Review of studies of subterranena faunal studies of appalachians

Review of Studies of the Subterranean Faunal Studies of the Appalachians and a Review of Models of Subterranean Species Richness David C. Culver American University Matthew L. Niemiller University of Kentucky Kirk S. Zigler University of the South Mary C. Christman MCC Statistical Consulting LLC Historically, the cave fauna, and any biota for that matter, were largely studied from a taxonomic perspective. Papers focused on a lineage or a set of closely related lineages because of the strictures of taxonomic expertise, the difficulty in collating and summarizing information for a variety of taxonomic groups, and because, until relatively recently, there was no research agenda that emphasized patterns of species richness. With the advent of interest in species diversity per se in the late 1960’s and especially with the interest in biodiversity and biodiversity hotspots in the late 1980’s, the focus changed. Studies of cave fauna reflected the changing research agendas. In this bibliographic review, we examine five areas of interest: 1. National cave fauna studies 2. Regional and local cave fauna studies in the Appalachians 3. A summary of the major taxonomic studies 4. Previous mapping of biodiversity in the region and the techniques employed 5. Models for explaining subterranean biodiversity patterns, both in the Appalachians and elsewhere. National cave fauna studies Studies of the cave fauna of the Appalachians date back to Packard (1888), who summarized all available information on the cave fauna of the U.S., together with species lists for all sampled caves. Of course the number of sampled caves was quite small (approximately 20); it included several caves in the study area, e.g., Luray Caverns in Virginia, Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, and Wyandotte Caves in Indiana. Packard emphasized the widespread presence of cave-limited species in U.S. caves and did not speculate on patterns of species richness, except to point out the extraordinary species richness in Mammoth Cave. In 1960, Brother G. Nicholas published a checklist of cave-limited species in the U.S., the majority of which are within the Appalachian LCC. He enumerated more than 300 species, but provided no summaries of species richness by state or region. Indeed, such summaries would have been difficult and tedious without the aid of computer spreadsheets. In 1998, Peck provided a taxonomic and biogeographic summary of subterranean species richness, and reported a total of 425 aquatic and 928 terrestrial species. He provided a list of aquatic (stygobiotic) and terrestrial (troglobiotic) genera for the U.S. and Canada. He also analyzed the state distributions of stygobiotic and troglobiotic genera separately. For troglobionts, Appaalchian LCC states ranked first (Alabama), third (Tennessee), and fourth (Kentucky). Among stygobionts, Kentucky ranked third, and Alabama, Indiana, and West Virginia tied for fourth.