Search

This far, quantitative assessments of geodiversity have typically been conducted on the level of alpha geodiversity (i.e., the variety of geofeatures, such as rock types or landforms, in a location) or gamma geodiversity (i.e., sum of all geofeatures across all surveyed locations in a region of interest). These assessments give valuable information of the distribution of geodiversity but do not provide evidence on the uniqueness of the elements of geodiversity (i.e., geofeatures) at different sites. Uniqueness measures can be used to rank locations based on how exceptional they are in terms of geofeatures and when compared with other locations surveyed in a study.In this study, we demonstrate a quantitative approach to distinguish how study sites differ in their geofeature uniqueness. The methodology has been originally proposed for quantifying taxonomic uniqueness in biotic communities but we here extend its use to a geodiversity context. To illustrate the approach, we have identified geological, hydrological and geomorphological geofeatures from three areas (Rekijoki, Oulanka and Paistunturit) located across Finland, and calculated the presence/absence of each geofeature in 500 m grid cells. Founded on these grid-based datasets that cover the three study areas, we have made geodiversity uniqueness calculations. First, we calculated total beta geodiversity, from which local contribution to beta geodiversity (LCBD-g) value for each site can be subsequently derived. The LCBD-g value describes the geofeature uniqueness of each site in comparison to other sites studied in an area. Second, we calculated contributions to beta geodiversity values for each geofeature (geofeature contribution to beta geodiversity, GFCBD), describing the importance of each geofeature for geodiversity variation in the studied sites.Our results show that the uniqueness of geofeatures (LCBD-g values) varies profoundly in each of the studied areas and sites. Also, the importance of each geofeature for geodiversity variation (GFCBD value) exhibits distinct patterns, representing the varying significance of each geofeature for the total geodiversity in the studied areas. The results, especially when displayed as maps, are heuristic and an easily applicable way to flag sites that are unique in their geofeature composition. This information can complement previous approaches (such as geosite or biodiversity assessments) when prioritizing areas for nature conservation.

Alue- ja ympäristötutkimuksen seuralle myönnettiin Iivari Leiviskä -mitali maantieteen tunnetuksi tekemisestä ja vaikuttavasta yhteistyöstä. Mitalin myönsi Suomen Maantieteellinen Seura ja sen luovutti seuran puheenjohtaja Joni Vainikka Maantieteen päivillä 2022 Tampereella. Haastattelimme seurojen puheenjohtajia, Roosa Wingströmiä ja Joni Vainikkaa harvinaisesta tunnustuksesta, seurojen välisestä yhteistyöstä ja seuratoiminnan merkityksestä.

Geodiversity is an emerging, multi-faceted concept in Earth and environmental sciences. Knowledge on geo-diversity is crucial for understanding functions of natural systems and in guiding sustainable development. Despite the critical nature of geodiversity information, data acquisition and analytical methods have lagged behind the conceptual developments in biosciences. Thus, we propose that geodiversity research could adopt the framework of alpha, beta and gamma concepts widely used in biodiversity research. Especially, geodiversity research would benefit from widening its scope from the evaluation of individual sites towards more holistic geodiversity assessments, where between-site geodiversity is also considered. In this article, we explore the alpha, beta and gamma concepts and how they can be applied in a geodiversity framework. In addition, we scrutinize the statistical methodology related to alpha, beta and gamma geodiversity evaluations, with a special focus on distance metrics for measuring beta geodiversity. As an overview of the process, and to give practical guidelines for the application of the proposed methodology, we present a case study from a UNESCO Global Geopark area. Thus, this study not only develops the geodiversity concept, but also paves the way for simultaneous understanding of both geodiversity and biodiversity within a unified conceptual approach.

Non-living and living nature are inherently connected. Geodiversity, which consists of the variation in geology, soils, topography, geomorphology and hydrology, is seen as the foundation and stage for biodiversity. Underlying theory suggests that the increasing variation in the abiotic foundation creates and maintains available niche space for different organisms to thrive, resulting in higher biodiversity. Emerging scientific observations support this premise, indicating a positive influence of geodiversity on biodiversity across different environments, regions and spatial scales. Inclusion of geodiversity into biodiversity research and conservation therefore has capacity to improve our understanding of biodiversity patterns and dynamics. Current challenges that need to be overcome in this relatively new field of science are related to defining and measuring geodiversity and gaining more empirical evidence on the link between geodiversity and biodiversity. Despite these challenges, connecting these two concepts and embracing the interdisciplinary cooperation have great potential in advancing our understanding of diversity of nature and integrating geodiversity in conservation assessments across scales.

