Can we agree on an ecological classification of subterranean animals?

By B. Šket. 2008

343 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Oceanography, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb4abf1a1e7e9425fad6fcac57049ea644441590

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. M. R. Carvalho
2. E. Trajano
3. R. Manenti
4. Gentile Francesco Ficetola

In Oceanography

1. M. R. Carvalho
2. E. Trajano
3. R. Manenti
4. Gentile Francesco Ficetola

In Paleontology

1. M. R. Carvalho
2. E. Trajano
3. Gentile Francesco Ficetola

Citations in the corpus

• Do cave features affect underground habitat exploitation by non-troglobite species? (2014, background): “The traditional classification of organisms found in caves [troglobites, troglophiles (including eutroglophiles and subtroglophiles) and trogloxenes] was introduced by Schiner in the XIX century (Schiner, 1854), revised by Racovitza (1907), and recently updated by Sket (2008).”
• Towards a biologically meaningful classification of subterranean organisms: a critical analysis of the Schiner-Racovitza system from a historical perspective, difficulties of its application and implications for conservation (2017, background): “It is noteworthy that Sket (2008) states that “the definition of this group [troglophiles] has never been very clear”.”