Maija Toivanen

Bio: Maija Toivanen is an academic researcher from University of Oulu. The author has contributed to research in topics: Biodiversity & Geodiversity. The author has an hindex of 4, co-authored 6 publications receiving 62 citations.

Geodiversity-biodiversity relationship needs more empirical evidence.

Abstract: To the Editor — The study of geodiversity, the abiotic diversity of the Earth’s surface and sub-surface1, is now emerging as a key concept in the scientific community2–4. In addition to intrinsic, cultural, economic, functional and scientific values1, it may have a central role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (for example, sustainable use of drinking water and minerals)3. Geodiversity not only forms a basis for biological diversity because organisms depend on the abiotic components of their environment, but could also be used as a surrogate for conserving biodiversity through a strategy known as conserving nature’s stage (CNS)5. The CNS approach is based on the premise that areas with high geodiversity are capable of supporting high biodiversity under global change, because the abiotic ‘stage’ is more resilient to climate change than the organisms that live there4,5. Although theoretical foundations for the geodiversity–biodiversity relationship and its conservation implications are well-established1,3,5, only a handful of empirical studies have actually tested this relationship2,6. In order to more robustly support the existence of geodiversity–biodiversity relationships, and therefore the applicability of the CNS strategy in biological conservation actions, more empirical investigations based on quantitative methods are urgently required. This calls for a deeper collaboration between bioscientists and geoscientists so that we may better understand not only geodiversity–biodiversity patterns but also processes underlying these associations7. Generality of the relationship can be gained only through a broader range of empirical studies executed in different ecosystems and regions. With the exceptions of few global investigations2, so far supporting evidence for the geodiversity–biodiversity relationship is found primarily in European terrestrial ecosystems8,9 (Fig. 1). We argue that specific attention should be paid to the evaluation of the CNS strategy using long-term temporal data on biological assemblages, as studies in this area appear to be completely absent from the literature. Without such empirical data, there will always remain uncertainty over the validity of the CNS strategy in biodiversity conservation. Geodiversity indicators have been relatively simple thus far. However, different approaches and ways to quantify geodiversity make it challenging to compare relationships across studies. Currently, the most common way to measure geodiversity is to calculate the number of different abiotic formations (for example, the number of different soil types, analogous to species richness in biodiversity) in a given area6, although in many more cases environmental heterogeneity (for example, elevation, habitat diversity, pedodiversity and soil properties) is considered as a synonym for geodiversity without explicitly

Is catchment geodiversity a useful surrogate of aquatic plant species richness

Abstract: AIM: Conserving freshwater biodiversity in a rapidly changing world requires updated planning schemes and research efforts. Geodiversity – the diversity of Earth surface forms, materials and processes – and biodiversity are interlinked at a fundamental level. This relationship is being considered in a growing number of studies, yet research from freshwater environments is scarce. We used geodiversity (rock‐type, soil‐type and geomorphological richness), local and climatic variables to explore whether geodiversity can be used as a surrogate for aquatic plant species richness in lakes and rivers. LOCATION: Finland. TAXON: Aquatic plants. METHODS: We compared geodiversity variables (measured within 1‐km² grid cells) to well‐studied local (e.g. area, alkalinity) and climate (e.g. growing degree‐days) variables, and examined the patterns between habitat types (lakes and rivers) and among all taxa and major functional groups (helophytes and hydrophytes). We modelled lake (n = 145) and river (n = 146) plant species richness with generalized linear models, and further partitioned variation to measure the independent and shared contributions of the geodiversity, climate and local environmental variable groups. As a complementary analysis, and to identify single important variables explaining variation in aquatic plant species richness, we utilized boosted regression trees. RESULTS: We found a positive relationship between aquatic plant species richness and catchment geodiversity variation with recurring patterns across two different freshwater habitat types and two aquatic plant functional groups. Higher variation in geodiversity (measured at landscape scale) supported higher freshwater biodiversity (measured at the local scale) of lakes and rivers. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Geodiversity can be a useful addition to biodiversity modelling, and it should be considered in conservation schemes and monitoring efforts, further supporting the principle of conserving nature's stage. Yet, differences between habitats and functional groups suggest that more habitat‐specific approaches and multiple biodiversity measures should be considered. Our study is an important signpost guiding further studies on the biodiversity–geodiversity relationship in freshwater ecosystems.

Species richness and taxonomic distinctness of lake macrophytes along environmental gradients in two continents

Abstract: The biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems is under threat and there is an urgent need to quantify the various facets of biodiversity to assess the conservation value of freshwater ecosystems. The effects of taxonomic relatedness have so far not been taken into account in biodiversity assessments of lake macrophytes. We therefore tested the response of species richness and average taxonomic distinctness (AvTD) of aquatic macrophytes along environmental gradients using linear regression models and Bayesian Information Criterion variable selection method. We selected data from four regions, each with 50–60 lakes, situated in northern Europe (Finland and Sweden) and northern America (Minnesota and Wisconsin). We separately studied all macrophyte species, hydrophytes and helophytes. Species richness and AvTD of aquatic macrophytes were generally negatively related in all regions, although it was not statistically significant. Both biodiversity measures responded to environmental gradients to various degrees among the studied macrophyte groups and regions. Species richness was best explained by alkalinity and lake area in Finland, by elevation, annual mean temperature and total phosphorus in Minnesota, and by alkalinity in Wisconsin. AvTD was best explained by alkalinity, annual mean temperature and total phosphorus in Finland and by alkalinity in Wisconsin. Very weak relationships were found in Sweden. Our findings strongly suggest that complementary indices are needed to indicate more comprehensively the effects of environmental conditions on freshwater biodiversity. Species richness was found to be a better measure than AvTD to account for conservation value in freshwaters. However, further research is required to evaluate the usefulness of AvTD to indicate conservation value (e.g. randomisation tests), because alternative measures are clearly needed for those freshwater taxa lacking complete information on true phylogenetic diversity.

Quantifying alpha, beta and gamma geodiversity

Abstract: Geodiversity is an emerging, multi-faceted concept in Earth and environmental sciences. Knowledge on geo-diversity is crucial for understanding functions of natural systems and in guiding sustainable development. Despite the critical nature of geodiversity information, data acquisition and analytical methods have lagged behind the conceptual developments in biosciences. Thus, we propose that geodiversity research could adopt the framework of alpha, beta and gamma concepts widely used in biodiversity research. Especially, geodiversity research would benefit from widening its scope from the evaluation of individual sites towards more holistic geodiversity assessments, where between-site geodiversity is also considered. In this article, we explore the alpha, beta and gamma concepts and how they can be applied in a geodiversity framework. In addition, we scrutinize the statistical methodology related to alpha, beta and gamma geodiversity evaluations, with a special focus on distance metrics for measuring beta geodiversity. As an overview of the process, and to give practical guidelines for the application of the proposed methodology, we present a case study from a UNESCO Global Geopark area. Thus, this study not only develops the geodiversity concept, but also paves the way for simultaneous understanding of both geodiversity and biodiversity within a unified conceptual approach.

Characteristics, main impacts, and stewardship of natural and artificial freshwater environments: consequences for biodiversity conservation

Abstract: In this overview (introductory article to a special issue including 14 papers), we consider all main types of natural and artificial inland freshwater habitas (fwh). For each type, we identify the main biodiversity patterns and ecological features, human impacts on the system and environmental issues, and discuss ways to use this information to improve stewardship. Examples of selected key biodiversity/ecological features (habitat type): narrow endemics, sensitive (groundwater and GDEs); crenobionts, LIHRes (springs); unidirectional flow, nutrient spiraling (streams); naturally turbid, floodplains, large-bodied species (large rivers); depth-variation in benthic communities (lakes); endemism and diversity (ancient lakes); threatened, sensitive species (oxbow lakes, SWE); diverse, reduced littoral (reservoirs); cold-adapted species (Boreal and Arctic fwh); endemism, depauperate (Antarctic fwh); flood pulse, intermittent wetlands, biggest river basins (tropical fwh); variable hydrologic regime—periods of drying, flash floods (arid-climate fwh). Selected impacts: eutrophication and other pollution, hydrologic modifications, overexploitation, habitat destruction, invasive species, salinization. Climate change is a threat multiplier, and it is important to quantify resistance, resilience, and recovery to assess the strategic role of the different types of freshwater ecosystems and their value for biodiversity conservation. Effective conservation solutions are dependent on an understanding of connectivity between different freshwater ecosystems (including related terrestrial, coastal and marine systems).

Flora of North America North of Mexico

Abstract: The Flora of North America North of Mexico, to be published in 30 volumes, is a synoptic floristic account of the plants of Greenland, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Canada, and the continental United States of America (including the Florida Keys and the Aleutian Islands). The Flora includes accepted names, literature citations, selected synonyms, identification keys, descriptions, chromosome numbers, summaries of habitats and geographic ranges, phenological information, conservation status, and significant biological observations, as well as maps and illustrations. Each volume contains a bibliography and an index to taxa treated.

Lakes in the era of global change: moving beyond single-lake thinking in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Abstract: The Anthropocene presents formidable threats to freshwater ecosystems. Lakes are especially vulnerable and important at the same time. They cover only a small area worldwide but harbour high levels of biodiversity and contribute disproportionately to ecosystem services. Lakes differ with respect to their general type (e.g. land-locked, drainage, floodplain and large lakes) and position in the landscape (e.g. highland versus lowland lakes), which contribute to the dynamics of these systems. Lakes should be generally viewed as 'meta-systems', whereby biodiversity is strongly affected by species dispersal, and ecosystem dynamics are contributed by the flow of matter and substances among locations in a broader waterscape context. Lake connectivity in the waterscape and position in the landscape determine the degree to which a lake is prone to invasion by non-native species and accumulation of harmful substances. Highly connected lakes low in the landscape accumulate nutrients and pollutants originating from ecosystems higher in the landscape. The monitoring and restoration of lake biodiversity and ecosystem services should consider the fact that a high degree of dynamism is present at local, regional and global scales. However, local and regional monitoring may be plagued by the unpredictability of ecological phenomena, hindering adaptive management of lakes. Although monitoring data are increasingly becoming available to study responses of lakes to global change, we still lack suitable integration of models for entire waterscapes. Research across disciplinary boundaries is needed to address the challenges that lakes face in the Anthropocene because they may play an increasingly important role in harbouring unique aquatic biota as well as providing ecosystem goods and services in the future.

Rethinking the Coral Microbiome: Simplicity Exists within a Diverse Microbial Biosphere.

Abstract: Studies of the coral microbiome predominantly characterize the microbial community of the host species as a collective, rather than that of the individual. This ecological perspective on the coral microbiome has led to the conclusion that the coral holobiont is the most diverse microbial biosphere studied thus far. However, investigating the microbiome of the individual, rather than that of the species, highlights common and conserved community attributes which can provide insights into the significance of microbial associations to the host. Here, we show there are consistent characteristics between individuals in the proposed three components of the coral microbiome (i.e., "environmentally responsive community," "resident or individual microbiome," and "core microbiome"). We found that the resident microbiome of a photoendosymbiotic coral harbored 96%) (environmentally responsive community) of the species-specific microbiome were in fact not found in association with the majority of individuals of the species. Only 0.1% (∼21 phylotypes) of the species-specific microbiome of each species was shared among all individuals of the species (core microbiome), equating to ∼3.4% of the resident microbiome. We found taxonomic redundancy and consistent patterns of composition, structure, and taxonomic breadth across individual microbiomes from the three coral species. Our results demonstrate that the coral microbiome is structured at the individual level.IMPORTANCE We propose that the coral holobiont should be conceptualized as a diverse transient microbial community that is responsive to the surrounding environment and encompasses a simple, redundant, resident microbiome and a small conserved core microbiome. Most importantly, we show that the coral microbiome is comparable to the microbiomes of other organisms studied thus far. Accurately characterizing the coral-microbe interactions provides an important baseline from which the functional roles and the functional niches within which microbes reside can be deciphered.

Understanding environmental change through the lens of trait-based, functional, and phylogenetic biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems

Abstract: In the era of the Anthropocene, environmental change is accelerating biodiversity loss across ecosystems on Earth, among which freshwaters are likely the most threatened. Different biodiversity fac...