Divergence in natural diversity studies: The need to standardize methods and goals
There has been considerable interest in geodiversity and pedodiversity studies over the last approximately 30 years. Pedodiversity is considered part of geodiversity, but in practice they involved different experts and traditions. There are many common aspects that could be shared by all natural div...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/224517 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/224517 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Geodiversity Pedodiversity Biodiversity Standard Measures Geoheritage |
| Resumo: | There has been considerable interest in geodiversity and pedodiversity studies over the last approximately 30 years. Pedodiversity is considered part of geodiversity, but in practice they involved different experts and traditions. There are many common aspects that could be shared by all natural diversity studies, however, these common aspects have not been adequately studied and debated. Quantitative techniques that were developed and refined by biodiversity researchers over multiple decades of biodiversity studies should also be applicable to geodiversity and pedodiversity studies. Soil scientists studying pedodiversity followed the same techniques as mathematical ecologists, but geologists studying geodiversity focused on the implementation of proposals aimed at preserving geological heritage and popularising it among the general public. Therefore, pedodiversity and geodiversity diverged and it is not currently possible to compare the results of geodiversity and pedodiversity research. To reach a point where these research results could be compared, it will be necessary to (i) follow uniform mathematical procedures in both these fields and their subfields and (ii) develop universal taxonomies that will be followed for each of the natural resources (fossils, landforms, minerals, soils, etc.) being investigated. Geodiversity studies should move beyond the objective of proposing projects to preserve natural areas of geological value for economic and social purposes (geoparks, geotourism) and extend to attempts to quantify and compare biotic and abiotic diversity and its consequences. If we want to move forward, with a view to achieving a more mature discipline and a true new paradigm, both communities of experts must act synergistically. |
|---|