Next Article in Journal
A Generalized Automated Framework for Urban Runoff Modeling and Its Application at a Citywide Landscape
Next Article in Special Issue
Aquatic Worm Assemblages along the Danube: A Homogenization Warning
Previous Article in Journal
Technical Note: A Device to Directly Measure Transpiration from Vegetation Grown in Containers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/w12020356
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chorological and Ecological Differentiation of the Commonest Leech Species from the Suborder Erpobdelliformes (Arhynchobdellida, Hirudinea) on the Balkan Peninsula

by
Nikola Marinković
1,*,
Branko Karadžić
1,
Valentina Slavevska Stamenković
2,
Vladimir Pešić
3,
Vera Nikolić
4,
Momir Paunović
1 and
Maja Raković
1
1
Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković”—National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, University of Belgrade, Bulevar Despota Stefana 142, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Department of Invertebrates and Animal Ecology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University “St. Cyril and Methodius” Arhimedova 3, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
3
Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Montenegro, Cetinjski put b.b., 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro
4
Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(2), 356; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020356
Submission received: 26 December 2019 / Revised: 20 January 2020 / Accepted: 21 January 2020 / Published: 28 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The WFD 20 Years After—Ecological Status Assessment and Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study is the result of extensive investigations of leeches on the Balkan Peninsula. Our aim was to detect actual and potential (modeled) distributions of common Erpobdellidae species, and to identify their ecological differentiation with respect to the altitudinal and waterbody type gradient. Although widespread, these species rarely live together. Intense competition is avoided by preferences for different types of habitats. This was confirmed by Pearson correlation analyses that yielded negative results. Differentiation of these species was clarified by the results of logistic Gaussian regression analyses. While Erpobdella octoculata and Dina lineata have a similar distribution along the altitudinal gradient, they prefer different waterbody types. Erpobdella vilnensis prefers higher altitudes than the other two species. Its preferred habitats are smaller rivers and streams located at altitudes from 400 to 1000 m a.s.l. Although present in all waterbody types, large lowland rivers and standing waterbodies are the preferred habitats of E. octoculata. Fast-flowing springs and streams are mostly inhabited by D. lineata. While the distribution of the species overlaps to a large degree, the ecological preferences of species differ significantly and thus they can be used as confident typological descriptors and indicators of ecological status.

1. Introduction

Despite a long history of leech investigations on the Balkan Peninsula [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24], important data on their distribution are scarce.
According to Sket and Trontelj [25], two families of Hirudinea (Erpobdellidae and Glossiphoniidae), dominate in the Palearctic biogeographical region. The family Erpobdellidae is represented by 25 taxa in the Balkan and neighboring areas. Among them, a large number of species are endemic and have a narrow distribution [4,11,13,15,16,17,18,26]. Erpobdelliformes are dwellers of freshwater habitats and are macrophagous predators, feasting on molluscs, arthropods and other annelids, although cases of cannibalism have also been reported [27,28]. With their role in the regulation of a number of prey organisms, predator leeches represent an important element in freshwater benthic communities and are used in water quality studies as bioindicators [25,29].
Most recent studies of leeches have focused on the taxonomic problems of endemic species, or on species with narrow distribution ranges. Several new species have been described, and the taxonomic and classification status of some taxa has been revised [11,13,15,18,20,22].
In contrast to endemic species, the leeches Dina lineata (O.F. Muller, 1774), Erpobdella octoculata (L., 1758), and Erpobdella vilnensis (Liskiewicz, 1925) are common and widespread in the Western Palearctic [25]. Their ranges overlap, with the exception of the British Isles, where E. vilnensis is not recorded. These three species can be found in all types of waterbodies, from eutrophic ponds, to lakes, large lowland rivers and oligotrophic alpine springs. E. octoculata is the most common erpobdellid leech found in Europe, and is often very abundant. Other Erpobdella species and representatives of Dina genus are rarer and usually less abundant [30,31,32,33,34].
This study incorporates findings from numerous hydrobiological investigations undertaken between 2010 and 2018. The sampling points included different waterbodies from the Sava and Danube Rivers in the north to the Dojran and Prespa Lakes in the south.
The study was aimed at detecting the chorological and ecological differentiation of the commonest leech species from the suborder Erpobdelliformes (Arhynchobdellida, Hirudinea) on the Balkan Peninsula. Geographic differentiation was analyzed using both actual and modeled (potential) distributions of taxa. Gaussian logistic regression was performed in order to detect ecological preferences and ecological differentiation of the analyzed species. The information presented in this work also aimed to contribute to a more confident use of leech taxa in the biological validation of water typology and ecological status assessment, according to the best European management practice.