Our existence on Earth is founded on a vital nature, which supports human physical and mental health. However, nature is often depicted only through biodiversity, whereas geodiversity-the diversity of non-living nature-has so far been neglected. Geodiversity consists of assemblages, structures, and systems of geological, geomorphological, soil, and hydrological components that fundamentally underlie biodiversity. Biodiversity can support overall human health only with the foundation of geodiversity. Landscape characteristics, such as varying topography or bodies of water, promote aesthetic and sensory experiences and are also a product of geodiversity. In this Personal View, we introduce the concept of geodiversity as a driver for planetary health, describe its functions and services, and outline the intricate relationships between geodiversity, biodiversity, and human health. We also propose an agenda for acknowledging the importance of geodiversity in health-related research and decision making. Geodiversity is an emerging topic with untapped potential for ensuring ecosystem functionality and good living conditions for people in a time of changing environments.

Aim: Conserving freshwater biodiversity in a rapidly changing world requires updated planning schemes and research efforts. Geodiversity — the diversity of Earth surface forms, materials and processes — and biodiversity are interlinked at a fundamental level. This relationship is being considered in a growing number of studies, yet research from freshwater environments is scarce. We used geodiversity (rock‐type, soil‐type and geomorphological richness), local and climatic variables to explore whether geodiversity can be used as a surrogate for aquatic plant species richness in lakes and rivers. Location: Finland. Taxon: Aquatic plants. Methods: We compared geodiversity variables (measured within 1‐km² grid cells) to well‐studied local (e.g. area, alkalinity) and climate (e.g. growing degree‐days) variables, and examined the patterns between habitat types (lakes and rivers) and among all taxa and major functional groups (helophytes and hydrophytes). We modelled lake (n = 145) and river (n = 146) plant species richness with generalized linear models, and further partitioned variation to measure the independent and shared contributions of the geodiversity, climate and local environmental variable groups. As a complementary analysis, and to identify single important variables explaining variation in aquatic plant species richness, we utilized boosted regression trees. Results: We found a positive relationship between aquatic plant species richness and catchment geodiversity variation with recurring patterns across two different freshwater habitat types and two aquatic plant functional groups. Higher variation in geodiversity (measured at landscape scale) supported higher freshwater biodiversity (measured at the local scale) of lakes and rivers. Main conclusions: Geodiversity can be a useful addition to biodiversity modelling, and it should be considered in conservation schemes and monitoring efforts, further supporting the principle of conserving nature’s stage. Yet, differences between habitats and functional groups suggest that more habitat‐specific approaches and multiple biodiversity measures should be considered. Our study is an important signpost guiding further studies on the biodiversity–geodiversity relationship in freshwater ecosystems.

A variety of ways can be used to measure geodiversity, but no consensus on quantifying it exists to date. Most quantifications have thus far focused on the abiotic diversity of individual sites, which offers only limited views on variation of abiotic nature. It is, therefore, important to examine the between-site geodiversity, i.e., the dissimilarities of geofeatures (elements of geodiversity) between different sites. For instance, it would be interesting to recognize not only the most geodiverse sites of an area, but also the sites that have the most unique compositions of geofeatures. This extended geodiversity information could be further applied in nature conservation or land-use planning. We propose that geodiversity research would benefit from adopting the alpha, beta and gamma concepts of species diversity research to provide a more holistic framework for geodiversity assessments. In particular, the inclusion of distance metrics for measuring beta biodiversity could open new perspectives in evaluating beta geodiversity. The integration of these diversity concepts into geodiversity research would also allow a better joint understanding of biotic and abiotic diversity.

Highlights • Few broad-scale patterns are well-studied for aquatic macrophytes. • Local environmental predictors were important for freshwater plants at broad-scales. • Several knowledge gaps on macroecology of freshwater plants were identified. • Lack of lotic studies and databases of species traits and phylogeny were found. • Additional macroecological investigations on freshwater plants are clearly needed. Broad-scale studies of species distributions and diversity have contributed to the emergence of general macroecological rules. These rules are typically founded on research using well-known terrestrial taxa as models and it is thus uncertain whether aquatic macrophytes follow these macroecological rules. Our purpose is to draw together available information from broad-scale research on aquatic macrophytes growing in lakes, ponds, wetlands, rivers and streams. We summarize how different macroecological rules fit the patterns shown by freshwater plants at various spatial scales. Finally, we outline future actions which should be taken to advance macroecological research on freshwater plants. Our review suggested that some macroecological patterns are relatively well-evidenced for aquatic macrophytes, whereas little information exists for others. We found, for example, that the species richness-latitude relationship follows a unimodal pattern, and species turnover prevails over species nestedness, whereas higher nestedness-related richness differences are found in low beta diversity regions. Contrary to terrestrial plants, climate or history seem not to be dominant determinants explaining these broad-scale patterns; instead local explanatory variables (e.g., water quality, such as alkalinity and nutrients, and hydromorphology) are often important for freshwater plants. We identified several knowledge gaps related, for example, to a smaller number of studies in lotic habitats, compared with lentic habitats, lack of spatially-adequate aquatic plant studies, deficiency of comprehensive species traits databases for aquatic macrophytes, and absence of a true phylogeny comprising most freshwater plant lineages. We hope this review will encourage the undertaking of additional macroecological investigations on freshwater plants across broad spatial and temporal scales.

Aim: Range size conservatism suggests that closely-related species maintain geographic ranges of similar extent. However, consensus regarding this suggestion has not been reached. To shed more light on this phenomenon, we studied freshwater plant range size conservatism, range overlap and environmental niche conservatism using congeneric species comparison in two continents. In addition, we investigated whether a phylogenetic signal is found in the range sizes of aquatic plants. Location: Europe and North America. Taxon: Freshwater plants. Methods: Across spatial resolutions (50 km², 100 km² and 200 km²), we applied Spearman correlations among 347 and 730 pairs of congeneric species in Europe and North America, respectively, and 63 pairs shared between them. In addition, Spearman correlations were used to evaluate how the degree of spatial overlap influences range sizes and which environmental variables explain variation in range sizes. Brownian evolutionary model was used to assess the phylogenetic signal in species range sizes. Results: We found no evidence of range size conservatism across spatial resolutions for any species and species shared between the continents. In addition, range sizes of more closely related species did not overlap geographically more than those of distantly related ones and no support for environmental niche conservatism was evidenced. Main conclusions: We found that aquatic plants show no range size conservatism in the Northern Hemisphere. This means that it is challenging to define different range sizes of freshwater plants through species traits. Furthermore, we are unable to predict unknown distributions of extant aquatic plant species based on known distributional attributes of closely related species. However, our findings suggest that the interpretations of previous investigations on the range sizes of aquatic plants remain valid due to lack of range size conservatism. These practical implications encourage studying range size conservatism across realms and regions, especially for understudied organismal groups.

The biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems is under threat and there is an urgent need to quantify the various facets of biodiversity to assess the conservation value of freshwater ecosystems. The effects of taxonomic relatedness have so far not been taken into account in biodiversity assessments of lake macrophytes. We therefore tested the response of species richness and average taxonomic distinctness (AvTD) of aquatic macrophytes along environmental gradients using linear regression models and Bayesian Information Criterion variable selection method. We selected data from four regions, each with 50–60 lakes, situated in northern Europe (Finland and Sweden) and northern America (Minnesota and Wisconsin). We separately studied all macrophyte species, hydrophytes and helophytes. Species richness and AvTD of aquatic macrophytes were generally negatively related in all regions, although it was not statistically significant. Both biodiversity measures responded to environmental gradients to various degrees among the studied macrophyte groups and regions. Species richness was best explained by alkalinity and lake area in Finland, by elevation, annual mean temperature and total phosphorus in Minnesota, and by alkalinity in Wisconsin. AvTD was best explained by alkalinity, annual mean temperature and total phosphorus in Finland and by alkalinity in Wisconsin. Very weak relationships were found in Sweden. Our findings strongly suggest that complementary indices are needed to indicate more comprehensively the effects of environmental conditions on freshwater biodiversity. Species richness was found to be a better measure than AvTD to account for conservation value in freshwaters. However, further research is required to evaluate the usefulness of AvTD to indicate conservation value (e.g. randomisation tests), because alternative measures are clearly needed for those freshwater taxa lacking complete information on true phylogenetic diversity.