1
|
Hjort J, Seijmonsbergen AC, Kemppinen J, Tukiainen H, Maliniemi T, Gordon JE, Alahuhta J, Gray M. Towards a taxonomy of geodiversity. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 2024; 382:20230060. [PMID: 38342205 PMCID: PMC10859227 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2023.0060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2023] [Accepted: 11/08/2023] [Indexed: 02/13/2024]
Abstract
Geodiversity is a topical concept in earth and environmental sciences. Geodiversity information is needed to conserve nature, use ecosystem services and achieve sustainable development goals. Despite the increasing demand for geodiversity data, there exists no comprehensive system for categorizing geodiversity. Here, we present a hierarchically structured taxonomy that is potentially applicable in mapping and quantifying geodiversity across different regions, environments and scales. In this taxonomy, the main components of geodiversity are geology, geomorphology, hydrology and pedology. We propose a six-level hierarchical system where the components of geodiversity are classified at progressively lower taxonomic levels based on their genesis, physical-chemical properties and morphology. This comprehensive taxonomy can be used to compile geodiversity information for scientific research and various applications of value to society and nature conservation. Ultimately, this hierarchical system is the first step towards developing a global geodiversity taxonomy. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Geodiversity for science and society'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Hjort
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Arie C. Seijmonsbergen
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94240, 1090GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Julia Kemppinen
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Helena Tukiainen
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Tuija Maliniemi
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - John E. Gordon
- School of Geography and Sustainable Development,University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9AL, UK
| | - Janne Alahuhta
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Murray Gray
- School of Geography, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Alahuhta J, García-Girón J, Hjort J, Salminen H, Tukiainen H, Heino J. Quantitative measurement of geodiversity uniqueness: research implications and conservation applications. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 2024; 382:20230056. [PMID: 38342212 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2023.0056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 02/13/2024]
Abstract
Quantitative approaches are needed to complement qualitative explorations to identify sites with unique geodiversity and thereby guide geoconservation and geoheritage programmes. Here, we introduce the concept and associated index of 'geodiversity uniqueness'. This index is based on a numerical analysis of geofeatures and allows the identification of sites with unique geodiversity in a study area. We applied this approach to geofeature data from three areas in Finland. Our results showed that patterns of geodiversity uniqueness varied profoundly among the three study areas and across sites within each area. This was due to different sets of geofeatures and distinct characteristics of each study area. More importantly, the approach presented here was robust across the datasets and selection criteria for sets of sites, showing potential for geoconservation in each study area. The geodiversity uniqueness approach is a promising starting point to identify and map sites with unique geodiversity that can be further verified using field observations. To improve our knowledge of geodiversity variation, complementary approaches providing objective information on contributions to total beta geodiversity are needed to advance geoconservation programmes across areas and different spatial scales. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Geodiversity for science and society'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janne Alahuhta
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran Katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Jorge García-Girón
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran Katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
- Department of Biodiversity and Environmental Management, Universidad de León, León, Spain
| | - Jan Hjort
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran Katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Henriikka Salminen
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran Katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Helena Tukiainen
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran Katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| | - Jani Heino
- Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran Katu 1, 90570 Oulu, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Carrasco L, Papeş M, Sheldon KS, Giam X. Global progress in incorporating climate adaptation into land protection for biodiversity since Aichi targets. Glob Chang Biol 2021; 27:1788-1801. [PMID: 33570817 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2020] [Accepted: 12/14/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Climate adaptation strategies are being developed and implemented to protect biodiversity from the impacts of climate change. A well-established strategy involves the identification and addition of new areas for conservation, and most countries agreed in 2010 to expand the global protected area (PA) network to 17% by 2020 (Aichi Biodiversity Target 11). Although great efforts to expand the global PA network have been made, the potential of newly established PAs to conserve biodiversity under future climate change remains unclear at the global scale. Here, we conducted the first global-extent, country-level assessment of the contribution of PA network expansion toward three key land prioritization approaches for biodiversity persistence under climate change: protecting climate refugia, protecting abiotic diversity, and increasing connectivity. These approaches avoid uncertainties of biodiversity predictions under climate change as well as the issue of undescribed species. We found that 51% of the countries created new PAs in locations with lower mean climate velocity (representing better climate refugia) and 58% added PAs in areas with higher mean abiotic diversity compared to the available, non-human-dominated lands not chosen for protection. However, connectivity among PAs declined in 53% of the countries, indicating that many new PAs were located far from existing PAs. Lastly, we identified potential improvements for climate adaptation, showing that 94% of the countries have the opportunity to improve in executing one or more approaches to conserve biodiversity. Most countries (60%) were associated with multiple opportunities, highlighting the need for integrative strategies that target multiple land protection approaches. Our results demonstrate that a global improvement in the protection of climate refugia, abiotic diversity, and connectivity of reserves is needed to complement land protection informed by existing and projected species distributions. Our study also provides a framework for countries to prioritize land protection for climate adaptation using publicly available data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Carrasco
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
| | - Monica Papeş
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
| | - Kimberly S Sheldon
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
| | - Xingli Giam
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Comer PJ, Pressey RL, Hunter ML, Schloss CA, Buttrick SC, Heller NE, Tirpak JM, Faith DP, Cross MS, Shaffer ML. Incorporating geodiversity into conservation decisions. Conserv Biol 2015; 29:692-701. [PMID: 25923052 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2014] [Accepted: 01/21/2015] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
In a rapidly changing climate, conservation practitioners could better use geodiversity in a broad range of conservation decisions. We explored selected avenues through which this integration might improve decision making and organized them within the adaptive management cycle of assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring. Geodiversity is seldom referenced in predominant environmental law and policy. With most natural resource agencies mandated to conserve certain categories of species, agency personnel are challenged to find ways to practically implement new directives aimed at coping with climate change while retaining their species-centered mandate. Ecoregions and ecological classifications provide clear mechanisms to consider geodiversity in plans or decisions, the inclusion of which will help foster the resilience of conservation to climate change. Methods for biodiversity assessment, such as gap analysis, climate change vulnerability analysis, and ecological process modeling, can readily accommodate inclusion of a geophysical component. We adapted others' approaches for characterizing landscapes along a continuum of climate change vulnerability for the biota they support from resistant, to resilient, to susceptible, and to sensitive and then summarized options for integrating geodiversity into planning in each landscape type. In landscapes that are relatively resistant to climate change, options exist to fully represent geodiversity while ensuring that dynamic ecological processes can change over time. In more susceptible landscapes, strategies aiming to maintain or restore ecosystem resilience and connectivity are paramount. Implementing actions on the ground requires understanding of geophysical constraints on species and an increasingly nimble approach to establishing management and restoration goals. Because decisions that are implemented today will be revisited and amended into the future, increasingly sophisticated forms of monitoring and adaptation will be required to ensure that conservation efforts fully consider the value of geodiversity for supporting biodiversity in the face of a changing climate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick J Comer
- NatureServe, 2108 55th Street, Suite 220, Boulder, CO, 80301, U.S.A
| | - Robert L Pressey
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia
| | - Malcolm L Hunter
- Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology, University of Maine, Orono, ME, 04469, U.S.A
| | - Carrie A Schloss
- The Nature Conservancy, 201 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105, U.S.A
| | - Steven C Buttrick
- The Nature Conservancy, 821 S.E. 14th Avenue, Portland, OR, 97214-2537, U.S.A
| | - Nicole E Heller
- Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708-0328, U.S.A
| | - John M Tirpak
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 700 Cajundome Boulevard, Lafayette, LA, 70506, U.S.A
| | - Daniel P Faith
- Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia
| | - Molly S Cross
- Wildlife Conservation Society, North America Program, 301 N. Willson Avenue, Bozeman, MT, 59715, U.S.A
| | - Mark L Shaffer
- U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Science Advisor, Department of the Interior, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|