Linkages between benthic assemblages and physical environmental factors: The role of geodiversity in Eastern Gulf of Finland ecosystems

Kaskela, Anu; Rousi, Heta; Ronkainen, Minna; Orlova, M. I.; Babin, A.V.; Gogoberidze, George; Kostamo, Kirsi; Kotilainen, Aarno; Neevin, Igor; Ryabchuk, Daria; Sergeev, A. S.; Zhamoida, Vladimir

doi:10.1016/j.csr.2017.05.013

Cited by 30 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biodiversity–geodiversity relationships depend on the taxonomic group, the spatial location, the level and dimension of biodiversity considered and the grain of analysis (Zarnetske et al, ); there is no single relationship valid for all conditions. To date, biodiversity–geodiversity relationships have been characterized primarily in a few well‐studied taxa (Hjort et al, ; Meynard et al, ; Wang et al, ; but see Kaskela et al, ; Tukiainen et al, ); our study of birds and trees only hints at potential mechanisms underlying differences in relationships among taxonomic groups. Future work across a wider range of taxa would allow us to identify the mechanisms behind the differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Geodiversity represents natural variation in geological, geomorphic and soil features (Gray, 2004(Gray, , 2008 and can be measured in a variety of ways. Most studies focus on elements of topography (roughness, elevation, slope and aspect), geology (geological diversity, landscape complexity), soils (pH, organic matter and nutrient availability) or hydrology (variation of hydrological features, such as rivers, ponds and lakes; Hjort, Heikkinen, & Luoto, 2012;Kaskela et al, 2017;Wang et al, 2013). Some geodiversity definitions include climate, using variables such as temperature, precipitation, evapotranspiration, water balance and solar radiation, whereas others explicitly exclude climate from their definition (Gray, 2004;Parks & Mulligan, 2010;Tukiainen, Bailey, Field, Kangas, & Hjort, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond counts and averages: Relating geodiversity to dimensions of biodiversity

Read

Zarnetske

Record

et al. 2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We may be able to buffer biodiversity against the effects of ongoing climate change by prioritizing the protection of habitat with diverse physical features (high geodiversity) associated with ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that maintain high biodiversity. Nonetheless, the relationships between biodiversity and habitat vary with spatial and biological context. In this study, we compare how well habitat geodiversity (spatial variation in abiotic processes and features) and climate explain biodiversity patterns of birds and trees. We also evaluate the consistency of biodiversity–geodiversity relationships across ecoregions. Location Contiguous USA. Time period 2007–2016. Taxa studied Birds and trees. Methods We quantified geodiversity with remotely sensed data and generated biodiversity maps from the Forest Inventory and Analysis and Breeding Bird Survey datasets. We fitted multivariate regressions to alpha, beta and gamma diversity, accounting for spatial autocorrelation among Nature Conservancy ecoregions and relationships among taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional biodiversity. We fitted models including climate alone (temperature and precipitation), geodiversity alone (topography, soil and geology) and climate plus geodiversity. Results A combination of geodiversity and climate predictor variables fitted most forms of bird and tree biodiversity with < 10% relative error. Models using geodiversity and climate performed better for local (alpha) and regional (gamma) diversity than for turnover‐based (beta) diversity. Among geodiversity predictors, variability of elevation fitted biodiversity best; interestingly, topographically diverse places tended to have higher tree diversity but lower bird diversity. Main conclusions Although climatic predictors tended to have larger individual effects than geodiversity, adding geodiversity improved climate‐only models of biodiversity. Geodiversity was correlated with biodiversity more consistently than with climate across ecoregions, but models tended to have a poor fit in ecoregions held out of the training dataset. Patterns of geodiversity could help to prioritize conservation efforts within ecoregions. However, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms more fully before we can build models transferable across ecoregions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond counts and averages: Relating geodiversity to dimensions of biodiversity

Read

Zarnetske

Record

et al. 2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the river ecosystem, the functional diversity of macroinvertebrates can better re ect the function of ecosystem than community structure. Many studies showing that substrate type and aquatic vascular plants which affecting the growth and functional group distribution of macroinvertebrate [8][9][10].…”

Section: Backgroudmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benthic Invertebrates Monitoring of the Muling River basin in Northeast China

Sun

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Muling River is the ﬁfth-largest river in Heilongjiang Province, and it is also the main feeding river to the Ussuri River which is the boundary river of China and Russia in Heilongjiang Province northeast of China. Muling River basin located in the south of Sanjiang Plain. Macroinvertebrate samples were collected using a D-frame net and Shannon-Wiener index were calculated in terms of abundance. Results: A total of 158 genera or species macroinvertebrate were collected from the 28 sampling sites and classified into six functional feeding groups including 61 gatherers/collectors, 42 predators, 22 scrapers, 14 shredders, 11 filterers/collectors and 8 omnivores. The correlation and relationship between environmental variables and macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups was explored using Pearson analysis and redundancy analysis. The analysis results displayed that macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups had strong relationships with the environmental variables in the Muling River basin.Conclusions: All FFGs, total abundance and Shannon-Wiener index were not significantly different. Total abundance of macroinvertebrates was higher in summer and biodiversity index was higher in autumn. Environmental factors of natural gradients and nutrition indicator were not significantly different, while others were significantly different.

show abstract

“…Sheltered sedimentation basins that may suffer from anoxia/hypoxia due to limited water exchange and are, therefore, poor in species [48,49], can also be outlined. Our maps do not lend themselves to identifying topographicallyand sedimentologically-complex seabed areas marked by relatively high species diversity [50,51]. Seabed substrate data shown here has been successfully used in the EMODnet Seabed Habitat work defining seabed habitats of the European seas.…”

Section: Seabed Substrates Characterising Seabed Ecosystems and Habitatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Picking Up the Pieces—Harmonising and Collating Seabed Substrate Data for European Maritime Areas

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The poor access to data on the marine environment is a handicap to government decision-making, a barrier to scientific understanding and an obstacle to economic growth. In this light, the European Commission initiated the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) in 2009 to assemble and disseminate hitherto dispersed marine data. In the ten years since then, EMODnet has become a key producer of publicly available, harmonised datasets covering broad areas. This paper describes the methodologies applied in EMODnet Geology project to produce fully populated GIS layers of seabed substrate distribution for the European marine areas. We describe steps involved in translating national seabed substrate data, conforming to various standards, into a uniform EMODnet substrate classification scheme (i.e., the Folk sediment classification). Rock and boulders form an additional substrate class. Seabed substrate data products at scales of 1:250,000 and 1:1 million, compiled using descriptions and analyses of seabed samples as well as interpreted acoustic images, cover about 20% and 65% of the European maritime areas, respectively. A simple confidence assessment, based on sample and acoustic coverage, is helpful in identifying data gaps. The harmonised seabed substrate maps are particularly useful in supraregional, transnational and pan-European marine spatial planning.

show abstract

Linkages between benthic assemblages and physical environmental factors: The role of geodiversity in Eastern Gulf of Finland ecosystems

Cited by 30 publications

References 52 publications

Beyond counts and averages: Relating geodiversity to dimensions of biodiversity

Beyond counts and averages: Relating geodiversity to dimensions of biodiversity

Benthic Invertebrates Monitoring of the Muling River basin in Northeast China

Picking Up the Pieces—Harmonising and Collating Seabed Substrate Data for European Maritime Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About