See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346399068 Geoheritage Values of the Northeastern Carpathians, Transcarpathia, Ukraine Article · November 2020 DOI: 10.30486/gcr.2020.1904340.1026 CITATIONS READS 0 117 6 authors, including: Sándor Gönczy Gyula Fodor Ferenc Rakoczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education Ferenc Rakoczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education 28 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Zsuzsanna Ésik Janos Szepesi University of Debrecen Insitute for Nuclear Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Debrecen, Hungary 10 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 161 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Geography of Human Resources View project Land use practices influencing soil horizonation and characteristics View project All content following this page was uploaded by Janos Szepesi on 26 November 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Carpathian Issue: Original Article Geoheritage Values of the Northeastern Carpathians, Transcarpathia, Ukraine Sándor Gönczy1, Gyula Fodor1, Natália Oláh1, Tibor Nagy1, Zsuzsanna Ésik 2,4, János Szepesi 3,4 1. Department of Geography and Tourism, Ferenc Rakóczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education, Berehove, Transcarpathia, Ukraine 2. Department of Mineralogy and Geology, Debrecen, University of Debrecen Hungary 3. MTA–ELTE Volcanology Research Group Budapest, Hungary 4. Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre (ICER), Institute for Nuclear Research, Debrecen, Hungary ©Author(s) 2020, this article is published with open access at http://gcr.khuisf.ac.ir Abstract Transcarpathia is politically the westernmost county of Ukraine but geographically is the northeastern part of the Carpathian–Pannonian Region. The aim of our present work is to provide a brief overview and greater publicity about the geoheritage values of Transcarpathia using 45 documented geosites (stratigraphic, volcanic, geomorphological, mineralogical, tectonic) of the Ukrainian State Geological Survey. Four objects are located in national parks or nature reserves. The other 41 sites are only recommended for protection. The applied classification scheme Corresponding Author: includes thematic (primary and additional interest) and functional categories (e.g. Sándor Gönczy natural outcrops, quarries). The preliminary qualitative site assessment involved the Department of Geography determination of integrity, geological diversity, use limitations, current observation and Tourism, Ferenc Rakóczi conditions, vulnerability, safety, and association with other value parameters. This II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Education, review is a good methodological starting point for expanding the database and Berehove, Transcarpathia, emphasizing the importance of abiotic nature. Conserving geodiversity requires Ukraine. protection for nationally or regionally important objects and what includes active Email: [email protected] management of sites. Keywords: Transcarpathia, Geodiversity, Geosite, Classification Introduction of geodiversity elements with high scientific values Geodiversity has been defined as the natural range (Brilha 2016) require protection. Geoconservation (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), (Brocx & Semeniuk 2007) as an underestimat- geomorphological (landforms, topography, physi- ed segment in nature conservation (Neches 2016) cal processes), soil and hydrological features (Gray conserves endangered sites and raises awareness 2014; Neches 2016). Geodiversity provides essen- among local communities and organizations at dif- tial goods and services for society as a nonrenew- ferent levels (national, international). able asset (Gordon 2012). The in-situ occurrences Transcarpathia is a county of Ukraine including the Access this article online northeastern territory of the Carpathian Mountains DOI: 10.30486/gcr.2020.1904340.1026 (Fig. 1, 2). The region represents remarkably rich geodiversity as emphasized by a long geological Received: 15 Jul, 2020 Accepted: 16 Sept, 2020 history and diverse lithological formations (Ślączka 32 Volume 3 / Issue 2 / pages(32-48) e-ISSN: 2588-7343 p-ISSN: 2645-4661 Geoconservation Research Gönczy: Geoheritage values of the Northeastern …. et al. 2007; Głgała et al. 2012; Nakapelyukh et al. Based on this, our study aims to emphasize the sig- 2018). The rocks comprise those of sedimentary nificance of geodiversity in a developing country to (Cretaceous–Paleogene, Hajdú–Moharos 1997; avoid major loss of abiotic diversity. In the absence Hnylko 2018), volcanic (Pécskay et al. 2000; of a complex geoheritage-related regional database, Seghedi