.
Methods used for analyses of physical and chemical water feature analyses of the investigated wells have been described in Dumnicka et al. [3]. The results of studies on benthic invertebrates other than Crustacea (Copepoda and Ostracoda) from the same wells have already been published [3], while the data on plankton samples from wells from the area of Jaszczurowa village were presented as a conference poster [39].
Qualitative samples of Copepoda were taken by a plankton net (50 µm mesh size), using vertical hauls from the well bottom. Benthic samples were taken by an Ekman sampler (20 × 20 cm) and filtered through 0.3-mm net mesh. All samples were preserved in 4% formaldehyde, and fauna was determined using selected keys: for Copepoda e.g., [18,40,41,42] and Ostracoda [23,43,44,45]. Prior to the identification, ostracods (intact complete specimens with limbs as well as empty carapaces and valves) were rinsed in water, transferred to 96% ethanol and then analysed following Namiotko et al. [46]. Investigated specimens were identified to the species or the lowest possible taxonomic level (genus).

2.3. Statistical Analyses

To evaluate if the sampling effort was sufficient to represent biodiversity of the crustacean assemblages in the studied area, we performed accumulation curves of the observed and estimated species number by the Chao 1 index using PRIMER 7 software [47].
Other statistical analyses were performed with XLSTAT Ecology (Addinsoft). We used two-way unbalanced ANOVA to determine (i) the effect of physical and chemical variables, and (ii) geology with sampling season (month) on the Copepoda and Ostracoda communities (abundance, number of species). We used the same approach to test the effect of the above factors on the dominant species/genus. To find out if the two or more variables, and their interaction, provide the same amount of information we used Type I SS (sum of squares). For pairwise differences between means, we used Tukey’s HSD (honestly significantly different) test. The most important differences were presented by box plots with basic descriptive statistics. The samples without Copepoda and Ostracoda were excluded from the statistical analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Physical and Chemical Water Properties of the Studied Wells

Water of the wells was circumneutral to alkaline, and mean values ranged from 7.0 in the Ka wells to 7.5 in the Sz wells. The other parameters of water such as conductivity, Ca2+, NO3−, O2, SO42− and Cl− in the studied wells differed strongly (Figure 2). The mean value of conductivity in Jurassic limestone varied from 606 to 1006 µS/cm, in flysch regions from 286 to 706 µS/cm, and in Cretaceous marls 917 µS/cm. The mean values of calcium concentrations in Jurassic limestone and Cretaceous marls areas were higher than in flysch areas, though in water in Ka wells this parameter reached high concentration values. The mean oxygen concentration was high in all wells in Pr, whereas in Wi it was mostly relatively low (Figure 2). In the remaining regions, the mean value of this parameter varied from well to well e.g., in Sz from 9.76 in well no 6 to 3.36 in well no 3 whereas in Ja from 8.27 in well no 1 to 0.96 in Well No. 4. Similar fluctuations were observed for nitrates, especially in the water of Wi wells (Figure 2), with the lowest values recorded in the flysch area. Chloride concentrations were low and constant in Ja, while most variable in Wi (Figure 2). In Pr and Ja, the content of sulphates was leveled but in Pr it was relatively high while and in Ja, low. In the remaining three villages the values of this parameter varied strongly. Polluted wells influenced by antropogenic factor occurred in several studied regions, but most often in Wi and Pr.

3.2. Crustaceans in the Studied Wells

A total of 23 crustacean taxa of the ranks of species and subspecies were recorded (some were left in open nomenclature). They belonged to Copepoda, Ostracoda, Amphipoda and Bathynellacea. Although the accumulation plot of the observed species number did not reach asymptotic levelling-off (Figure 3), the total observed crustacean species richness was 73.5% of the species number estimated by the Chao 1 index (mean ± standard deviation SD = 32.7 ± 10.27).
In the studied wells, 13 copepod taxa were stated. Cyclopoida were represented by ten taxa of the species group (Table 2). Only three species were most abundant: Diacyclops bisetosus (from 7 to 34 individuals in the wells of Sz and Pr villages), Acanthocyclops vernalis (from 1 to 24 ind.-Ja, Pr), and Megacyclops viridis (from 1 to 15 ind.-Ja) and these species were also the most frequent. Only three Harpacticoida species were determined including stygobiontic species Elaphoidella elaphoides. In four wells, only cyclopoid nauplii and/or copepodites was identified, and in one well, only harpacticoid copepodites were presented (Table 2).
Altogether, eight species of Ostracoda were recorded during this survey (Table 2, Cryptocandona sp. is considered to represent juveniles of Cryptocandona matris), of which three (and the mentioned Cryptocandona sp.) remained in open nomenclature due to a poor preservation state and/or juvenile stage preventing certain identification. Cryptocandona matris (including Cryptocandona sp.) and Typhlocypris cf. eremita (both belonging to family Candonidae) can be regarded as stygobiontic species. The latter species and Cavernocypris subterranea were the most common, both with records from five wells, while six other species were found only in one well. The maximum number of species reported in a single well (Ka6) was four (C. matris, Cyclocypris ovum, Cypria ophtalmica and Fabaeformiscandona brevicornis), whereas the most abundant ostracod samples were taken from Pr wells.
Among amphipods, singular specimens of Niphargus tatrensis were found in two wells. Finally, one species of bathynellaceans, Bathynella natans, was recorded in the Prandocin wells (Table 2).

