Let research on subterranean habitats resonate!

A collaborative backbone resource for comparative studies of subterranean evolution: The World Asellidae database

Transition to novel environments, such as groundwater colonization by surface organisms, provides an excellent research ground to study phenotypic evolution. However, interspecific comparative studies on evolution to groundwater life are few because of the challenge in assembling large ecological and molecular resources for species-rich taxa comprised of surface and subterranean species. Here, we make available to the scientific community an operational set of working tools and resources for the Asellidae, a family of freshwater isopods containing hundreds of surface and subterranean species. First, we release the World Asellidae database (WAD) and its web application, a sustainable and FAIR solution to producing and sharing data and biological material. WAD provides access to thousands of species occurrences, specimens, DNA extracts and DNA sequences with rich metadata ensuring full scientific traceability. Second, we perform a large-scale dated phylogenetic reconstruction of Asellidae to support phylogenetic comparative analyses. Of 424 terminal branches, we identify 34 pairs of surface and subterranean species representing independent replicates of the transition from surface water to groundwater. Third, we exemplify the usefulness of WAD for documenting phenotypic shifts associated with colonization of subterranean habitats. We provide the first phylogenetically controlled evidence that body size of males decreases relative to that of females upon groundwater colonization, suggesting competition for rare receptive females selects for smaller, more agile males in groundwater. By making these tools and resources widely accessible, we open up new opportunities for exploring how phenotypic traits evolve in response to changes in selective pressures and trade-offs during groundwater colonization.

Collecting eco-evolutionary data in the dark: Impediments to subterranean research and how to overcome them

Caves and other subterranean habitats fulfill the requirements of experimental model systems to address general questions in ecology and evolution. Yet, the harsh working conditions of these environments and the uniqueness of the subterranean organisms have challenged most attempts to pursuit standardized research.Two main obstacles have synergistically hampered previous attempts. First, there is a habitat impediment related to the objective difficulties of exploring subterranean habitats and our inability to access the network of fissures that represents the elective habitat for the so-called "cave species." Second, there is a biological impediment illustrated by the rarity of most subterranean species and their low physiological tolerance, often limiting sample size and complicating laboratory experiments.We explore the advantages and disadvantages of four general experimental setups (in situ, quasi in situ, ex situ, and in silico) in the light of habitat and biological impediments. We also discuss the potential of indirect approaches to research. Furthermore, using bibliometric data, we provide a quantitative overview of the model organisms that scientists have exploited in the study of subterranean life.Our over-arching goal is to promote caves as model systems where one can perform standardized scientific research. This is important not only to achieve an in-depth understanding of the functioning of subterranean ecosystems but also to fully exploit their long-discussed potential in addressing general scientific questions with implications beyond the boundaries of this discipline.

Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers

Words are the building blocks of communicating science. As our understanding of the world progresses, scientific disciplines naturally enrich their specialized vocabulary (jargon). However, in the era of interdisciplinarity, the use of jargon may hinder effective communication among scientists that do not share a common scientific background. The question of how jargon limits the transmission of scientific knowledge has long been debated but rarely addressed quantitatively. We explored the relationship between the use of jargon and citations, using 21 486 articles focusing on cave research, a multidisciplinary field particularly prone to terminological specialization, and where linguistic disagreement among peers is frequent. We demonstrate a significant negative relationship between the proportion of jargon words in the title and abstract and the number of citations a paper receives. Given that these elements are the hook to readers, we urge scientists to restrict jargon to sections of the paper where its use is unavoidable.