et al. 2001; Gönczy 2016) and hydrothermal we used the inventory of representative geological origin (Lazarenko 1963; Vityk et al. 1994; Sergey & landmarks compiled by the Ukrainian State Geo- Skakun 2000). The current high–altitude landforms logical Survey (45 objects, Kalinin et al. 2006). Al- (above 1000 m a.s.l., Fig. 1) represent the effect though this is a limited number considering the size of the Quaternary glaciation. The geodiversity of the county, it covers all major geological forma- of the region has affected human activities from tions. To give a current geoheritage-based descrip- Paleolithic times with the manufacture of obsidian tion of the outcrops, assessment indicators from the and quartzite tools (Rácz 2018) and has supported scientific assessment methodologies (Brilha 2016; industrial development since the Middle Ages Vujičić et al. 2011) were used, highlighting objects (Richthofen 1860, Schafarzik 1904). Despite the for (geo) tourism development or geoconservation recent achievements in geoheritage inventory work actions. (Manyuk 2006, 2016, 2020; Manyuk et al. 2020), the protection of abiotic nature is not a well applied Geodiversity of Transcarpathia concept in Ukraine where conservation is mainly Transcarpathia covers an area of 12,800 km2 and focused on biotic phenomena (e.g. Kricsfalusy consists mainly of mountainous (~80%) and lowland 2003). Figure 1. Topographical sketch of Transcarpathia Digital Elevation model: SRTM 1 arc sec (https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/SRTM1Arc) Volume 3 / Issue 2 / pages(32-48) e-ISSN: 2588-7343 p-ISSN: 2645-4661 33 Gönczy: Geoheritage values of the Northeastern …. Geoconservation Research (~20%) areas (Gönczy 2014). The contiguous, wall- Kuzovenko et al. 2001; Matskiv et al. 2008). like mountain range of the Northeastern Carpathians Older lithological associations are also present rises above 2000 m (Fig. 1) and forms the with subordinate limestone (Svaliava, Perechyn) northeastern border of the Carpathian Basin (Hajdú– and metamorphic formations (Marmarosh massif). Moharos 1997). It separates the Tisa catchment from Figure 1. Topographical sketch of Transcarpathia that of Vistula, Dniester, Prut and Siret (Fig. 1). The Digital Elevation model: SRTM 1 arc sec mountainous areas are very diverse considering the (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/ lithological and morphological conditions. They usgs-eros-archive-digital-elevation-shuttle-ra- mainly comprise Mesozoic–Paleogene sedimentary dar-topography-mission-srtm-1-arc) (flysch, sandstone, silt, shales, salt) and Miocene volcanic (andesites, dacites, rhyolites) formations The three major geomorphological regions (Figs (Titov et al. 1979; Glushko & Kruglov 1986; 1, 2) reflect that the lithological conditions can be Figure 2. Geological–tectonical sketch of Transcarpathia (based on Gönczy 2016). Black dots indicate studied geoheritage values from the inventory of the Ukrainian State Geological Survey (Kalinin et al. 2006). divided into the mid-height volcanic range (around canic edifices are andesitic composite volcanoes 1000 m a.s.l.) and the high-altitude alpine and wa- (Antalovski, Hotar, Obavski–Kamen, Demianov, tershed region that is formed from flysch and mo- Martinski–Kamen, Bujora, Tolstoi, Fig. 1) where lasse sediments. The length of the Vihorlat–Gutin erosion usually has revealed the subvolcanic root volcanic range is approx. 120 km (in Ukraine) and regions (Lexa et al. 2010). Due to the slightly the maximum width is 15–20 km (Malejev 1964; younger calc-alkaline andesitic (arc type) volca- Gönczy 2016). The altitude is 700–800 m, but nism (9.1–11.6 Ma, Pécskay et al. 2000; Gönczy some peaks are just over 1000 m. The major vol- 2016) compared to the Pannonian basin the erosioni- 34 Volume 3 / Issue 2 / pages(32-48) e-ISSN: 2588-7343 p-ISSN: 2645-4661 Geoconservation Research Gönczy: Geoheritage values of the Northeastern …. al landforms are more intact (Karátson 1996, 1999, Yasinia). 2007). Smaller volcanic remnants (Kosino, Bijha- ny; Ricthofen 1860; Kulcsár 1943, 1968) of various The lowland areas (~20%) can be divided into the ages (11.5–12.6 Ma, Pécskay et al. 2000) and ori- Chop-Mukachevo plain (Fig. 1) and the Marmaro- gins (domes, ignimbrites) are scattered throughout sh basin. The larger Chop-Mukacsevo plain covers the lowland areas. These are the members of the so- an area of approx. 2000 km2 and joins the Great called Beregovo Hills mineralized caldera system Hungarian Plain (toward Hungary) in the south and (Lazarenko 1963; Vytik et al. 1994). Andesites are southeast. The plain has a uniformly flat surface also present, forming variable eroded volcanic rem- (alt. 100–120 m), and rises only 5-6 m above the nants