3.3. Statistical Analyses

The physical and chemical variables did not significantly affect the abundance of Copepoda (F = 0.63; p = 0.81) and Ostracoda (F = 1.57; p = 0.22), as well as the number of Copepoda (F = 0.96; p = 0.54) and Ostracoda species (F = 2.56; p = 0.06). The abundance of dominant Copepoda and Ostracoda species also was not significantly affected by water properties. Only the abundance of the Acanthocyclops species was affected by these variables (F = 11.3; p < 0.0001). The Type I SS analysis indicated that Acanthocyclops abundance was affected by temperature (p < 0.0001), phosphates (p < 0.0001), nitrates (p < 0.0001), dissolved oxygen (p = 0.003), electrical conductivity (p = 0.022), and sulphates (p = 0.048).
We found that both the geology and the sampling season (month) significantly affected the abundance of Copepoda (F = 4.15; p = 0.0003) and Ostracoda (F = 5.54; p < 0.001), number of species of Copepoda (F = 3.58; p = 0.001) and Ostracoda (F = 5.72; p < 0.001), as well as the abundance of dominant species (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Only Ostracoda abundance (Figure 4B) and number of species (Figure 4D) were not affected by months. Copepoda highest abundance (Figure 4A) and number of species (Figure 4C) were found in September. The Cretaceous marls and Carpathian flysch had a higher abundance of Copepoda, and a higher number of species than Jurassic limestone (Figure 5A,C). Ostracoda had the highest abundance and number of species in Cretaceous marls (Figure 5B,D).
The geology and months also significantly affected the abundance of dominant species/genus. Diacyclops was affected by months (p = 0.001) and geology (p = 0.044), with the highest abundance in September and Cretaceous marls. Megacyclops viridis was affected by geology (p = 0.031) with the highest abundance in Carpathian flysch. We did not find a significant effect of geology and month on the abundance of Acanthocyclops genus. Concerning ostracods, Cavernocypris subterranea and Typhlocypris cf. eremita abundances were significantly affected by the geology (p < 0.0001) with the highest abundance of both species in Cretaceous marls.