2. Materials and Methods

Extensive fieldwork was conducted from 2010 to 2018. The leeches were collected using a benthological hand net (mesh size 500 µm); additionally, individuals were collected using tweezers, from hard substratum and vegetation. Each animal was relaxed in 10% ethanol, and then transferred to 70% ethanol for further analysis. Identification of the leeches was done according to Nesemann and Neubert [30], using two stereomicroscopes: a Nikon SMZ800N (Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) (magnification 10–80×) and a Zeiss Stemi 2000-C (Carl Zeiss Microscopy GmbH, Göttingen, Germany) (magnification 6.5–50×). Small, juvenile or damaged individuals were not taken for analysis, since their identification at the species level was not possible. Material was deposited in the collection of the Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković”, University of Belgrade.

2.1. Study Area

The study area, extending from the Sava River (CRO) in the northwest to the Dojran Lake (NMCD) in the southeast, covers a large portion of the Balkan Peninsula, as shown in Figure 1. The waters of this area drain to three watersheds: the Zeta, Morača, Bojana (MNE) and Black Drim (NMCD, AL) rivers that drain into the Adriatic Sea (the Skadar Lake and numerous karstic springs in its basin also belong to this watershed). The waters of the Vardar River basin, along with the Dojran Lake, (NMCD) and Maritza River (BLG), belong to the Aegean watershed. Most of the studied area drains drain into the Black Sea through the River Danube. The Sava and Velika Morava rivers are two of the biggest tributaries of the Danube, draining major parts of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Larger rivers, such as the Bosna, Una, Sana (BIH), Tara (MNE) and Drina (SRB), drain the waters from the western parts of the investigated area into the Sava River. In the investigated area, a variety of waterbodies were studied, from springs and small rivers to large waterbodies such as the Lakes Ohrid and Skadar.
Aside from the geographical parameters (recorded with GPS), the hydromorphological properties of the sampling sites were assessed using six categories of waterbodies, according to the modified national typology of surface waters of Serbia [35]. Reservoirs, lakes, ponds and other standing waterbodies were marked as type 1 (T1); large lowland rivers (the Danube, lower stretches of the Sava, Velika Morava and Vardar) were marked as type 2 (T2); lower stretches of their bigger tributaries (the Bosna, Sana, Una, Drina, Zapadna Morava, Južna Morava, Kolubara and Tara) were assigned to type 3 (T3); type 4 (T4) incorporated various watercourses of medium size (wadeable rivers) at elevations below 500 m a.s.l.; those at higher elevations were categorized as type 5 (T5); and small waterbodies, like springs and upper stretches of streams, belonged to type 6 (T6). Each site was categorized to the appropriate waterbody type according to its characteristics. The basic properties of these waterbody types are represented in Table 1.

2.2. Statistical Analyses

Spatial data analysis was performed with DIVA-GIS 7.5 software [36]. The climate parameters (mean temperature and mean precipitation of sampling sites) were extracted from the WorldClim database [37] at a resolution of 30 arc-seconds (~1 km2). To model the potential distribution of the analyzed species, the Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) method [38,39,40] was used. This method belongs to a family of species distribution models that relates field observations to environmental predictor variables [41]. The MaxEnt method operates using binary presence/absence data. Distributions of analyzed species were modeled using MaxEnt software (open source software available at https://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/open_source/maxent/), version 3.3.e [38].
Both altitude and hydromorphological types may be considered as complex gradients (sensu Whittaker) [42]. A complex gradient represents an assemblage of environmental factors that change together. A set of climate factors (e.g., temperature, moisture and precipitation) change predictably along the altitudinal gradient. Waterbody types that range from 1 to 6 as shown in Table 1 represent a complex hydromorphological gradient. A set of environmental factors (flow velocity, dissolved oxygen concentrations, load of nutrients, and bottom properties) change predictably from waterbody type 1 to waterbody type 6 [43,44]. The logistic Gaussian regression [45,46] was used to detect the response and ecological preferences of the analyzed species, along the altitudinal gradient and gradient of waterbody types.
The logistic Gaussian regression was performed using FLORA software (software freely available upon request at [email protected]), updated version [47].

3. Results

During nine years of field investigations, 2202 individuals of E. octoculata, E. vilnensis and D. lineata were collected from 229 localities (Table S1). The water from 57 of the sampling sites drained into the Adriatic Sea; 14 sites belonged to the Aegean watershed; and the majority of sampling sites (158) drained into the Black Sea through the Danube River, as shown in Table 2. E. octoculata was recorded on 99 sites; 23 sites were inhabited by E. vilnensis, and D. lineata was the most frequently detected species with 142 records, as shown in Table 3.

