Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Patterns of benthic biodiversity at the macroecological scale remain poorly characterised throughout the Chilean latitudinal gradient, in part due to the lack of integrated databases, uneven sampling effort, and the use of species richness alone to quantify biodiversity. Different diversity measures, encompassing taxonomic and functional components, may give us extra information on biodiversity relevant to conservation planning and management. Thus, evaluating the spatial complementarity of these measures is essential. Location: Coast and continental shelf of Chile. Methods: The latitudinal gradient of Chile was divided into five ecoregions according to the Marine Ecosystems of the World classification. Using a 55 × 55 km equal area grid, we estimated the incidence coverage‐based estimator (ICE), taxonomic distinctness (Δ+) and three measures of functional diversity: functional richness (FRic), functional evenness (FEve) and functional divergence (FDiv). For each measure, we described spatial patterns, identified hotspots, evaluated hotspot congruence and evaluated complementarity between measures. Results: Diversity patterns varied between ecoregions and over the latitudinal gradient. ICE and Δ+ peaked in the Chiloense and Channels and Fjords ecoregions. Δ+ and FRic present a similar pattern at mid‐latitudes. FEve showed a contrary pattern, principally with FRic. Areas with high numbers of hotspots differed spatially according to each metric, and three latitudinal bands were observed. ICE, Δ+ and FRic were positively correlated, but the hotspot overlap at the grid cell level was more limited. Main Conclusions: The complementarity between taxonomic and functional diversity measures is limited when we observe the overlap between grid cells representing hotspots. However, some regions are consistently identified as highly diverse, with the Magellanic Province (Chiloense and Channels and Fjords ecoregions) being the most important for the richness, taxonomic and functional diversity of benthos. Confirmation of the importance of this region can help prioritise conservation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Rare species make substantial contributions to coastal ecosystem functions. Functional rarity (FR) and phylogenetic rarity (PR) are important features for biodiversity conservation. This work aimed to discuss the necessity and reasonableness of conserving fish FR and PR in coastal seas. Location: China. Methods: By compiling historical fish investigation data, joint species distribution modelling (JSDM) was applied to model fish communities in coastal China Seas. Biogeographic patterns of FR and PR were explored, and the effectiveness of current MPA networks in terms of match/mismatch with the hotspots of rarity was assessed. Results: A total of 44 functionally rare species and 22 phylogenetically rare species were identified. Six of these species were both functionally and phylogenetically rare, and only one was listed as endangered on the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Functional rarity hotspots covered 10.27% of the coastal areas, which geographically converged in the southern and eastern coast of Taiwan, the Yangtze River Estuary and the Yellow River Estuary. Phylogenetic rarity hotspots only covered 3.06% of the coastal areas, which were sporadically distributed in the coastal East China Sea, the Bohai Sea and the northern Yellow Sea. Current marine‐protected areas (MPAs) only represented 16.16% of the FR hotspots and 20.48% of the PR hotspots, indicating substantial mismatched areas between the MPAs and the hotspots of FR and PR. Main Conclusions: Only considering threatened species in conservation practices will omit functionally and phylogenetically rare species because FR and PR are not necessarily correlated with species threat status on the IUCN Red List. Functional rarity hotspots do not necessarily overlap with PR hotspots, and current MPAs mismatch the majority of these areas. We therefore advocate that conservation prioritization and expansion of MPA networks should account for FR and PR both at the species and site levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]