3.4. Crustacea in Subterranean Waters of Poland-State of Current Knowledge

The literature concerning Crustacea recorded from subterranean waters (including caves, wells and interstitial waters) of Poland is limited. Since Wrześniowski’s classic work [10], in which two amphipod species new to science (Niphargus tatrensis and Synurella tenebrarum) were described, 38 papers have been published on subterranean Crustacea fauna of Poland (Table 3). Among all crustaceans (95 taxa) found in caves, wells and interstitial (inland) waters in Poland, only 24 taxa are stygobionts (nine Amphipoda; one Isopoda; four Copepoda; nine Ostracoda and one Bathynellid) (Table 3).
Based on the literature, the occurrences of crustaceans in subterranean waters of Poland were classified in Table 3 by habitat types (caves, wells and inland interstitial waters). The most diverse fauna was found in wells (59 taxa), then in interstitial waters (44) and in caves (31). Among Ostracoda, unfortunately for seven taxa there are no data available on habitat type and region where they were found (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The subterranean fauna dwells in underground waters such as caves, interstitial waters, wells, as well as other man-made subterranean habitats such as adits, shafts or mines. It also occurs in springs [3].
Although several samples did not yield any crustaceans, the results suggest that the sampling effort was adequate to represent crustacean communities in the wells. The recorded 23 (sub-)species of Crustacea in the wells amounted to 73.5% of the estimated species richness (Figure 3), a value within the range (50–75%) which Heck et al. [62] consider an adequate approximation.
The values of physical and chemical parameters of water in wells located in different bedrocks (including flysch rocks of the Carpathians, Jurassic limestone sedimentary rocks and Cretaceous marls) differed. The mean values from wells located in Jurassic limestone (SZ, Wi) and cretaceous marls (Pr) bedrock were usually similar, but wells located on flysch bedrock (Ja, Ka) had mostly lower means that may be related to lower mineralization. It should be emphasized that the water in the studied wells was neutral to slightly alkaline. The increased levels of nitrates, chlorides and sulfates in some wells indicate a significant human impact on the quality of the groundwater. Similar results concerning quality of groundwater were observed earlier in two regions, in the Kraków-Częstochowa upland [63,64] and in the Wiśnickie foothill [65,66]. In regions where polluted wells predominate, the species richness and abundance of the crustecean fauna is much smaller [3].
The copepod stygobiont Elaphoidella elaphoides, previously was found only in wells in the villages of Ogrodniczki and Ciasne in Poland (Uplands of the Podlaskie Plain) [18,58]. In Europe, this stygobiont is widely distributed in underground waters, including caves, hyporheic and phreatic waters and often occurs in epigean waters as well [18].
Two stygobiontic ostracod species, Cryptocandona matris in Kawec and Typhlocypris cf. eremita occurred in Szklary and Prandocin wells. The former species was originally described by Sywula [23] from a well at Cisna village in the Bieszczady Mts. and further recorded in wells and interstitial habitats of the Lublin Upland and Carpathian Mountains (in Poland) (Table 3) and in north-eastern Romania [27]. Typhlocypris eremita is the type and the most-widespread species of the genus, occurring in groundwaters of Central and South-Eastern Europe [46], mainly as all-female (parthenogenetic) populations. As the male genital morphology offers better characteristics than that of female on which to define the species in the genus Typhlocypris, it is not unlikely that some of recorded populations could represent different species, as documented by Iepure et al. [67]. Thus, a re-examination of records identified as Typhlocypris eremita is required to better understand the extent of variation of this and closely related species. In Poland, T. eremita is known mostly from an area south of the maximum limit of the Vistulian glaciation, with the most significant exception of two surface-water sites in the Vistula fens in northern Poland (Table 3). These are the northern-most localities of this species, which were most probably reached by this species via the alluvial groundwaters of the Vistula River [68,69].
The amphipod stygobiont Niphargus tatrensis previously was reported from the wells situated in the Kraków-Czestochowa upland [3], and is common in southern Poland [38]. It was found in the Prandocin well (Pogórze Wiśnickie foothill) and is the first record of this species from this region. Other species of crustaceans found in the studied wells were non-obligate groundwater inhabitants occurring mainly in surface inland waters. Considering ostracods, all the remaining non-stygobite species collected during this study, have been already recorded in groundwaters of Poland [24] (Table 3). Two of these, Cavernocypris subterranea and Fabaeformiscandona brevicornis may qualify as stygophiles or crenobionts, as they inhabit both groundwaters and surface waters associated with springs [24,44].
Statistical analyzes showed that the species richness and abundance of crustacean fauna in the studied wells depended especially on the bedrock in which the wells are located, and not on the measured chemical and physical parameters of water. For Ostracoda growth and survival may be greatly affected by the solute composition and concentration of major ions in water. In waters depleted in calcium and magnesium ostracod shell calcification at moulting may be disturbed, resulting in development of not fully calcified, soft carapaces [70]. It seems that wells localized in the geological formation of the Cretaceous marls and characterized by the highest average calcium concentration in water, proved to represent the habitat successful for ostracoda populations. Ostracods in the Prandocin wells had indeed the highest abundances and species richness. The low abundance and number of copepods species in Jurassic wells could be influenced by pollution of some of them (especially in Wi). Results based on various groups of benthic fauna (excluding microcrustaceans) studied in the wells located in the flysch and limestone regions showed that the parameters of water chemistry related to the pollution and depth of the studied wells influenced the diversity, composition and abundance of the fauna [3]. However, it was possible that other constrains, including water properties (including that not measured during this survey) and/or sediment type and some biological factors might also play important role in determining the demonstrated differences in crustacean alpha