3.1. The Actual Distribution of the Analyzed Species

The distribution of species in each investigated area is presented on the map in Figure 1. All three species had a similar distribution along latitudinal and longitudinal gradients, as shown in Table 4; however, due to their widely overlapping distributions, the chorological separation of these species was obscured.
The analyzed species differed with respect to their distribution along the altitudinal gradient. E. octoculata and D. lineata occured at similar altitudes, whereas E. vilnensis prefered higher altitudes (Figure 2).
Most of the sampling sites belonged to the Black Sea and Adriatic watersheds. D. lineata dominated in sites that belonged to the Adriatic Sea watershed (Figure 3). A high percentage of the sites inhabited by E. octoculata belonged to the Aegean Sea.
The distribution of the analyzed species with respect to waterbody type is presented in Figure 4. E. octoculata occured in all waterbody types. Unlike E. vilnensis and D. lineata, this species frequently occured in large lowland rivers and standing waters (T1 and T2). D. lineata dominated in fast-flowing small rivers; springs; and streams (T5 and T6).

3.2. The Potential Distribution of the Analyzed Species

In addition to the actual distribution, we analyzed the potential (i.e., the most probable) distribution of the investigated species. Results of the MaxEnt analysis indicated that E. octoculata preferred large waters in the lowlands, as shown in Figure 5. D. lineata had a narrower range, as shown in Figure 4. Compared to E. octoculata, D. lineata occupied higher altitudes. In lowland areas, D. lineata avoided large waterbodies. Instead of large rivers and lakes (the rivers of the Danubian and the Thracian plains, the Danube, Maritza (BLG) and Vardar (NMCD) rivers), D. lineata preferred fast streams (in mountainous regions) and springs in lowlands. Compared to E. octoculata and D. lineata, E. vilnensis preferred habitats at higher altitudes (>400 m a.s.l.). However, this species avoided altimontane regions (Figure 4). Such potential distributions correspond to actual distributions of the analyzed species.

3.3. The Ecological Differentiation of Analyzed Species

Despite their broadly overlapping distribution, the analyzed species were negatively correlated, as shown in Table 5. E. vilnensis was almost uncorrelated with E. octoculata and D. lineata (r = −0.145 and r = −0.247, respectively). However, a negative value of correlation coefficient between E. octoculata and D. lineata (r = −0.625) indicated a strong competitive interaction among these taxa.
Gaussian logistic regression was used to assess the ecological similarity among the analyzed species. The distribution overlap of the species along the altitudinal gradient is presented in Figure 6. The optimal altitude for E. octoculata and D. lineata was about 450 m a.s.l. E. vilnensis had a preference for higher altitudes when compared to the aforementioned species. The ecological tolerance (expressed as the standard deviation of a logistic Gaussian curve) of E. octoculata was greater than that of D. lineata. The greatest ecological tolerance with respect to altitude was observed for E. vilnensis. The response curves of E. octoculata and D. lineata along the altitudinal gradient were similar. Due to overlapping distributions, competition between these two species was intense, and such a situation was confirmed by a negative Pearson correlation.
Gaussian logistic regression of the analyzed species with respect to the waterbody gradient is presented in Figure 7. The ecological optimum of E. octoculata with respect to waterbody type (3) indicates that this species preferred the large tributaries of large lowland rivers, with a slow to medium flow, and a riverbed with fine to medium-sized sediments. E. vilnensis preferred smaller and faster waters (the optimum was 4.5), as shown in Figure 7. Finally, D. lineata dominated in fast-flowing rivers and both lowland and mountainous streams and springs (the optimum was 5), as shown in Figure 7.
E. octoculata and D. lineata occured in all types of waterbody, as shown in Figure 7. Therefore, their ecological tolerance with respect to waterbody type was wide. A narrow ecological tolerance was recorded for E. vilnensis. This species was absent in large rivers. Moreover, E. vilnensis was recorded in only one lake (Lake Prespa).

