Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 261

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A molecular test for cryptic diversity in ground water: how large are the ranges of macro‐stygobionts?

TRONTELJ, PETER, DOUADY, CHRISTOPHE J., FIŠER, CENE, GIBERT, JANINE, GORIČKI, ŠPELA, LEFÉBURE, TRISTAN, SKET, BORIS, ZAKŠEK, VALERIJA·2009·Freshwater Biology

Abstract

Summary: 1. Various groundwater habitats have exceptionally high levels of endemism caused by strong hydrographical isolation and low dispersal abilities of their inhabitants. More than 10% of macro‐stygobiotic species nevertheless occupy relatively large ranges, measuring from some hundred to over 2000 km in length. These species represent a challenge because their distributions disregard hydrographical boundaries, and their means to disperse and maintain long‐term gene flow are unknown. 2. Based on mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences, we examined the phylogeographic structure of six formally recognised stygobiotic species (Niphargus virei,N. rhenorhodanensis,Troglocaris anophthalmus,T. hercegovinensis,Spelaeocaris pretneri,Proteus anguinus) and searched for cryptic lineage diversity in a genus‐wide phylogeny of Niphargus. Using tree‐based criteria as well as comparative divergence measures, we identified cryptic lineages, which may tentatively be equated with cryptic species. 3. Fourteen analysed nominal stygobiotic species with large ranges emerged as highly diversified, splitting into 51 tentative cryptic lineages. The degree of divergence was within the range or larger than the divergence of other related pairs of sister species. A substantial part (94%) of the cryptic lineages had ranges <200 km in length. One half of them were recorded at single sites only. The largest range recorded was that of a cryptic N. virei lineage (700 km), while none of the very large traditional ranges (e.g.Niphargus aquilex– 2300 km,N. tauri– 1900 km) could be corroborated. 4. These data suggest that small ranges of macro‐stygobionts are the rule, and ranges over 200 km are extremely rare. 5. The implications of this result for groundwater biodiversity assessment and conservation include a considerable increase in overall diversity at the regional and continental scale and a strong decrease in faunal similarities among regions, coupled with greater endemism.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01877.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
TRONTELJ, P., DOUADY, C. J., FIŠER, C., GIBERT, J., GORIČKI, Š., LEFÉBURE, T., SKET, B., & ZAKŠEK, V.
Venue
Freshwater Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03-19
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
727-744
ISSN
  • 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2427
OpenAlex
W2094752167
Cited by
261
References
1
FWCI
7.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A molecular test for cryptic diversity in ground water: how large are the ranges of macro‐stygobionts? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01877.x
The paper
TRONTELJ, P., DOUADY, C. J., FIŠER, C., GIBERT, J., GORIČKI, Š., LEFÉBURE, T., SKET, B., & ZAKŠEK, V. (2009). A molecular test for cryptic diversity in ground water: how large are the ranges of macro‐stygobionts? Freshwater Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01877.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.