diversity and abundances between subterranean waters of the studied geological formations. Groundwater invertebrates in Poland have been studied from different perspectives, including a focus on regions, habitats and finding stygobiontic species. The south of Poland is the best studied region, the north is the weakest. In Poland, up to now among the total species number of crustaceans (95 taxa) found in groundwater (caves, wells and interstitial waters), only 24 obligate stygobiont species were recorded (nine species of amphipods, one bathynellacean, one isopod, four copepods and nine ostracods) (Table 3). The most diverse groups are copepods and ostracods. Most stygobionts have a narrow range, so the risk of species extinction is particularly high in the face of the increase in multiple anthropogenic pressures [71,72]. Our study showed that the literature concerning Polish crustacean fauna from subterranean waters (including stygobiotnic species) is still limited and thus provides an opportunity for further study. Especially the crustaceans fauna in interstitial water has been weakly studied, resulting in a small number of species known from this habitat. Knowledge on the diversity of faunal communities that live in wells can be used to monitor, protect, and manage the environment and can be useful for public health by indicating local water pollution.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P. and E.D.; investigation, E.D. and J.G.; laboratory analyses, A.P., M.K. and T.N.; software, M.K. and T.N.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P., M.K., T.N.; writing—review and editing, A.P., T.N., J.G. and E.D.; visualization, A.P. and M.K.; supervision, A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by subvention of Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences (A.P., E.D., J.G.) and partly by the internal grant of the University of Gdansk No. 531-D090-D818-21 attributed to T.N.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hanna Kuciel and Andrzej Kalemba for their help with drawing works. We extend our thanks to Henri Dumont for the assistance in language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gibert, J.; Culver, D.C. Assessing and conserving groundwater biodiversity: An introduction. Freshw. Biol. 2009, 54, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sket, B. High biodiversity in hypogean waters and its endangerment-the situation in Slovenia, the Dinaric karst, and Europe. Crustaceana 1999, 72, 767–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dumnicka, E.; Galas, J.; Krodkiewska, M. Patterns of benthic fauna distribution in wells: The role of anthropogenic impact and geology. Vadose Zone J. 2017, 16, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kayo, R.T.; Mormonier, P.; Togouet, S.H.Z.; Nola, M.; Piscart, C. An annotated checklist of freshwater Stygobiontic crustaceans of Africa and Madagascar. Crustaceana 1912, 85, 1613–1631. [Google Scholar]
  5. Řeháčková, V. Well-water organisms of Prague. Rozpr. Cesk. Akad. Ved. 1953, 63, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kulhavý, V. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Crustaceenfauna tschechoslowakischer Grundgewässer. Vestn. Cesk. Spol. Zool. 1960, 24, 287–306. [Google Scholar]
  7. Terek, J.; Brázda, J. Fauna of wells outside settlements on Východoslovenská nižina (Czechoslovakia). Biologia 1986, 41, 971–979. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hahn, H.J.; Fuchs, A. Distribution patterns of groundwater communities cross aquifer types in south-western Germany. Freshw. Biol. 2009, 54, 848–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Arnscheidt, J.; Hahn, H.J.; Fuchs, A. Aquatic subterranean Crustacea in Ireland: Results and new records from a pilot study. Cave Karst Sci. 2008, 35, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wrześniowski, A. O trzech kiełżach podziemnych. Pamiętnik Fizyogr. 1888, 8, 221–330. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jaworowski, A. Fauna studzienna miast Krakowa i Lwowa. Spraw. Kom. Fizyograf. AU W Krakowie 1893, 28, 29–48. [Google Scholar]
  12. Skalski, A.W. Ośliczka Asellus aquaticus (L.) (Isopoda) w wodach podziemnych południowej Polski. V Rocz. Muz. Okręgowego W Częstochowie Przyr. 1981, 2, 85–88. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sywula, T. Bathynella natans Vejdovsky, 1882 i Proasellus slavus (Remy, 1948), nowe dla Polski podziemne skorupiaki. Prz. Zool. 1989, 33, 77–82. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tabacki, A. Widłonogi (Copepoda) rzeki Grabi (część faunistyczna). Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Łódź, seria II, Nauki Mat.-Przyr. 1971, 44, 31–52. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tabacki, A. Widłonogi (Copepoda) wód studziennych okolic Sulejowa koło Łodzi. Acta Univ. Lodz. Zeszyty Naukowe UŁ. Nauki Mat-Przyr. Ser. II 1980, 33, 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wróblewski, A.; Sywula, T. Copepoda-Widłonogi. In Checklist of animals of Poland; Razowski, J., Ed.; ISEZ PAN: Kraków, Poland, 1997; pp. 158–164. [Google Scholar]
  17. Czaja, M. Widłonogi Copepoda Cyclopoida Ojcowskiego Parku Narodowego. Master’s Thesis, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  18. Karpowicz, M. New data to the knowledge on the Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) fauna in Poland. Fragm. Faun. 2016, 59, 87–98. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kur, J. Zmienność Populacyjna Widłonogów Copepoda w Wodach Podziemnych Południowej Polski. Praca Doktorska; IOP Publishing: Kraków, Poland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kur, J.; Mioduchowska, M.; Kilikowska, A. Distribution of cyclopoid copepods in different subterranean habitats (southern Poland). Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 2020, 49, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sywula, T. The ostracods (Ostracoda) of the River Raba and of certain aquatic environments connected with it. Acta Hydrobiol. 1974, 16, 255–277. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sywula, T. Notes on Ostracoda. XIV. Interesting species from the basin of the River Raba (South Poland). Ann. Zool. 1974, 32, 59–73. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sywula, T. New species of Ostracoda (Crustacea) from subterranean waters of Poland. Bull Acad. Pol. Sci. Ser. Sci. Biol. Cl II 1976, 24, 271–278. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sywula, T. Małżoraczki (Ostracoda) wód podziemnych Polski. V Rocznik Muzeum Okręgowego W Częstochowie Przyroda 1981, 2, 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sywula, T. Skorupiaki (Crustacea) Bieszczadów (z wyjątkiem Malacostraca). Monogr. Bieszcz. 2000, 7, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  26. Skalski, A.W. Flora i fauna jaskiń Wyżyny Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej. I Sympozjum Jurajskie Człowiek i środowisko naturalne Wyżyny Krakowsko-Wieluńskiej. Dąbrowa Górnicza 5-6 V; Dąbrowa Górnicza: Silesia, Poland, 1992; Volume 1993, pp. 145–187. [Google Scholar]
