Next Article in Journal
Environmental Constraints and Resilience of Organisms in Abyssal Plain, Whale Fall, Cold Seep and Hydrothermal Vent Environments in the Deep Sea
Previous Article in Journal
Public Perceptions of Marine and Coastal Restoration in Ireland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Oceans
Volume 7
Issue 1
10.3390/oceans7010009
oceans-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

Amphipod Fauna Enhances Understanding of Eastern Mediterranean Deep-Sea Biodiversity

by
Davide Iaciofano
1,
Hadas Lubinevsky
2 and
Sabrina Lo Brutto
1,3,*
1
Department of Earth and Marine Sciences, University of Palermo, via Archirafi 20, 90123 Palermo, Italy
2
Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa 3102201, Israel
3
National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), 90133 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Oceans 2026, 7(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans7010009
Submission received: 1 June 2025 / Revised: 3 January 2026 / Accepted: 9 January 2026 / Published: 28 January 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Knowledge of deep-sea amphipods remains much more limited compared to that of shallow-water or more accessible marine habitats, although there has been an increasing scientific interest in recent decades. Deep-sea amphipods are mainly scavengers and detritivores, playing a role in organic matter recycling; however, their species richness may be underestimated, especially in understudied realms like the deep Mediterranean Sea. Long-term monitoring data are limited, hindering understanding of trends or human impacts. The present work aims to address this gap. In a previous study (1993–1996), twenty-two species of amphipods were identified from samples collected at depths between 734 and 1558 m along the Israeli coast. After twenty years, 16 sites were sampled in 2013 at depths ranging from 198 to 1812 m. Amphipod assemblage and its bathymetric distribution were analyzed to enhance knowledge of the taxon’s occurrence.

1. Introduction

The Mediterranean deep sea has long been considered stable in terms of its physical-chemical and hydrographical conditions [1,2]. However, the basin has experienced environmental changes over time and across different areas, affecting the demographic structure and biology of marine species [2,3,4]. Understanding biotic aspects at depths of 200 to 2000 m requires awareness of the factors regulating this environment, and describing general patterns is not straightforward. Consequently, an increasing number of scientists have focused their research on deep-sea ecosystems in the last decade, mainly concerning fishery resources [5,6,7].
The Levantine basin has traditionally been regarded as an area with low diversity of deep-water fauna [8], although this hypothesis has often been considered weak due to the inaccessibility of the habitat, which limited sampling efforts [1]. Recent data have expanded previous knowledge by focusing on different taxa and extending vertical sampling to greater depths [9].
A specific survey targeting the deep-sea amphipod fauna, which remains poorly understood [10,11], was conducted in Mediterranean Israeli waters to enhance knowledge of this habitat and taxon.
Deep-sea amphipod biodiversity data are sporadic, especially in the Mediterranean Sea [11], where the deep habitats are less interconnected than in the open oceans, owing to geomorphological features shaped by sills that separate the main deep zones, such as the western and eastern basins. This separation could lead to biogeographical differences among sectors.
Deep-sea amphipods are not rare; they occupy all depths along the water column and even reach the hadal environment, with some Lysianassoideans collected at around 10,000 m [12]. Food availability is a crucial factor in shaping deep-sea benthic community structures [7], and amphipods play a central role within these trophic networks. In hadal environments, they serve as primary prey for larger deep-sea organisms, including decapods, other predatory amphipods, and fishes [13]. Amphipods are also effective scavengers, feeding on marine carrions that fall from both surface waters or originate from co-occurring deep-sea species [13]. They consume a mixture of marine detritus, indicative of complex and cyclical organic matter transfer at these depths, demonstrating remarkable trophic plasticity [13,14]. This ecological flexibility highlights their importance. Notably, their capacity to ingest a wide range of materials, including anthropogenic pollutants, was demonstrated as one of the deepest recorded instances of microplastic ingestion in marine environments [12], emphasizing their potential role in deep-sea pollution detection.
A previous investigation [15], based on samples collected between 1993 and 1996 at depths of 734–1558 m, in Israeli waters, documented twenty-two amphipod species. The present study incorporates new data obtained approximately two decades later, from samples collected in 2013 across a broader depth range (198–1812 m). Although the sampling stations differed between the two surveys, the more recent dataset encompasses a wider geographic area that partially overlaps with the earlier study. The two datasets are therefore integrated here to provide a more comprehensive assessment of deep-sea amphipod diversity in the region.

2. Materials and Methods

The area investigated is located off the coast of Israel. The samples were collected in 2013 at depths between 198 and 1812 m, from 16 sites (Table 1; Figure 1). They were collected using a 0.5 mm plankton net secured atop a Marinovich-type deep water trawl, and by a 0.062 m2 box-corer with an effective penetration of 40 cm (Ocean Instruments model 700 AL, Ocean Instruments Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) [16]. Each sample was preserved in 10% buffered formalin aboard the ship. In the laboratory, samples were washed and sieved through a 500−1 mm mesh, preserved in 70% alcohol, and stained in Rose Bengal. The dataset was integrated by a previous investigation, published by Sorbe and Galil [15], and carried out in the period between 1993 and 1996, twenty years before the presented data here. The prior survey [15] collected twenty-two amphipod species at depths ranging from 734 to 1558 m. The survey applied the same sampling protocol.
The list of species collected in 2013 included Carangoliopsis spinulosa. A previous note was published to fill the knowledge gap on this species [17]. Here, the G. spinulosa records are treated in the whole dataset of the survey (this paper).
The map of both sampling sites (Figure 1) was produced using QGIS 3.40 [18]. Species nomenclature was checked against the World Amphipoda Database (WAD) [19]. The corresponding WAD links for each species are reported in Table 2.

