Geodiversity data for Europe

Abstract

Geodiversity is an essential part of nature's diversity. However, geodiversity is insufficiently understood in terms of its spatial distribution and its relationship to biodiversity over large spatial extents. Here, we present European geodiversity data at resolutions of 1 km and 10 km. We assess terrestrial geodiversity quantitatively as a richness variable (georichness) using a commonly employed grid-based approach. The data incorporate aspects of geological, pedological, geomorphological and hydrological diversity, which are also available as separate richness variables. To evaluate the data, we correlated European georichness with empirically tested national georichness data from Finland, revealing a positive correlation at both 1 km ( r p = 0.37, p < 0.001) and 10 km ( r p = 0.59, p < 0.001) resolutions. We also demonstrate potential uses of the European data by correlating georichness with vascular plant species richness in two contrasting example areas: Finland and Switzerland. The positive correlations between georichness and species richness in Finland ( r p = 0.34, p < 0.001) and Switzerland ( r p = 0.26, p < 0.001) further support the use of our data in geodiversity–biodiversity research. Moreover, there is great potential beyond geodiversity–biodiversity questions, as the data can be exploited across different regions, ecosystems and scales. These geodiversity data provide an insight on abiotic diversity in Europe and establish a quantitative large-scale geodiversity assessment method applicable worldwide. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue ‘Geodiversity for science and society’.

Too much diversity—Multiple definitions of geodiversity hinder its potential in biodiversity research

“…Gray's (2013) definition allows identifying and capturing specific variables to measure and parameterize geodiversity (Zwolinski et al, 2018). Each of these variables belongs to a certain geodiversity component class (Figure 1) and can be, for example, different state and process variables such as Essential Geodiversity Variables (Schrodt et al, 2019), or comparable 'geofeatures' that can be mapped in the field (Hjort et al, 2022) or derived from GIS (geographical information system; Toivanen et al, 2024) and remote sensing data (Hjort & Luoto, 2012;Ren et al, 2021;Zarnetske et al, 2019). Importantly, the spatial scale and associated data of the study will determine the specific geodiversity variables, that is, plot-scale studies may benefit from including, for example, smallscale variation in soil types and textures and in-situ measurements, whereas landscape-scale studies may only need to include coarser soil classes that can be derived using GIS and remote sensing.…”

Geodiversity for science and society

“…Elsewhere in the themed issue, you will see papers on the measurement and monitoring of geodiversity and biodiversity, and conservation. This includes presentation of geodiversity data for Europe at two spatial resolutions [7]; development of a framework for quantifying geodiversity at local scales [8]; integrating vegetation and geodiversity monitoring using remote sensing and traits [9]; and quantitatively assessing geodiversity uniqueness and applying this to biodiversity conservation [10]. Seijmonsbergen et al [11] bridge geodiversity measurement and geoconservation by creating a global geodiversity map, which they use to assess the extent to which UNESCO Global Geoparks represent the different elements of geodiversity, finding some components are underrepresented.…”

“…Elsewhere in the themed issue, you will see papers on the measurement and monitoring of geodiversity and biodiversity, and conservation. This includes presentation of geodiversity data for Europe at two spatial resolutions [ 7 ]; development of a framework for quantifying geodiversity at local scales [ 8 ]; integrating vegetation and geodiversity monitoring using remote sensing and traits [ 9 ]; and quantitatively assessing geodiversity uniqueness and applying this to biodiversity conservation [ 10 ]. Seijmonsbergen et al .…”