Exploring Hawaiian long-term insular geodiversity dynamics

Seijmonsbergen, A.C.; Guldenaar, Jorinde; Rijsdijk, Kenneth F.

doi:10.12657/landfana.035.007

Cited by 17 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2017, a new method was proposed to enable scholars to detect hidden geodiversity patterns at sites low in landscape variability, and a multiscale fractional spline wavelet transform technique was used to replace some traditional geodiversity assessment methods (Naparus-Aljancic et al, 2017). Further, an approach was proposed to represent the role of time in the assessment of geodiversity by correlating high or low geodiversity with the age of seven Hawaiian islands (Seijmonsbergen et al, 2017). In 2019, three new methods were proposed: Perotti et al (2019) developed a hydro-geodiversity assessment to evaluate geodiversity connected to water resources.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment

Crisp

Ellison

Fischer

2020

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geodiversity assessment is recent and is passing through a stage of methodological development and consolidation. With rapid environmental change, improving the developmental states of geodiversity assessment is of paramount importance. A scientometric analysis is presented to identify knowledge gaps, current trends and avenues for future research in quantitative geodiversity assessment literature. The study is categorised into three areas of analysis: (a) methodological intentions of geodiversity assessment, (b) current trends in geodiversity assessment methods and (c) current geographic trends. A ranking tool was developed to determine whether the current methodological intentions of geodiversity assessments trend towards combined geodiversity and biodiversity assessments or towards the independent assessment of geodiversity. Results showed that about 50% of publications independently assessed geodiversity with no consideration for biodiversity, 32% discussed or reviewed geodiversity by mentioning potential links to biodiversity and 12% more strongly linked geodiversity assessment to biodiversity assessment. Tools used by scholars to determine geodiversity values varied from statistical through to the more frequently adopted geographic information systems (GIS) and spatial analytical software approaches. Study sites selected for geodiversity assessments were predominantly terrestrial at the state-wide scale. Marine assessments, or seabed geodiversity, were mostly absent from the literature, with only two publications found. Brazil in South America had many geodiversity assessments and European scholars have played crucial roles in the development of quantitative geodiversity assessment in recent years. Subsequent research will benefit from developing a unified geodiversity assessment approach, reaching a consensus on an accepted definition and standardising the geodiversity concept, broadening research site environment types and developing strategies to promote further international and intranational collaboration.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current trends and future directions in quantitative geodiversity assessment

Crisp

Ellison

Fischer

2020

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For true islands, this results in different degrees of snapshot isolation, both within islands and between islands within a (meta-)archipelago. The Hawaiian Islands, for instance, show a high environmental heterogeneity (Seijmonsbergen, Guldenaar, & Rijsdijk, 2018). Hawai'i is the youngest island of the archipelago Some aspects of the abiotic diversity are low attributable to the relative youth of the mountain, whereas its elevation creates high variability in microclimatic zonation and orographic rainfall, producing a wide range of vegetation zones and, as such, represents a sky island within a true island (Steinbauer et al, 2016).…”

Section: Box 2 Isolation Connectivity Connectedness and Fragmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For true islands, this results in different degrees of snapshot isolation, both within islands and between islands within a (meta‐)archipelago. The Hawaiian Islands, for instance, show a high environmental heterogeneity (Seijmonsbergen, Guldenaar, & Rijsdijk, 2018). Hawai'i is the youngest island of the archipelago ( c .…”

Section: Snapshot Isolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Snapshot isolation and isolation history challenge the analogy between mountains and islands used to understand endemism

Flantua

Payne

Borregaard

et al. 2020

Global Ecol. Biogeogr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Mountains and islands are both well known for their high endemism. To explain this similarity, parallels have been drawn between the insularity of “true islands” (land surrounded by water) and the isolation of habitats within mountains (so‐called “mountain islands”). However, parallels rarely go much beyond the observation that mountaintops are isolated from one another, as are true islands. Here, we challenge the analogy between mountains and true islands by re‐evaluating the literature, focusing on isolation (the prime mechanism underlying species endemism by restricting gene flow) from a dynamic perspective over space and time. Framework We base our conceptualization of “isolation” on the arguments that no biological system is completely isolated; instead, isolation has multiple spatial and temporal dimensions relating to biological and environmental processes. We distinguish four key dimensions of isolation: (a) environmental difference from surroundings; (b) geographical distance to equivalent environment [points (a) and (b) are combined as “snapshot isolation”]; (c) continuity of isolation in space and time; and (d) total time over which isolation has been present [points (c) and (d) are combined as “isolation history”]. We evaluate the importance of each dimension in different types of mountains and true islands, demonstrating that substantial differences exist in the nature of isolation between and within each type. In particular, different types differ in their initial isolation and in the dynamic trajectories they follow, with distinct phases of varying isolation that interact with species traits over time to form present‐day patterns of endemism. Conclusions Our spatio‐temporal definition of isolation suggests that the analogy between true islands and mountain islands masks important variation of isolation over long time‐scales. Our understanding of endemism in isolated systems can be greatly enriched if the dynamic spatio‐temporal dimensions of isolation enter models as explanatory variables and if these models account for the trajectories of the history of a system.

show abstract

“…Hence, oceanic islands may exhibit high EH in terms of topography, climate (e.g. orographic precipitation regimes) and soil conditions (Seijmonsbergen, Guldenaar, & Rijsdijk, 2018; Whittaker et al., 2007). However, little is known about how ecologically relevant components of EH change over the life span of oceanic islands and how these changes affect the biogeographical processes generating and maintaining insular diversity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%