The Human Imprint on the Unique Geological Landscape of the Western Caucasus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Anna V. Mikhailenko et al. Geologos 26, 3 (2020): 233–244 DOI: 10.2478/logos-2020-0022 The human imprint on the unique geological landscape of the Western Caucasus Anna V. Mikhailenko1, Dmitry A. Ruban2,3*, Svetlana O. Zorina4, Konstantin I. Nikashin4, Natalia N. Yashalova5 1Institute of Earth Sciences, Southern Federal University, Zorge Street 40, Rostov-on-Don 344090, Russia 2K.G. Razumovsky Moscow State University of Technologies and Management (The First Cossack University), Zemlyanoy Val Street 73, Moscow 109004, Russia 3Department of Hospitality Business, Higher School of Business, Southern Federal University, 23-ja Linija Street 43, Rostov-on-Don 344019, Russia (postal address: P.O. Box 7333, Rostov-on-Don 344056, Russia) 4 Institute of Geology and Petroleum Technologies, Kazan Federal University, Kremlyovskaya Street 18, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan 420008, Russia 5Department of Economics and Management, Business School, Cherepovets State University, Sovetskiy Avenue 10, Cherepovets, Vologda Region 162600, Russia *corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Human intervention in the geological environment is commonly thought to pose a threat to geoheritage. However, new information from the Western Caucasus where unique geological features are concentrated in Mountainous Ady- geya, implies that man-made features in fact add value to geoheritage. Such features include a lengthy artificial niche in the Guama Gorge, accumulations of large artificial clasts along the road leading to the Lagonaki Highland and the Khadzhokh Quarry with the artificial Red Lake. These contribute to the regional uniqueness of geosites and can be classified as geomorphological, sedimentary, economical and hydro(geo)logical geoheritage types. Interestingly, these artificial features have natural analogues in the study area. Such integrity of local geological landscapes urgently re- quire special interpretations for guided excursions and explanatory panels for correct comprehension of the origin of these unique features on the part of unprepared tourists. Generally, the human imprint on geological landscapes of Mountainous Adygeya is significant and occasionally positive, which makes the entire geodiversity hotspot of special, international interest and an object for further investigations. Key words: artificial landform, geotourism, megaclast, quarry lake, southwest Russia 1. Introduction ed officially by the international stratigraphical re- search community, is referred to as the Anthropo- In view of its global scale, the activity of humans cene (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000; Zalasiewicz et al., is a geological force (Hooke, 2000; Wilkinson, 2005; 2008; Subramanian, 2019). Deep intervention of hu- Zalasiewicz et al., 2014; Cooper et al., 2018). The mans into the geological environment leads to both current geological epoch, although not yet accept- exposure of unique objects of natural origin and 234 Anna V. Mikhailenko et al. creation of new unique objects of artificial origin. tourists. Generally, natural resources of this area Being a geological force, human activity does not can sustain both recreation and industrial develop- only alter, but also co-creates geological landscape ment (Varshanina & Matusov, 2006; Kiseleva et al., in conjunction with natural forces. Such artificial 2017). objects include man-made landforms, sedimentary Our field investigations in the Western Cauca- strata, etc. A significant number of types and forms sus have permitted to find several geosites with a of geoheritage are linked to human activity (Ruban, significant human imprint on the geological land- 2020). With regard to these considerations, the geo- scape, i.e., a natural landscape dominated by geo- logical activity of humans should not be considered logical elements (Fig. 1). At these geosites, anthro- only as a threat, but also as a complex mechanism pogenic pressure has resulted in the creation of of geoheritage transformation. Although these ide- new elements of geoheritage. Moreover, man-made as appear easy to comprehend, they do need to modifications of local geological landscapes have be shaped and strengthened through the study of already attracted tourists to these geosites. representative examples. An important research question addresses the change of geoheritage val- ues thath uman alteration of geological landscapes 2. Geological setting entails. The present study is the first attempt to char- The study area is situated in the southwestern part acterise anthropogenic (i.e., artificially created) of Russia where the Caucasian Mountains stretch geoheritage from Mountainous Adygeya in the between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea (Fig. Western Caucasus – a geodiversity hotspot in south- 1). Geographically, the area belongs to the West- western Russia that is famous for its concentration ern Caucasus, which is the western domain of the of unique palaeogeographical (Late Jurassic reefs), Greater Caucasus. This area comprises the moun- geomorphological (peculiar canyons and gorges, as tainous (southern) part of the Republic of Adygeya well as world-famous karst formations), palaeon- (a region of the Russian Federation) and adjacent tological (ammonite and trace fossil localities) and parts of the Krasnodar Region. It corresponds to other features (Ruban, 2010a). Here, human modifi- the basin of the River Belaya, which is a large left cations of the geological environment have been on- tributary of the River Kuban, which flows into the going since prehistory, and a significant increase of Azov Sea. agricultural and mining activities took place in the The Greater Caucasus (including its western do- second half of the twentieth century. Presently, this main) is the late Cenozoic (Alpine) orogen formed area is one of the most important destinations for as a result of complex interactions between the Ara- Russian tourists, and the growth of touristic activi- bian Plate in the south, the Eurasian Plate in the ties since the beginning of the twenty-first century north and several smaller blocks in between (Ada- has triggered significant changes linked to devel- mia et al., 2011b; Koulakov et al., 2012; Forte et al., opment of transport and recreation infrastructure, 2014; Sharkov et al., 2015; Kaban et al., 2018; Van building and maintenance of tourist attractions. Hinsbergen et al., 2020; Ismail-Zadeh et al., 2020; Importantly, the natural and, particularly, geolog- Vasey et al., 2020). Its ‘core’ is the former Gondwa- ical and geomorphological peculiarities (karst phe- na-derived terrane represented by Precambrian and nomena, waterfalls, unusual landforms, etc.) attract Palaeozoic rocks (Ruban, 2013). The regional geolo- Fig. 1. Geographical location of the study area The human imprint on the unique geological landscape of the Western Caucasus 235 gy is dominated by Mesozoic–lower Cenozoic sed- morphological) elements. A geodiversity hotspot is imentary complexes that formed in back-arc basins a large area that hosts geosites of diverse nature; its (Adamia et al., 2011a). The study area is located on geological landscape is dominated by unique geo- the northern slope of the Greater Caucasus. The lo- logical and geomorphological features. Human im- cal geology was reviewed, particularly, by Lozovoj print on geoheritage can appear in different forms (1984), Rostovtsev et al. (1992) and Ruban (2010b). (Ruban, 2020). For instance, a distinction should be The oldest rocks are Precambrian metamorphic made between change (often damage) of geological complexes and Palaeozoic serpentinites and grani- objects or its natural/artificial exposure and crea- toids that are exposed in small erosional ‘windows’. tion of essentially artificial objects (e.g., man-made The most widely distributed strata are Permian, landform or man-made sediment accumulation). red-colored molassic deposits (total thickness up Nonetheless, such differences may be vague and/ to 10 km), Lower–Middle Jurassic shales and sand- or highly complex. Geoheritage types and forms stones (total thickness also up to 10 km), Upper are here understood sensu Habibi et al. (2018). Geo- Jurassic carbonates and evaporites (total thickness heritage types refer to unique phenomena – e.g., about 3 km) and Cretaceous mixed (siliciclastic–car- the sedimentary geoheritage type corresponds to bonate) packages (total thickness exceeding 1 km). unique sedimentary rocks or structures. Geoherit- From south to north, these sedimentary complexes age forms refer to places where unique features are occur in successive ‘belts’. The most notable geolog- represented – e.g., natural outcrops, road cuttings, ical phenomenon of the study area is the ‘classical’ quarries, etc. In rare cases, geoheritage forms are karst development in the Lagonaki Highland where unique themselves (e.g., due to their larger size that both epikarst (karren and karst depressions) and reflects human activity as a geological force); in the endokarst (caves and shafts) have been document- majority of cases, such unique forms should be at- ed (Lozovoj, 1984; Veress et al., 2019). tributed to the geomorphological type of geoherit- Geodiversity hotspots are of primary impor- age, to be described as geomorphosites. tance in geoheritage studies despite certain dif- Field investigations in Mountainous Adygeya ferences in their definition (Gray, 2008; Ruban, and, particularly, our ongoing inventory of local 2010a; Stepišnik & Repe, 2015; Bétard et al., 2018; geoheritage have enabled us to find three geosites Stepišnik & Trenchovska, 2018; Bétard