Structure and Genetics of Cave Populations
Cave populations have been traditionally perceived as genetically strongly structured and less diverse than related surface populations because of the patchiness of subterranean habitats, low dispersal of cave species, and genetic bottlenecks at colonization. These patterns are at odds with relatively large and/or disjunct ranges of many troglobionts, as well as the countless successful cave colonizations. One way to disentangle those discrepancies is to discriminate between exogenous processes that take place at the surface or during invasion, and endogenous ones that take place in and are governed by the specific conditions of caves. Genetic evidence collected over the past decades suggests that ongoing endogenous processes, endogenous vicariance, and gene flow between allopatric cave populations have less effect on the genetic structure of cave populations than patterns inherited from past exogenous events. Conversely, most known cases of recent migration between non-neighboring cave populations entail the possibility of dispersal via the surface. Gene pools of young cave populations often show strong exogenous imprints such as multiple colonization events and/or recurring gene flow from the surface. This is compatible with the high propagule pressure hypothesis of successful biological invasions, while convincing molecular evidence for the genetic bottleneck hypothesis of cave colonization is sparse.
The ideas presented in this chapter have grown through intriguing discussions with David Culver, Cene Fišer, Slavko Polak and numerous other colleagues, students and friends. They are based on research supported by and conducted under the Slovenian Research Agency Program P1–0184 and associated projects.
- Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2007) Conservation and the genetics of populations. Blackwell Publishing, MaldenGoogle Scholar
- Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Barr TC (1968) Cave ecology and the evolution of troglobites. Evol Biol 2:35–102Google Scholar
- Boutin C, Coineau N (2000) Evolutionary rates and phylogenetic age in some stygobiont species. In: Wilkens H, Culver DC, Humphreys W (eds) Ecosystems of the world: subterranean ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 433–451Google Scholar
- Bressi N, Aljancic M, Lapini L (1999) Notes on presence and feeding of Proteus anguinus Laurenti, 1768 outside caves. Riv Idrobiol 38:431–435Google Scholar
- Faille A, Bourdeau C, Belles X et al (2015) Allopatric speciation illustrated: the hypogean genus Geotrechus Jeannel, 1919 (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechini), with description of four new species from the Eastern Pyrenees (Spain). Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 73:439–455Google Scholar
- Holsinger JR (2000) Ecological derivation, colonisation and speciation. In: Wilkens H, Culver DC, Humphreys WF (eds) Ecosystems of the world: subterranean ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 399–416Google Scholar
- Kane TC (1982) Genetic patterns and population structure in cave animals. In: Mossakowski D, Roth G (eds) Environmental adaptation and evolution. Gustav Fisher, Stuttgart, pp 131–149Google Scholar
- Polak S, Delić T, Kostanjšek R et al (2016) Molecular phylogeny of the cave beetle genus Hadesia (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Cholevinae: Leptodirini), with a description of a new species from Montenegro. Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 74:241–254Google Scholar
- Rizzo V, Comas J, Fadrique F et al (2013) Early Pliocene range expansion of a clade of subterranean Pyrenean beetles. J Biogeogr 40:1861–1873Google Scholar
- Sbordoni V, Allegrucci G, Cesaroni D (2000) Population genetic structure, speciation and evolutionary rates in cave-dwelling organisms. In: Wilkens H, Culver DC, Humphreys W (eds) Ecosystems of the world: subterranean ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 453–477Google Scholar
- Swofford DL, Branson BA, Sievert G (1980) Genetic differentiation in cavefish populations (Amblyopsidae). Isozyme Bull 13:109–110Google Scholar