  27. Baltanás, A.; Namiotko, T.; Danielopol, D.L. Biogeography and disparity within the genus Cryptocandona (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Vie Et Milieu Life Environ. 2000, 50, 297–310. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sywula, T.; Jędryczkowski, W.B. Skorupiaki (Crustacea). In Flora i Fauna Pienin; Razowski, J., Ed.; Monografie Pienińskie: Krościenko, Poland, 2000; pp. 107–110. [Google Scholar]
  29. Von Haeckel, K. Niphargus aquilex im Odergebiet. Zool. Anz. 1907, 32, 430–431. [Google Scholar]
  30. Micherdziński, W. Kiełże rodzaju Gammarus FABRICIUS (Amphipoda) w wodach Polski. Acta Zool. Crac. 1959, 4, 527–637. [Google Scholar]
  31. Skalski, A.W. Niphargus casimiriensis sp.n., a new species of hypogeous amphipod from Poland (Crustacea, Niphargidae). Acta Hydrobiol. 1980, 22, 217–227. [Google Scholar]
  32. Skalski, A.W. Niphargus leopoliensis Jaworowski, 1983 (Amphipoda) in Poland. Przegląd Zool. 1980, 24, 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  33. Skalski, A.W. The hypogeous gammarids in Poland (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Gammaridae). Acta Hydrobiol. 1970, 12, 431–437. [Google Scholar]
  34. Skalski, A.W. Distribution des Amphipodes souterrains en Pologne, avec notes sur la variabilite du Niphargus tatrensis Wrześniowski. In Proceedings of the Actes du Ier Colloque International sur le genre Niphargus, Verona, Italy, 15–19 April 1969. [Google Scholar]
  35. Skalski, A.W. Podziemne obunogi (Amphipoda) Polski. V Rocznik Muzeum Okręgowego W Częstochowie. Przyroda 1981, 2, 61–83. [Google Scholar]
  36. Skalski, A.W. Groundwater fauna of the Małopolska Gap of the Vistula. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 1982, 29, 387–404. [Google Scholar]
  37. Konopacka, A.; Jażdżewski, K. Groundwater crustaceans of the wells in the Grabia river system (Central Poland). In Proceedings of the 2nd European Crustacean Conference, Liege, Belgium, 2–6 September 1996. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dumnicka, E.; Galas, J. An overview of stygobiontic invertebrates of Poland based on published data. Subterr. Biol. 2017, 23, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Karpowicz, M.; Pociecha, A.; Hołyńska, M.; Dumnicka, E.; Galas, J. Groundwater copepods from Carpathian flysch in south Poland. In Proceedings of the III Krajowa Konferencja Zooplanktonowa, Szczecinek, Poland, 20–22 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  40. Janetzky, W.; Enderle, R.; Noodt, W. Bd. 8/4, 2: Crustacea: Copepoda: Gelyelloida und Harpacticoida; Fischer: Stuttgart, Germany, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  41. Błędzki, L.A.; Rybak, J.I. Freshwater Crustacean Zooplankton of Europe: Cladocera & Copepoda (Calanoida, Cyclopoida). Key to Species Identification, with Notes on Ecology, Distribution, Methods and Introduction to Data Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pesce, G.L.; Galassi, D.P. New or rare species of Diacyclops Kiefer, 1927 (Copepoda, Cyclopoida) from different groundwater habitats in Italy. Hydrobiologia 1987, 148, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sywula, T. Małżoraczki Ostracoda; PWN: Warszawa-Poznań, Poland, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  44. Meisch, C. Freshwater Ostracoda of Western and Central Europe; Spektrum Akademischer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  45. Namiotko, T.; Danielopol, D.L.; Meisch, C.; Gross, M.; Mori, N. Redefinition of the genus Typhlocypris Vejdovský, 1882 (Ostracoda, Candonidae). Crustaceana 2014, 87, 952–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Namiotko, T.; Danielopol, D.L.; Baltanás, A. Soft body morphology, dissection and slide-preparation of Ostracoda: A primer. Joannea Geologie Und Paläontologie 2011, 11, 327–343. [Google Scholar]
  47. Clarke, K.R.; Gorley, R.N. PRIMER v7: User Manual/Tutorial; PRIMER-E Ltd.: Plymouth, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schellenberg, A. Die Höhlenfauna des Glazer Schneeberges. 2. Höchlenamphipoden des Glatzer Schneeberges. Beitrage zur Biologie des Glatzer Schneeberges 1935, 1, 72–75. [Google Scholar]
  49. Karaman, G.S.; Pinkster, S. Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea-Amphipoda). Part I. Gammarus pulex-group and related species. Bijdragen Tot De Dierkunde 1977, 47, 1–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hajduk, Z.; Ogorzałek, A. Niphargellus arndti (Schellenberg, 1933) z jaskini Kontaktowej koło Kletna. Acta Univ. Wratislav. 3. Stud. Geograf. 1978, 24, 155–157. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lorenc, M.W.; Chlebicki, A.; Szumska, E. Mieszkańcy dawnych wyrobisk kopalni złota w Złotym Stoku. In Proceedings of the Materiały 37 Sympozjum Speleologicznego, Wojcieszów, Poland, 24–26 October 2003. [Google Scholar]
  52. Konopacka, A.; Sobocińska, V. Uwagi na temat występowania skorupiaka Synurella ambulans (Müll.) (Amphipoda, Crangonyctidae) w Polsce. Przegl. Zool. 1992, 36, 123–131. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dumnicka, E.; Wojtan, K. Faune aquatique de la grotte Chelosiowa Jama (Montagnes Świętokrzyskie, Pologne Centrale). Mém. Biospéol. 1994, 21, 53–56. [Google Scholar]
  54. Dumnicka, E.; Galas, J.; Karlikowska, J.; Sznober, N. Temporary co–existence of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates in shallow periodically flooded and frozen cave. Biologia 2015, 70, 1201–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dumnicka, E.; Wojtan, K. Differences between cave water ecological systems in the Kraków—Częstochowa Upland. Stygologia 1990, 5, 241–247. [Google Scholar]
  56. Chodorowska, W.; Chodorowski, A. Ugrupowania fauny wodnej w jaskiniach tatrzańskich. Speleologia II 1960, 1, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stammer, H.J. Die Höhlenfauna des Glazer Schneeberges. 8. Die Wasserfauna der Schneeberghöhlen. Beitrage Zur Biologie Des Glatzer Schneeberges 1936, 2, 199–214. [Google Scholar]
  58. Konopacka, A. Studnie Okolic Rzeki Grabi; University of Lodz: Lodz, Poland, 1993; Unpublished work. [Google Scholar]
  59. Jakubisiak, S. Materiały do fauny skorupiaków widłonogich (Copepoda) z rodziny Harpacticidae w Poznańskiem i na Pomorzu. Spraw. Komisji Fizjograf. PAU 1931, 65, 31–65. [Google Scholar]
  60. Klie, W. Candona latens, ein neuer Muschelkrebs aus dem Grundwasser von Mittelfranken. Zool. Anz. 1940, 131, 101–104. [Google Scholar]
