Does the substrate on which cryptogams grow matter for limno-terrestrial meiofauna?
preprint
OA: closed
CC-BY-4.0
Abstract
Cryptogam habitats support a wide range of limno-terrestrial meiofauna, but the factors that shape their communities are still not well understood. The physical substrate that cryptogams grow on (e.g., soil, the base of a tree, or its trunk) can influence local moisture, temperature, and nutrient conditions, yet its role in structuring meiofaunal assemblages has rarely been tested systematically. We examined this question in montane forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians, using DNA metabarcoding to compare the diversity and composition of tardigrade and rotifer communities across substrates. We expected that rotifers, with shorter life cycles and often higher population densities, would respond more strongly to environmental differences among substrates, whereas tardigrades would be less affected and more influenced by chance colonization. Our results supported these expectations. Rotifer richness and community composition varied across substrates, while tardigrade assemblages showed weaker and more variable responses. Analysis of phylogenetic diversity indicated phylogenetic clustering in rotifers, suggesting that closely related species have similar ecological preferences. Despite these contrasts, both groups showed signs of largely stochastic community assembly, with species turnover dominating differences among samples. Overall, our findings suggest that meiofaunal communities in cryptogam-associated habitats are shaped mainly by random colonization events, modulated by subtle and taxon-specific effects of microhabitat structure and vertical positioning.
Full text
2,335 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· 2 sections
· click to expand
Abstract
Cryptogam habitats support a wide range of limno-terrestrial meiofauna, but the factors that shape their communities are still not well understood. The physical substrate that cryptogams grow on (e.g., soil, the base of a tree, or its trunk) can influence local moisture, temperature, and nutrient conditions, yet its role in structuring meiofaunal assemblages has rarely been tested systematically. We examined this question in montane forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians, using DNA metabarcoding to compare the diversity and composition of tardigrade and rotifer communities across substrates. We expected that rotifers, with shorter life cycles and often higher population densities, would respond more strongly to environmental differences among substrates, whereas tardigrades would be less affected and more influenced by chance colonization. Our results supported these expectations. Rotifer richness and community composition varied across substrates, while tardigrade assemblages showed weaker and more variable responses. Analysis of phylogenetic diversity indicated phylogenetic clustering in rotifers, suggesting that closely related species have similar ecological preferences. Despite these contrasts, both groups showed signs of largely stochastic community assembly, with species turnover dominating differences among samples. Overall, our findings suggest that meiofaunal communities in cryptogam-associated habitats are shaped mainly by random colonization events, modulated by subtle and taxon-specific effects of microhabitat structure and vertical positioning.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2M087
Subjects
Biology, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Life Sciences, Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
Keywords
DNA metabarcoding, limno-terrestrial meiofauna, microhabitat filtering, phylogenetic diversity, Rotifera, Tardigrada
Dates
Published: 2026-05-04 07:30
Last Updated: 2026-05-04 07:30
License
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Additional Metadata
Data and Code Availability Statement:
The dataset underling the analyses in this study is deposited in the FigShare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30499346
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Ask this paper
Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-27T02:00:06.600101+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0