4. Discussion

Despite their overlapping distributions, the analyzed species differ with respect to their geographic and ecological preferences. E. octoculata is widely distributed (from the upper stretch of the Sava River to the Maritza River along the longitudinal gradient, and from the Sava and the Danube Rivers to the Prespa and Dojran Lakes latitudinally). E. vilnensis and D. lineata have narrower distributions. All three species span a wide altitudinal range. Higher altitudes are preferred by E. vilnensis, while E. octoculata and D. lineata prefer lower altitudes compared to aforementioned species.
Potential distributions of the analyzed species obtained by MaxEnt analyses were in agreement with actual distributions recorded in the field. E. octoculata prefers large waterbodies in lowlands. This finding is in accordance with several articles that describe its ecology and preference to α-mesosaprobic, β-mesosaprobic and polysaprobic waters with a slower flow [30,33,34,48,49].
Although D. lineata occurs in lowland areas, this species avoids large rivers and standing waters. At lower altitudes, it is usually found in springs (e.g., numerous springs in the Skadar Lake basin). The preference of D. lineata for fast-flowing waters presented in this paper corresponds to our previous findings [24]. These habitats are not typical for populations of D. lineata in northern and central Europe [50,51,52]. Sket et al. [4] described three subspecies of D. lineata in the Balkans: D. lineata lacustris inhabits glacial lakes in western North Macedonia, D. lineata montana is usually found in the alpine areas of the Prokletije and Komovi mountains and D. lineata dinarica is widespread in the Dinaric Alps. Grosser et al. [15,18] stated that the majority of populations of D. lineata in the Balkans should be assigned to one or two subspecies of D. lineata, D. lineata dinarica and D. lineata montana, or even treated as separate species from the typical D. lineata lineata (O.F. Muller 1774). These findings should encourage further investigation into the populations of this species in the Balkans and their relationship with the populations from central and northern Europe.
Compared to E. octoculata and D. lineata, E. vilnensis prefers habitats at higher altitudes. However, this species avoids both lowlands and altimontane regions. It was recorded in all waterbody types except large lowland rivers. Considering the lake habitats, E. vilnensis was found only in Lake Prespa, located at 840 m a.s.l. Records of E. vilnensis at altitudes lower than 400 m a.s.l. are for rivers that flow through large urban settlements (SRB—Južna Morava, Nišava and BLG—Maritza). These rivers are under anthropogenic pressures, and are often exposed to water quality degradation [53,54]. Tolerance to mesosaprobic conditions is known in the case of E. vilnensis [48,55,56]. It can be concluded that in these cases, the combination of the faster-flowing and higher saprobic state has favored E. vilnensis in competition with other species. Many articles support the conclusion that E. vilnensis prefers smaller water bodies located at medium-high and higher altitudes [55,57,58].
Despite their broadly overlapping distribution, the analyzed species are negatively correlated. This indicates strong competitive interactions between the species. Due to the overlapping distribution along the altitudinal gradient, competition between D. lineata and E. octoculata is intense. However, these species are clearly separated along the gradient of waterbody types. E. octoculata prefers lowland rivers and their large tributaries with slow to medium flow rates and a bottom with fine to medium-sized substrate. D. lineata dominates in fast rivers and both lowland and mountainous streams and springs with a rocky bottom.
Papers dealing with macrozoobenthic fauna as a whole rarely show the presence of E. vilnensis in the Balkans. Only when authors deal with leeches as the main focus of their investigations [4,6,17,23] does this species appear. This can be attributed to the misidentification of E. vilnensis as some similar species with dark paramedian stripes on the dorsum, such as D. lineata. A similar problem in the misidentification of this species has been reported by several authors throughout Europe [50,59,60].
The Assessment System for the Ecological Quality of Streams and Rivers throughout Europe using Benthic Macroinvertebrates (AQEM protocol) [61] prevails in assessments of water quality and implementation of the Water Framework Directive [62] throughout Europe. Many countries in the Balkans implement this protocol in the routine monitoring of water quality, but unlike many EU countries, they do not have modified protocols for local/national use [63]. Autecological preferences of D. lineata in the AQEM protocol indicate that it prefers the epi- and metapotamal sectors of rivers. These sectors are described as the slow-flowing upper and middle parts of lowland streams and rivers, with a fine sediment on the riverbed [64]. In relation to the saprobic index of Zelinka and Marvan, it prefers α-, β- mesosaprobic and polysaprobic waters [65]. However, this contradicts the recorded habitats and preferences of D. lineata given in the present study. The utilization of these indicator values for D. lineata in the Balkans, in the assessment of water quality, could give false results. It is recommended that authorities dealing with the implementation of the WFD and the modification of protocols for assessing water quality make the necessary changes with regard to this species and its use as a bioindicator.
In light of the above, it is clear that these common leech species, with significantly overlapping ranges in the Balkans, rarely coexist in the same site. Each species has preferences for certain types of waterbodies, with specific conditions in which it outcompetes the others. On the rare occasions when they live in sympatry, this can be attributed to the presence of favorable microhabitats that provide optimal conditions for each species.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/2/356/s1, Table S1: Records of selected species Erpobdelidae on the Balkan Peninsula.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.M., V.N., M.R. and M.P.; methodology, N.M., B.K., M.R. and V.N.; software, B.K. and N.M.; validation, N.M., B.K., V.P. and V.N., formal analysis, N.M., B.K., M.R. and V.N.; investigation, N.M., V.N., M.R., V.S.S., V.P. and M.P.; resources, V.P., M.P., V.S.S., M.R. and V.N.; data curation, B.K.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M., B.K., M.R., M.P. and V.N.; writing—review and editing, N.M., V.N., M.R., V.S.S., V.P., B.K. and M.P.; visualization, N.M. and B.K.; supervision, V.N., M.R. and M.P; project administration, M.P.; funding acquisition, M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant Nos. 37009 and 176018.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Predrag Mitrović, Institute for Water, Bjeljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina for providing a part of material from Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are grateful to Svetoslav Cheshmedjiev, “SI Eco Consult”-Ltd., Sofia, Bulgaria for providing support during field work in Bulgaria. We would like to thanks to Goran and Maira Poznanović for improvement of the text of the manuscript and English proof-reading. Special thanks to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions which greatly helped us to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the result.