  61. Klie, W. Zur Kenntnis der Ostracodenarten Candona eremita (Vejdovsky) und Candona reducta Alm. Mitteilungen über Höhlen Und Karstforschung 1940, 1, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  62. Heck, K.L.; van Belle, G.; Simberloff, D. Explicit calculation of the rarefaction curves diversity measurement and the determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology 1975, 56, 1459–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Różkowski, J. Transformations in chemical composition of karst water in the southern part of the Cracow upland (Rudawa and Prądnik drainage areas). Kras Speleol. 1996, 1, 1–106. [Google Scholar]
  64. Różkowski, J. Groundwaters of Carbonate Formations in the Southern Part of Jura Krakowsko-Częstochowska and Problems with Their Protection; University of Silesia: Katowice, Poland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ellis, J.; Dottridge, J. Nitrate contamination of shallow groundwater in the Carpathian foothills (southern Poland). Prace Geograf. 1998, 103, 147–157. [Google Scholar]
  66. Żelazny, M. Biogenic Compounds in Precipitation Water, Streamwater and Groundwater in Catchments with Different Land Uses in the Wiśnickie Foothills, Southern Poland. Inst. of Geogr. and Spatial Manage; Jagiellonian University: Kraków, Poland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  67. Iepure, S.; Namiotko, T.; Danielopol, D.L. Evolutionary aspects within the species group Pseudocandona eremita (Vejdovský) (Ostracoda, Candonidae). Hydrobiologia 2007, 585, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Namiotko, T. Freshwater Ostracoda (Crustacea) of Żuławy Wiślane (Vistula Fen Country, Northern Poland). Acta Zool. Crac. 1990, 33, 459–484. [Google Scholar]
  69. Namiotko, T.; Sywula, T. Zgrupowanie skorupiaków (Crustacea) rowów melioracyjnych koło Szymankowa na Żuławach Wiślanych. Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Gdański Biologia 1993, 10, 159–162. [Google Scholar]
  70. Mesquita-Joanes, F.; Viehberg, F.; Smith, A.J. The biology and ecology of ostracods. In Ostracoda as Proxies for Quaternary Climate Change. Developments in Quaternary Science Series; Horne, D.J., Holmes, J.A., Rodriguez-Lazaro, J., Viehberg, F.A., Eds.; Elsevier Science Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 17, pp. 15–35. [Google Scholar]
  71. Malard, F.; Plenet, S.; Gibert, J. The use of invertebrates in ground water monitoring: A rising research field. Groundw. Monit. Remediat. 1996, 16, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Danielopol, D.L.; Griebler, C.; Gunatilaka, A.; Notenboom, J. Present state and future prospects for groundwater ecosystems. Environ. Conserv. 2003, 30, 104–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Water 13 02193 g001 550
Figure 1. The study area with locations of villages where the studied wells are situated.
Figure 1. The study area with locations of villages where the studied wells are situated.
Water 13 02193 g001
Water 13 02193 g002 550
Figure 2. Selected water physical and chemical parameters: mean (in the middle of box), ±SD (box), max and min–whiskers. Wells in Sz and Wi are in Jurassic limestone bedrock, those in Pr are located in Cretaceous marls, whereas wells in Ja and Ka are in flysch (see Table 1 for village codes and other details).
Figure 2. Selected water physical and chemical parameters: mean (in the middle of box), ±SD (box), max and min–whiskers. Wells in Sz and Wi are in Jurassic limestone bedrock, those in Pr are located in Cretaceous marls, whereas wells in Ja and Ka are in flysch (see Table 1 for village codes and other details).
Water 13 02193 g002
Water 13 02193 g003 550
Figure 3. Species accumulation plot based on all 92 studied samples. Closed circles—number of observed species, open circles—number of estimated species by the Chao 1 index.
Figure 3. Species accumulation plot based on all 92 studied samples. Closed circles—number of observed species, open circles—number of estimated species by the Chao 1 index.
Water 13 02193 g003
Water 13 02193 g004 550
Figure 4. Monthly differences in Copepoda abundance (A), Ostracoda abundance (B), number of Copepoda species (C), number of Ostracoda species (D) in the studied wells. The different letters (a, b) above the box plots denote significantly different values at p < 0.05 and the same letters denote no statistically significant differences. The limits of the boxes are the first and third quartiles, crosses represent the means, central horizontal bars are the medians, points above or below are outliers, and the whiskers represented min and max.
Figure 4. Monthly differences in Copepoda abundance (A), Ostracoda abundance (B), number of Copepoda species (C), number of Ostracoda species (D) in the studied wells. The different letters (a, b) above the box plots denote significantly different values at p < 0.05 and the same letters denote no statistically significant differences. The limits of the boxes are the first and third quartiles, crosses represent the means, central horizontal bars are the medians, points above or below are outliers, and the whiskers represented min and max.
Water 13 02193 g004
Water 13 02193 g005 550
Figure 5. The effect of geology on Copepod abundance (A), Ostracoda abundance (B), number of Copepoda species (C), number of Ostracoda species (D) in the studied wells. The different letters (a, b) above the box plots denote significantly different values at p < 0.05 and the same letters denote no statistically significant differences. The limits of the boxes are the first and third quartiles, crosses represent the means, central horizontal bars are the medians, points above or below are outliers, and the whiskers represent min and max.
Figure 5. The effect of geology on Copepod abundance (A), Ostracoda abundance (B), number of Copepoda species (C), number of Ostracoda species (D) in the studied wells. The different letters (a, b) above the box plots denote significantly different values at p < 0.05 and the same letters denote no statistically significant differences. The limits of the boxes are the first and third quartiles, crosses represent the means, central horizontal bars are the medians, points above or below are outliers, and the whiskers represent min and max.
Water 13 02193 g005
Table
Table 1. Localization of villages with data on the sampled wells.
Table 1. Localization of villages with data on the sampled wells.
LocalizationCoordinatesGeology TypeNo of Studied WellsDates of SamplingsDepth (m)
Szklary (Sz)50°10′ N; 19°42′ EJurassic limestone7June, August, October 20101.5–20
Witkowice (Wi)50°10′ N; 19°94′ EJurassic limestone7May, July, October 20124.5–20
Jaszczurowa (Ja)49°47′ N; 19°30′ ECarpathian flysch5June, August, November 20121–4
Kawec (Ka)49°84′ N; 20°22′ ECarpathian flysch7May, July, October 20131.9–12.5