3. Results

A total of 130 individuals belonging to 11 species and 8 families were collected from 16 sites, at depths between 198 and 1812 m, along the Israeli coast (Table 2).
Carangoliopsis spinulosa, Harpinia crenulata and Harpinia antennaria were the most abundant species, representing 55%, 17% and 13% of the total abundance, respectively. Of the eleven species recorded, seven were new records for the Israeli coast, which represented 94% of the total abundance of this survey (Ampelisca jaffaensis, Carangoliopsis spinulosa, Westwoodilla caecula, Harpinia antennaria, Harpinia crenulata, Harpinia pectinata, Paraphoxus oculatus) (Table 2). Of these, W. caecula, H. antennaria and P. oculatus were also new records for the Levantine basin.
The first record of two families in the deep-sea of the Israeli coast merits attention, Ampeliscidae Krøyer, 1842 and Carangoliopsidae Bousfield, 1977. These were collected in eleven sites at depths between 198 and 1122 m. Eight specimens of Ampelisca jaffaensis were collected from two sites at depths of 214 and 1122 m, though this species had been found at a depth of no more than 135 m [20]. Seventy-three specimens of C. spinulosa were collected from nine stations at a depth range between 198 and 1122 m.
The sample size was small for most species (Table S1). Apart from the seventeen individuals of H. antennaria, collected from six sites, and the twenty-two specimens of H. crenulata, found in two sites, the other species were recorded with one or two individuals.
The most relevant result was the discrepancy with the assemblage detected by Sorbe and Galil [15]. Some families, previously found, were absent—Lepechinellidae Schellenberg, 1926 [21]; Liljeborgiidae Stebbing, 1899 [22]; Stegocephalidae Dana, 1852 [23]; Tryphosidae Lowry & Stoddart, 1997 [24]; Uristidae Hurley, 1963 [25]—whereas the presence of some families, previously detected by Sorbe and Galil [15], was confirmed—Eusiridae Stebbing, 1888 [26]; Leucothoidae Dana, 1852 [23]; Oedicerotidae Lilljeborg, 1865 [27]; Pardaliscidae Boeck, 1871 [28]; Phoxocephalidae G.O. Sars, 1891 [29]; Synopiidae Dana, 1853 [30].
Figure 2 shows the number of species per family collected at various depth ranges in both surveys. Some families, such as Pardaliscidae and Uristidae, occurred in a restricted depth range, 1400–1600 m and 1100–1500 m, respectively.
The stations exhibiting the highest species richness and abundance were located between 1000 and 1400 m depth. Specifically, around the 1000 m depth 14 species were collected, accounting for 8.6% of total abundance; at 1110 m 5 species were scored (5.9%); 12 species (14.7%) were collected at a depth around 1350 m; the depth of 1400 m showed the highest richness with 14 species (26.3% of total abundance); around the depth of 1450 m 10 species were counted (18.8%); 6 species were collected at a 1500 m depth 6 species (6.7%); and 6 species at the 1550 m depth, though only representing 2.2% of total richness.
The comparison with the previous dataset [15] indicates that several genera were retained, but with a different species composition. Within Rhachotropis, previously represented by three species [15], only R. caeca was confirmed in the present material, whereas R. grimaldii and R. rostrata were not detected. Conversely, the genus Harpinia, formerly reported with a single species, Harpinia dellavallei, was observed to include H. antennaria, H. crenulata, and H. pectinata in the current analysis (Table 2).
Table 2. List of the Israeli deep-sea amphipod species. Data from this paper are reported as new records or confirmed occurrences based on the previous survey [15]. New records for the Levantine basin and Israeli coast are evidenced (§). Species’ occurrence in the present data was indicated by listing Site ID, which corresponds to Table 1. Occurrences from the previous study [15] are reported in bold, including the information on the smallest sample sizes, i.e., ≤10 ind. (ind., individuals).
Table 2. List of the Israeli deep-sea amphipod species. Data from this paper are reported as new records or confirmed occurrences based on the previous survey [15]. New records for the Levantine basin and Israeli coast are evidenced (§). Species’ occurrence in the present data was indicated by listing Site ID, which corresponds to Table 1. Occurrences from the previous study [15] are reported in bold, including the information on the smallest sample sizes, i.e., ≤10 ind. (ind., individuals).