References

  1. Blanchard, R. Hirudineen aus Montenegro. Sitzs-Ber. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss. Prag. 1905, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  2. Augener, H. Hirudineen aus jugoslavischen Seen. Festschr. Zum 1937, 60, 403–413. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rémy, P. Sangsues de Yougoslavie. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 1937, 62, 140–148. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sket, B. K Poznavanju Favne Pijavk (Hirudinea) v Jugoslaviji, Zur Kenntnis der Egelfauna (Hirudinea) Jugoslawiens. Acad. Sci. Artium Slov. Cl. IV Hist. Nat. Med. Diss. Ljubl. 1968, 9, 127–197. [Google Scholar]
  5. Šapkarev, J.A. The fauna of Hirudinea of Macedonia. The taxonomy and distribution of leeches of Aegean lakes. Int. Rev. Ges. Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 1970, 55, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Šapkarev, J. Contribution to the knowledge the earthworms (Lumbricidae) and leeches (Hirudinea) of Kosovo, Yugoslavia. Annu. Fac. Sci. L’université Skopje 1975, 27, 39–54. [Google Scholar]
  7. Šapkarev, J.A. Composition and dynamics of the bottom animals in the littoral zone of Dojran Lake, Macedonia: With 11 figures and 4 tables in the text. Verh. Int. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 1975, 19, 1339–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sket, B.; Šapkarev, J. Dina lepinja sp. n. (Hirudinea, Erpobdellidae), a new endemic leech from the ancient lake Ohridsko Ezero. Biološki Vestn. 1986, 34, 89–92. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sket, B.; Šapkarev, J. Distribution of Hirudinea (Annelida) in the ancient Ohrid Lake region. Arch. Hydrobiol. 1992, 124, 225–237. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sket, B.; Dovč, P.; Jalžić, B.; Kerovec, M.; Kučinić, M.; Trontelj, P. A cave leech (Hirudinea, Erpobdellidae) from Croatia with unique morphological features. Zool. Scr. 2001, 30, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Trontelj, P.; Sket, B. Molecular re-assessment of some phylogenetic, taxonomic and biogeographic relationships between the leech genera Dina and Trocheta (Hirudinea: Erpobdellidae). Hydrobiologia 2000, 438, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Grosser, C.; Pešić, V. First record of Batracobdelloides moogi (Hirudinea: Glossiphoniidae) in the Balkans. Nat. Montenegr. 2005, 4, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Grosser, C.; Moritz, G.; Pešić, V. Dina minuoculata sp. nov. (Hirudinea: Erpobdellidae)—Eine neue Egelart aus Montenegro. Lauterbornia 2007, 59, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grosser, C. First record of Trocheta haskonis Grosser, 2000 (Hirudinea: Erpobdellidae) in Serbia. Lauterbornia 2013, 76, 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  15. Grosser, C.; Pešić, V.; Dmitrović, D. Dina sketi n. sp., a new erpobdellid leech (Hirudinida: Erpobdellidae) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Zootaxa 2014, 3793, 393–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Grosser, C.; Pešić, V.; Gligorović, B. A checklist of the Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea) of Montenegro. Ecol. Montenegrina 2014, 2, 20–28. [Google Scholar]
  17. Grosser, C.; Pešić, V.; Lazarević, P. A checklist of the Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinida) of Serbia, with new records. Fauna Balk. 2015, 3, 71–86. [Google Scholar]
  18. Grosser, C.; Pešić, V.; Berlajolli, V.; Gligorović, B. Glossiphonia balcanica n. sp. and Dina prokletijaca n. sp. (Hirudinida: Glossiphoniidae, Erpobdellidae)—Two new leeches from Montenegro and Kosovo. Ecol. Montenegrina 2016, 8, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Grosser, C.; Šukalo, G.; Pešić, V. Monster from the Vault: A new finding of one of the largest European leech Trocheta haskonis Grosser, 2000 from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ecol. Montenegrina 2018, 19, 69–72. [Google Scholar]
  20. Trajanovski, S.; Albrecht, C.; Schreiber, K.; Schultheiß, R.; Stadler, T.; Benke, M.; Wilke, T. Testing the spatial and temporal framework of speciation in an ancient lake species flock: The leech genus Dina (Hirudinea: Erpobdellidae) in Lake Ohrid. Biogeosciences 2010, 7, 3387–3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Utevsky, S.; Utevsky, A.; Pešić, V. First record of Glossiphonia nebulosa (Hirudinida: Glossiphoniidae) from the Skadar Lake in Montenegro. Lauterbornia 2013, 76, 123–125. [Google Scholar]
  22. Živić, I.; Radosavljević, T.; Stojanović, K.; Petrović, A. The first molecular characterization of the genus Hirudo on the territory of Serbia: Estimation of endangerment. Aquat. Ecol. 2015, 49, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Živić, I.; Cvetković, A.; Božanić, M.; Radojević, A.; Stojanović, K. Checklist of Freshwater Leeches (Hirudinea) in Serbia. Water Res. Manag. 2017, 7, 35–41. [Google Scholar]
