Skip to main content
Log in

Protist diversity and distribution: some basic considerations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay discusses protist species number and geographic distribution, both heavily influenced by undersampling and human introductions. The features of the ubiquity model and the moderate endemicity model are compared. I recognize five main flaws of the ubiquity model, viz., the ignorance of the extraordinary possibilities protists have to speciate due to their short generation time and the likelihood that many persisted over geological time scales; that all protist species have high abundances; that their small size is a main reason for global distribution; the ignorance of human introductions; and the rejection of literature evidence on the occurrence of flagship species with restricted distribution in a wide variety of protists. Thus, the data available support the moderate endemicity model which proposes about 300,000 extant, free-living protist species, of which one third might have a restricted distribution, i.e., is not cosmopolitan in spite of suitable habitats. To sum up, the distribution of protists, flowering plants, and larger animals has much in common, but protists usually have wider ranges and thus a higher proportion of cosmopolites. Future research should reconcile morphologic, genetic, and ecological species concepts because this is crucial for determining the number of protist species. Further, greatly intensified research is required on morphospecies in heterotrophic protists because their diversity has never been investigated in large areas of the earth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bonnet L (1983) Interet biogeographique et paleogeographique des thecamoebiens des sols. Annls Stn limnol Besse 54:777–784

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao A, Li PC, Agatha S et al (2006) A statistical approach to estimate soil ciliate diversity and distribution based on data from five continents. Oikos 114:479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corliss JO (2000) Biodiversity, classification, and numbers of species of protists. In: Raven PH, Williams T (eds) Nature and human society. The quest for a sustainable world. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 130–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan JR (2005) An introduction to the biogeography of aquatic microbes. Aquat Microb Ecol 41:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragesco J, Dragesco-Kernéis A (1986) Ciliés libres de l’Afrique intertropicale. Faune Trop 26:1–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenchel T (1993) There are more small than large species? Oikos 68:375–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenchel T, Finlay BJ (2004) The ubiquity of small species: patterns of local and global diversity. BioScience 54:777–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay BJ, Corliss JO, Esteban G et al (1996) Biodiversity at the microbial level: the number of free-living ciliates in the biosphere. Q Rev Biol 71:221–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay BJ, Esteban GF, Fenchel T (2004) Protist diversity is different? Protist 155:15–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay BJ, Esteban GF, Brown S et al (2006) Multiple cosmopolitan ectotypes within a microbial eukaryote morphospecies. Protist 157:377–390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foissner W (1999) Protist diversity: estimates of the near-imponderable. Protist 150:363–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foissner W (2004) Ubiquity and cosmopolitanism of protists questioned. SIL News 43:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Foissner W (2006) Biogeography and dispersal of micro-organisms: a review emphasizing protists. Acta Protozool 45:111–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Foissner W (2007) Dispersal and biogeography of protists: recent advances. Jpn J Protozool 40:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Foissner W, Agatha S, Berger H (2002) Soil ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from Namibia (Southwest Africa), with emphasis on two contrasting environments, the Etosha Region and the Namib Desert. Denisia 5:1–1459

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawksworth DL (2001) The magnitude of fungal diversity: the 1.5 million species estimate revisited. Mycol Res 105:1422–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimans J (1969) Ecological, phytogeographical and taxonomic problems with desmids. Vegetatio 17:50–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helbig AJ (2005) A ring of species. Heredity 95:113–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hey J, Waples RS, Arnold ML et al (2003) Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:597–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong SH, Bunge J, Jeon SO et al (2006) Predicting microbial species richness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:117–122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mann DG, Droop SJM (1996) Biodiversity, biogeography and conservation of diatoms. Hydrobiologia 336:19–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens K (1997) Speciation in ancient lakes. TREE 12:177–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer E, Foissner W, Aescht E (1989) Vielfalt und Leistung der Tiere im Waldboden. Öst Forstz 3:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell EAD, Meisterfeld R (2005) Taxonomic confusion blurs the debate on cosmopolitanism versus local endemism of free-living protists. Protist 156:263–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norris RD (2001) Pelagic species diversity and evolution. Paleobiol 26(Suppl):236–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Schluter D (1998) Ecological causes of speciation. In: Howard DJ, Berlocher SH (eds) Endless forms. Univ Press, New York, pp 114–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith HG, Wilkinson DM (2007) Not all free-living microorganisms have cosmopolitan distributions—the case of Nebela (Apodera) vas Certes (Protozoa: Amoebozoa: Arcellinida). J Biogeogr 34:1822–1831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoeck T, Kasper J, Bunge J et al (2007) Protistan diversity in the artic: a case of paleoclimate shaping modern biodiversity? PLoS ONE 8:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JW, Turner E, Townsend JP et al (2006) Eukaryotic microbes, species recognition and the geographic limits of species: examples from the kingdom fungi. Phil Trans R Soc 361:1947–1963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler PA (1996) Endemism in freshwater algae with special reference to the Australian region. Hydrobiologia 336:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster J (1983) Pilze. Eine Einführung. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson DM (2001) What is the upper size limit for cosmopolitan distribution in free-living microorganisms? J Biogeogr 28:285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF, project P19699-B17). The technical assistance of Mag. Gudrun Fuss is greatly acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilhelm Foissner.

Additional information

Special Issue: Protist diversity and geographic distribution. Guest editor: W. Foissner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foissner, W. Protist diversity and distribution: some basic considerations. Biodivers Conserv 17, 235–242 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9248-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9248-5

Keywords

Navigation