FamilySpeciesThis PaperSite ID
(This Paper)		Previous StudyTaxonomic Authorities Reference and Link
AmpeliscidaeAmpelisca jaffaensis Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977confirmedg18; S4_01; [20][20] marinespecies.org
/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=101902 accessed 2 December 2025
CarangoliopsidaeCarangoliopsis spinulosa Ledoyer, 1970new record §H02; g18; s2_02; S3_01; S3_02; S3_03; S4_01; s4_02; HS360C*[31] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102074 accessed 2 December 2025
EusiridaeEusirus longipes Boeck, 1861 1 ind. [15][32] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102202 accessed 2 December 2025
Rhachotropis caeca Ledoyer, 1977confirmed previous dataNet-1400 m[15][33] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102226 accessed 2 December 2025
Rhachotropis grimaldii (Chevreux, 1887) 2 ind. [15][34] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102231 accessed 2 December 2025
Rhachotropis rostrata Bonnier, 1896 [15][35] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102242 accessed 2 December 2025
LepechinellidaeLepechinella manco J. L. Barnard, 1973 1 ind. [15][36] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102454 accessed 2 December 2025
LeucothoidaeLeucothoe lilljeborgii Boeck, 1861confirmed previous dataH02; H034 ind. [15][32] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102462 accessed 2 December 2025
LiljeborgiidaeIdunella pirata Krapp-Schickel, 1975 [15][37] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102478 accessed 2 December 2025
OedicerotidaeBathymedon monoculodiformis Ledoyer, 1983 10 ind. [15][38] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102874 accessed 2 December 2025
Oediceroides pilosa Ledoyer, 1983confirmed previous datag23;[15][38] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102903 accessed 2 December 2025
Oediceropsis brevicornis Lilljeborg, 1865 2 ind. [15][27] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102904 accessed 2 December 2025
Westwoodilla caecula (Spence Bate, 1857)new records1_04; [39] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102932 accessed 2 December 2025
PardaliscidaeHalice abyssi Boeck, 1871 2 ind. [15][28] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102939 accessed 2 December 2025
PhoxocephalidaeHarpinia antennaria Meinert, 1890new recordH02; H03; g18; S3_02; S3_03; S4_02; [40] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102960 accessed 2 December 2025
Harpinia crenulata (Boeck, 1871)new record §g18; S4_01 [28] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102963 accessed 2 December 2025
Harpinia dellavallei Chevreux, 1911 3 ind. [15][41] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102966
Harpinia pectinata G.O. Sars, 1891new record §S4_03 [29] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102972 accessed 2 December 2025
Paraphoxus oculatus (G. O. Sars, 1879)new recordg18 [42] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102986 accessed 2 December 2025
StegocephalidaeStegocephaloides christianiensis Boeck, 1871 [15][28] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=103102 accessed 2 December 2025
SynopiidaeBruzelia typica Boeck, 1871 [15][28] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=103182 accessed 2 December 2025
Ileraustroe ilergetes (J. L. Barnard, 1964) [15][43] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=103183 accessed 2 December 2025
Pseudotiron bouvieri Chevreux, 1895confirmed previous datag11; g26[15][44] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=103184 accessed 2 December 2025
Syrrhoe affinis Chevreux, 1908 3 ind. [15][45] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=103186 accessed 2 December 2025
TryphosidaeOrchomene grimaldii Chevreux, 1890 8 ind. [15][46] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102664 accessed 2 December 2025
Paracentromedon crenulatus (Chevreux, 1900) 1 ind. [15][47] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102701 accessed 2 December 2025
Tryphosites alleni Sexton, 1911 2 ind. [15][48] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102778 accessed 2 December 2025
UristidaeCaeconyx caeculus (G.O. Sars, 1891) 8 ind. [15][49] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102543 accessed 2 December 2025
Tmetonyx similis (G. O. Sars, 1891) 1 ind. [15][49] marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=102742 accessed 2 December 2025
* record already published in [17].

