Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Arthropoda (1)
- Ech (1)
- Mollusca (1)
- new species (1)
- shelf-life (1)
Discoveries of new species often depend on one or a few specimens, leading to delays as researchers wait for additional context, sometimes for decades. There is currently little professional incentive for a single expert to publish a stand-alone species description. Additionally, while many journals accept taxonomic descriptions, even specialist journals expect insights beyond the descriptive work itself. The combination of these factors exacerbates the issue that only a small fraction of marine species are known and new discoveries are described at a slow pace, while they face increasing threats from accelerating global change. To tackle this challenge, this first compilation of Ocean Species Discoveries (OSD) presents a new collaborative framework to accelerate the description and naming of marine invertebrate taxa that can be extended across all phyla. Through a mode of publication that can be speedy, taxonomy-focused and generate higher citation rates, OSD aims to create an attractive home for single species descriptions. This Senckenberg Ocean Species Alliance (SOSA) approach emphasises thorough, but compact species descriptions and diagnoses, with supporting illustrations and with molecular data when available. Even basic species descriptions carry key data for distributions and ecological interactions (e.g., host-parasite relationships) besides universally valid species names; these are essential for downstream uses, such as conservation assessments and communicating biodiversity to the broader public.This paper presents thirteen marine invertebrate taxa, comprising one new genus, eleven new species and one re-description and reinstatement, covering wide taxonomic, geographic, bathymetric and ecological ranges. The taxa addressed herein span three phyla (Mollusca, Arthropoda, Echinodermata), five classes, eight orders and twelve families. Apart from the new genus, an updated generic diagnosis is provided for four other genera. The newly-described species of the phylum Mollusca are Placiphorella methanophila Vončina, sp. nov. (Polyplacophora, Mopaliidae), Lepetodrilus marianae Chen, Watanabe & Tsuda, sp. nov. (Gastropoda, Lepetodrilidae), Shinkailepas gigas Chen, Watanabe & Tsuda, sp. nov. (Gastropoda, Phenacolepadidae) and Lyonsiella illaesa Machado & Sigwart, sp. nov. (Bivalvia, Lyonsiellidae). The new taxa of the phylum Arthropoda are all members of the subphylum Crustacea: Lepechinella naces Lörz & Engel, sp. nov. (Amphipoda, Lepechinellidae), Cuniculomaera grata Tandberg & Jażdżewska, gen. et sp. nov. (Amphipoda, Maeridae), Pseudionella pumulaensis Williams & Landschoff, sp. nov. (Isopoda, Bopyridae), Mastigoniscus minimus Wenz, Knauber & Riehl, sp. nov. (Isopoda, Haploniscidae), Macrostylis papandreas Jonannsen, Riehl & Brandt, sp. nov. (Isopoda, Macrostylidae), Austroniscus indobathyasellus Kaiser, Kniesz & Kihara, sp. nov. (Isopoda, Nannoniscidae) and Apseudopsis daria Esquete & Tato, sp. nov. (Tanaidacea, Apseudidae). In the phylum Echinodermata, the reinstated species is Psychropotes buglossa E. Perrier, 1886 (Holothuroidea, Psychropotidae).The study areas span the North and Central Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the North, East and West Pacific Ocean and depths from 5.2 m to 7081 m. Specimens of eleven free-living and one parasite species were collected from habitats ranging from an estuary to deep-sea trenches. The species were illustrated with photographs, line drawings, micro-computed tomography, confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy images. Molecular data are included for nine species and four species include a molecular diagnosis in addition to their morphological diagnosis.The five new geographic and bathymetric distribution records comprise Lepechinella naces Lörz & Engel, sp. nov., Cuniculomaera grata Tandberg & Jażdżewska, sp. nov., Pseudionella pumulaensis Williams & Landschoff, sp. nov., Austroniscus indobathyasellus Kaiser, Kniesz & Kihara, sp. nov. and Psychropotes buglossa E. Perrier, 1886, with the novelty spanning from the species to the family level. The new parasite record is Pseudionella pumulaensis Williams & Landschoff, sp. nov., found in association with the hermit crab Pagurus fraserorum Landschoff & Komai, 2018.
In the deep sea, interactions between benthic fauna and seafloor sediment primarily occur through bioturbation that can be preserved as traces (i.e. lebensspuren). Lebensspuren are common features of deep-sea landscapes and are more abundant than the organisms that produce them (i.e. tracemakers), rendering lebensspuren promising proxies for inferring biodiversity. The density and diversity relationships between lebensspuren and benthic fauna remain unclear, and contradicting correlations have been proposed (i.e. negative, positive, or even null correlations). To approach these variable correlations, lebensspuren and benthic fauna were characterized taxonomically at eight deep-sea stations in the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench area, together with two novel categories: tracemakers (specific epibenthic fauna that produce these traces) and degrading fauna (benthic fauna that can erase lebensspuren). No general correlation (overall study area) was observed between diversities of lebensspuren, tracemakers, degrading fauna, and fauna. However, a diversity correlation was observed at specific stations, showing both negative and positive correlations depending on: (1) the number of unknown tracemakers (especially significant for dwelling lebensspuren); (2) the lebensspuren with multiple origins; and (3) tracemakers that can produce different lebensspuren. Lebensspuren and faunal density were not correlated. However, lebensspuren density was either positively or negatively correlated with tracemaker densities, depending on the lebensspuren morphotypes. A positive correlation was observed for resting lebensspuren (e.g. ophiuroid impressions, Actiniaria circular impressions), while negative correlations were observed for locomotion-feeding lebensspuren (e.g. echinoid trails). In conclusion, lebensspuren diversity may be a good proxy for tracemaker biodiversity when the lebensspuren–tracemaker relationship can be reliable characterized. Lebensspuren–density correlations vary depending on the specific lebensspuren residence time, tracemaker density, and associated behaviour (rate of movement). Overall, we suggest that lebensspuren density and diversity correlations should be studied with tracemakers rather than with general benthic fauna. On a global scale, abiotic (e.g. hydrodynamics, substrate consistency) and other biotic factors (e.g. microbial degradation) may also play an important role.
In the deep-sea, the interaction between benthic fauna and substrate mainly occurs through bioturbational processes which can be preserved as traces (i.e., lebensspuren). Lebensspuren are common features of deep seafloor landscapes and usually more abundant than the organism that produce them (i.e., tracemakers), rendering them promising proxies to infer biodiversity. The density and diversity relationships between lebensspuren and benthic fauna are to the present day unclear and contradicting hypotheses have been proposed suggesting negative, positive, or even null correlations. To test these hypotheses, in this study lebensspuren, tracemakers (specific epibenthic fauna that produce these traces), degrading fauna (benthic fauna that can erase lebensspuren), and fauna in general were characterized taxonomically at eight deep-sea stations in the Kuril Kamchatka Trench area. No general correlation (over-all study area) could be observed between diversities of lebensspuren, tracemakers, degrading fauna and fauna. However, a diversity correlation was observed between specific stations, showing both negative and positive correlations depending on: 1) the number of unknown tracemakers (especially significant for dwelling lebensspuren); and 2) the lebensspuren with multiple origins; and 3) tracemakers that can produce different lebensspuren. Lebensspuren and faunal density were not correlated. However, lebensspuren density was either positively or negatively correlated with tracemaker densities, depending on the lebensspuren morphotypes. A positive correlation was observed for resting lebensspuren (e.g., ophiuroid impressions, Actinaria circular impressions), while negative correlations were observed for locomotion-feeding lebensspuren (e.g., echinoid trails). In conclusion, lebensspuren diversity may be a good proxy for tracemaker biodiversity when the lebensspuren-tracemaker tandem can be reliable characterized; and lebensspuren-density correlations vary depending the specific lebensspuren residence time, tracemaker density and associated behaviour (rate of movement), but on a global scale abiotic and other biotic 42 factors may also play an important role.