Prandocin (Pr)50°15′ N; 20°06′ ECretaceous marls7May, August 20166–14
Table
Table 2. Crustacea recorded in the studied wells.
Table 2. Crustacea recorded in the studied wells.
Crustacean GroupsOrderTaxa and Life Stages of InvertebratesWells
SzklaryJaszczurowaKawecWitkowicePrandocin
CopepodaCyclopoidanauplii Cyclopoida++ +
copepodids Cyclopoida++ ++
Acanthocyclops kieferi (Chappuis, 1925) +
Acanthocyclops vernalis (Fischer, 1853) + +
Acanthocyclops robustus (Sars G.O., 1863) +
Diacyclops sp. +
Diacyclops bisetosus (Rehberg, 1880)+ +
Diacyclops crassicaudis (Sars G.O., 1863)+ +
Diacyclops crassicaudis brahycercus (Kiefer, 1927) +
Megacyclops viridis (Jurine, 1820) +
Paracyclops imminutus Kiefer 1929 +
Tropocyclops prasinus (Fischer,1860) +
Harpacticoidacopepodids Harpacticoida +
Elaphoidella elaphoides (Chappuis, 1923) +
Elaphoidella cf. elaphoides +
Mesochra sp. (Schmeil, 1894) +
Ostracoda Cavernocypris subterranea (Wolf, 1920)+ +
Cryptocandona matris (Sywula, 1976) +
Cryptocandona sp. +
Cyclocypris ovum (Jurine, 1820) +
Cyclocypris cf. serena (Koch, 1838) +
Cypria ophtalmica (Jurine, 1820) +
Fabaeformicandona brevicornis (Klie, 1925) +
Potamocypris cf. pallida Alm, 1914 +
Typhlocypris cf. eremita (Vejdovsky, 1882)+ +
Bathynellacea Bathynella natans Vejdovsky, 1882 +
Amphipoda Niphargus tatrensis Wrześniowski, 1888 + +
Sum of taxa 447411
+ —presence taxon confirmation.
Table
Table 3. List of Crustacean species recorded from subterranean aquatic habitats in Poland along with the data on ecology (subterranean habitat type) and geographical distribution (regions according to Catalogus Faunae Poloniae). Abbreviations of geographic names: Mts—mountains; Upl.—upland; Low.—lowland.
Table 3. List of Crustacean species recorded from subterranean aquatic habitats in Poland along with the data on ecology (subterranean habitat type) and geographical distribution (regions according to Catalogus Faunae Poloniae). Abbreviations of geographic names: Mts—mountains; Upl.—upland; Low.—lowland.
Group/TaxaHabitat (No of Object)RegionRefrences
CavesWellsInterstitial Waters
AMPHIPODA
Crangonyx paxi # Schellenberg, 19351 Sudety Mts[48]
Gammarus balcanicus Schäferna, 1922 1 Pieniny Mts[30]
Gammarus fossarum Koch, 1836 1 Beskid Zach. Mts[30]
Gammarus pulex polonensis # Karaman and Pinkster, 1977 +Wielkopolsko-Kujawska Low.[49]
Niphargus aquilex # (?) Schiödte, 1856 + Wielkopolsko-Kujawska Low.[29]
Niphargus casimiriensis # Skalski, 1980 11 Małopolska Upl.[36]
Niphargus leopoliensis #* Jaworowski, 1893 3 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Bieszczady Mts[36]
Niphargus tatrensis #* Wrześniowski, 188813++Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts, Beskid Wsch. Mts, Bieszczady Mts, Tatra Mts, Pogórze Wiśnickie foothills,.see [38], orginal data
Niphargellus arndti # (Schellenberg, 1933)3 Sudety Mts[48,50,51]
Synurella ambulans (Müller, 1846) 1 Małopolska Upl.[52]
Synurella coeca # Dobreanu and Manolache, 1951 4 Małopolska Upl.[36]
Synurella tenebrarum # (Wrześniowski, 1888) + Beskid Zach. Mts[10]
BATHYNELLACEA
Bathynella natans # Vejdovsky, 1882 15Sudety Mts., Beskid Zach. Mts, Miechów Upl.[13], orginal data
ISOPODA
Asellus aquaticus (L.)28 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Swiętokrzyskie Mts, Beskid Wsch. Mts[12,37,53,54]
Proasellus slavus # (Remy, 1948) 51Beskid Zach. Mts[13]
COPEPODA
CYCLOPOIDA
Acanthocyclops kieferi (Chappuis, 1925)731Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Świętokrzyskie Mts, Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts, Pieniny Mts, Tatra Mts[20], orginal data
Acanthocyclops rhenanus # Kiefer, 1936 + !Małopolska Upl.[14]
Acanthocyclops robustus (Sars G.O.,1863)421Sudety Mts, Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Pieniny Mts[20,55], orginal data
Acanthocyclops venustus (Norman and Scott, 1906)312Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Pieniny Mts[20]
Acanthocyclops vernalis (Fischer, 1853)141Małopolska Upl., Upper Silesia, Beskid Mały.[14,20], orginal data
Cyclops abyssorum (Sars G.O.,1863)1 Tatra Mts[20]
Cyclops bohater Koźmiński, 1933 1 Tatra Mts[20]
Cyclops pulchellus Koch, 1838 (1) 1 Kraków-Wieluń Upl.[11]
Cyclops strenuus Fischer, 1851 2 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl.[15,17]
Cyclops vicinus Uljanin, 1875 11 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl.[20]
Diacyclops sp. 1 Kraków-Wieluń Upl.[orginal data]
Diacyclops abyssicola (Lilljeborg, 1901)11 Upper Silesia, Małopolska Upl.[20]
Diacyclops bicuspidatus (Claus, 1857)722Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Lubelska Upl., Pieniny Mts[14,15,20,37,54]
Diacyclops bisetosus (Rehberg, 1880) 21Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl.[17], orginal data
Diacyclops clandestinus # (Yeatman, 1964) (2)11 Upper Silesia, Tatra Mts[20,56]
Diacyclops crassicaudis (Sars G.O., 1863)1+ Małopolska Upl., Kraków-Wieluń Upl. [14,20,37], orginal data
Diacyclops crassicaudis brachycercus (Kiefer, 1927) 1 Małopolska Upl.[orginal data]
Diacyclops disjunctus (Thallwitz, 1927) (3)2 Sudety Mts.,[57]
Diacyclops languidoides (Lilljeborg, 1901)511Upper Silesia, Małopolska Upl., Beskid Zach. Mts, Pieniny Mts[15,20]
Diacyclops languidus (Sars G.O., 1863) 1 Małopolska Upl.[15]
Diacyclops nanus (Sars G.O., 1863)11 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl.[20]
Eucyclops macruroides (Lilljeborg, 1901) 22Upper Silesia, Małopolska Upl.[14,20]
Eucyclops serrulatus (Fischer, 1851)263Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Świętokrzyskie Mts, Pieniny Mts[14,15,20]
Eucyclops speratus (Lilljeborg, 1901) 1 Małopolska Upl.[14]
Graeteriella unisetigera # (Graeter, 1908) 1 Wielkopolsko-Kujawska Low.[16]
Macrocyclops albidus (Jurine, 1820)113Upper Silesia, Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Lubelska Upl., Sudety Mts[14,17,20]
Macrocyclops fuscus (Jurine, 1820) 1 Małopolska Upl.[14]
Megacyclops gigas (Claus,1857) 1Pieniny Mts[20]
Megacyclops viridis (Jurine, 1820)42 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Sudety Mts, Beskid Mały [14,20,54,57], orginal data
Metacyclops sp.1 Kraków-Wieluń Upl.[55]
Paracyclops affinis (Sars G.O., 1863)11 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl.[20,37]
Paracyclops fimbriatus (Fischer, 1853)141Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl., Beskid Zach. Mts[15,17,37]
Paracyclops imminutus Kiefer 1929 1 Beskid Mały[orginal data]
Paracyclops poppei (Rehberg, 1880)22 Kraków-Wieluń, Małopolska Upls, Sudetes, Beskid Zach. Mts[20]
Thermocyclops crassus (Fischer, 1853)
Tropocyclops prasinus (Fischer, 1860)		11 Małopolska Upl.
Beskid Mały		[20]
[orginal data]
CALANOIDA
Eudiaptomus graciloides (Lilljeborg, 1888) 1 Małopolska Upl.[15]
HARPACTICOIDA
Attheyella wierzejskii (Mrázek, 1893) 11Małopolska Upl., Sudety Mts[20]