  24. Marinković, N.; Karadžić, B.; Pešić, V.; Gligorović, B.; Grosser, C.; Paunović, M.; Nikolić, V.; Raković, M. Faunistic patterns and diversity components of leech assemblages in karst springs of Montenegro. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2019, 420, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sket, B.; Trontelj, P. Global diversity of leeches (Hirudinea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 2007, 595, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sket, B. Intralacustrine speciation in the genus Dina (Hirudinea, Erpobdellidae) in Lake Ohrid (Yugoslavia). Hydrobiologia 1989, 182, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sawyer, R.T. Leech Biology and Behavior; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1986; Volume 2, pp. 419–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Persson, L.; Elliott, J.M. Population variation and individual maximum size in two leech populations: Energy extraction from cannibalism or niche widening? Oecologia 2013, 172, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oceguera-Figueroa, A.; Phillips, A.J.; Pacheco-Chaves, B.; Reeves, W.K.; Siddall, M.E. Phylogeny of macrophagous Leeches (Hirudinea, Clitellata) based on molecular data and evaluation of the barcoding locus. Zool. Scr. 2011, 40, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nesemann, H.; Neubert, E. Süßwasserfauna von Mitteleuropa, Bd. 6, Annelida, 2, Clitellata: Branchiobdellida, Acanthobdellea, Hirudinea; Spektrum Akademischer Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; p. 178. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kutschera, U. The feeding strategies of the leech Erpobdella octoculata (L.): A laboratory study. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol 2003, 88, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schenková, J.; Sychra, J.; Kubová, B. The freshwater leeches (Clitellata: Hirudinida) of the Czech Republic–list of taxa and remarks on rare and endangered species. Dep. Zool. Bot. Fac. Sci. Masaryk Univ. Kotlarska 2005, 2, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Koperski, P. Urban environments as habitats for rare aquatic species: The case of leeches (Euhirudinea, Clitellata) in Warsaw freshwaters. Limnologica 2010, 40, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Kubová, N.; Schenková, J. Tolerance, optimum ranges and ecological requirements of free-living leech species (Clitellata: Hirudinida). Arch. Hydrobiol. 2014, 185, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. The Parameters of Ecological and Chemical Status of Surface Waters and Parameters of the Chemical and Quantitative Status of Groundwater; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hijmans, R.J.; Guarino, L.; Mathur, P. 2012: DIVA-GIS Version 7.5 Manual. Available online: http://www.diva-gis.org/ (accessed on 1 June 2018).
  37. Hijmans, R.J.; Cameron, S.E.; Parra, J.L.; Jones, P.G.; Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2005, 25, 1965–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Schapire, R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190, 231–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Phillips, S.J.; Dudik, M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 2008, 31, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Elith, J.; Phillips, S.J.; Hastie, T.; Dudik, M.; Chee, Y.E.; Yates, C.J. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 17, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guisan, A.; Thuiller, W. Predicting species distribution: Offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 993–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Whittaker, R.H. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 1972, 21, 213–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Stanković, S. Ekologija Životinja; Univerzitet u Beogradu. Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika Narodne Republike Srbije: Belgrade, Serbia, 1962; pp. 374–388. [Google Scholar]
  44. Vannote, R.L.; Minshall, G.W.; Cummins, K.W.; Sedell, J.R.; Cushing, C.E. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1980, 37, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ter Braak, C.J.F. Correspondence Analysis of Incidence and Abundance Data: Properties in Terms of a Unimodal Response Model. Biometrics 1985, 41, 859–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. James, G.; Wittenmm, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R; Springer: New York, NY, USA; Heidelberg, Germany; Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK, 2013; p. 426. [Google Scholar]
  47. Karadžić, B. FLORA: A software package for statistical analysis of ecological data. Water Res. Manag. 2013, 3, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nesemann, H.F.; Moog, O. Hirudinea. In Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, 3rd edition A Comprehensive Species Inventory of Austrian Aquatic Organisms with Ecological Notes; Abt. IV/3, Stubenring 1, A-1010; Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kubová, N.; Schenková, J.; Horsák, M. Environmental determinants of leech assemblage patterns in lotic and lenitic habitats. Limnologica 2013, 43, 516–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. van Haaren, T.; Hop, H.; Soes, M.; Tempelman, D. The freshwater leeches (Hirudinea) of the Netherlands. Lauterbornia 2004, 52, 113–131. [Google Scholar]
  51. Westendorff, M.; Kalettka, T.; Jueg, U. Occurrence of leeches (Hirudinea) in different types of water bodies in northeast Germany (Brandenburg). Lauterbornia 2008, 65, 153–162. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bielecki, A.; Cichocka, J.M.; Jeleń, I.; Świątek, P.; Adamiak-Brud, Ż. A checklist of leech species from Poland. Wiad. Parazytol. 2011, 57, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  53. Novaković, B. Indicative ecological status assessment of the Južna Morava River based on aquatic macroinvertebrates. Water Res. Manag. 2012, 2, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  54. Savić, A.; Ranđelović, V.; Branković, S.; Krpo-Ćetković, J. Mayfly (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) community structure as an indicator of the ecological status of the Nišava river (Central Balkan Peninsula). Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 2011, 14, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cichocka, J.; Jabłońska-Barna, I.; Bielecki, A.; Buczyńska, E.; Buczyński, P.; Stryjecki, R.; Pikuła, D. Leeches (Clitellata: Hirudinida) of an upland stream: Taxonomic composition in relation to habitat conditions. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 2015, 44, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kazancı, N.; Ekingen, P.; Dügel, M.; Türkmen, G. Hirudinea (Annelida) species and their ecological preferences in some running waters and lakes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 1087–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Nesemann, H.; Csanyi, B. On the leech fauna (Hirudinea) of the Tisza river basin in Hungary with notes on the faunal history. Lauterbornia 1993, 14, 41–70. [Google Scholar]
  58. Utevsky, S.Y.; Son, M.O.; Dyadichko, V.G.; Kaygorodova, J.A. New information on the geographical distribution of Erpobdella vilnensis (Liskiewicz, 1915) (Hirudinida, Erpobdellidae) in Ukraine. Lauterbornia 2012, 75, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
  59. Košel, V. Checklist of Hirudinea of the Czech Republic. Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 2014, 99, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  60. Koperski, P. Relative importance of factors determining diversity and composition of freshwater leech assemblages (Hirudinea; Clitellata): A metaanalysis. Arch. Hydrobiol. 2006, 166, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aqem Consortium. Manual for the application of the AQEM system. In A Comprehensive Method to Assess European Streams Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Developed for the Purpose of the Water Framework Directive; Version 1; The AQEM consortium: Duisburg-Esen, Germany, 2002; pp. 619–630. [Google Scholar]
  62. Directive, W.F. Water Framework Directive—Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2000, 22, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  63. Paunović, M.; Grošelj, S.; Milačić, R.; Grđan, S.; Zuliani, T.; Vidaković, I.; Vučković, I.; Jelena, V.; Ščančar, J.; Makovinska, J.; et al. Steps towards integrated water management in the Sava River Basin. Water Res. Manag. 2016, 6, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  64. Radinger, J.; Wolter, C.; Kail, J. Spatial scaling of environmental variables improves species-habitat models of fishes in a small, sand-bed lowland river. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Moog, O.; Hartmann, A. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, 3rd edition A Comprehensive Species Inventory of Austrian Aquatic Organisms with Ecological Notes; Abt. IV/3, Stubenring 1, A-1010; Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Water 12 00356 g001 550
Figure 1. The distribution of E. octoculata, E. vilnensis and D. lineata, at analyzed sites.
Figure 1. The distribution of E. octoculata, E. vilnensis and D. lineata, at analyzed sites.
Water 12 00356 g001
Water 12 00356 g002 550
Figure 2. The distribution of the analyzed species along altitudinal gradient. Circles correspond to sampling sites. Rectangles denote mean altitude of sites inhabited by a particular species.
Figure 2. The distribution of the analyzed species along altitudinal gradient. Circles correspond to sampling sites. Rectangles denote mean altitude of sites inhabited by a particular species.
Water 12 00356 g002
Water 12 00356 g003 550
Figure 3. The distribution of the analyzed species in the different watersheds.
Figure 3. The distribution of the analyzed species in the different watersheds.
Water 12 00356 g003
Water 12 00356 g004 550
Figure 4. The distribution of the analyzed species with respect to the different waterbody types.
Figure 4. The distribution of the analyzed species with respect to the different waterbody types.
Water 12 00356 g004
Water 12 00356 g005 550
Figure 5. The potential distributions of the analyzed species, given by MaxEnt analyses.
Figure 5. The potential distributions of the analyzed species, given by MaxEnt analyses.
Water 12 00356 g005
Water 12 00356 g006 550
Figure 6. The ecological differentiation of the the analyzed species with respect to altitude. Circles denote either the presence (1) or absence (0) of a species at a particular site. Response functions specify the probability of occurrence of taxa along the gradient. Square symbols on the abscissa of the combined diagram represent the optimum value for each species.