4. Discussion

The Levantine basin was regarded as an area with low diversity and low-density deep water fauna [50]. A unique previous investigation of Israeli amphipod fauna for this peculiar and inaccessible ecosystem was published in 2002 [15], based on material collected from 1993 to 1996 at depths between 734 and 1558 m [15]. The survey documented twenty-two deep-sea amphipod species, of which twenty-one, at that time, were new records for the Levantine area [15].
The present paper enhances knowledge of deep-sea amphipod bathymetric distribution and includes new records. Six species were new for the Israeli coast (Carangoliopsis spinulosa, Westwoodilla caecula, Harpinia antennaria, Harpinia crenulata, Harpinia pectinata, Paraphoxus oculatus) (Table 2), leading the national checklist to a total of twenty-nine species (Table 2 and Table 3). Two families, collected at 1122 m—Ampeliscidae Krøyer, 1842 [51] and Carangoliopsidae Bousfield, 1977 [52]—were new records for the Israeli deep-sea layers.
The family composition reflected the typical deep waters amphipod structure [53,54,55], except for lacking high-density species.
It is noteworthy that the entire dataset provides an overview of amphipod fauna occurrence across a wide depth range (Figure 2). The species richness did not increase or, vice versa, decrease with depth, as the highest density of species was observed between 1000 and 1600 m. Other studies [54] showed a peak in the maximum species richness of deep-sea amphipods along the depth gradient. This observation warrants further investigation into future sampling plans, as amphipod assemblages could mirror particular environmental conditions.
Given the limited extent of the investigated area, it would have been expected that the amphipod assemblages from the two surveys in the Israeli area would be relatively homogeneous. However, the most notable result from the dataset is the discrepancy between the assemblage identified by Sorbe and Galil [15] and the composition detected in 2013. Some families and species previously recorded were absent, while others were observed for the first time (Table 2). The most reasonable explanation could be found in the life traits of many deep-sea amphipods. A high proportion of the species detected does not commonly reach high density. Table 2 shows the lowest abundance of some species previously sampled [15], and not scored during the present study. The sample size of many collected species was very small [15], less than ten individuals. Consequently, the rarity of several deep-sea species could be a constraint that should be overcome by a major monitoring effort.
Ruffo [53] identified nearly 150 Mediterranean species with a bathymetric zone reaching into the deep-sea, of which 63 occur solely below 150 m. Such information has not been thoroughly revised and has only been approximately synthesized by subsequent studies.
The recent revision of the Mediterranean amphipod fauna includes almost 650 species [56], i.e., about 6% of the worldwide marine amphipod fauna [19]. The deep-sea Mediterranean amphipod fauna lacks an accurate estimate. Records of deep-sea species in the Mediterranean are based on old material resumed by recent checklists [11,57]. The study [11] further reported new records of eight species from three stations in the southern Mediterranean, at depths between 2415 and 2626 m: Bathymedon acutrifrons Bonnier, 1896 and B. banyulensis Ledoyer, 1982; Harpinia dellavallei; Monoculodes packardi Boeck, 1871; Pardalisca mediterranea Bellan-Santini, 1985; Rhachothrapis caeca; Scopelocheirus polymedus Bellan-Santini, 1985 and Syrrhoides cornuta Bellan-Santini, 1985. However, an extensive sampling should be planned.
Of the twenty-nine species documented along the coast of Israel, twenty-two exhibit an Atlanto-Mediterranean distribution, two are cosmopolitan, and the remaining five are endemic to the Mediterranean Sea (Table 3) [11,15,17,57,58].
All species have been reported from both the Western Mediterranean and the Levantine Basin, although several displayed a discontinuous distribution along an imaginary west–east Mediterranean axis [11,15,17,57,58]. Excluding the Adriatic Sea, a basin not exceeding 200 m in depth, species like Ampelisca jaffaensis, Bathymedon monoculodiformis, Oediceropsis brevicornis, Bruzelia typica, Pseudotiron bouvieri, Tryphosites alleni, Caeconyx caeculus, and Tmetonyx similis showed a disjointed distribution. (Table 3).
No studies have reported temporal analyses of the Mediterranean deep-sea amphipods, nor along the Israeli coast. The temporal variation in amphipod fauna is not easy to detect, as the physical features of the sediment play a crucial role in shaping amphipod assemblage structure [59]. A prior study [59] conducted a spatio-temporal analysis of amphipod crustaceans collected from soft-bottom habitats along the Israeli Mediterranean coast between 2010 and 2017. This was part of the long-term national monitoring program assessing changes in benthic macrofauna and the impact of environmental factors in this ecologically vulnerable region. Amphipod assemblages reflected sediment characteristics and human impacts, with no significant temporal shifts [59].
Regarding the discrepancy between the assemblage reported by Sorbe and Galil [15] and the species composition documented in the present study, limited information on sampling efforts prevents definitive conclusions, but it cannot be excluded that certain factors could influence the communities. In the Levantine basin, the continental shelf is predominantly narrow, bringing slopes and deep-sea habitats close to the coast, thus making them highly vulnerable to terrestrial influences [8,60]. As a result, factors shaping deep-sea benthic communities in the area must consider riverine inputs, sedimentation, water column mixing, and various anthropogenic pressures such as pollution from urbanization, agriculture, maritime transport, industrial and municipal discharges [2,8]. Furthermore, natural processes like flash flooding, cascading of dense shelf waters, and submarine landslides also play crucial roles in structuring these ecosystems, rendering the deep-sea habitat sensitive to climate change [3].
In light of such consideration, deep-sea amphipods could play a pivotal role in elucidating ecological mechanisms or unpredictable phenomena in the marine environment. The ecological role of amphipods is fundamental within marine ecosystems, owing to their high taxonomic and functional diversity. As an umbrella taxon, amphipods provide valuable insights into the structure and functioning of benthic communities, making their study essential for understanding ecosystem balance and resilience [61,62,63]. Furthermore, their wide ecological distribution and sensitivity to environmental variation render amphipods an ideal model group for assessing changes in deep-water habitats.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/oceans7010009/s1, Table S1. Abundance of the species collected from the 16 stations surveyed in 2013.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.B. and D.I.; formal analysis, S.L.B., D.I. and H.L.; resources, H.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.I.; writing—review and editing, supervision, S.L.B.; funding acquisition, S.L.B. and H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4—NextGenerationEU. Award Number: Project code CN_00000033, adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, CUP B73C22000790001, Project title “National Biodiversity Future Center—NBFC”.

