Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 1049–1063 | Cite as

Spatial relationship between biodiversity and geodiversity across a gradient of land-use intensity in high-latitude landscapes

  • Helena TukiainenEmail author
  • Janne Alahuhta
  • Richard Field
  • Terhi Ala-Hulkko
  • Raino Lampinen
  • Jan Hjort
Research Article



‘Conserving Nature’s stage’ has been advanced as an important conservation principle because of known links between biodiversity and abiotic environmental diversity, especially in sensitive high-latitude environments and at the landscape scale. However these links have not been examined across gradients of human impact on the landscape.


To (1) analyze the relationships between land-use intensity and both landscape-scale biodiversity and geodiversity, and (2) assess the contributions of geodiversity, climate and spatial variables to explaining vascular plant species richness in landscapes of low, moderate and high human impact.


We used generalized additive models (GAMs) to analyze relationships between land-use intensity and both geodiversity (geological, geomorphological and hydrological richness) and plant species richness in 6191 1-km2 grid squares across Finland. We used linear regression-based variation partitioning (VP) to assess contributions of climate, geodiversity and spatial variable groups to accounting for spatial variation in species richness.


In GAMs, geodiversity correlated negatively, and plant species richness positively, with land-use intensity. Both relationships were non-linear. In VP, geodiversity best accounted for species richness in areas of moderate to high human impact. These overall contributions were mainly due to variation explained jointly with climate, which dominated the models. Independent geodiversity contributions were highest in pristine environments, but low throughout.


Human action increases biodiversity but may reduce geodiversity, at landscape scale in high-latitude environments. Better understanding of the connections between biodiversity and abiotic environment along changing land-use gradients is essential in developing sustainable measures to conserve biodiversity under global change.


Hemeroby Species richness Human impact Variation partitioning Boreal Sub-Arctic 



We would like to thank handling editor and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript. We thank E. Hanski for the classification of the bedrock types. HT was supported by Kone Foundation and JH by the Academy of Finland (Project number 285040).

Supplementary material

10980_2017_508_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1273 kb)


  1. Aalto J, Luoto M (2014) Integrating climate and local factors for geomorphological distribution models. Earth Surf Process Landf 39:1729–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandrowicz Z, Margielewski W (2010) Impact of mass movements on geo- and biodiversity in the Polish Outer (Flysch) Carpathians. Geomorphology 123:290–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MG, Ferree CE (2010) Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity. PLoS ONE 5:e11554CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson MJ, Gribble NA (1998) Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set. Aust J Ecol 23:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atlas of Finland (1986) Relief and landforms. National Board of Survey and Geographical Society of Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  6. Atlas of Finland (1990a) Geology. National Board of Survey and Geographical Society of Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  7. Atlas of Finland (1990b) Surficial deposits. National Board of Survey and Geographical Society of Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  8. Borcard D, Legendre P (2002) All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol Model 153:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown DG, Johnson KM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol Appl 15:1851–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Comer PJ, Pressey RL, Hunter MLJR, Schloss CA, Buttrick SC, Heller NE, Tirpak JM, Faith DP, Cross MS, Shaffer ML (2015) Incorporating geodiversity into conservation decisions. Conserv Biol 29:692–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dray S, Pelissier R, Couteron P, Fortin MJ, Legendre P, Peres- Neto PR et al (2012) Community ecology in the age of multivariate multiscale spatial analysis. Ecol Monogr 82:257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erikstad L (2013) Geoheritage and geodiversity management—the questions for tomorrow. Proc Geol Assoc 124:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Field R, Hawkins BA, Cornell HV et al (2009) Spatial species-richness gradients across scales: a meta-analysis. J Biogeogr 36:132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnish Environment Institute (2013a) Nature conservation areas.
  19. Finnish Environment Institute (2013b). Ground water areas.
  20. Finnish Environment Institute (2015). River network.
  21. Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T et al (2009) Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol Lett 12:22–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Garbarino M, Lingua E, Weisberg PJ, Bottero A, Meloni F, Motta R (2013) Land-use history and topographic gradients as driving factors of subalpine Larix decidua forests. Landscape Ecol 28:805–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gordon JE, Barron HF (2013) The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services and benefits in Scotland. Scott J Geol 49:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gray M (2008) Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc 119:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray M (2013) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray M, Gordon JE, Brown EJ (2013) Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc Geol Assoc 124:659–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. GSF (Geological Survey of Finland) (2010a) Bedrock of Finland 1:200 000. GSF, Espoo.
  29. GSF (Geological Survey of Finland) (2010b) Superficial Deposits of Finland 1:200 000. GSF, Espoo.
  30. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Hill MO, Roy DB, Thompson K (2002) Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. J Appl Ecol 39:708–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hjort J, Luoto M (2010) Geodiversity of high-latitude landscapes in northern Finland. Geomorphology 115:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hjort J, Luoto M (2012) Can geodiversity be predicted from space? Geomorphology 153–154:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hjort J, Heikkinen RK, Luoto M (2012) Inclusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity models in a boreal landscape. Biodivers Conserv 21:3487–3506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hjort J, Gordon JE, Gray M, Hunter ML (2015) Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conserv Biol 29:630–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013. Fifth assessment report. World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. Jalas J (1955) Hemerobe und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch. [Hemerobic and hemerochoric plant species. An attempt at terminological reform]. Acta Soc pro Fauna Flora Fenn 72:1–15Google Scholar
  39. Kougioumoutzis K, Tiniakou A (2015) Ecological factors driving plant species diversity in the South Aegean Volcanic Arc and other central Aegean islands. Plant Ecol Divers 8:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kreft H, Jetz W (2007) Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5925–5930CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Kühn I, Klotz S (2006) Urbanization and homogenization—comparing the floras of urban and rural areas in Germany. Biol Cons 127:292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lampinen R, Lahti T, Heikkinen M (2012) Atlas of the distribution of vascular plants in Finland 2011. University of Helsinki, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Helsinki. Distribution maps at
  43. Landsberg HE (1981) The urban climate. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Lawler JJ, Ackerly DD, Albano CM et al (2015) The theory behind, and the challenges of, conserving nature’s stage in a time of rapid change. Conserv Biol 29:618–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. le Roux PC, Luoto M (2014) Earth surface processes drive the richness, composition and occurrence of plant species in an arctic–alpine environment. J Veg Sci 25:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical Ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Legendre P, Borcard D, Blanchet FG, Dray S (2013) PCNM: MEM spatial eigenfunction and principal coordinate analyses. R package version 2.1-2/r109.
  48. Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519:171–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lindenmayer D, Hobbs RJ, Montague-Drake R et al (2008) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecol Lett 11:78–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Luke (Natural Resources Institute Finland) (2011) Multi-source national forest inventory (MS-NFI).
  51. Matthews E (1983) Global vegetation and land use: new high-resolution data bases for climate studies. J Climate Appl Meteorol 22:474–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Matthews TJ (2014) Integrating geoconservation and biodiversity conservation: theoretical foundations and conservation recommendations in a European Union context. Geoheritage 6:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCune B, Keon D (2002) Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load. J Veg Sci 13:603–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McKinney ML (2004) Measuring floristic homogenization by non-native plants in North America. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Mutke J, Barthlott W (2005) Patterns of vascular plant diversity at continental to global scales. Biologiske Skrifter 55:521–531Google Scholar
  58. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL et al (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Nichols WF, Killingbeck KT, August PV (1998) The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity II. A landscape perspective. Conservation Biology 12:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. NLS (National Land Survey of Finland) (2000) Digital Elevation Model. NLS, Helsinki.
  61. NLS (National Land Survey of Finland) (2012) Topographic database.
  62. Paracchini ML, Capitani C (2011) Implementation of a EU wide indicator for the rural-agrarian landscape. JRC scientific and techincal reports (EUR25114EN-2011). Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  63. Parks K, Mulligan M (2010) On the relationship between a resource based measure of geodiversity and broad scale biodiversity patterns. Biodivers Conserv 19:2751–2766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pellitero R, González-Amuchastegui MJ, Ruiz-Flaño P, Serrano E (2011) Geodiversity and geomorphosite assessment applied to a natural protected area: the Ebro and Rudron Gorges Natural Park (Spain). Geoheritage 3:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pellitero R, Manosso FC, Serrano E (2015) Mid- and large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrionas (NW Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil): methodology and applicaton for land management. Geogr Ann A97:219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pereira DI, Pereira P, Brilha J (2013) Geodiversity assessment of Paraná State (Brazil): an innovative approach. Environ Manag 52:541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P (2010) Estimating and controlling for spatial structure in the study of ecological communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peres-Neto PR, Leibold MA, Dray S (2012) Assessing the effects of spatial contingency and environmental filtering on metacommunity phylogenetics. Ecology 93:14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pirinen P, Simola H, Aalto J et al (2012) Climatological statistics of Finland 1981–2010. Finn Meterol Inst Rep 1:1–96Google Scholar
  70. Post E, Forchhammer MC, Bret-Harte MS et al (2009) Ecological dynamics across the Arctic associated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355–1358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Purvis A, Hector A (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405:212–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Räsänen A, Kuitunen M, Hjort J et al (2016) The role of landscape, topography, and geodiversity in explaining vascular plant species richness in a fragmented landscape. Boreal Environ Res 21:53–70Google Scholar
  73. Ricketts T, Imhoff M (2003) Biodiversity, urban areas, and agriculture: locating priority ecoregions for conservation. Conserv Ecol 8(2):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Seppälä M (2005) Glacially sculptrured landforms. In: Seppälä M (ed) The physical geography of Fennoscandia. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 35–57Google Scholar
  75. Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P, Arroyo P (2009) Geodiversity assessment in a rural landscape: Tiermes-Caracena area (Soria, Spain). Mem Descr Carta Geol d’It 87:173–180Google Scholar
  76. Skov F, Svenning J-C (2004) Potential impact of climatic change on the distribution of forest herbs in Europe. Ecography 27:366–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Szilárd CP-S (2009) Degree of human transformation of landscapes: a case study from Hungary. Foldrajzi Ert Geogr Bull 58:91–99Google Scholar
  78. Thuiller W, Midgley G, Rougeti M, Cowling R (2006) Predicting patterns of plant species richness in megadiverse South Africa. Ecography 29:733–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tukiainen H, Bailey JJ, Kangas K, Field R, Hjort J (2016) Combining geodiversity with climate and topography to account for threatened species richness. Conserv Biol 31:364–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. von der Lippe M, Kowarik I (2008) Do cities export biodiversity? Traffic as dispersal vector across urban-rural gradients. Divers Distrib 14:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walz U, Stein C (2014) Indicators of hemeroby for the monitoring of landscapes in Germany. J Nat Conserv 22:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilson MC, Chen XY, Corlett RT et al (2016) Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landscape Ecol 31:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  85. Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J Royal Stat Soc (B) 73:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wu JG, Jenerette GD, Buyantuyev A, Redman CL (2011) Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization: the case of the two fastest growing metropolitan regions in the United States. Ecol Complex 8:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Young OR (2012) Arctic tipping points: governance in turbulent times. Ambio 41:75–84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Ziska LH, Bunce JA, Goins EW (2004) Characterization of an urban–rural CO2/temperature gradient and associated changes in initial plant productivity during secondary succession. Oecologia 139:454–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geography Research UnitUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.School of GeographyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Botany Unit, Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryHelsinki UniversityHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations