Search

As the effects of anthropogenic climate change become more severe, several approaches for deliberate climate intervention to reduce or stabilize Earth's surface temperature have been proposed. Solar radiation modification (SRM) is one potential approach to partially counteract anthropogenic warming by reflecting a small proportion of the incoming solar radiation to increase Earth's albedo. While climate science research has focused on the predicted climate effects of SRM, almost no studies have investigated the impacts that SRM would have on ecological systems. The impacts and risks posed by SRM would vary by implementation scenario, anthropogenic climate effects, geographic region, and by ecosystem, community, population, and organism. Complex interactions among Earth's climate system and living systems would further affect SRM impacts and risks. We focus here on stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI), a well-studied and relatively feasible SRM scheme that is likely to have a large impact on Earth's surface temperature. We outline current gaps in knowledge about both helpful and harmful predicted effects of SAI on ecological systems. Desired ecological outcomes might also inform development of future SAI implementation scenarios. In addition to filling these knowledge gaps, increased collaboration between ecologists and climate scientists would identify a common set of SAI research goals and improve the communication about potential SAI impacts and risks with the public. Without this collaboration, forecasts of SAI impacts will overlook potential effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services for humanity.

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

IssueGeodiversity (i.e., the variation in Earth's abiotic processes and features) has strong effects on biodiversity patterns. However, major gaps remain in our understanding of how relationships between biodiversity and geodiversity vary over space and time. Biodiversity data are globally sparse and concentrated in particular regions. In contrast, many forms of geodiversity can be measured continuously across the globe with satellite remote sensing. Satellite remote sensing directly measures environmental variables with grain sizes as small as tens of metres and can therefore elucidate biodiversity-geodiversity relationships across scales.EvidenceWe show how one important geodiversity variable, elevation, relates to alpha, beta and gamma taxonomic diversity of trees across spatial scales. We use elevation from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) and c. 16,000 Forest Inventory and Analysis plots to quantify spatial scaling relationships between biodiversity and geodiversity with generalized linear models (for alpha and gamma diversity) and beta regression (for beta diversity) across five spatial grains ranging from 5 to 100 km. We illustrate different relationships depending on the form of diversity; beta and gamma diversity show the strongest relationship with variation in elevation.ConclusionWith the onset of climate change, it is more important than ever to examine geodiversity for its potential to foster biodiversity. Widely available satellite remotely sensed geodiversity data offer an important and expanding suite of measurements for understanding and predicting changes in different forms of biodiversity across scales. Interdisciplinary research teams spanning biodiversity, geoscience and remote sensing are well poised to advance understanding of biodiversity-geodiversity relationships across scales and guide the conservation of nature.

Improving models of species' distributions is essential for conservation, especially in light of global change. Species distribution models (SDMs) often rely on mean environmental conditions, yet species distributions are also a function of environmental heterogeneity and filtering acting at multiple spatial scales. Geodiversity, which we define as the variation of abiotic features and processes of Earth's entire geosphere (inclusive of climate), has potential to improve SDMs and conservation assessments, as they capture multiple abiotic dimensions of species niches, however they have not been sufficiently tested in SDMs. We tested a range of geodiversity variables computed at varying scales using climate and elevation data. We compared predictive performance of MaxEnt SDMs generated using CHELSA bioclimatic variables to those also including geodiversity variables for 31 mammalian species in Colombia. Results show the spatial grain of geodiversity variables affects SDM performance. Some variables consistently exhibited an increasing or decreasing trend in variable importance with spatial grain, showing slight scale-dependence and indicating that some geodiversity variables are more relevant at particular scales for some species. Incorporating geodiversity variables into SDMs, and doing so at the appropriate spatial scales, enhances the ability to model species-environment relationships, thereby contributing to the conservation and management of biodiversity. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Geodiversity for science and society'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation: Biodiversity in many areas is rapidly declining because of global change. As such, there is an urgent need for new tools and strategies to help identify, monitor and conserve biodiversity hotspots. This is especially true for frugivores, species consuming fruit, because of their important role in seed dispersal and maintenance of forest structure and health. One way to identify these areas is by quantifying functional diversity, which measures the unique roles of species within a community and is valuable for conservation because of its relationship with ecosystem functioning. Unfortunately, the functional trait information required for these studies can be sparse for certain taxa and specific traits and difficult to harmonize across disparate data sources, especially in biodiversity hotspots. To help fill this need, we compiled Frugivoria, a trait database containing ecological, life‐history, morphological and geographical traits for mammals and birds exhibiting frugivory. Frugivoria encompasses species in contiguous moist montane forests and adjacent moist lowland forests of Central and South America—the latter specifically focusing on the Andean states. Compared with existing trait databases, Frugivoria harmonizes existing trait databases, adds new traits, extends traits originally only available for mammals to birds also and fills gaps in trait categories from other databases. Furthermore, we create a cross‐taxa subset of shared traits to aid in analysis of mammals and birds. In total, Frugivoria adds 8662 new trait values for mammals and 14,999 for birds and includes a total of 45,216 trait entries with only 11.37% being imputed. Frugivoria also contains an open workflow that harmonizes trait and taxonomic data from disparate sources and enables users to analyse traits in space. As such, this open‐access database, which aligns with FAIR data principles, fills a major knowledge gap, enabling more comprehensive trait‐based studies of species in this ecologically important region. Main Types of Variable Contained: Ecological, life‐history, morphological and geographical traits. Spatial Location and Grain: Neotropical countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Belize, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela and Chile) with contiguous montane regions. Time Period and Grain: IUCN spatial data: obtained February 2023, spanning range maps collated from 1998 to 2022. IUCN species data: obtained June 2019–September 2022. Newly included traits: span 1924 to 2023. Major Taxa and Level of Measurement: Classes Mammalia and Aves; 40,074 species‐level traits; 5142 imputed traits for 1733 species (mammals: 582; birds: 1147) and 16 sub‐species (mammals). Software Format:.csv; R. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Species distribution models (SDMs) project the outcome of community assembly processes – dispersal, the abiotic environment and biotic interactions – onto geographic space. Recent advances in SDMs account for these processes by simultaneously modeling the species that comprise a community in a multivariate statistical framework or by incorporating residual spatial autocorrelation in SDMs. However, the effects of combining both multivariate and spatially‐explicit model structures on the ecological inferences and the predictive abilities of a model are largely unknown. We used data on eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis and five additional co‐occurring overstory tree species in 35 569 forest stands across Michigan, USA to evaluate how the choice of model structure, including spatial and non‐spatial forms of univariate and multivariate models, affects ecological inference about the processes that shape community composition as well as model predictive ability. Incorporating residual spatial autocorrelation via spatial random effects did not improve out‐of‐sample prediction for the six tree species, although in‐sample model fit was higher in the spatial models. Spatial models attributed less variation in occurrence probability to environmental covariates than the non‐spatial models for all six tree species, and estimated higher (more positive) residual co‐occurrence values for most species pairs. The non‐spatial multivariate model was better suited for evaluating habitat suitability and hypotheses about the processes that shape community composition. Environmental correlations and residual correlations among species pairs were positively related, perhaps indicating that residual correlations were due to shared responses to unmeasured environmental covariates. This work highlights the importance of choosing a non‐spatial model formulation to address research questions about the species–environment relationship or residual co‐occurrence patterns, and a spatial model formulation when within‐sample prediction accuracy is the main goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]