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers, whose suggestions helped to improve the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Danovaro, R.; Company, J.B.; Corinaldesi, C.; D’Onghia, G.; Galil, B.; Gambi, C.; Gooday, A.J.; Lampadariou, N.; Luna, G.M.; Morigi, C.; et al. Deep-sea biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea: The known, the unknown, and the unknowable. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e11832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lejeusne, C.; Chevaldonné, P.; Pergent-Martini, C.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Pérez, T. Climate change effects on a miniature ocean: The highly diverse, highly impacted Mediterranean Sea. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Danovaro, R.; Dell’Anno, A.; Fabiano, M.; Pusceddu, A.; Tselepides, A. Deep-sea ecosystem response to climate changes: The eastern Mediterranean case study. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Company, J.B.; Puig, P.; Sarda, F.; Palanques, A.; Latasa, M.; Scharek, R. Climate influence on deep sea populations. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Danovaro, R.; Dell’Anno, A.; Pusceddu, A. Biodiversity response to climate change in a warm deep sea. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 821–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Moranta, J.; Massutı́, E.; Morales-Nin, B. Fish catch composition of the deep-sea decapod crustacean fisheries in the Balearic Islands (western Mediterranean). Fish. Res. 2000, 45, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tselepides, A.; Sevastou, K.; Lampadariou, N. Environmental factors influencing the benthic ecology of the deep Eastern Mediterranean Sea–A review. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2023, 202, 104177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kröncke, I.; Turkay, M.; Fiege, D. Macrofauna communities in the Eastern Mediterranean deep sea. Mar. Ecol. 2003, 24, 193–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Albano, P.G.; Azzarone, M.; Amati, B.; Bogi, C.; Sabelli, B.; Rilov, G. Low diversity or poorly explored? Mesophotic molluscs highlight undersampling in the Eastern Mediterranean. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 4059–4072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Navarro-Barranco, C.; Ros, M.; de Figueroa, J.M.T.; Guerra-García, J.M. Marine crustaceans as bioindicators: Amphipods as case study. Fish. Aquac. 2020, 9, 435–463. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bakalem, A.; Dauvin, J.C.; Menioui, M. Diversity of marine Amphipods (Crustacea, Peracarida) from the North African shelf of the Mediterranean Sea (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt). An updated checklist for 2023. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2024, 25, 311–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jamieson, A.J.; Brooks, L.S.R.; Reid, W.D.K.; Piertney, S.B.; Narayanaswamy, B.E.; Linley, T.D. Microplastics and synthetic particles ingested by deep-sea amphipods in six of the deepest marine ecosystems on Earth. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2019, 6, 180667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jamieson, A.J.; Lörz, A.N.; Fujii, T.; Priede, I.G. In situ observations of trophic behaviour and locomotion of Princaxelia amphipods (Crustacea: Pardaliscidae) at hadal depths in four West Pacific Trenches. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 2012, 92, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Blankenship, L.E.; Levin, L.A. Extreme food webs: Foraging strategies and diets of scavenging amphipods from the ocean’s deepest 5 kilometers. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2007, 52, 1685–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sorbe, J.C.; Galil, B.S. The bathyal amphipoda off the Levantine coast, eastern Mediterranean. Crustaceana 2002, 75, 957–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lubinevsky, H.; Hyams-Kaphzan, O.; Almogi-Labin, A.; Silverman, J.; Harlavan, Y.; Crouvi, O.; Herut, B.; Kanari, M.; Tom, M. Deep-sea soft bottom infaunal communities of the Levantine Basin (SE Mediterranean) and their shaping factors. Mar. Biol. 2017, 164, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Iaciofano, D.; Lubinevsky, H.; Lo Brutto, S. First record of Carangoliopsis spinulosa Ledoyer, 1970 (Amphipoda: Carangoliopsidae) in the bathyal Israeli Mediterranean waters. Ecol. Montenegrina 2024, 78, 224–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. QGIS.org. QGIS Geographic Information System; QGIS Association, 2025. Available online: https://www.qgis.org (accessed on 2 December 2025).
  19. Horton, T.; De Broyer, C.; Bellan-Santini, D.; Coleman, C.O.; Copilaș-Ciocianu, D.; Corbari, L.; Daneliya, M.E.; Dauvin, J.C.; Decock, W.; Fanini, L.; et al. The World Amphipoda Database: History and progress. Rec. Aust. Mus. 2023, 75, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bellan-Santini, D.; Kaim-Malka, R.A. Ampelisca nouvelles de Méditerranée (Crustacea–Amphipoda). Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Verona 1977, 4, 479–523. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schellenberg, A. Die Gammariden der Deutschen Südpolar-Expedition 1901–1903; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 1926; Volume 18, pp. 235–414. [Google Scholar]
