Evaluating geological heritage: correspondence on Ruban, D.A. ‘Quantification of geodiversity and its loss’ (PGA, 2010, 121(3): 326-333)

This article comments on the recent paper in this journal by Ruban (2010) which presented a simple quantitative scheme for the calculation of landscape geodiversity and its application to evaluating geodiversity between different locations. This comment article highlights some conceptual and methodological issues in the set-up and application of Ruban's scheme, and suggests that geodiversity as a measure can only be meaningful if it is set within a wider context of landscape and geological conservation and management. Some examples of conservation strategies in Great Britain are described in order to illustrate this wider context.     

Sr and Ar isotope studies of detrital smectites from the Atlantic Ocean (D.S.D.P., Legs 43, 48 and 50)

Mineralogical, morphological and isotopic (RbSr and KAr) determinations were made on some detrital smectites of Palaeocene and Cenomanian ages from D.S.D.P. drillings in the Atlantic Ocean. These minerals are not inert in their depositional environment; authigenic laths grow on detrital sheets with sharp borders. This authigenesis could occur slightly after deposition in a closed system, for some of these smectites. It has been tentatively quantified by the RbSr and KAr isotopic methods, which seem also well suited to evaluate the chemical extent of this authigenesis. At least, no preferential loss of ⁴⁰Ar vs. ⁸⁷Sr could be detected in the minerals, even in those which are smaller than 0.2 μm.