A Review of Methods in Natural Diversity Studies: the Need for Standardization 1 Juan-José Ibáñeza, Eric C. Brevikb*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
*Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 A Review of Methods in Natural Diversity Studies: The Need for Standardization 2 Juan-José Ibáñeza, Eric C. Brevikb* 3 a - National Museum of Natural History of Spain, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Serrano 115 4 dpdo, 28006 Madrid, Spain 5 b - Department of Natural Sciences, Dickinson State University, Dickinson, ND 58601 USA 6 (*) Corresponding Author: [email protected] 7 8 Abstract 9 There has been considerable interest in geodiversity and pedodiversity studies over the last 10 approximately 30 years. Pedodiversity is considered part of geodiversity. However in practice they 11 involved different experts and traditions. There are many common aspects that could be shared by all 12 natural diversity studies, however, these common aspects have not been adequately studied and 13 debated. Quantitative techniques that were developed and refined by biodiversity researchers over 14 multiple decades of biodiversity studies should also be applicable to geodiversity and pedodiversity 15 studies. Soil scientists studying pedodiversity followed the same techniques as mathematical ecologists, 16 but geologists studying geodiversity focused on the implementation of proposals aimed at preserving 17 geological heritage and popularising it among the general public. Therefore, pedodiversity and 18 geodiversity diverged and it is not currently possible to compare the results of geodiversity and 19 pedodiversity research. To reach a point where these research results could be compared, it will be 20 necessary to (i) follow uniform mathematical procedures in both these fields and their subfields and (ii) 21 develop universal taxonomies that will be followed for each of the natural resources (fossils, landforms, 22 minerals, soils, etc.) being investigated. Geodiversity studies should move beyond the objective of 23 proposing projects to preserve natural areas of geological value for economic and social purposes 24 (geoparks, geotourism) and extend to attempts to quantify and compare biotic and abiotic diversity and 25 its consequences. If we want to move forward, with a view to achieving a more mature discipline and a 26 true new paradigm, both communities of experts must act synergistically. 27 28 Keywords: geodiversity; pedodiversity; biodiversity; standard measures; geoheritage 29 30 Introduction 31 Over the last three to four decades there has been considerable interest in geodiversity and 32 pedodiversity studies (e.g. Ibáñez and Bockheim, 2013; Ibáñez, 2017; Brilha et al., 2018; Krasilnikov et 33 al., 2018). Soil diversity studies followed biodiversity studies, which have a history that goes back as far 34 as the 1700s (Harper and Benton, 2001; Huston, 1997; Naeem et al., 2002). There are many common 35 aspects shared by the studies of biodiversity and pedodiversity that have not been properly debated and 36 studied by the geodiversity community, despite the fact that the most popular concepts of geodiversity 37 include geology, landforms and soil (Sharples, 1993; Gray, 2004). Many of the methodologies and 38 mathematical procedures proposed, tested and corroborated in the study of biodiversity can be applied 39 without problem to the analysis of geodiversity, as pedodiversity experts have shown (e.g. Ibáñez 2017 40 and references there in). The biotic and abiotic nature of biological versus geological systems does not 41 present an obstacle to the use of the same conceptual and mathematical tools in each discipline, barring 42 some logical exceptions, as has been shown in numerous pedodiversity studies (see Ibáñez and 43 Bockheim, 2013, and references therein). The general definition of diversity, as published in a book on 44 biodiversity (Huston, 1994), is also applicable to geodiversity studies. According to Huston, diversity can 45 be conceptually defined as: "The concept of diversity has two primary components, and two unavoidable 46 value judgements. The primary components are statistical properties that are common to any mixture of 47 different objects, whether the objects are balls of different colours, segments of DNA that code for 48 different proteins, species or higher taxonomic levels, or soil types or habitat patches on a landscape. 49 Each of these groups of items has two fundamental properties: 1. the number of different types of 50 objects (e.g., species, soil types) in the mixture or sample; and 2. the relative number or amount of each 51 different type of object. The value judgements are 1. whether the selected classes are different enough to 52 be considered separate types of objects; and 2. whether the objects in a particular class are similar 53 enough to be considered the same type. On these distinctions hangs the quantification of biological 54 diversity" (Huston 1994, p. 65). 55 56 There are a number of quantitative techniques that have been developed and refined by biodiversity 57 researchers over the multiple decades of biodiversity studies. These same techniques should be 58 applicable to all studies of natural diversity and provide a standard set of evaluations that allow for 59 comparison of the diversity of various natural objects, both biotic and abiotic, as well as investigations of 60 potential links between biotic and abiotic systems (Figure 1). However, in the 25-30 years since 61 geodiversity and pedodiversity studies became relatively common, there are no reviews that critically 62 evaluate the techniques that have been adopted and used by the research groups pursuing work in each 63 of these areas. Therefore, this study was undertaken to (i) review research techniques in the 64 geodiversity and pedodiversity communities, (ii) explore the reasons that each community utilizes these 65 techniques, and (iii) make recommendations for future needs in natural diversity studies. In this paper 66 we will try to address these issues in four related topics (i) theoretical and conceptual aspects, (ii) the 67 mathematical treatment of datasets, with special emphasis on diversity indices, (iii) the need to use 68 universal taxonomies, and (iv) the state of art in the preservation of geological heritage, including soils. 69 70 A brief historical review 71 The early objectives of biodiversity studies were more ambitious than those currently shown in the 72 geodiversity literature (e.g. Magurran, 1988; Huston, 1994; Rosenzweig, 1995): (i) detect the spatial 73 patterns/regularities of species assemblages within and between ecosystems (theoretical ecology and 74 biogeography); and (ii) use of the acquired knowledge to preserve species and the ecosystems that 75 house them (conservation biology). Amazingly enough research into pedodiversity preceded 76 geodiversity research (Ibáñez et al., 1990, 1995; De-Alba et al., 1993; Ibáñez, 2017) and suggested that 77 the same patterns found in pedodiversity could occur with landforms diversity and perhaps 78 lithodiversity. It is paradoxical that in general the geodiversity literature omits the pedodiversity findings 79 published by pedologists in the last 27 years (see Ibáñez and Bockheim, 2013, Ibáñez, 2017, and 80 references therein). It is difficult to explain the divorce between pedodiversity and geodiversity scholars 81 because soils are part of geodiversity, or are at least included in its definition (Sharples, 1993; Gray 82 2004). A historical analysis of both concepts and applications sheds light on this paradox. 83 84 The researchers who developed and applied the pedodiversity concept focused a great amount of their 85 efforts on the spatial pattern analysis of soils and soilscapes using, in general, the mathematical tools 86 previously developed by mathematical ecologists. In contrast, a major goal of experts in geodiversity has 87 been to preserve geological heritage and its popularisation among citizens (McKeever et al., 2010; 88 Nowlan et al., 2010; Kikuchi et al., 2011; Farsani et al., 2014). Thus, the trajectories of the two groups 89 diverged with time. Some years later pedologists began to study and discuss the challenges concerned 90 with the preservation of pedological heritage as well as the design of networks of soil reserves 91 (pedoheritage) in the same way that ecologists did, using quantitative procedures (e.g. McBratney, 92 1992; McBratney and Minasny, 2007; Ibáñez et al., 1995, 2008, 2012, 2015). So there are several 93 contributions that quantify endangered and extinct soil types or pedotaxa (e.g. Amundson et al., 2003; 94 Ditzler, 2003; Drohan and Farnham, 2006; Zhang et al., 2007; Bockheim and Haus, 2013), soil endemisms 95 or minorities (e.g. Bockheim, 2004; Bockheim and Schliemann, 2014), criteria for the evaluation of 96 pedosites (Costantini and L'Abate, 2010) as well as future projections of pedodiversity loss (e.g. Lo Papa 97 and Dazzi, 2013; Lo Papa et al., 2011; Costantini and L'Abate, 2009, 2010, 2016; Costantini et al., 2013) 98 and so on. In contrast, since 1992 most of the geodiversity literature has focused on criteria for the 99 selection of areas to be protected, such as geoparks (UNESCO, 1999, 2014). This fact has pros and cons 100 in that criteria that are not strictly scientific are necessary to designate a geopark, which makes it 101 difficult to measure progress made by geoparks towards the preservation of the geodiversity of our 102 planet. On the other hand, designation of geoparks has the possibility to stimulate local economies and 103 engage the public in the preservation of geoheritage (Farsani et al., 2010; McKeever et al., 2010), which 104