  22. Stebbing, T.R.R. Revision of Amphipoda. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1899, 4, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dana, J.D. On the classification of the Crustacea Choristopoda or Tetradecapoda. Am. J. Sci. 1852, 14, 297–316. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lowry, J.K.; Stoddart, H.E. Amphipoda Crustacea IV. Families Aristiidae, Cyphocarididae, Endevouridae, Lysianassidae, Scopelocheiridae, Uristidae. Mem. Hourglass Cruises 1997, 10, 148. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hurley, D.E. Amphipoda of the family Lysianassidae from the west coast of North and Central America. Allan Hancock Found. Publ. Occas. Pap. 1963, 25, 1–160. [Google Scholar]
  26. Stebbing, T.R.R. Report on the Amphipoda collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–1876. Zoology 1888, 29, 1–212. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lilljeborg, W. On the Lysianassa magellanica H. Milne Edwards, and on the Crustacea of the suborder Amphipoda and subfamily Lysianassina found on the coast of Sweden and Norway. Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal. 1865, 6, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  28. Boeck, A. Crustacea amphipoda borealia et arctica. Forh. Vidensk.-Selsk. Kristiania 1871, 1870, 83–280. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sars, G.O. Amphipoda. Part VII. Phoxocephalidae. An account of the Crustacea of Norway, with short descriptions and figures of all the species. A. Cammermeyer 1891, 1, 141–160. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dana, J.D. Crustacea. Part II. United States Exploring Expedition, During the Years 1838–1842; C. Sherman, Printer: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1853; Volume 14, pp. 691–1618. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ledoyer, M. Contributions à l’étude bionomique de la Méditerranée occidentale (Côte du Var et des Alpes maritimes-côte occidentale de Corse). Fascicule 9. Les Amphipodes des vase profondes des côtes corses et monégasques. Bull. Inst. Océanographique 1970, 69, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  32. Boeck, A. Bemaerkninger angaaende de ved de norske Kyster forekommende Amphipoder. Forhandler. Skand. Naturf. Ott. Mode Kjopenhavn 1861, 8, 631–677. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ledoyer, M. Contribution à l’étude de l’écologie de la faune vagile profonde de la Méditerranée nord occidentale. I. Les Gammariens (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Bolletino Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Verona 1977, 4, 321–421. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chevreux, E. Crustaces amphipodes nouveaux dragues par “l’Hirondelle” pendant sa campagne de 1886. Bull. Société Zool. Fr. 1887, 12, 566–580. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bonnier, J. Édriophthalmes. In: Koehler, R., Résultats scientifiques de la campagne du “Caudan” dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Edriophthalmes. Ann. L’université Lyon 1896, 26, 527–689. [Google Scholar]
  36. Barnard, J.L. Deep-sea Amphipoda of the genus Lepechinella (Crustacea). Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1973, 133, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Krapp-schickel, G. Neues uber die Liljeborgiiden des Mittelmeeres (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Verona 1975, 1, 455–472. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ledoyer, M. Les Oedicerotidae (Crustacea Amphipoda) de la Mer Méditerranée. Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Verona 1983, 9, 45–84. [Google Scholar]
  39. Spence Bate, C. A synopsis of the British edriophthalmous Crustacea. Part I. Amphipoda. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 2 1857, 19, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Meinert, F. Crustacea Malacostraca. I; Cohens Bogtrykkeri: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1890; pp. 148–230. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chevreux, E. Campagnes de la “Melita”. Les amphipodes d’Algérie et de Tunisie. Mémoires Société Zool. Fr. 1911, 23, 145–285. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sars, G.O. Crustacea et Pycnogonida nova in itinere 2do et 3tio expeditionis Norvegicae anno 1877 & 78 collecta (prodromus descriptionis). [New Crustacea and Pycnogonida collected during the 2nd and 3rd voyages of the Norwegian expedition in 1877 & 78 (prologue to the description). Arch. Math. Naturvidenskab 1879, 4, 427–476. [Google Scholar]
  43. Barnard, J.L. Deep-sea Amphipoda (Crustacea) collected by R.V.”Vema” in the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Carribbean and Mediterranean Seas. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 1964, 127, 3–46. [Google Scholar]
  44. Chevreux, E. Campagne de la “Melita”, 1892. Sur un amphipode, Pseudotiron bouvieri, nov. gen. et sp., de la famille des Syrrhoidae, nouvelle pour la faune mediterraneenne. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 1895, 20, 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  45. Chevreux, E. Diagnoses d’amphipodes nouveaux provenant des campagnes de la “Princesse-Alice” dans l’ Atlantique nord. (suite). Bull. Inst. Oceanogr. 1908, 129, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  46. Chevreux, E. Description de l’Orchomene grimaldii, amphipode nouveau des eaux profondes de la Mediterranee. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 1890, 15, 164–166. [Google Scholar]
  47. Chevreux, E. Amphipodes Provenant des Campagnes de “l’Hirondelle” 1885–1888; Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques du Prince Albert I de Monaco: Monaco City, Monaco, 1900; Volume 16. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sexton, E.W. A new amphipod species, Tryphosites alleni. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1911, 7, 510–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sars, G.O. Amphipoda. Part V. Lysianassidae (Concluded). In An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, with Short Descriptions and Figures of All the Species; Alb. Cammermeyer: Christiania, Denmark, 1891; Volume I, pp. 93–120. [Google Scholar]
  50. Galil, B.S. The limit of the sea: The bathyal fauna of the Levantine Sea. Sci. Mar. 2004, 68, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Krøyer, H. Nye nordiske slægter og arter af amfipodernes orden, henhørende til familien Gammarina. Naturhist. Tidsskr. 1842, 4, 141–166. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bousfield, E.L. A new look at the systematics of Gammaroidean amphipods of the world. Crustaceana 1977, 4, 282–316. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruffo, S. (Ed.) The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean. Part 4. Localities and Map. Addenda to Parts –4. Key to Families. Ecology. Faunistics and Zoogeography. Bibliography. Index. In Mémoires de l’Institut Océanographique (Monaco); Institut Océanographique: Monaco City, Monaco, 1998; Volume 13, pp. 815–959. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lörz, A.; Kaiser, S.; Oldeland, J.; Stolter, C.; Kürzel, K.; Brix, S. Biogeography, diversity and environmental relationships of shelf and deep-sea benthic Amphipoda around Iceland. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Frutos, I.; Jażdżewska, A.M. Deep-sea amphipod fauna of the Sea of Okhotsk. Prog. Oceanogr. 2019, 178, 102147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Badalucco, A.; Auriemma, R.; Bonifazi, A.; Cimmaruta, R.; Esposito, V.; Iaciofano, D.; Krapp, T.; Latella, L.; Lattanzi, L.; Lezzi, M.; et al. Checklist of amphipods of Italian seas: Baseline for monitoring biodiversity. Monit. Mediterr. Coast. Areas 2024, 2, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Christodoulou, M.; Paraskevopoulou, S.; Syranidou, E.; Koukouras, A. The amphipod (Crustacea: Peracarida) fauna of the Aegean Sea, and comparison with those of the neighbouring seas. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 2013, 93, 1303–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bakir, A.K.; Katağan, T. Distribution of littoral benthic amphipods off the Levantine coast of Turkey with new records. Turk. J. Zool. 2014, 38, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Iaciofano, D.; Mancini, E.; Lubinevsky, H.; Lo Brutto, S. The amphipod fauna assemblage along the Mediterranean Israeli coast, a spatiotemporal overview. Ecol. Montenegrina 2024, 80, 244–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Segal, Y.; Lubinevsky, H. Spatiotemporal distribution of seabed litter in the SE Levantine Basin during 2012–2021. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 188, 114714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Momtazi, F.; Saeedi, H. Exploring latitudinal gradients and environmental drivers of amphipod biodiversity patterns regarding depth and habitat variations. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 30547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Larson, D.M.; DeJong, D.; Anteau, M.J.; Fitzpatrick, M.J.; Keith, B.; Schilling, E.G.; Thoele, B. High abundance of a single taxon (amphipods) predicts aquatic macrophyte biodiversity in prairie wetlands. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 1073–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jamieson, A.J.; Weston, J.N. Amphipoda from depths exceeding 6000 meters revisited 60 years on. J. Crustac. Biol. 2023, 43, ruad020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Oceans 07 00009 g001
Figure 1. Geographical position of the sampling sites of the deep-sea amphipods collected in the Israeli waters, between 200 and 1900 m depth. The red circles indicate the 16 stations surveyed in 2013, and herein reported for the first time, and the yellow circles indicate the dataset from the previous investigation carried out in the period between 1993 and 1996 by Sorbe and Galil [15]. The map in the upper right corner indicates the position of the Israeli area, with an arrow to the location of the sampling sites in the easternmost Mediterranean Sea. Map adapted from Wikimedia Commons images (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Levant.svg accessed on 1 December 2025).
Figure 1. Geographical position of the sampling sites of the deep-sea amphipods collected in the Israeli waters, between 200 and 1900 m depth. The red circles indicate the 16 stations surveyed in 2013, and herein reported for the first time, and the yellow circles indicate the dataset from the previous investigation carried out in the period between 1993 and 1996 by Sorbe and Galil [15]. The map in the upper right corner indicates the position of the Israeli area, with an arrow to the location of the sampling sites in the easternmost Mediterranean Sea. Map adapted from Wikimedia Commons images (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Levant.svg accessed on 1 December 2025).
Oceans 07 00009 g001
Oceans 07 00009 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of the deep-sea Amphipoda families collected in the Israeli waters, along the 200–1900 m depth range per 100 m interval. The bars show the number of species that occurred at the different depths.
Figure 2. Distribution of the deep-sea Amphipoda families collected in the Israeli waters, along the 200–1900 m depth range per 100 m interval. The bars show the number of species that occurred at the different depths.
Oceans 07 00009 g002
Table 1. Sampling information of the Israeli amphipod fauna. Site ID, depth, coordinates (Latitude and Longitude), and date of the sampling (month-year) here recorded and previously published by Sorbe and Galil [15].
Table 1. Sampling information of the Israeli amphipod fauna. Site ID, depth, coordinates (Latitude and Longitude), and date of the sampling (month-year) here recorded and previously published by Sorbe and Galil [15].
Site IDDepth (m)Latitude (°N)Longitude (°E)DateReference
93H2139732.633334.2333October 1993[15]
93H4129732.516734.2667October 1993[15]
93H5137732.516734.1500October 1993[15]
95A1101232.750034.6000January 1995[15]
95A2145432.850034.3333January 1995[15]
95A4150332.883334.2833January 1995[15]
95A5153332.866734.2333January 1995[15]
95A6153832.916734.2333January 1995[15]
95A7155832.883334.1667January 1995[15]
95HF1136232.983334.5667September 1995[15]
95HF2135532.983334.5833November 1995[15]
95HF3124332.950034.6000September 1995[15]
95HF4138433.000034.5500September 1995[15]
95HF5145633.000034.4667November 1995[15]
95HF6143332.983334.5000September 1995[15]
95HF7124332.933334.6500October 1995[15]
95HF8135033.000034.5833November 1995[15]
95HF9147133.016734.4667September 1995[15]
95HA135032.500034.1833November 1995[15]
95H2130032.483334.2667November 1995[15]
95H4130032.483334.2500November 1995[15]
95H7148032.666734.0500November 1995[15]
95H13148532.683334.1833November 1995[15]
95H14140032.633334.2500November 1995[15]
95H15145032.666734.2333November 1995[15]
95H19140032.516734.1167November 1995[15]
95H20142032.533334.0833November 1995[15]
9570073432.683334.6667November 1995[15]
96A1142732.766734.3333September 1996[15]
96A2145332.900034.3667September 1996[15]
96A4150132.866734.2833September 1996[15]
96A5151832.866734.2333September 1996[15]
96A6152832.900034.2500September 1996[15]
96HA136532.516734.2000October 1996[15]
96H4129232.500034.2833October 1996[15]
96H5138232.466734.0333October 1996[15]
96H7150532.650034.0333October 1996[15]
96H14139132.666734.1833October 1996[15]
96H15146132.700034.1833October 1996[15]
96H20137432.500034.1000October 1996[15]
96H21128132.483334.2667October 1996[15]
96H22142032.483334.0833October 1996[15]
96H23138632.483334.0500October 1996[15]
H0230332.920234.8802June 2013This paper
H0360132.930134.8503June 2013This paper
g11181233.232133.6624June 2013This paper
g18112232.355734.4210June 2013This paper
g23130132.222334.1164June 2013This paper
g26138832.699133.4287June 2013This paper
s1_0499432.942034.8052June 2013This paper
s2_0242232.535834.7018June 2013This paper
S3_0121431.983734.5299June 2013This paper
S3_0240032.033534.4431June 2013This paper
S3_0368232.084234.3611June 2013This paper
S4_0119831.821234.3761July 2013This paper
S4_0245231.840634.3151July 2013This paper
S4_0369831.818834.2334July 2013This paper
Net-1400 m137032.721534.3540July 2013This paper
HS360C39432.945834.8903July 2013This paper
Table 3. Zoogeography of the Israeli amphipod species. Coloured cells indicate the presence of the species for each biogeographical sector. AO: Atlantic Ocean; WM: Western Mediterranean; CM: Central Mediterranean; AD: Adriatic Basin; AE: Aegean Sea; LE: Levantine Basin; IP: Indo-Pacific area. ZC: zoogeographical category; AM: Atlanto-Mediterranean species; C: Cosmopolitan species; E: Mediterranean Endemic species.
Table 3. Zoogeography of the Israeli amphipod species. Coloured cells indicate the presence of the species for each biogeographical sector. AO: Atlantic Ocean; WM: Western Mediterranean; CM: Central Mediterranean; AD: Adriatic Basin; AE: Aegean Sea; LE: Levantine Basin; IP: Indo-Pacific area. ZC: zoogeographical category; AM: Atlanto-Mediterranean species; C: Cosmopolitan species; E: Mediterranean Endemic species.
SpeciesAOWMCMADAELEIPZC
Ampelisca jaffaensis Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977 E
Carangoliopsis spinulosa Ledoyer, 1970 AM
Eusirus longipes Boeck, 1861 AM
Rhachotropis caeca Ledoyer, 1977 AM
Rhachotropis grimaldii (Chevreux, 1887) AM
Rhachotropis rostrata Bonnier, 1896 AM
Lepechinella manco J. L. Barnard, 1973 AM
Leucothoe lilljeborgi Boeck, 1861 AM
Idunella pirata Krapp-Schickel, 1975 E
Bathymedon monoculodiformis Ledoyer, 1983 AM
Oediceroides pilosa Ledoyer, 1983 AM
Oediceropsis brevicornis Lilljeborg, 1865 AM
Westwoodilla caecula (Spence Bate, 1857) AM
Halice abyssi Boeck, 1871 AM
Harpinia antennaria Meinert, 1890 AM
Harpinia crenulata (Boeck, 1871) AM
Harpinia dellavallei Chevreux, 1911 AM
Harpinia pectinata G.O. Sars, 1891 AM
Paraphoxus oculatus (G. O. Sars, 1879) C
Stegocephaloides christianiensis Boeck, 1871 AM
Bruzelia typica Boeck, 1871 AM
Ileraustroe ilergetes (J. L. Barnard, 1964) E
Pseudotiron bouvieri Chevreux, 1895 E
Syrrhoe affinis Chevreux, 1908 C
Orchomene grimaldii Chevreux, 1890 E
Paracentromedon crenulatus (Chevreux, 1900) AM
Tryphosites alleni Sexton, 1911 AM
Caeconyx caeculus (G.O. Sars, 1891) AM
Tmetonyx similis (G. O. Sars, 1891) AM
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

Iaciofano, D.; Lubinevsky, H.; Lo Brutto, S. Amphipod Fauna Enhances Understanding of Eastern Mediterranean Deep-Sea Biodiversity. Oceans 2026, 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans7010009

AMA Style

Iaciofano D, Lubinevsky H, Lo Brutto S. Amphipod Fauna Enhances Understanding of Eastern Mediterranean Deep-Sea Biodiversity. Oceans. 2026; 7(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans7010009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iaciofano, Davide, Hadas Lubinevsky, and Sabrina Lo Brutto. 2026. "Amphipod Fauna Enhances Understanding of Eastern Mediterranean Deep-Sea Biodiversity" Oceans 7, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans7010009

APA Style

Iaciofano, D., Lubinevsky, H., & Lo Brutto, S. (2026). Amphipod Fauna Enhances Understanding of Eastern Mediterranean Deep-Sea Biodiversity. Oceans, 7(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans7010009

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop