Explore the vast range of titles available.

Geodiversity has been used as a surrogate for biodiversity when species locations are unknown, and this utility can be extended to situations where species locations are in flux. Recently, scientists have designed conservation networks that aim to explicitly represent the range of geophysical environments, identifying a network of physical stages that could sustain biodiversity while allowing for change in species composition in response to climate change. Because there is no standard approach to designing such networks, we compiled 8 case studies illustrating a variety of ways scientists have approached the challenge. These studies show how geodiversity has been partitioned and used to develop site portfolios and connectivity designs; how geodiversity‐based portfolios compare with those derived from species and communities; and how the selection and combination of variables influences the results. Collectively, they suggest 4 key steps when using geodiversity to augment traditional biodiversity‐based conservation planning: create land units from species‐relevant variables combined in an ecologically meaningful way; represent land units in a logical spatial configuration and integrate with species locations when possible; apply selection criteria to individual sites to ensure they are appropriate for conservation; and develop connectivity among sites to maintain movements and processes. With these considerations, conservationists can design more effective site portfolios to ensure the lasting conservation of biodiversity under a changing climate.

Because conservation planners typically lack data on where species occur, environmental surrogates—including geophysical settings and climate types—have been used to prioritize sites within a planning area. We reviewed 622 evaluations of the effectiveness of abiotic surrogates in representing species in 19 study areas. Sites selected using abiotic surrogates represented more species than an equal number of randomly selected sites in 43% of tests (55% for plants) and on average improved on random selection of sites by about 8% (21% for plants). Environmental diversity (ED) (42% median improvement on random selection) and biotically informed clusters showed promising results and merit additional testing. We suggest 4 ways to improve performance of abiotic surrogates. First, analysts should consider a broad spectrum of candidate variables to define surrogates, including rarely used variables related to geographic separation, distance from coast, hydrology, and within‐site abiotic diversity. Second, abiotic surrogates should be defined at fine thematic resolution. Third, sites (the landscape units prioritized within a planning area) should be small enough to ensure that surrogates reflect species’ environments and to produce prioritizations that match the spatial resolution of conservation decisions. Fourth, if species inventories are available for some planning units, planners should define surrogates based on the abiotic variables that most influence species turnover in the planning area. Although species inventories increase the cost of using abiotic surrogates, a modest number of inventories could provide the data needed to select variables and evaluate surrogates. Additional tests of nonclimate abiotic surrogates are needed to evaluate the utility of conserving nature's stage as a strategy for conservation planning in the face of climate change.

Climate change will require novel conservation strategies. One such tactic is a coarse‐filter approach that focuses on conserving nature's stage (CNS) rather than the actors (individual species). However, there is a temporal mismatch between the long‐term goals of conservation and the short‐term nature of most ecological studies, which leaves many assumptions untested. Paleoecology provides a valuable perspective on coarse‐filter strategies by marshaling the natural experiments of the past to contextualize extinction risk due to the emerging impacts of climate change and anthropogenic threats. We reviewed examples from the paleoecological record that highlight the strengths, opportunities, and caveats of a CNS approach. We focused on the near‐time geological past of the Quaternary, during which species were subjected to widespread changes in climate and concomitant changes in the physical environment in general. Species experienced a range of individualistic responses to these changes, including community turnover and novel associations, extinction and speciation, range shifts, changes in local richness and evenness, and both equilibrium and disequilibrium responses. Due to the dynamic nature of species responses to Quaternary climate change, a coarse‐filter strategy may be appropriate for many taxa because it can accommodate dynamic processes. However, conservationists should also consider that the persistence of landforms varies across space and time, which could have potential long‐term consequences for geodiversity and thus biodiversity.

Biological sampling in marine systems is often limited, and the cost of acquiring new data is high. We sought to assess whether systematic reserves designed using abiotic domains adequately conserve a comprehensive range of species in a tropical marine inter‐reef system. We based our assessment on data from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. We designed reserve systems aiming to conserve 30% of each species based on 4 abiotic surrogate types (abiotic domains; weighted abiotic domains; pre‐defined bioregions; and random selection of areas). We evaluated each surrogate in scenarios with and without cost (cost to fishery) and clumping (size of conservation area) constraints. To measure the efficacy of each reserve system for conservation purposes, we evaluated how well 842 species collected at 1155 sites across the Great Barrier Reef seabed were represented in each reserve system. When reserve design included both cost and clumping constraints, the mean proportion of species reaching the conservation target was 20–27% higher for reserve systems that were biologically informed than reserves designed using unweighted environmental data. All domains performed substantially better than random, except when there were no spatial or economic constraints placed on the system design. Under the scenario with no constraints, the mean proportion of species reaching the conservation target ranged from 98.5% to 99.99% across all surrogate domains, whereas the range was 90–96% across all domains when both cost and clumping were considered. This proportion did not change considerably between scenarios where one constraint was imposed and scenarios where both cost and clumping constraints were considered. We conclude that representative reserve systems can be designed using abiotic domains; however, there are substantial benefits if some biological information is incorporated.

Most conservation planning to date has focused on protecting today's biodiversity with the assumption that it will be tomorrow's biodiversity. However, modern climate change has already resulted in distributional shifts of some species and is projected to result in many more shifts in the coming decades. As species redistribute and biotic communities reorganize, conservation plans based on current patterns of biodiversity may fail to adequately protect species in the future. One approach for addressing this issue is to focus on conserving a range of abiotic conditions in the conservation‐planning process. By doing so, it may be possible to conserve an abiotically diverse “stage” upon which evolution will play out and support many actors (biodiversity). We reviewed the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of conserving the abiotic stage, starting with the early observations of von Humboldt, who mapped the concordance of abiotic conditions and vegetation, and progressing to the concept of the ecological niche. We discuss challenges posed by issues of spatial and temporal scale, the role of biotic drivers of species distributions, and latitudinal and topographic variation in relationships between climate and landform. For example, abiotic conditions are not static, but change through time—albeit at different and often relatively slow rates. In some places, biotic interactions play a substantial role in structuring patterns of biodiversity, meaning that patterns of biodiversity may be less tightly linked to the abiotic stage. Furthermore, abiotic drivers of biodiversity can change with latitude and topographic position, meaning that the abiotic stage may need to be defined differently in different places. We conclude that protecting a diversity of abiotic conditions will likely best conserve biodiversity into the future in places where abiotic drivers of species distributions are strong relative to biotic drivers, where the diversity of abiotic settings will be conserved through time, and where connectivity allows for movement among areas providing different abiotic conditions.

Geodiversity—the variability of Earth's surface materials, forms, and physical processes—is an integral part of nature and crucial for sustaining ecosystems and their services. It provides the substrates, landform mosaics, and dynamic physical processes for habitat development and maintenance. By determining the heterogeneity of the physical environment in conjunction with climate interactions, geodiversity has a crucial influence on biodiversity across a wide range of scales. From a literature review, we identified the diverse values of geodiversity; examined examples of the dependencies of biodiversity on geodiversity at a site-specific scale (for geosites <1 km2 in area); and evaluated various human-induced threats to geosites and geodiversity. We found that geosites are important to biodiversity because they often support rare or unique biota adapted to distinctive environmental conditions or create a diversity of microenvironments that enhance species richness. Conservation of geodiversity in the face of a range of threats is critical both for effective management of nature's stage and for its own particular values. This requires approaches to nature conservation that integrate climate, biodiversity, and geodiversity at all spatial scales. La geodiversidad—la variabilidad de materiales, formas y procesos físicos de la superficie terrestre—es una parte integral de la naturaleza y es crucial para mantener a los ecosistemas y a sus servicios. Proporciona los sustratos, los mosaicos de accidentes geográficos y los procesos físicos dinámicos para el desarrollo y mantenimiento de los hábitats. Al determinar la heterogeneidad del ambiente físico en conjunto con las interacciones del clima, la geodiversidad ha sido una influencia importante sobre la biodiversidad a través de una gama amplia de escalas. A partir de una revisión bibliográfica, identificamos los valores diversos de la geodiversidad; examinamos ejemplos de las dependencias de la biodiversidad hacia la geodiversidad en una escala específica de sitio (para geositios < 1 Km2 de área); y evaluamos varias amenazas inducidas por humanos para los geositios y la geodiversidad. Encontramos que los geositios son importantes para la biodiversidad ya que generalmente mantienen una biota rara o única, la cual está adaptada a condiciones ambientales características o la cual crea una diversidad de microambientes que mejoran la riqueza de especies. La conservación de la geodiversidad de cara a una gama de amenazas es crítica tanto para el manejo efectivo del estado de la naturaleza como para sus propios valores particulares. Esto requiere de enfoques para la conservación de la naturaleza que integran al clima, a la biodiversidad y a la geodiversidad en todas las escalas espaciales.

Understanding threatened species diversity is important for long-term conservation planning. Geodiversity—the diversity of Earth surface materials, forms, and processes—may be a useful biodiversity surrogate for conservation and have conservation value itself. Geodiversity and species richness relationships have been demonstrated; establishing whether geodiversity relates to threatened species' diversity and distribution pattern is a logical next step for conservation. We used 4 geodiversity variables (rock-type and soil-type richness, geomorphological diversity, and hydrological feature diversity) and 4 climatic and topographic variables to model threatened species diversity across 31 of Finland's national parks. We also analyzed rarityweighted richness (a measure of site complementarity) of threatened vascular plants, fungi, bryophytes, and all species combined. Our 1-km² resolution data set included 271 threatened species from 16 major taxa. We modeled threatened species richness (raw and rarity weighted) with boosted regression trees. Climatic variables, especially the annual temperature sum above 5 °C, dominated our models, which is consistent with the critical role of temperature in this boreal environment. Geodiversity added significant explanatory power. High geodiversity values were consistently associated with high threatened species richness across taxa. The combined effect of geodiversity variables was even more pronounced in the rarity-weighted richness analyses (except for fungi) than in those for species richness. Geodiversity measures correlated most strongly with species richness (raw and rarity weighted) of threatened vascular plants and bryophytes and were weakest for molluscs, lichens, and mammals. Although simple measures of topography improve biodiversity modeling, our results suggest that geodiversity data relating to geology, landforms, and hydrology are also worth including. This reinforces recent arguments that conserving nature's stage is an important principle in conservation. Entender la diversidad de especies amenazadas es importante para la planeación de la conservación a largo plazo. La geodiversidad - la diversidad de materiales, formas y procesos en la superficie terrestre - puede ser un sustituto útil de la biodiversidad para la conservación y puede tener un valor de conservación propio. Las relaciones entre la geodiversidad y la riqueza de especies han sido demostradas; el siguiente paso lógico para la conservación es establecer si la geodiversidad se relaciona con la diversidad de especies amenazadas y los patrones de distribución. Usamos cuatro variables de la geodiversidad (riqueza de tipo de roca y de tipo de suelo, diversidad geomorfológica, características de la diversidad hidrológica) y cuatro variables climáticas y topográficas para modelar la diversidad de especies amenazadas en 31 de los parques nacionales de Finlandia. También analizamos la riqueza ponderada con la rareza (una medida de la complementariedad de sitio) de las plantas vasculares, hongos y briofitas amenazadas y todas las especies combinadas. Nuestro conjunto de datos de resolución de 1-km² incluía 217 especies amenazadas de 16 taxones mayores. Modelamos la riqueza de especies amenazadas (cruda y ponderada con la rareza) con árboles de regresión estimulados. Las variables climáticas, especialmente la suma de la temperatura anual sobre los 5 °C, dominaron nuestros modelos, lo que es consistente con el papel critico de la temperatura en este ambiente boreal. La geodiversidad añadió un poder explicativo. Los altos valores de geodiversidad estuvieron asociados constantemente con la alta riqueza de especies amenazadas en los taxones. El efecto combinado de las variables de la geodiversidad estuvo más pronunciado en los análisis de riqueza sopesados con la rareza (excepto por los hongos) que en aquellos para la riqueza de especies. Las medidas de geodiversidad se correlacionaron más fuertemente con la riqueza de especies (sopesada con la rareza y la crudeza) de las plantas vasculares y las briofitas y fueron más débiles para los moluscos, los liqúenes y los mamíferos. Aunque las medidas simples de la topografía mejoran el modelado de la biodiversidad, nuestros resultados sugieren que los datos de geodiversidad relacionados con la geología, las formaciones terrestres y la hidrología también deben ser incluidos. Esto refuerza los argumentos recientes que dicen que conservar el estado de la naturaleza es un principio importante en la conservación.

Aim: To explore the scale dependence of relationships between novel measures of geodiversity and species richness of both native and alien vascular plants. Location: Great Britain. Time period: Data collected 1995–2015. Major taxa: Vascular plants. Methods: We calculated the species richness of terrestrial native and alien vascular plants (6,932 species in total) across the island of Great Britain at grain sizes of 1 km2 (n = 219,964) and 100 km2 (n = 2,121) and regional extents of 25–250 km diameter, centred around each 100-km2 cell. We compiled geodiversity data on landforms, soils, hydrological and geological features using existing national datasets, and used a newly developed geomorphometric method to extract landform coverage data (e.g., hollows, ridges, valleys, peaks). We used these as predictors of species richness alongside climate, commonly used topographic metrics, land-cover variety and human population. We analysed species richness across scales using boosted regression tree (BRT) modelling and compared models with and without geodiversity data. Results: Geodiversity significantly improved models over and above the widely used topographic metrics, particularly at smaller extents and the finer grain size, and slightly more so for native species richness. For each increase in extent, the contribution of climatic variables increased and that of geodiversity decreased. Of the geodiversity variables, automatically extracted landform data added the most explanatory power, but hydrology (rivers, lakes) and materials (soil, superficial deposits, geology) were also important. Main conclusions: Geodiversity improves our understanding of, and our ability to model, the relationship between species richness and abiotic heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales by allowing us to get closer to the real-world physical processes that affect patterns of life. The greatest benefit comes from measuring the constituent parts of geodiversity separately rather than one combined variable (as in most of the few studies to date). Automatically extracted landform data, the use of which is novel in ecology and biogeography, proved particularly valuable in our study.

Geodiversity—the diversity of abiotic features and processes of the Earth's surface and subsurface—is an increasingly used concept in ecological research. A growing body of scientific literature has provided evidence of positive links between geodiversity and biodiversity. These studies highlight the potential of geodiversity to improve our understanding of biodiversity patterns and to complement current biodiversity conservation practices and strategies. However, definitions of geodiversity in ecological research vary widely. This can hinder the progress of geodiversity–biodiversity research and make it difficult to synthesize findings across studies. We therefore call for greater awareness of how geodiversity is currently defined and for more consistent use of the term ‘geodiversity’ in biodiversity research.

Aim Geodiversity underpins biodiversity, but the contribution of specific geofeatures or landforms has rarely been explored. In this study, we use multiple vascular plant species diversity measures on alpha, beta and gamma levels to explore the linkage between biodiversity and co‐located landforms (e.g. gullies, dunes and lake shores). We hypothesize that biodiversity will be positively related to geodiversity, which is founded on distinct landforms. Additionally, we propose that different landforms will sustain different amounts of biodiversity and that high alpha and gamma diversity values are related to landform‐driven moisture availability whereas high beta diversity relates especially to landform‐specific microtopographic variation. Location Rokua UNESCO Global Geopark area, Finland. Taxon Vascular plants. Methods We compare vascular plant species richness measures, Shannon's and Simpson's diversity indices, rarity‐weighted richness and local contribution to beta diversity at altogether three levels of biodiversity (alpha, beta and gamma) for different landforms. Landform information is compiled from aerial photos, spatial data layers and targeted field surveys. We compare results to control habitat (i.e. sites without any distinct landforms) within the study area. Results Vascular plant diversity was higher on landforms than in control habitat. There was also notable variation between species diversity of different landforms. Moisture‐rich gullies and river shores were especially diverse at all three levels, whereas aapa mires hosted most unique species composition (highest beta diversity). Beta diversity patterns were rather comparable with alpha and gamma diversity patterns, which contradict our hypothesis. Main conclusions This study quantitatively established a strong connection between terrestrial plant communities and multiple landforms. Our results highlighted the landform‐controlled variation in soil moisture, microclimate and microtopography in enhancing plant species diversity. Based on the results, we promote the inclusion of landform‐based geodiversity information in conservation management and in further biogeographical studies.