Bryocamptus cuspidatus (Schmeil, 1893) 1 Małopolska Upl.[58]
Bryocamptus dacicus (Chappuis, 1923) 2 Sudety Mts[57]
Bryocamptus echinatus (Mrázek, 1893) 1 Małopolska Upl.[58]
Bryocamptus typhlops (Mrázek, 1893) 1 Sudety Mts[57]
Canthocamptus microstaphylinus (Wolf, 1909)1 1Małopolska Upl., Lubelska Upl.[19]
Canthocamptus staphylinus (Jurine, 1820)1 1Małopolska Upl., Lubelska Upl.[19]
Elaphoidella elaphoides # (Chappuis, 1924) 4 Podlasie Low., Małopolska Upl.[18,58], orginal data
Elaphoidella cf. elaphoides # 1 Pogórze Wiśnickie foothills[orginal data]
Epactophanes richardi Mrázek, 18931 Sudety Mts.,[57]
Nitokra hibernica hyalina Jakubisiak, 1929
Mesochra sp. (Schmeil, 1894)
1		+Wielkopolsko-Kujawska Low.
Małopolska Upl.		[59]
[orginal data]
OSTRACODA
Bradleystrandesia reticulata (Zaddach, 1844) (4)no details on habitats no details on sites[24]
Candona candida (O.F. Müller, 1776) ++Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts, Bieszczady Mts, Małopolska Upl. Wielkopol.-Kujawska Low, Lublin Upl..[24,26,36,60,61]
Cavernocypris subterranea (Wolf, 1919) +, 2+Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts, Bieszczady Mts, Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl.[24,26,60,61], orginal data
Cryptocandona sp. 1 Pogórze Wiśnickie foothills[orginal data]
Cryptocandona matris # (Sywula, 1976) + Małopolska Upl., Beskid Zach. Mts, Beskid Wsch. Mts, Bieszczady Mts, Pieniny Mts, Lublin Upl., Pogórze Wiśnickie foothills [23,24,25,27,28,36], orginal data
Cryptocandona reducta (Alm, 1914) ++Sudety Mts, other sites[24,27,60,61]
Cryptocandona vavrai Kaufmann, 1900 ++Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach., Tatra Mts[24,27,60,61]
Cyclocypris ovum (Jurine, 1820)no details on habitats1 no details on sites, Pogórze Wiśnickie foothills[24], orginal data
Cyclocypris serena (Koch, 1838)no details on habitats no details on sites[24]
Cyclocypris cf. serena (Koch, 1838) 1 Kraków-Wieluń Upl.[orginal data]
Cypria ophtalmica (Jurine, 1820) ++Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts., Pogórze Wiśnickie foothills[24], orginal data
Cypria reptans Bronstein, 1928 +no details on sites[24]
Darwinula stevensoni (Brady and Robertson, 1870) +no details on sites[24]
Eucypris pigra (Fischer, 1851) +no details on sites[24]
Fabaeformiscandona breuili #* (Paris, 1920) (5) ++Sudety Mts, Bieszczady Mts, Pieniny Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts, Wielkopolsko-Kujawska Low.[22,24,25,28]
Fabaeformiscandona brevicornis (Klie, 1925) (6) 1+no details on sites, Beskid Mały[24], orginal data
Fabaeformiscandona latens #* (Klie, 1940) +Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts.[22,24]
Fabaeformiscandona wegelini #* (Petkovski, 1962) ++Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts, Małopolska Upl., Wielkopolsko-Kujawska Low., Lublin Upl.. [22,24,36]
Herpetocypris sp.no details on habitats no details on sites[24]
Ilyocypris bradyi Sars, 1890 +no details on sites[24]
Limnocythere inopinata (Baird, 1843) +no details on sites[24]
Mixtacandona sp. # + Małopolska Upl.[24,36]
Nannocandona faba Ekman, 1914 ++Sudety Mts[24]
Nannocandona stygia # Sywula, 1976 ++Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts.[23,24]
Neglecandona lindneri (Petkovski, 1969)no details on habitats no details on sites[24]
Neglecandona neglecta (Sars, 1887) +no details on sites[24]
Notodromas monacha (O.F. Müller, 1776)no details on habitats no details on sites[24]
Physocypria kraepelini G.W. Müller, 1903) (7) +no details on sites[24]
Potamocypris fulva (pallida) (Brady, 1868) ++Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach, Bieszczady Mts[24]
Potamocypris cf. pallida (Alm, 1914) 1 Małopolska Upl.[orginal data]
Potamocypris zschokkei (Kaufman, 1900) (8) +no details on sites, except Kraków-Wieluń Upl.[24,26]
Pseudocandona albicans (Brady, 1864) (9) ++Małopolska Upl., Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts[21,22,24,25,26,36]
Pseudocandona compressa (Koch, 1838) + no details on sites[24]
Pseudocandona mira # (Sywula, 1976) + Beskid Zach. Mts[23]
Pseudocandona pratensis (Hartwig, 1901) + Sudety Mts and other sites[24,60]
Pseudocandona sarsi (Hartwig,1899)+++Małopolska Upl., Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts[24,37,54,60]
Pseudocandona semicognita (Schafer, 1934)no details on habitats no details on sites[24]
Pseudocandona triquetroides (Sywula, 1974) +Sudety Mts, Beskid Zach. Mts[24]
Typhlocypris eremita # * (Vejdovsky, 1882) + Sudety Mts, Małopolska Upl., Wielkopolsko-Kujawska Low., Beskid Zach. Mts, Lublin Upl.. [24,36], Sywula-pers. notes
Typhlocypris cf. eremita (Vejdovsky, 1882) 2 Kraków-Wieluń Upl., Małopolska Upl.[orginal data]
Typhlocypris szoecsi # (Farkas, 1958) Małopolska Upl., Beskid Zach. Mts, Lublin Upl..[24,36]
+—presence taxon confirmation. #—stygobiontic species. *—for stygobionts only: found also in surface waters. !—found in peat bog forest Reservoirs 1, 2, and 3—“original” names of species used in cited papers. (1)—C. pulchellus Koch, 1838 is currently regarded as nomen dubium; in the past some carcinologists used this name as a senior synonym of Diacyclops bicuspidatus (Claus, 1857). (2)—as Diacyclops clandestinus (Kiefer, 1926) in [56]. (3)—as Diacyclops languidus disjunctus (Thallwitz, 1927) in [57]. (4)—as Cypricercus affinis (Fischer, 1851) in [24]. (5)—as Candona hertzogi beskidana (Sywula 1974) in [22,24,25,28]. (6)—as Candona limnocrenica (Sywula 1971) in [24]. (7)—as Physocypria fadeewi (Dubovsky 1926) in [24]. (8)—as Potamocypris foxi (Sywula 1972) in [24,26]; P. wolfi (Brehm 1920) in [24]. (9)—as Candona parallela (G.W. Muller) 1900 in [21,22,24,25,26,36].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pociecha, A.; Karpowicz, M.; Namiotko, T.; Dumnicka, E.; Galas, J. Diversity of Groundwater Crustaceans in Wells in Various Geologic Formations of Southern Poland. Water 2021, 13, 2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162193

AMA Style

Pociecha A, Karpowicz M, Namiotko T, Dumnicka E, Galas J. Diversity of Groundwater Crustaceans in Wells in Various Geologic Formations of Southern Poland. Water. 2021; 13(16):2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162193

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pociecha, Agnieszka, Maciej Karpowicz, Tadeusz Namiotko, Elżbieta Dumnicka, and Joanna Galas. 2021. "Diversity of Groundwater Crustaceans in Wells in Various Geologic Formations of Southern Poland" Water 13, no. 16: 2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162193

APA Style

Pociecha, A., Karpowicz, M., Namiotko, T., Dumnicka, E., & Galas, J. (2021). Diversity of Groundwater Crustaceans in Wells in Various Geologic Formations of Southern Poland. Water, 13(16), 2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162193

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