Figure 6. The ecological differentiation of the the analyzed species with respect to altitude. Circles denote either the presence (1) or absence (0) of a species at a particular site. Response functions specify the probability of occurrence of taxa along the gradient. Square symbols on the abscissa of the combined diagram represent the optimum value for each species.
Water 12 00356 g006
Water 12 00356 g007 550
Figure 7. The ecological differentiation of the analyzed species with respect to the waterbody type. Circles denote either the presence (1) or absence (0) of a species at a particular site. Response functions specify the probability of occurrence of taxa along the gradient. Square symbols on the abscissa of the combined diagram represent the optimum value for each species.
Figure 7. The ecological differentiation of the analyzed species with respect to the waterbody type. Circles denote either the presence (1) or absence (0) of a species at a particular site. Response functions specify the probability of occurrence of taxa along the gradient. Square symbols on the abscissa of the combined diagram represent the optimum value for each species.
Water 12 00356 g007
Table
Table 1. Waterbody types and their characteristics (flow velocity and bottom material).
Table 1. Waterbody types and their characteristics (flow velocity and bottom material).
Waterbody TypeWaterbodies IncludedFlow VelocityBottom Material
T1lakes, ponds and reservoirsstagnant → slowvery fine sediment (silt, clay mud and sand)
T2lower stretches of large lowland riversslowvery fine sediment (silt, clay mud and sand)
T3main tributaries of large lowland riversslow → mediumfine to medium size sediment (mud, sand and gravel)
T4medium to small (wadeable) rivers, elevation below 500 mmediumhard substratum, large fractions (gravel, stones)
T5medium to small (wadeable) rivers, elevation above 500 mmedium → fasthard substratum, large fractions (gravel, stones and rocks)
T6mix of small waterbodies including springs and upper stretches of streamsfasthard substratum, large fractions (gravel, stones and rocks)
Table
Table 2. The number of sites per watershed and per waterbody type.
Table 2. The number of sites per watershed and per waterbody type.
Number of Sampling Sites: T/Ws
Waterbody TypeAdriatic SeaAegean SeaBlack SeaΣ
T1331824
T20178
T3201517
T4253340
T5424248
T64634392
Σ5714158229
T—Type of waterbody; Ws—Watershed.
Table
Table 3. The number of records (sampling sites) of each species per waterbody type and per watershed.
Table 3. The number of records (sampling sites) of each species per waterbody type and per watershed.
Number of Records: Sp/Ws
SpeciesAdriatic SeaAegean SeaBlack SeaΣ
E. octoculata11107899
E. vilnensis141823
D. lineata48490142
Σ6018186264
Number of Records: Sp/T
Waterbody TypeE. octoculataE. vilnensisD. lineataΣ
T1111315
T2230124
T381918
T41391537
T52543564
T619879106
Σ9923142264
Sp—Species; T—Type of waterbody; Ws—Watershed.
Table
Table 4. The geographic variation of the sites inhabited by the analyzed species.
Table 4. The geographic variation of the sites inhabited by the analyzed species.
Geographic VariableParameterE. octoculataE. vilnensisD. lineata
Altitude (m)Minimum91759
Maximum154017861774
Mean418.636683.608494.267
Standard deviation408.194528.766368.935
Latitude (°)Minimum40.90340.90340.903
Maximum45.40944.22545.054
Mean43.41443.31243.120
Standard deviation1.1040.8180.742
Longitude (°)Minimum16.38319.21516.683
Maximum25.78524.00924.009
Mean20.19621.17519.698
Standard deviation1.8131.1891.458
Table
Table 5. Pearson’s correlation coefficients among pairs of species.
Table 5. Pearson’s correlation coefficients among pairs of species.
SpeciesE. octoculataE. vilnensisD. lineata
E. octoculata1−0.145−0.625 *
E. vilnensis-1−0.247
D. lineata--1
* denotes statistically significant value.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marinković, N.; Karadžić, B.; Slavevska Stamenković, V.; Pešić, V.; Nikolić, V.; Paunović, M.; Raković, M. Chorological and Ecological Differentiation of the Commonest Leech Species from the Suborder Erpobdelliformes (Arhynchobdellida, Hirudinea) on the Balkan Peninsula. Water 2020, 12, 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020356

AMA Style

Marinković N, Karadžić B, Slavevska Stamenković V, Pešić V, Nikolić V, Paunović M, Raković M. Chorological and Ecological Differentiation of the Commonest Leech Species from the Suborder Erpobdelliformes (Arhynchobdellida, Hirudinea) on the Balkan Peninsula. Water. 2020; 12(2):356. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020356

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marinković, Nikola, Branko Karadžić, Valentina Slavevska Stamenković, Vladimir Pešić, Vera Nikolić, Momir Paunović, and Maja Raković. 2020. "Chorological and Ecological Differentiation of the Commonest Leech Species from the Suborder Erpobdelliformes (Arhynchobdellida, Hirudinea) on the Balkan Peninsula" Water 12, no. 2: 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020356

APA Style

Marinković, N., Karadžić, B., Slavevska Stamenković, V., Pešić, V., Nikolić, V., Paunović, M., & Raković, M. (2020). Chorological and Ecological Differentiation of the Commonest Leech Species from the Suborder Erpobdelliformes (Arhynchobdellida, Hirudinea) on the Balkan Peninsula. Water, 12(2), 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020356

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop