Turkish Journal of Zoology Turk J Zool (2018) 42: 673-683 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/ © TÜBİTAK Research Article doi:10.3906/zoo-1712-6 Importance of moss habitats for mesostigmatid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) in Romania 1, 2,3 1 Minodora MANU *, Raluca Ioana BĂNCILĂ , Marilena ONETE 1 Department of Ecology, Taxonomy and Nature Conservation, Institute of Biology Bucharest, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences, University Ovidius Constanţa, Constanţa, Romania 3 Department of Biospeleology and Soil Edaphobiology, “Emil Racoviţă” Institute of Speleology, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania Received: 04.12.2017 Accepted/Published Online: 10.09.2018 Final Version: 12.11.2018 Abstract: This study aimed to characterize the composition of soil mite populations (Acari: Mesostigmata) from 3 moss habitats (rock moss, bark moss, and soil moss). In total, 15 natural forest ecosystems were analyzed (3 deciduous forests, 5 beech forests, 1 fir forest, 5 spruce forests, and 1 mixed forest), from 8 counties in Romania. A total of 240 soil samples, 97 species, and 3018 individuals were analyzed. The samples were taken from April 2012 until October 2013. The highest numerical abundance and species diversity was found in the soil moss, in comparison with bark moss, where the lowest values were recorded. Using statistical analysis, we found a significant effect of habitat type on abundance and species richness, with mite communities grouped into 3 distinct classes. If we take into consideration the high diversity values and the presence of characteristic species (53.59% from the total number of mites from Romania), we conclude that these moss habitats, situated in natural undisturbed forests, are very important from a conservation point of view. Key words: Abundance, bark, mite, moss, richness, rock, soil 1. Introduction Mesostigmata mites are predators, participating indirectly Natural forests are complex and mature terrestrial to the decomposition process, soil structure, and plant ecosystems. They are characterized by a wide variety of productivity, and directly to the population regulation habitats (wood debris, litter fermentation layer, soil, moss of other edaphic invertebrate groups, such as springtails, layer, canopy, etc.) which offer proper environmental enchytreids, and immature oribatids (Walter and Proctor, conditions for a high diversity of organisms (Cragg and 1999). In forest ecosystems, soil mites from the order Bardgett, 2001; Spiecker, 2003; Paquette and Messier, 2011; Mesostigmata are frequently collected from different forest Garcia-Palacios et al., 2013). One of the most abundant microhabitats, including aphyllophorales fungi; black invertebrate groups living in forest ecosystems are mites truffle; litter; soil; canopies; moss layer; rooting wood; bark (Acari). The mite densities that have been reported from a beetle galleries; grass sod; excrement; dead wood; nests square meter of surface and subsurface soil were between of birds, ants, or small mammals; rock cracks (Bajerlein 50,000 and 250,000 individuals or even more (400,000 et al., 2006; Gwiazdowicz, 2007; Salmane and Brumelis, individuals) during the winter months (Wallwork, 2008, 2010; Arroyo et al., 2010; Gwiazdowicz et al., 2011, 1959; Peterson, 1982; Kethley, 1990; Krantz and Walter, 2012; Huhta et al., 2012; Kamczyc and Gwiazdowicz, 2009). Soil mites (Acari) play an important ecological 2013; Kamczyc and Skorupski, 2014; Queralt et al., 2014; role in forests, participating in soil formation processes Krawczyk et al., 2015; Dirilgen et al., 2016). (humification, mineralization, and nutrient flow), The literature shows that Mesostigmata fauna varies influencing fertility and productivity (Cragg and Bardgett, significantly between different microhabitats within 2001; Zhang et al., 2001; Garcia-Palacios et al., 2013; Zhang forests (Madej et al., 2011). One of the most interesting et al., 2015). According to many studies, mites are useful forest microhabitats is moss. In Europe, the taxonomical indicators of the ecological stages of different habitats or ecological studies on mesostigmatid mites have been and their management measures, and are considered an focused mainly on moss from soil or moss from peatbogs appropriate taxon to use when we examine the hierarchical (Mašán 2003a, 2003b; 2007; Kalȕz and Fenďa, 2005; Ujvári aspects of biodiversity (Ruf, 1998; Rutgers et al., 2009; and Kontschán, 2007; Gwiazdowicz, 2007; Salmane and Aspetti et al., 2010; Bolger et al., 2014). The majority of Brumelis, 2008; Skorupski et al., 2008; Mašán et al., 2008; * Correspondence: [email protected] 673 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. MANU et al. / Turk J Zool Madej et al., 2011; Arroyo et al., 2012, 2013; Seniczak mountain areas close to the forests, in comparison with et al., 2014; Ács and Kontschan, 2014, 2015; Salmane those from hilly regions (Manu, 2011; Manu and Onete, and Spungis, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2016). These studies 2015). have demonstrated that moss represents ecological Taking into consideration these data, some questions corridors between isolated habitat patches, preventing have arisen. Are the moss habitats characterized by the or slowing down the process of disassembly of complex same composition of mesostigmatid fauna? Are these soil communities. Another positive role of this habitat is habitats important from the acarological conservation increased dispersal among habitat patches under harsh point of view? In this context, the main objectives of the climatic conditions, maintenance of population sizes of present study are to determine the species composition of vulnerable species, and favorable environment conditions. the mesostigmatid fauna from moss habitats, to study the On the other hand, soil microarthropod communities mesostigmatid communities from several moss habitats, from isolated habitats were found to be less resilient and to identify the distinct mite communities in the than those in more connected habitats (through moss), investigated samples. implying a role for dispersal in the recovery of impacted communities (Hoyle and Gilbert, 2004; Salmane and 2. Materials and methods Brumelis, 2008; Perdomo et al., 2012; Bolger et al., 2014). 2.1. Investigated areas A few studies were focused on moss from tree bark/trunk In order to investigate the mesostigmatid fauna from moss and the canopy, demonstrating that many of these species habitats (bark moss: BM; rock moss: RM; soil moss: SM), are essentially exclusively canopy dwellers (Arroyo et al., 15 forest ecosystems were analyzed (3 deciduous forests, 2010, 2012). The species composition of soil mites of the 5 beech forests, 1 fir forest, 5 spruce forests, and 1 mixed order Mesostigmata in the soil/litter collected from rock forest), from 8 Romanian counties (Figure 1). cracks and crevices in Szczeliniec Wielki and Błędne Skały The moss habitats were sampled randomly, taking rock labyrinths in the area of Stołowe Mountains National into consideration the presence of any type of them in the Park was reported (Kamczyc and Skorupski, 2014). investigated ecosystem. The samples were collected using a In Romania, most ecological studies from forest metal square (10 × 10 cm). The sample depth was 4 cm. The ecosystems were focused only on moss from soil, as a study was performed in 2012–2013. The elevation ranged component of the litter-fermentation layer (Solomon, between 378 and 1445 m a.s.l.. All investigated ecosystems 1980; Călugăr and Huţu, 2008; Manu, 2012; Manu et al., are mature (over 80 years) natural forests (Table 1). 2013). Only a few studies have been made on the moss 2.2. Mite samples from cliffs and rocky areas, revealing the affinity of mite The moss samples (Sphagnum sp. and Polytrichum sp.) populations for these types of ecosystems situated in were collected from soil, bark, and rocky areas, in the Figure 1. Geographical description of the investigated ecosystems in Romania (https:// google-earth.en.softonic.com; accessed in 26.06.2017). 674 MANU et al. / Turk J Zool Table 1. The geographical description of investigated forest ecosystems from Romania. Elevation Moss No. Type of forest County Location Toponym North East (meters) habitat Bucegi 1 Deciduous forest Prahova Stânca Sf. Ana 1113 45.214451 25.312906 soil, cliff Mountains Bucegi 2 Beech forest Prahova Poiana Stânii 1241 45.222134 25.313077 soil, bark Mountains Bucegi Cascada soil, cliff, 3 Fir forest Prahova 946 45.233446 25.315363 Mountains Urlătoarea bark Bucegi Cuibul 4 Spruce forest Prahova 1546 45.192843 25.265589 soil, bark Mountains Dorului Trascău Zlatna-Valea 5 Beech forest Alba 581 46.063086 23.152062 cliff Mountains lui Paul Parâng 6 Beech forest Hunedoara Jieţului gorges 1126 45.242928 23.315408 cliff Mountains Parâng 7 Beech forest Hunedoara Parâng resort 1103 45.23303 23.260859 soil, bark Mountains Călimani Valea 12 8 Spruce forest Suceava 1159 633192.53 517401.19 soil, bark Mountains Apostoli Bistriţa- Călimani Bistriţa 9 Spruce forest 1615 624616.82 508011.28 cliff Năsăud Mountains Bârgăului Făgăras soil, bark, 10 Beech forest Argeş Cumpăniţa 868 45.260598 24.36062 Mountains cliff Cheile Cheile 11 Deciduous forest Gorj 378 45.081253 23.082243 cliff Sohodorului Sohodorului Leota Rudăriţa-Valea 12 Spruce forest Argeş 1247 435312.9 523719.54 soil Mountains Cheii Deciduous forest Leota 13 Dâmboviţa Valea Raciu 1034 45.15668 25.18393 soil fir and spruce Mountains Leota Valea 14 Spruce forest Dâmboviţa 1445 45.17464