Jan Hjort

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.

Geodiversity is a topical concept in earth and environmental sciences. Geodiversity information is needed to conserve nature, use ecosystem services and achieve sustainable development goals. Despite the increasing demand for geodiversity data, there exists no comprehensive system for categorizing geodiversity. Here, we present a hierarchically structured taxonomy that is potentially applicable in mapping and quantifying geodiversity across different regions, environments and scales. In this taxonomy, the main components of geodiversity are geology, geomorphology, hydrology and pedology. We propose a six-level hierarchical system where the components of geodiversity are classified at progressively lower taxonomic levels based on their genesis, physical–chemical properties and morphology. This comprehensive taxonomy can be used to compile geodiversity information for scientific research and various applications of value to society and nature conservation. Ultimately, this hierarchical system is the first step towards developing a global geodiversity taxonomy. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue ‘Geodiversity for science and society’.

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’.

Quantitative approaches are needed to complement qualitative explorations to identify sites with unique geodiversity and thereby guide geoconservation and geoheritage programmes. Here, we introduce the concept and associated index of ‘geodiversity uniqueness’. This index is based on a numerical analysis of geofeatures and allows the identification of sites with unique geodiversity in a study area. We applied this approach to geofeature data from three areas in Finland. Our results showed that patterns of geodiversity uniqueness varied profoundly among the three study areas and across sites within each area. This was due to different sets of geofeatures and distinct characteristics of each study area. More importantly, the approach presented here was robust across the datasets and selection criteria for sets of sites, showing potential for geoconservation in each study area. The geodiversity uniqueness approach is a promising starting point to identify and map sites with unique geodiversity that can be further verified using field observations. To improve our knowledge of geodiversity variation, complementary approaches providing objective information on contributions to total beta geodiversity are needed to advance geoconservation programmes across areas and different spatial scales. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue ‘Geodiversity for science and society’.